Hamza Karoumia – Page 2

Thales & Heraclitus: What Russell Got Wrong.

Often Bertrand Russell is revered in the mainstream philosophical community. And rightly so, the work he’s done in the fields of logic, linguistics, and mathematics have had a profound impact on the world. His influence has led him to be credited as the founder of analytic philosophy. But people often forget that Russell was also interested in history, so much so that he penned a lengthy history of Western Philosophy, which he called A History of Western Philosophy. This article will discuss Bertrand Russell’s account of Heraclitus and Thales. Two philosophers who came before Plato and Aristotle. The reason such a discussion is necessary is due to the fact that Russell may not be giving an accurate portrayal of either philosopher in his book. The reason being is that Russel relies on problematic sources to back his claims. This piece will attempt to outline the thoughts Russell had on these thinkers, and then we will criticize certain elements of his arguments. But in order to conduct a proper analysis we must understand the overal goal of Russel book.

In the History of Western Philosophy Bertrand Russell attempts to provide a coherent timeline for western philosophical thought. He claims that in order to successfully attempt such a project a specific method of analysis must be used. A method which is “philosophical”. By “philosophical” Russell means that he’ll attempt to synthesize the historical development of two different styles of inquiry, those being scientific and theological traditions (Russell Xiii). Both have different functions, but yet throughout history they’ve reinforced one another in various ways. For Russel, theology is useful because it allows us to make “speculation on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable.”(Russell Xiii). In other words, theology allows human reason to explore the unknowable. Now on the other hand, science allows human reason to explore the knowable (Russell Xiv). According to Russell, both have limitations; theology induces dogmatic belief (which he disapproves of), while science tells us what we can in fact know but “what we can know is little” (Russell xiv). Having acknowledged their flaws, Russell proceeds to argue that the development of human intellectual history has been shaped by those two methods of inquiry interacting with one another over time. Theology picks up the methodological flaw inherent in science, and vice versa. It’s this symmetric relationship which allows Russell to put various thinkers in dialogue with one another. Giving readers a coherent narrative to follow in terms of the development of western philosophical thought. But Russell’s methods have drawn scrutiny amongst critics. Frederick Copleston, a contemporary of Russel, acknowledged that “[Russell] treatment of a number of important philosophers is both inadequate and misleading.”. The inadequacy and misleading nature of Russell’s work is evident in his description of two philosophers who came before Socrates, Thales and Heraclitus.

Bertrand’s Thales

Image result for thales — Thales the “scientist”

In order to understand and identify the “inadequate and misleading” elements of Russel’s work we must analyze his descriptions of certain philosophers. Some of the problematic elements of his descriptions can be found when he describes Thales, a thinker who was active in the 6th century BCE. To be frank, little is known about Thales specific work, as none of his writing survived. But despite that fact, society can get a general idea about Thales by reading some second hand accounts about his teachings. Russell provides an introduction to Thales, writing:

“There is…ample reason to feel respect for Thales, though perhaps rather as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word.” (Russell 24)

This sentence should warrant our attention because we can analyze and infer a few things from Russell’s statement. One, that Bertrand holds Thales in high regard compared to the other philosopher of that particular era. And secondly, we should hold a favorable opinion on him because compared to these philosophers Thales is a “man of science”. Why does Russell feel this way? Well, it all stems from a theory attributed to Thales which professes that everything is made of water. A problematic theory to credit onto Thales in the first place, but the reason for that will be addressed in a different section in this paper. Russell explains that Thales’s theory of water shouldn’t be taken as some “foolish” hypothesis but rather as a scientific hypothesis (Russell 26).

Now the reason he feels like Thales warrants such high praise is due to some scientific discoveries made while he wrote his book. While Russell was writing his book in the 20th century, the scientific consensus seemed to match well with Thales water theory. The consensus was largely contingent on the fact that the theoretical work done by the scientist Willaim Prout on atoms was true. Prout hypothesized that the hydrogen atom was the only fundamental element of the universe. Furthermore, he said that the atoms of other elements were actually just collection of different hydrogen atoms (Rosenfeld). This is similar to Thales’s theory since hydrogen is a pretty important component when it comes to water, but is different since Prout specifies the element hydrogen. So this background information helps explain why Russell felt so confident in Thales. And explains assertions such as this:

“ The statement that everything is made of water is to be regarded as a scientific hypothesis… Twenty years ago, the received view was that everything is made of hydrogen, which is two thirds water…. His [Thales] science and his philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation.” (Russell 26)

Now the last part of that sentence describes how his science and philosophy were “crude” but are acceptable since they aimed to stimulate both thought and observation. So, one can infer that theoretical frameworks which stimulate thought and observation, are ones which Russell approves of. But Russell also lets readers know what kind of frameworks he doesn’t appreciate. That leads us to Russell’s description of Heraclitus.

Bertrand’s Heraclitus

The way Heraclitus is portrayed in Russell’s book plays on the theme of science and theology interacting with each other overtime. Russell generally views Heraclitus in a negative light, but acknowledges the difficulty science has had in refuting Heraclitus’s theory of perpetual flux. Additionally, Heraclitus is strangely categorized as “mystical” rather than “scientific”. Russell describes the nature of Heraclitus thought as such:

“Heraclitus, though an Ionian, was not in the scientific tradition of the Milesians. He was a mystic, but of a peculiar kind. He regarded fire as the fundamental substance, everything… is born by the death of something else “ (Russell 41)

Russell doesn’t give us a clear reason why Heraclitus shouldn’t be considered scientific, but we can imply that it’s due to his heavy reliance on intuition and speculation. Heraclitus brand of mysticism is categorized as reforming the religion of his day (Russell 42). Additionally, elements of Heraclitus doctrine are criticized by Russell. Specifically he attacks Heraclitus views on war, contempt for mankind, and his disapproval of democracy.

Now having outlined what Russell says about these thinkers. It’s time to shift focus on what Russell may have gotten wrong when discussing these philosophers. For instance we can use the reasoning Bertrand used to praise Thales to talk about Heraclitus as a “scientific thinker”. Additionally, we can also conceive as Thales as a “mystic”. Furthermore, we can learn to understand how Russell came to these conceptions when investigating the sources he decided to use.

Analysis of Russell’s claims

Our criticism of Russell should begin with looking at what kind of information Russell based his critiques on. He’s pretty transparent in letting the readers know where he got his information from, writing:

“According to Aristotle, he thought that water is the original substance out of which all others are formed; and he maintained that the earth rests on water”(Russell 26)

But there’s an issue with Russell’s apparent transparency. In the next paragraph he goes on to take Aristotle’s account as pure fact, and basis his entire scientific description of Thales on it. Never once does the problematic nature of Aristotle’s account of Thales get mentioned. But thankfully, recent scholarship done by Frede tells us why Aristotle’s writings on Thales aren’t to be taken as absolute fact. Frede explains that:

“ it is not Aristotle’s aim to provide an account of his origin of philosophy and its evolution for its own sake, to satisfy his and his readers own historical interests “(Frede 503)

Basically, Frede notes that Aristotle wasn’t entirely fair when it came down to providing accurate descriptions of certain thinkers, but rather was using their doctrines to validate his work (Frede). Now having considered that fact Thales can be seen as a mystic because not a lot of his doctrine was written down, and getting an accurate description of his work is difficult. But the school of thought he was a part of (the Milesian school) had mystical tendencies that Bertrand speaks of. Additionally, Aryeh Finkelberg notes that:

“Heraclitus, and other early Greek thinkers, did not set out to found philosophy and science, or pave the way for Aristotle—who has long been criticized “for reading his philosophical concerns into the early thinkers (Finkelberg, Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme). “So the method Bertrand uses to put them in dialogue together is problematic since none of these thinkers thought of themselves as either scientists, philosophers or mystics.

