Geopolitical Outlook

  Friedrich Engels was born, on this day, on November 28, 1820. In honour of his 200th birthday, here is an excerpt of "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy" (1844) below. This section in particular is where he addresses and criticizes Malthusianism. Both he and Marx were vehemently opposed to Malthusianism and regarded it as a "libel on the human race." * The struggle of capital against capital, of labour against labour, of land against land, drives production to a fever-pitch at which production turns all natural and rational relations upside-down. No capital can stand the competition of another if it is not brought to the highest pitch of activity. No piece of land can be profitably cultivated if it does not continuously increase its productivity. No worker can hold his own against his competitors if he does not devote all his energy to labour. No one at all who enters into the struggle of competition can weather it without the utmost exertion of his energ

  The  American Eugenics Society’s flashlight exhibit  at the 1926 Fitter Families Contest, emphasizing the “overpopulation” of “defectives” in the American gene pool. Neo-Malthusianism is the notion that the world needs to be drastically depopulated and that “humans are a cancerous tumor eating up the world’s resources.” Its proponents would have the poor believe that they themselves are responsible for their own misery — rather than the real culprits, the capitalist class who profit from imperialist plunder and environmental destruction. Now that capitalism is entering into a new crisis, alarms are once again being raised for “overpopulation”, and Neo-Malthusianism is making a resurgence, particularly in environmental discourse, with encouragement from the capitalist class. There is no doubt that climate change is a very real and urgent matter, with greenhouse gas emissions leaking into the Earth’s atmosphere due to significantly increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and thus contri

1) Sampled images from Sir Arthur Newsholme's  Red Medicine: Socialized Health in Soviet Russia   (1933): In a hospital waiting room, Moscow. Photograph by Margaret Bourke-White. Compulsory vaccination on collective farm in Turkmenistan. Photograph by Soviet Photo Agency. Diphtheria immunization in Moscow. Photograph by Margaret Bourke-White. New polyclinic in Leningrad. Leningrad Institute for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood. Photographs by John A. Kingsbury. In a Moscow creche. Photograph by Soviet Photo Agency. Traveling dental station in rural district near Moscow. Photograph by Soviet Photo Agency. 2) Health campaign and public education posters: "Mud and death are loyal allies,"1920. An influenza, epidemic, and disease-related poster. (*Note: Mud and dirt are the same word in Russian, грязь (gryaz'). In the context of diseases and epidemics, the word 'dirt' may be more applicable. The poster is saying to keep yourself clean as opposed to dirty

Compulsory vaccination on collective farm in Turkmenistan. Photograph by Soviet Photo Agency. Found in Sir Arthur Newsholme's 1932 book, Red Medicine: Socialized Health in Soviet Russia .   Despite all advances made in modern medicine, and the fact that vaccination has consistently been shown to be one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding infection, why do irrational fears of modern medicine still persist? And since when did it become acceptable for calls for “herd immunity” and homeopathy fads, which are based in mysticism, to be presented as substitutes for defending or advocating public healthcare? Vaccines, which have historically been shown to dramatically improve human health and quality of life by helping to eradicate many diseases, should be seen as a collective and social responsibility to protect one another and millions from illness. This was exemplified by the Soviet public health system where vaccinations were made compulsory in April 1919 because “the health

  It is about time that socialists in the West put their fears about nuclear power aside and consider the benefits and the greater potential that nuclear energy can bring under a socialist system. The movement against it was a negative critical point for socialism in the West, with Big Oil holding back progress. See Josh Schoonover's article in the recommended reading list below, which discusses why capitalists are reluctant to adopt nuclear energy -- not to be confused with nuclear weapons -- as opposed to the continued wide use of fossil fuels; the short answer: fossil fuels are more profitable. The capitalist class is also not opposed to wind and solar energy, not only because they give a veneer that makes it look like capitalism is addressing climate change concerns, but also because most of them at this time rely on fossil fuel backup plants during their down times (i.e. when there is no sunlight). However, even with nuclear power plants as backups, wind and solar energy wou