Now having mentioned the problematic nature of the sources, I will provide sources which allow us to think of Thales as a “mystic” and Heraclitus as a “scientist”. To begin I will refer to a source used by Russell himself- Aristotle. As noted previously Russell relies on Aristotle’s account of Thales to prove that the thinker was indeed scientific. But he conveniently leaves out an account that could hint at him being less “scientific”. In Aristotle’s work On the Soul Thales is framed as a thinker who’s influenced by “mysticism” and attempts to explain the world via religious terms. The account goes as such:

“Thales too (as far as we can judge from people’s memoirs) apparently took the soul to be a principle of movement…Some say that the universe is shot through with soul, which is perhaps why Thales too though that all things were full of Gods”( Aristotle, On the Soul 405a)

There’s a lot to unpack from this phrase. Firstly, Aristotle is relying on testimonials from various people to get Thales’s account on souls. So we can infer that Thales Soul/Movement Theory was one that was known and discussed among contemporaries that were familiar with Thales. Secondly, we can see that Thales theory is based on metaphysical concepts (soul), and that these concepts have at least some effect on our material world (movement). And lastly, we can surmise that Thales’s world view largely consists of things having Gods within them. Arguably, this is a pretty “mystical” way to perceive reality. But from this phrase it’s unclear if Gods and Soul are in the same realm in terms of metaphysics. From the quote, soul is something metaphysical since it’s “principal of movement” and not movement itself. But Gods can be seen as both physical and metaphysical, since the universe being “shot with Soul” would have impact if whether things were filled with Gods or not. But it’s unclear from this reading if Gods are physical, metaphysical, or both. What we can clearly analyze is that Thales does have some mystical element in his analysis. Rendering Russell’s description as inadequate and a bit misleading.

Furthermore, Thales theory of water as the fundamental source of everything isn’t necessarily true. He may have never postulated that. Aristotle explains that he did indeed say that water is the fundamental source, but he also claims that he may not have seen it that way after all. Explaining that the earth and water could be reinforcing each other as elements ( Aristotle,On the Heavens, 292-294b). Thales could’ve easily believed that there didn’t need to be one principal element that’s responsible for everything. For all we know Thales could’ve theorized that several elements contributed to the forces of the world. But because Aristotle is using Thales to justify his own theories, conceptualizing him as a philosopher who believes that one fundamental source is responsible for everything is necessary in order to legitimize Aristotle’s views .

Let’s transition over to Heraclitus, aka the “mystical” thinker. Firstly, I’d like to mention that Russell dismissal of the claim that “everything is fire” and approval of “everything is water” is absurd. The way he justifies his reasoning, though understandable, is equally as silly. He uses Prout’s work on atoms to back up that claim but you could do the same for Heraclitus. After all everything in the universe emits heat, and if we understand fire to mean “element that emits heat”, then (considering 21st century physics) Heraclitus theory shouldn’t be taken as foolish either. Further, he can been seen as scientific due to observations such as these:

“Sea: water most pure and most tainted, drinkable and wholesome for fish, but undrinkable and poisonous for people”( Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies,)

“Corpses should be disposed of more readily than dung” (Strabo, Geography).

The first quote is an empirical observation on how one element can nourish one animal but yet be dangerous to another. While the second can be interpreted as a public service announcement that corpses are as unsanitary as dung. Though not completely “scientific” in our modern use of the term, these statements are observations on the general nature of the world, and are valid. Thales allegedly made similar observations but Russell holds him in higher esteem compared to Heraclitus.

In all we can see that Bertrand Russell’s claims in the History of Western Philosophy are problematic. Mainly because the notion that these thinkers were either scientific or mystical are inaccurate conceptions in the first place,since the thinkers didn’t even see themselves as such. And since we can conceptualize each thinker as both a “mystic” and “scientist” Russel’s analysis is misleading. Furthermore, the evidence used by Russell isn’t the best since the source itself, Aristotle, is biased.

Source(s):

Frede, Michael. “Aristotle’s Account of the Origins of Philosophy – Oxford Handbooks.” Oxford Handbooks – Scholarly Research Reviews, 27 Apr. 2018, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195146875-e-20.

“Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme.” Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme | Reading Religion, 31 May 2017, readingreligion.org/books/heraclitus-and-thales-conceptual-scheme.

Rosenfeld, Louis. “William Prout: Early 19th Century Physician-Chemist.” Clinical Chemistry, Clinical Chemistry, 1 Apr. 2003, clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/49/4/699.

Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. Routledge, 2015.

Aristotle: On the Soul and On the Heavens

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies,

Strabo: Geography

A Brief Critique of Locke: Deconstruction and Reconstruction

“words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them (p. 146).”

The quote above is taken out of the work called An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke. Specifically, the quote is from Book III which talks about how humans come to understand words and communicate ideas to one another. From the quote above the reader can get a general idea of John Locke’s theory on words. We can reason that Locke thinks words are equal to ideas when he says “Words in the their primary…. signification stand for nothing BUT ideas in the mind…”. Additionally, he goes on to explain that humans are endowed with various thoughts that are supposed to benefit other people. But there’s a catch, these thoughts are all locked up within the individual. Despite this dilemma, words allow these ideas to become unlocked from the individual. According to Locke the unlocking process is what allows society to flourish (Chapter ii sec1. Pg 146 Locke). From that readers are compelled to conceptualize language as a phenomenon which instructs and provides knowledge in order for society to flourish. Furthermore, sharing ideas would be living in accordance with human nature, since he also believes that humans are inherently designed to be sociable (Chap I sec 1 pg 145). Since for Locke ideas are used to be sociable, that means words have utility as well. He argues there are two use values when it comes to recording words: 1. it aids memory 2. It brings ideas out in the open where others can see them (Chapter ii sec 2 pg 146). But words would become too idiosyncratic if people conceived of their own “markings” to translate their ideas. So words that flourish are a “mark” which are universally recognized. Locke explains this notion by saying:

“nobody can apply a word, as a mark, immediately to anything else. For that would involve making the word be a sign of his own conceptions, …applying the word as a mark of a thing involves applying it intending it to stand for that thing, which means applying it with an accompanying thought about the word’s significance.”

So if you want an idea to universally stand for a certain mark that means one must find a mark within the world which can generally signify the idea you are trying to convey. This process is what facilitates proper communication with others. So, for example, if “x” signified the idea “car” in a certain society, then another mark such as “y” (y= not car) would be inappropriate to use for car since “y” isn’t generally understood to mean car. Though Locke has interesting reasons to justify his views on words and ideas, that doesn’t exempt his arguments from criticism.

One objection to Locke’s reasoning would be one that challenges the claim that recording words aid personal memory. While yes, generally this may seem true, readers should analyze the full extent of this claim. Let’s consider a brief example. Imagine an individual who has trouble with long term memory but is proficient at remembering locations. Now let’s say this person is attending a speech and wants to remember the way the orator was talking, and so writes down “Remember the address”. Later on in the week the person finds the paper and reads what he had written. According to Locke the words written down on the paper should aid our forgetful person in remembering the infliction of the orator. But problems arise considering the fact the person is proficient at remembering locations. So he reads it and thinks “Right, it was 5^th street”. On the surface this seems like it aided his memory but his initial intention was to remember the infliction of the orators voice, and not the location. After all the person is already good at remembering locations and didn’t necessarily need the words to remind him where the speech was. This could be mitigated by recording his voice (since address (location) and address (speech style) can have different pronunciations). But this would be problematic if the person voice recorded words like “councilor/counselor” or “bank”. Because these words sound the same, the forgetful individual might still find trouble in remembering what they meant.

Another detail we must pay attention to in Locke’s reasoning is the concept that when we write symbols to denote ideas we are doing this to share ideas with others. This once again is generally true. And we get a qualifier on why sometimes it may not be true, since popular symbols must be used to signify ideas (“x”= car example above). So Locke successfully explains why sometimes people don’t understand words that explain ideas. The symbols are too idiosyncratic. But he fails to go deeper on what makes these symbols generally understood in the first place. It’s not as if when human’s with linguistic capacity look at objects they immediately have word impressions of that object. Quite plainly, when you look at a dog in the real world, the brains initial impression doesn’t initially stimulate the cognitive impression of “dog!”. And if you were to pan over to a chair your brain doesn’t exclaim “chair!”. It just understands these objects as such. The word and the object here don’t seem to be directly linked to one another in terms of recognizing objects in our consciousness. But nonetheless these names exist and we have formulated them, so in that sense Locke is correct in saying words are ideas. But it’s wrong to say the inverse, that ideas are words. Mainly because objects in themselves don’t contain the property “word”. But rather, this cognitive property assignment comes from humans. He acknowledges the arbitrary nature of word denotation but still believes that the impressions of objects warrant an automatic denotation. But this isn’t an accurate conceptions of human cognitive thinking. We don’t get impressions from objects in the world and immediately think “this object is that”, rather the brain seems to conduct a process of pattern recognition. The brain’s process seems to fall under reasoning like this “this object is this object, which generally falls under this set of symbols/sound in the world”. This distinction, though small, opens up the scope of Locke’s inquiry into the human mind. Here, we can begin to understand the creatures we are. We aren’t creatures who cognitively just process objects and translate them to ideas, but rather we do that and then inquire about its relationship in the world. This process happens quickly, and most humans master this skill by around the age of 3. That’s how we are able to come closer to understanding each others intentions. Animals are generally good at understanding intentions. Humans obviously fall in that category too, but we are different in that we are able to connect patterns with certain sounds and symbols. Let’s imagine, I invite you over for dinner but I don’t speak your language. Now, I could be standing at a table with some spaghetti on a plate and I can point to it and say “fleeblah” and then have another family member come to it and say “fleeblah”, and a person who has never even heard “fleeblah” uttered can reason the sound “fleeblah” has something to do with that spaghetti. Now if I go even further and open up my phone and google many pictures of spaghetti. And then point and say “fleeblah” that person is inclined to understand that when I utter “fleeblah” I am intending to put the idea spaghetti into their head. This recognition of intention should warrant our attention when we speak about human cognition and language. It seems as if when humans utter/ write words we are intending to put ideas into other people’s cognition. This turns Locke’s assertion that words are used to bring ideas out in the social world, into a question of “what do humans intend with words when they try to bring ideas out in the social world?”. A question which may be tackled in a future post.

Singapore’s Economic Rise: A Synthesis of Economic Principals

Full Disclosure: I am not advocating Marxism, Neoliberal capitalism, or Communism. I disagree with Marxist ideology but it has been influential on the political scene.

My understanding of Marxism was influenced by lectures taken by me at Rutgers by Professor Sam Carter, an analytic philosopher with degrees from Oxford &Edinburgh. His research at Rutgers is conducted in linguistics and higher order logic. His work can be found here: https://www.samjbcarter.com/

This article will discuss how one of the founding fathers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was influenced by Marxist notions of the relations of production have helped Singapore’s economy since the 1950’s. Pioneering leaders, such as Lee Kuan Yew have pushed towards reform specifically targeting the relations of production in order to create economic prosperity in the nation. Arguably, it’s Yew’s Marxist influence which allowed him to actualize a form of state capitalism never before seen in Singapore.

Yew was not an ardent communist as leader of Singapore but may have been influenced by his early encounters with the ideology as a youth. Lee was influenced by a Marxist organization called the Fabian Society in his youth. He asserted that “cooperation and competition between people” which he believed was a compromise between communism which relied too much on collectivism, and capitalism which he considered to rely too much on competition. This lead his focus on the plights of poor people in Singapore, allowing him to create favorably economic conditions for his constituents. This form of capitalism has allowed Singapore to outperform the USA in terms of Neoliberal economics used and popularized by the USA. This is the case because it’s clear that Singapore’s economic rise can be directly correlated to the enfranchisement of its working class and the use of various financial instruments popularized by Wall Street. And that was only possible via reforms that looked to reorganize certain relations of production. Specifically, reorganization was possible via the establishment of the Central Provident Fund. The reason why the Central Provident Fund was so important in changing the relations of production was that it enfranchised Singapore’s citizens in terms of healthcare, housing, and other financial means- enabling Singapore’s economy to grow at an exponential rate. But this enfranchisement didn’t come in the form of a “hand out”, rather it incentivized productivity and entrepreneurship.

This graph shows Singapore’s economic rise in terms of GDP over time compared to Cuba & The USA. Worthy to note Singapore achieved this growth with a lot less debt than the USA.

In order to understand Singapore’s exponential economic rise under a Marxist framework, a few Marxist terms Lee was likely familiar with must defined. These definitions will act as reference points which allow for a clear understanding on how Lee’s early exposure to Marxist ideology may have played a role in Singapore’s state capitalism. One of the fundamental Marxist notions that needs to be analyzed is the phrase “subsistence needs”. Arguably, it is nearly impossible to understand Karl Marx’s writings without defining this core phrase. Mainly, because Marx believes that without understanding that phrase, accurately conceptualizing how humans organize their material lives would be difficult. Marx emphasizes this point by saying that humans:

“…begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.” (Marx German Ideology sec: A. Idealism and Materialism).

So clearly it’s an important definition because defining what a societies subsistence needs exactly are will give valuable insight on the physical organization of that society. Naturally, the next question ought to be: what are human subsistence needs? One could reason that human subsistence needs are reflective of natural human impulses. And it’s these impulses which drive humans to organize themselves the way they do. Furthermore, Marx seems to give insight on what these “human impulses” are, claiming that humans meet their subsistence needs via biological means (eating, drinking, delaying death etc) and cultivating individual gifts, and that is all done because humans have a natural tendency to do things for the community ( Marx German Ideology sec: D. Proletarians and Communism). This is important to the discussion regarding Singapore’s economic development because the way Singapore’s government institutions decided to improve their society was to make sure certain subsistence’s needs were facilitated and guaranteed to their citizenry. Under a Marxist framework, one can observe how Singapore addressed these subsistence needs of its populous by observing the societies relations of production.

The second and final term that needs to be properly analyzed is the phrase relations of production. For Marx, the relations of production seemed to serve as an important part of analysis in terms of understanding a particular society. The reason he thought this can be best explained by Marx:

“The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” (Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy sec Preface).

So in essence the relations of productions for Marx are a reflection of a number of things such as: the economy, law, and political climate. The reason that Marx thinks the relation of production can provide an adequate description of society is due to the fact that it describes individuals’ relationship with productive forces. Mainly, he seems to pay close attention to who exactly owns these productive forces, because for Marx that determines how a particular society is organized. A brief excerpt from Marx’s magnus opus, Das Kapital allows for a more thorough explanation on the topic of relations of production:

“The latter is as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations…their particular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely society…”

The prose used by Marx gives insight on the importance of the relations of production if one is to fully grasp society via a Marxist framework. So, in order to understand Singapore’s economic rise under Marxist terms, we need to look at Singapore’s relations of production. But in order to do that a brief history of Singapore’s economic development must be discussed.

Singapore: A Brief Economic History.

Though Singapore has a rich history stretching back to antiquity, this work will focus on modern developments. Specifically, the scope will be limited to Singapore’s development from the mid-20^th century to our present day. The two main reasons for that are: the data from this period is extensive, and this is the period Singapore’s contemporary national identity comes to fruition. Singapore’s story beings in 1965, after Malaysia expelled them from their political union via parliamentary resolution, due to growing racial tension that was perceived as directly undermining the Malaysian economy. (US Library of Congress). After this forced independence, Singapore immediately found itself in a fiscally disadvantaged situation. The situation for the citizenry was dismal. Over 70 percent of households lived in overcrowded communities, a third squatted in shanty towns outside of the urban center, and over half the population was illiterate. (World Bank). Additionally, Singapore faced a heavy influx of immigration before they were kicked out of the Malay political union, further exacerbating the situation. This wave contributed to a high level of unemployment (roughly 15-20%) (World Bank). A visitor living in Singapore during this tumultuous time provides a firsthand account on what this society looked like to him:

“The undercover walkways are usually taken over by hawker stalls and junk. Laundry hangs from poles thrust out of windows above—just like in old Shanghai. This is Singapore, in the early 1970s. We were all devastated at the time—we who didn’t live here. From 1871 to 1931 the city’s Chinese population rose from 100,000 to 500,000. By 1960 it is estimated that more than 500,000 Chinese were living in slum-like conditions—indoors. Equipped with only one kitchen and one bathroom, the shophouses were designed for two extended families at most. After extensive partitioning many of them housed up to 50 individuals.” (Yeo)

It’s worthy to note this person wasn’t in the outskirts where the shanty towns were prevalent. But rather close to the Urban center highlighting the destitute situation a majority of Singaporeans faced. Now this was all going on in the 1960’s-70’s. But now let’s fast forward 50 years, and look at the state of Singapore now.

Contemporary Singapore is far removed from its impoverished past. Their progress is reminiscent and analogous to the Rocky Balboa series. Once a land where

over half the population was illiterate, Singapore now boasts a literacy rate of 96.8% (Knoema). Furthermore, Singapore can take pride in being number one worldwide in terms of educational prowess in math, science and reading (OECD.)Additionally, the unemployment rate has drastically fallen to a staggering 2%. Now comapare that to the world average which falls roughly around 6% (World Bank). And not only that, but roughly 90.7 % of Singaporeans are home owners (Singapore State Government). Comparatively the USA, which is perceived to have a reputable standard in terms of homeownership, has about a 64% rate (US Census). How has the populous of Singapore improved so exponentially? A lot of credit should be given to the population itself. The large majority of the people who immigrated to Singapore in the early days were impoverished and looked to work hard in order to change their circumstances. However, it would be remiss not to mention the contribution of an individual who started at the grassroots level and would end up at the highest office in Singapore’s government, Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Kuan Yew

It would be disingenuous to talk about Singapore’s meteoric rise without mentioning the contributions of its first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. He grew up during the Japanese colonial occupation of Singapore which would influence his politics in the coming future. But a specific event would have profound effect on Yew. On his way home from work Yew was randomly ordered by a Japanese guard to join a group of Chinese people who were being round up for a “routine” inspection. Luckily for Yew, he spoke Japanese and was able to convince an Imperial soldier to let him go get a better pair of cloths from home. That “routine” inspection group ended up being the victims of the Sook Ching Massacre, a Japanese atrocity that would cause the deaths of roughly 50,000- 100,000 ethnic Chinese. Yew’s close encounter with Japanese oppression inspired him to say “My colleagues and I are of that generation of young men who went through… the Japanese Occupation and emerged determined that no one…had the right to push and kick us around”(Yeo 87). That sentiment inspired him to enter politics, joining the Communist Party of Malaya, where one can assume he was exposed to terms such as the relations of production and subsistence needs. After a complicated series of events Yew would find himself at the helm of Singapore’s newly independent state, inheriting an economic and humanitarian crisis few would ever want to deal with. But his early Marxist influence may have given him an idea on where to start. That can be argued by analyzing some of the reforms he introduced which set up a solid economic base for Singapore’s population to prosper in the future. But it is worthy to note that Singapore is NOT a Marxist state but rather a state influenced by Marxism.

The Central Provident Fund

In order to tackle the economic crisis that plagued Singapore in the 1960’s sweeping reforms that addressed these economic woes needed to be established. Luckily for Yew he inherited the Central Provident Fund which was created under the old Malay regime in 1955. The CPF was the social security system used by the previous regime as a retirement plan, which was funded via taxes. This fund is owned and controlled by individuals but it allows for a bit more autonomy in terms of where the money from the fund is spent, in comparison to other social security systems. Essentially, it creates a bank account for all of it’s citizens. But at the same time allows citizens to use private banks in conjunction with the CPF. Additionally, the CPF can be seen as a government voucher which allows users to save or spend the capital within it whenever they want. Another difference in social security lies in who is qualified for social security services. That’s because all that’s needed to be eligible for the CPF is Singaporean citizenship (CPF).But when Yew came to power the CPF’s power was limited in scope. However, he must’ve realized the potential of the social security system because his regime greatly expanded it over the years, and in hindsight it paid dividends. That’s because the CPF covers 3 layers of subsistence needs which arguably allow Singapore’s population to focus on other things such as: self-fulfillment, community engagement, or social leisure. The 3 layers that allow that are: Shelter, Health, and Education. Each of these would be addressed via the CPF, but the first expansion of the CPF occurred in 1968 and it aimed to address one of the biggest problems challenging Singapore’s prosperity.

Public Housing Scheme

In 1968 Lee Kuan Yews government was tasked with handling an economic crisis, and one of the first things they decided to address was the housing problem. They did this by expanding the CPF social security apparatus in order to foster viable living conditions, the government also mass produced housing units, which eased the burden felt by the populous during this tumultuous time. (CPF History of CPF). In addition to this, the government made it it’s priority to insure that citizen’s private wages didn’t go into buying houses but rather housing was paid via the CPF (CPF History of CPF). Having said that, this isn’t traditional public housing where the state owns the houses, but rather it insures citizens with an opportunity to become homeowners. That’s possible because the CPF essentially was expanded to act as a state sponsored investment account and as a social security system. When taxes are taken out the funds, they are immediately redistributed to everyone’s CPF account. In addition to that, individuals can choose to contribute more funds to this account via private wages, and if that’s done the private employer is expected to match that amount, similar to 401k schemes in the USA except more full in scope. Moreover, citizens have the option to use their CPF funds as resources to invest in global markets, individuals can invest in low risk accounts or high risk accounts at their discretion. All of these benefits of the CPF enfranchise individuals to become homeowners. These developments explain the aforementioned high percentage of homeowners in Singapore.

Under Marxist terms we can argue that the productive forces in terms of housing were aimed to eventually belong to the people of Singapore. Because when the development first started the government owned the productive forces since they built everything, but over time that debt was paid and individuals owned their houses. Furthermore, they could later sell them to other individuals. In essence, ownership of a house is predicated mainly on citizenship and partly on labor power. The reason it’s partly labor power is because individuals can contribute their private wages to the fund, increasing its value compared to someone who didn’t want to. Reducing the anxiety of shelter must’ve been a much needed relief for the citizenry, allowing them to focus on their own personal endeavors. But that’s not all, the healthcare sector would also be targeted by the CPF leading to further reform in their society.

Medisave

After an economic expansion in the face of the recessions of the early 1980’s, Singapore was able to further improve upon the CPF, guaranteeing yet another subsistence need. They addressed one of the essential parts of subsistence- healthcare. In 1984, the Singaporean government passed legislation which would expand the CPF’s role in its citizens lives. The expansion would be called Medisave. The financial mechanisms used by the CPF to guarantee housing are also used to finance the healthcare sector. At first the funds could only be used for public hospitals but after ample amounts of private economic expansion Medisave was combined with a new model Medishield which allowed CPF funds to be used at private hospitals. Arguably, this new expansion further diminished the worries of the populous. That’s because once subsistence needs are taken care of, people can free up their resources towards other societal endeavors. And certain societal endeavors taken by individuals can also have tremendous effect on the overall economy. More minds can focus on developments in medicine rather than survival. Singapore’s government seems like it incentivizes these private endeavors, and the data can back it up. It ranks number 2 in the index of economic freedom which measure what countries best protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests allowing for greater prosperity for society at large (Heritage Foundation). Compare that to the USA, often perceived as the ideal in terms individual economic freedom, who currently ranks 18^th . So in Marxist terms it seems as if the government of Singapore wants workers to make and own the productive forces in Singapore. In nontechnical language they want to develop as many entrepreneurs as possible.

In the end, Singapore’s development was exponential. Arguably, one could reason this was influenced by addressing Marxist concepts to improve their economy. Specifically, by addressing subsistence needs Singapore could improve the nations relations of production, effecting greater economic society. They were able to do that with a government financial instrument called the Central Provident Fund, which enabled and incentivized home ownership, entrepreneurship, and other personal endeavors. Though not a communist state, Singapore seems to have tried to help their citizens realize their potential. Capitalism and Marxist techniques have been used hand in hand to increase efficiency in a Neoliberal capitalist system.

Works used:

“Adult Literacy Rate by Countries, 2017.” Knoema, Knoema, knoema.com/atlas/topics/Education/Literacy/Adult-literacy-rate?baseRegion=SG.

“Country Rankings.” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.

“Households – Latest Data.” Singapore Department of Statistics (DOS), http://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/households/latest-data.

Huff, W.g. “The Developmental State, Government, and Singapore’s Economic Development since 1960.” World Development, vol. 23, no. 8, 1995, pp. 1421–1438., doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00043-c.

“OECD Data.” The OECD, data.oecd.org/.

Yeo, Kim Wah. Political Development in Singapore, 1945-1955. U.P., 1973.

“Das Kapital” “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” & “German Ideology” by Karl Marx

Sago images: Lam Chun See http://goodmorningyesterday.blogspot.com/2005/11/my-memories-of-chinatown-part-1-chu.html

http://www.focussingapore.com/photo-gallery/streets-malls/sago-street/

The Development of Cyber Law: Past and Future

The Development of Cyber Law: Past and Future

Cyber law is often seen as a developing field in terms of international law. And rightly so, considering that the internet is a relatively new development in human history. However, that’s not to say that there isn’t development within the field of cyber law. The field encompasses a broad range of topics such as Intellectual property, data privacy, censorship etc, and some laws regarding cyber law are clearly defined. But despite that, this paper will narrow the scope in terms of where cyber law is the least developed, arguably that is within the context of data privacy and unauthorized access. These laws are often the least developed because they used to be enforced by legislation that covered traditional communication networks, such as mail and phone networks. But since data and unauthorized access is the least developed that means they are often the most abused by agents committing cybercrimes. Feasibly, this is mainly due to the fact that these sectors lack enforcement and detection methods. However, in regions where cyber law is most enforceable have decided to back enforcement and detection mechanisms that allow their cyber law to be practically enforced. But in order to understand how that’s possible a bit of background information on cybercrime and cyber law is necessary.

Background

Cybercrime has existed since the 1970’s in the form of network attacks on phone companies. Hackers would infiltrate telephone networks enabling them to create connection, reroute calls, and use payphones for free (The History of Phone Phreaking). This early era of hacking was a problem due to the lack of legislation that could act as a guide for law enforcement to accurately charge criminals. Arguably, it was the lack of legislation on hacking which allowed computer hackers to hone their techniques of network infiltration and data theft. The reason why that’s so can be observed in the late 1980s, where the intensity of large system attacks became more abundant and destructive. One of these major system hacks was perpetuated by a group known as 414. It may come as a surprise that this group wasn’t a group of hardened criminals, but rather 6 teenagers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These teenagers managed to hack high profile systems ranging from a nuclear power to banks (Stor). The intentions of the hackers didn’t seem maligned, since they didn’t steal any info from these systems. But the 414 hacks weren’t harmless either since they cost a research company $1,500 after the hackers deleted some billing records. But other major hacks weren’t as harmless. The notorious Morris worm is a prime example of the harmful effects of unwarranted network infiltration. The reason that’s the case is that it the Morris Worm was one of the first hacks that was distributed to the public internet (Sack). The worm was created by Robert Morris a Graduate student at Cornell in order to showcase the security problems of the internet, the worm would go on to cause in-between $100,000- $10,000,000 in damage by infiltrating networks and causing them to become non-operational (Newman). Clifford Stoll, one of the people responsible for purging the worm, described the Morris worm as such:

“I surveyed the network, and found that two thousand computers were infected within fifteen hours. These machines were dead in the water—useless until disinfected. And removing the virus often took two days.” (Sack)

Additionally, one of Stoll’s colleagues says that 6,000 computers were infected, which may not seem like much but only 60,000 computers were connected to the internet at that time. Meaning 10% of the internet was infected (Sack). Such attacks would force legislators to address the problems of cybercrime, specifically network infiltration. One of the first pieces of comprehensive cyber law to address these issues was the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act enacted by the United States congress.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

After a lieu of cyber-attacks plagued the world, the U.S Congress decided to specifically address cybercrime. Prior to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) cybercrime was prosecuted under mail and fraud, however that proved uncomprehensive. The CFAA’s framework defined what cybercrime entailed. One of the pioneering things the legislation did was define what kinds of computers were off limits to data infiltration. According United States code, In Title 18, Section 1030 of CFAA a computer is unlawful to hack if that computer is:

“(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.” -18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (Cornell)

Basically, stealing information from a computer that effects the United States via interstate or foreign commerce/communication is forbidden. These specifications were enough to convict various individuals who committed cybercrimes in the late 1980s. Interestingly enough, Robert Morris was the first person to be convicted for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Specifically, because he intended to infiltrate several computers without authorization which negatively affected economics and communication within the US (Newman). Arguably, the enforcement power of the CPAA may have been the essential precedent needed for the international community in terms of creating sufficient cyber laws.

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

In November 2001, the first international convention on cybercrime took place. The scope of the Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime (BCC), unlike the CPA, had a wide range because it addressed: IP law, fraud, and child pornography. However, the convention also found it important to address what unlawful access to a computer constituted, defining it as:

“..A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.” -Article 2 of BCC (Council Of Europe)

Here, arguably, the BCC is more specific then the CPAA in terms of defining unlawful access. The reason being is that it ignores the economic/ social effects and directly addresses what unlawful access is which would be:

“..the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent…to a computer system that is connected to another computer system”.

The BCC ignores the economic/ social effects because some hacks may not influence the economy or society, by keeping the CPAA definition, the scope of data infiltration would’ve been limited to social and economic consequences on specific nations. Furthermore, the BCC’s unlawful access clause has been a topic of discussion for legal entities and private corporations.

Modern Developments

EU v Facebook

The precedent set by the BCC on data infiltration remains relevant in contemporary times. Especially when considering the role private corporations have in data security. This is evident when taking Facebook’s recent big data breach into consideration. In order to understand why Facebook could potentially be an important catalyst to cybercrime we need to understand Facebook’s role on the internet. Simply put, Facebook is a social media website which connects private users via a public platform, but despite it being a public platform users’ can share data privately. However, controversy emerged after users’ data was allegedly being misdirected and sold to third parties without user’s complete consent(Guzenko). This is a clear violation of the BCC’s definition of unlawful system infiltration. The reason that could be so is that since Facebook is in charge of maintaining data security for their users, that would mean Facebook selling data without user’s consent would constitute unlawful data infiltration according to article 2 of the BCC. Additionally, Facebook was hacked by a third party and millions of users’ data was exposed without user consent. After this particular hack the European Union decided to step in and reprimand Facebook via a 1 billion euro fine (Schnechner). The EU argues Facebook didn’t do enough to protect users’ data from infiltration, but such accusations do little for cyberlaw. The reason for that is that the EU could always argue that an entity “didn’t do enough” to protect user data, and supplement that reasoning with a fine. Rather, since cyberlaw is a relatively new field, legal entities ought to cooperate with influential players within the cyber world in order to create viable solutions to cybercrimes. The EU accusations assume that Facebook is the entity which allows 3^rd parties to access user’s data, but actually it’s the users themselves who allow it. Restricting one’s data is an option if a user changes their privacy settings. Additionally, It’s unrealistic to expect Facebook to curtail the behavior of its one billion users, some users may be more susceptible to data hackers due to their ignorance on data security. The reasoning the EU expels on to Facebook would be similar to this: If an EU citizen were to steal property from another citizen then the EU itself would be held accountable for allowing that to occur, and thus deserves to be fined. This is so because Facebook is similar to the EU, in that it’s a microcosm of different sets of people behaving in ways they can’t totally predict. So instead of focusing on how specific internet services operate, focus should be shifted to network self-enforcement. A prime example of that shift of focus would be China’s comprehensive self-regulating internet network.

China’s Internet Network

Modern cybercrime has evolved in terms of the magnitude of attacks. However, in the 21^st century cyber attacks, particularly on infrastructure, are not only possible but prevalent (Schmitt). An example of such an attack is explained by Tomas Ball, a contributor to the Computer Business Review

“in December 2015 a massive power outage hit the Ukraine, and it was found to be the result of a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) cyber-attack. This instance left around 230,000 people in the West of the country without power for hours…chaos was sewn using spear phishing emails, a low tech approach to launch such an attack; this trend is relevant today, with phishing still being used against critical infrastructure.” (Ball).

That’s only one case, but hacks on critical infrastructure can range from manipulating data which changes the chemical composition of drugs being manufactured, or to infiltrating a dam and redirecting electricity (Schmitt). Countries have implemented measures to mitigate and respond to this risk on critical infrastructure. A notable response to this problem has been from the Chinese government. China has been able to mitigate the risk of data infiltration by regulating its domestic network via legislation and technology. This may seem like a normal approach, but China is unique in the sense that it’s network is reinforced by technology which actively implements its cyber legislation. It’s difficult to understand the full scope of how China is able to do this (since the government isn’t transparent on how the network fully operates) but there are things that are clearly observable in terms of how data transfer is controlled. Firstly, data transfer in China is purposefully slowed. This is important because it allows the Chinese network to detect potential disturbances before they fully manifest, so infiltration could be detected much easier (Chew). Secondly, as mentioned before, the system self regulates. The Chinese government implements its own filters by creating comprehensive state tech that enforces Chinese law. However, China also puts heavy pressure on Chinese firms to self-regulate content, meaning that a firm that deals within the cyber world must follow the cyber laws or face a shutdown of business or a hefty fine. This is similar to how the EU went about dealing with Facebook, the only key difference being that the EU lacks its own data enforcement technology (Chew). And lastly, China’s network will respond to infringements of their cyber law by quickly “poisoning” unlawful data connections. An example of this would be if a hacker wanted to infiltrate some data network the connection would immediately be detected as a “poisonous connection” and thereby the hacker would be cut off from that connection (Chew). Arguably this is what sets China’s cyber network apart from everyone else, the ability to actively regulate data under their legal framework. Though it’s worthy to note that China’s network indeed does well in terms of enforcing its cyber law by regulating data, but that doesn’t mean the network is exempt from criticism.

China’s cyber network is rather effective in terms of enforcing its cyber law, however it has been used to disenfranchise its own civilian population. Qiang Xiao an internet researcher at UC Berkeley describes China’s internet network as such

“…it has consistently and tirelessly worked to improve and expand its ability to control online speech and to silence voices that are considered too provocative or challenging to the status quo.”(Xiao). But such things, unfortunately, should be expected. After all it makes sense for illiberal governments to manifest illiberal computer networks. But such realities shouldn’t deter liberal government from trying to conceptualize and develop internet networks which enforce cyber law. This is a lot easier said than done because it’s easier to enforce authoritarian cyber law than more liberal law (Schmitt).”

Mainly, due to the fact that the amount of computing power needed to create a liberal network would be immense. In conjunction with it being so massive, economic factors come into play when determining how effective cyber law is enforced in a region, leaving poorer liberal nations behind. Despite that, developments in quantum computing can allow for massive amounts of data to be processed and it’s getting cheaper as it develops (IBM). Not only that but quantum computing opens up the door for the network to self-learn, enabling better self-enforcement (IBM). Such features may intrigue governments who want to enforce a Common Law internet network since it can self-learn off of old legal precedents. So in the future enforceable cyber for liberal governments is definitely a possibility, and perhaps a necessity if strong cyber law is to be properly enforced.

In conclusion, since there are problems with enforcement and efficiency of cyber law, internet networks which actively enforce cyber law using the internet network itself are necessary to achieve practical cyber data enforcement. Different legal jurisdictions would naturally have different laws concerning their respective internet networks, therefore various network legal structures would need to exist to facilitate their cyber laws. Developments in quantum computing may pave the way for networks to regulate themselves.

Works Cited

“18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030.

Ball, Tom. “Top 5 Critical Infrastructure Cyber Attacks.” Computer Business Review, Computer Business Review, 18 Jan. 2018, http://www.cbronline.com/cybersecurity/top-5-infrastructure-hacks/.

“Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.” Council of Europe, Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680081561.

Chew, Wei Chun. “How It Works: Great Firewall of China – Wei Chun Chew – Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 1 May 2018, medium.com/@chewweichun/how-it-works-great-firewall-of-china-c0ef16454475.

Guzenko, Ivan. “The Third-Party Data Crisis: How the Facebook Data Breach Affects the Ad Tech.” MarTechSeries, 5 July 2018, martechseries.com/mts-insights/guest-authors/the-third-party-data-crisis-how-the-facebook-data-breach-affects-the-ad-tech/.

“The History Of Phone Phreaking.” The History of Phone Phreaking — FAQ, http://www.historyofphonephreaking.org/faq.php.

Newman, Jon O. “UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Tappan MORRIS, Defendant–Appellant.” Stanford Law, stanford.edu/~jmayer/law696/week1/Unites%20States%20v.%20Morris.pdf.

Sack, Harald. “The Story of the Morris Worm – First Malware Hits the Internet.” SciHi Blog, 3 Nov. 2018, scihi.org/internet-morris-worm/.

Schechner, Sam. “Facebook Faces Potential $1.63 Billion Fine in Europe Over Data Breach.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 30 Sept. 2018, http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-faces-potential-1-63-billion-fine-in-europe-over-data-breach-1538330906.

Schmitt , Michael N. “Cyberspace and International Law: The Penumbral Mist of Uncertainty.” Harvard Law Review, harvardlawreview.org/2013/04/cyberspace-and-international-law-the-penumbral-mist-of-uncertainty/.

Stor, Will. “The Kid Hackers Who Starred in a Real-Life WarGames.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 16 Sept. 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/the-414s/hackers-wargames-true-story/.

“What Is Quantum Computing?” What Is Quantum Computing? , IBM, http://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/learn/what-is-quantum-computing/.

Xiao, Qiang. “Recent Mechanisms of State Control over the Chinese Internet – Xiao Qiang.” China Digital Times CDT, chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/07/recent-mechanisms-of-state-control-over-the-chinese-internet-xiao-qiang/.

The JFK Files: The Main Takeaways

Recently, The National Archives released thousands of classified government records on the John F. Kennedy assassination on October 23rd and November 3rd of 2017. Giving way for thousands of academics, journalists, & conspiracy theorists to sort through the ample amounts data. Though a great deal of the material is riddled with bureaucratic jargon, code names, and of course redacted info, the releases give an in depth and transparent look on these intelligence agencies at the time.

However, it’s worthy to note that thousands of other pages are being withheld for atleast 6 months. This coming after some slight pressure from the American intelligence community. Nonetheless, the recent releases have proved promising. The files cover a broad range of topics from detailing how intelligence was gathered from a stripper named “Kitty”, a 20 page “analysis” on Dr Martin Luther King, and even some creative ideas on how Cuban leader Fidel Castro should be assassinated. But the main focus of this article will be on the intelligence gathered by the FBI and CIA in the midst of the JFK assassination. Here are 4 things the public should know about the recent releases.

1. The Anonymous Call

An intelligence cable from a CIA station in London received intel gathered by MI-5 (Britain’s Security Service) about a strange call a local news reporter received. On November 22, 1963 a senior reporter from the Cambridge News received a call from an anonymous caller who said “(The Reporter) should call the American Embassy in London for some big news” the caller promptly hung up. About 25 minutes later president John F Kennedy was assassinated.

The senior reporter said he’d never received a call like that ever in his life and the MI-5 went so far as to say he was ” (A) sound and loyal person with no security record”. The MI-5 found it worthy to also note that this call was similar to other calls received by various other journalist involving the Dr Ward Case ( a case which dealt with a sexual scandal & espionage that could’ve crippled the British government in 1963)

2. Oswald’s Visa Talk: Phone Call Intercepts from the Soviet & Cuban embassies

In the weeks prior to the murder of JFK Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to secure visas from Cuba and the Soviet Union while in Mexico City. Both embassies seemed to try to help him get these long term visa’s despite his “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian” and poor Spanish. Silvia Duran (Cuban Consulate worker) was the first to be engaged in discussion with Oswald over a long term visa possibilities in Cuba. She tries to assist him in obtaining a Russian visa in order to make getting a Cuban Visa easier. She phones the Russian embassy and tries to see if they can come to some agreement over Oswald’s visa dilemma. Oswald claimed to be a part of a “pro-Cuban group”, but Silvia couldn’t get a visa for him initially because” he (knew) no one in Cuba” . Furthermore, obtaining a Russian Visa would take a long time, and evidently Oswald wasn’t worthy enough of a Russian recommendation. That didn’t stop his efforts. Oswald would then go through a series of phone calls with Russian officials about his visa status (one being Kostikov a KGB Agent specialized in assassination). However a man called Obyedkov abruptly hangs up on him in the middle of a conversation about a telegram.

Now why is this whole visa situation important? Well, clearly it shows us that Oswald was trying to relocate to either Cuba or Russia. But that raises more questions. Specifically, what were his motivations for obtaining these visas? Was he trying to obtain them as an escape plan for him to use after his assassination plot? Or was he trying to defect to these countries for other purposes?

Moreover, “Obyedkov” hanging up on Oswald should be a cause for further questioning. Was “Obyedkov” simply frustrated with Oswald, did he finally find out about Oswald’s self caused hospitalization back when he visited the USSR, or was he aware of something else?

3. November 24, 1963: Tell ’em It was Oswald.

This document is the least legible of the documents covered in this article and was written around 45 minutes after Oswald died. Oddly, it has no title, the author of this document isn’t named (But it can be assumed the words came from Hoover) , and it’s prefaced with “Mr J. Edgar Hoover said as follows”.

Th Document starts off in a rather blunt tone the first sentence says ” There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” It goes on to talk about Jack Ruby as Oswald’s murder, and briefly mentions his background. In addition, it seems as if Hoover was worried that Dallas Police officials were revealing too much information on Oswald and Ruby. Hoover feared it could potentially compromise the legal process.

In the third to last paragraph Hoover seems to be concerned about “…having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”. The paragraph goes on to talk about how the FBI could persuade the Attorney General that Oswald was the guy by using “pictures, laboratory work etc”. That would then lead the public to believe Oswald did it.

4. The Watson and Hoover Soviet MEMO

A couple sources working covertly in high Soviet and KGB positions offered some insight on how the Soviet government reacted to the Kennedy assassination.

The Soviets believed that the assassination wasn’t orchestrated by one man, but rather a highly organized “ultraright” group wishing to initiate a coup. In conjunction, they were fearful that some irresponsible general from the USA would launch a missile at the USSR. This coupled with other concerns instantly put the Soviet Union in a state of national alert.

The Soviets knew that Oswald was in the USSR for a period of time but they described him as “a neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else”. Additionally, they noted that he wasn’t involved in any organization in the Soviet Union and never received citizenship.

Also, the agents were able to infiltrate a high level KGB meeting, headed by Boris Ivanov (head of KGB) in New York City. Ivanov felt that the recent assassination was a problem for the KGB. And that this problem needed to be brought to every KGB agents attention until it was solved. The KGB also felt that the assassination couldn’t have been conducted by a sole perpetrator. The agency then put forth a plan to gather as much data possible about any possible group that could’ve executed the assassination plot.

Furthermore, Ivanov emphasized collecting as much intel about Lyndon B Johnson as possible. Quite frankly the Soviets knew nothing about him. They wanted an in depth search on “his background, his past working experience and records in congress..”.

2 years later the KGB met again in NYC after gathering intelligence about President Johnson. The source states that (per the instructions from Moscow) the KGB was in possession of data that would prove LBJ was responsible for the JFK assassination.

The document concludes with notes on several critical reports about the Warren Commission by Soviet media outlets.

Despite these main points, there is still plenty more to be uncovered by the recent data release. And the files that have revealed valuable information have in effect raised even more questions.

Feel free to indulge in the first hand declassified sources below.

The Anonymous Call: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32389606.pdf

VISA TALK: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10010-10249.pdf

TELL ‘EM IT WAS OSWALD: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

WATSON and HOOVER MEMO: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32204484.pdf

Catalonia: Spain’s Savage Hypocrisy

Catalonia, a region in Northeastern Spain with a unique culture, language, and identity. A culture and history you can argue that is distinctly not “Spanish”.

Catalonia has seemed to have it’s identity trapped within the walls of Spain throughout it’s history. Before the kingdoms of Castille and Aragon combined their lands in the 15th century (this would later become modern day Spain), Catalonia was largely independent. It wasn’t until later centuries of Spanish conquest that Catalonia found itself on the losing side of a series of wars, which led to it’s absorption into Spain. But despite this, the Catalan culture and economy remained vibrant and vehemently independent.

EP603 — “The Boatman Of Barcelona” by Dionisio Baixeras y Verdaguer (Spanish, Barcelona 1862–1943 Barcelona)

Fast forward to the 1930’s in Catalonia. Nationalism is running high and the Spanish Civil War is in full effect in the region. The Catalans recognized the void and decided to fight for their independence.However, despite their efforts the separatist would lose. That resulted in a win for Francisco Franco, a dictator backed by Nazi Germany. He went on to suppress civil liberties by banning the Catalan language, books, and other cultural events. He imprisoned and killed many Catalan leaders and activists in the process. This suppression would last until 1975 when Franco died.

Now the argument for the separation of Spanish and Catalan culture in it’s essence could be chalked up as subjective. People perhaps might say that they are different yet synonymous, along the lines of a symbiotic relationship. But one thing that isn’t subjective (or symbiotic) is Catalonia’s huge economic contributions to Spain’s overall GDP (Catalonia’s nominal GDP in 2014 was €200 billion the highest in Spain). Which is excellent for Spain’s tax revenue, but undermines a majority of Catalans who feel as if they’re being ‘robbed’ by the central government in Madrid. Because often, the way the tax revenue is used neglects Catalonia’s regional interests. Giving way for feelings of neglect and exploitation. Symbiotic relationships require two parties to benefit, but by definition when only one party benefits it becomes a PARASITIC relationship. It’s these idiosyncratic differences (both cultural and economic) that have put the region at odds with the Spain’s central government throughout history, and even more so in our modern political sphere.

The modern Catalan sentiment is that the region does more for Spain in terms of the economy than what it gets in return from Spain. That frustration, mixed with the Catalan historical identity has been fuel for recent separatist movements. Recently the regional Catalan parliament passed a law on Sept. 6th 2017 to hold a referendum on independence, Spain’s national government said it was illegal and filed a complaint to the National Constitutional Court. Spain ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional. Nevertheless the Catalans went on with referendum process. Spain responded by shutting down the referendums website, sending the police to stop any polls that had been set up for the referendum, and they confiscated about 10 million ballot papers/ millions of advertising posters. Successfully suppressing the democratic process. Additionally, around 700 of Catalonia’s about 900 mayors are being held under investigation for their role for preparing the referendum. Many of them could possibly face bans on holding democratically elected public office. Despite this many of them will continue to represent their constituents in Catalonia.

At the moment it’s unclear what’s going to happen in Spain amidst this democratic and political crisis. Things seem to be a bit rocky in terms of institutional implementation. Regardless, the world is watching.

Sources: AP

https://www.britannica.com/place/Catalonia

My Junior Year Research Paper

and Wikipedia for dates

Imprisonment & Economics: The Art of Legislation

You are who you imprison. Well, that’s what Plato would’ve said if he would’ve written The Republic in the modern era. Actually maybe not, but he would’ve been able to see the connection between modern economics, legislation and imprisonment. Being the genius that he was he’d probably devise a theory about this correlation, it’d be lofty, and well articulated. But since he’s no longer with us you’ll have to settle for my condensed version.

The first aggressive and transparent instances of this correlation emerge around the age of Mercantilism. They would debut in the form of legislative mandates all across Europe, particularly the Anglo-sphere. Michele Foucault (Historian and author of Madness and Civlisation) argues and points out that during this period:

“The first houses of corrections were opened in England during a full economic recession. The act of 1610 recommended only certain mills and weaving & carding shops to all houses of correction in order to occupy the pensioners. But what had been a moral requirement became an economic tactic when commerce and industry recovered after 1651, the economic situation having been re-established by the Navigation act and the lowering of the discount rate. All able-bodied manpower was to be used to the best advantage, that is, as cheaply as possible. When John Carey established his workhouse project in Bristol he ranked the need for work first: “the poor of both sexes…. May be employed in beating hemp,dressing and spinning flax, or in carding wool and cotton”…Sometimes there were even arrangements which permitted private entrepreneurs to utilize the manpower of the asylums for their own profit” (Madness and Civilisation 52-53)

In a nutshell, Foucault emphasizes the interdependence between economics/legislation, and the effect they had on the development of correctional facilities in the age of Mercantilism. In this case an economic recession has hit England and in response the government passed legislation in order to regulate the economy. A fairly normal measure for governments trying to lessen the effects of an economic catastrophe. But it’s the methods that are deployed which raise cause for alarm.

In a desperate attempt to save the economy England outlawed abject poverty, homelessness, and “loose, idle and disordley behavior(the latter was never given a clear legal definition) . They sent all “offenders” to correctional facilities, where they were locked in a cell and forced to work . The proper terminology for this systemic means of punishment is called Poor Relief. It was a way for the government to absorb the “non productive” members of society into a system of regulated labor. That newly established labor pool was then used by the big businesses of the time to make a profit during the economic recession. These organizations would come into these ‘houses of correction’ and use the free prison labor enabling them to turn a profit during a recession. Basically they exploited the new source slave labor.

Additionally, Poor Relief should be looked at as a form of societal control in the face of economic hardship. By rounding up the impoverished of society, England was able to mask how catastrophic things were by forcing everyone to be economically productive. This enables a suppression of any societal/political agitation. After all people without jobs can’t protest the state of the economic climate if they’ve already been arrested for not having a job. That allowed England to ‘kill two birds with one stone’:( 1) because more of the population is able contribute to the economy (increasing economic efficiency) and (2 )the threat of civil unrest is suppressed. The first instances of modern mass incarceration have begun to take shape.

(in hindsight England was able to fully recover from their economic catastrophe)

Fast forward to the latter part of the 20th century. A time of extreme ideological tension across the globe. Perpetrated by an ongoing Cold War between two world superpowers, the USSR and the USA. During the Reagan administration the goal was clear; the Soviets had to be stopped. The administration would spend their time conducting extensive research to determine the Soviet’s systemic weaknesses. One of the weaknesses identified was an economic one. The administration figured out that by strangling the USSR with economic sanctions and making sure the US economy expanded at an exponential rate, the USA could win the Cold War. Rendering the Soviet economist Leonid Kantorovich’s Nobel prize winning work on optimal resource allocation useless. In hindsight, Reagan’s supply side economics (Reaganomics) would prove to be an effective strategy in the aim to stimulate and grow the American financial sector, albeit artificially. By stripping away and adding new red tape, laissez-faire economics dominated and took American capitalism to places it had never been before. Despite all that, some sectors of the American economy needed artificial legislative means to achieve that record growth.

In the 1980’s the number of arrests of drug offenses rose by 126% (National Council on Crime and Delinguency 1989). Mainly due to legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. It was a mandate which radically revised the American criminal code system;It gave the government more power in civil forfeiture, reinstated the federal death penalty, and increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or sale of Marijuana. This was an indirect effect of Reagan’s supply driven economic stimulus. Because in order for the USA to beat out the Soviets, the US market needed to be operating at near full capacity. That meant everyone was needed to contribute to the system. No matter who you were. What followed these mandates was the rapid development of the ‘for profit privatized prison industrial complex’ . In these new prisons a new criminal was cultivated to populate them, the non-violent drug offender. As the prison industry grew so did the abundance of this newly cultivated criminal. This in effect meant more free labor for the American economic system as prisons became a new place for corporations to use “outsourced” prison labor. Leading to even more diverse growth in the corporate structure. For example, if Walmart uses prison labor to create an assembly line for a product (which it does) , then that product is cheaper for consumers, which incentivizes them to shop at Walmart.

But a lot of the economic growth in this era was feigned under complicated laws which inflated economic statistics. An example of this would be corporate share buy back schemes. This financial technique is used by corporations to inflate numbers by buying shares of the company back from individuals who’ve bought them. Share prices are inflated because less shares are out in the public’s hands. But this alone doesn’t necessitate growth. The reason why the profit margins grow is because investors are ignorant of the fact that the company is buying back it’s own shares. Generally, if people were aware of that corporate behavior confidence in that corporation would diminish. Ideally you’ll want the company to invest it’s money on the product/service it’s providing in order to turn a profit. When a company starts buying back shares that shows a lack of focus in terms of direct capital accumulation from the business. Instead buying back shares shows that a firm is more focused on marketing the fact they are still profitable. A desperate attempt to save their reputation. In principal nothing is wrong with this. But it’s wrong when the US legislation allows corporations to mask the fact they are buying back shares. This allows corporations to lie and potentially defraud investors. But ever since the 1980’s share buybacks have been allowed to remain nontransparent. Practices such as these can result in big economic bubbles. This is especially concerning when considering the fact that Goldman Sachs has recently bought back $780 billion worth of it’s own shares to avoid public scrutiny, giving us insight that this behavior is alive and well in the 21st century. Subtly, there’s an implication that the prison system may not have even played a significant part in the economic war waged by the USSR and USA. If it did generate growth then it must’ve been minimal. What seemingly played a significant role is the non transparency of certain economic strategies, one of them being corporate buy back schemes. But the creation of the non violent drug offender allowed the US private prison system a new source of labor, and therefore created growth within that industry. Nevertheless, Reaganomics resulted in a exponential growth for the American economy, one of the key factors that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just another concrete example of the relationship shared between legislation, economics, and imprisonment.

In all, when economic instability is on the horizon, one should expect a response from those controlling the resources within a given society. This response will often translate into laws and it’s effect can be easily mapped overtime.

(Sources)

Madness and Civilisation By Michelle Foucault

The 1989 NCCD Prison Population Forecast: The Impact of the War on Drugs By James Austin Aaron David McVey

Trumps Climate Withdrawal: What It Means and International/Domestic Responses

Staying true to his campaign rhetoric, Trump has effectively decided to kill the Paris Climate Accord. Essentially ending government support for future innovation in the American economy. The move seems to be an attempt to bring back the dying American coal industry, despite the lack of evidence that pulling out will do just that. That’s because it’s hard to ignore that the cost of clean energy is plummeting in comparison to coal, making it more affordable to consumers.

Additionally, according to most “reputable” economists climate change will begin to have a net negative impact on the global economy (the median estimates say by 2025 is when the full effects will be felt). The economic sectors that would be most affected unsurprisingly include Agriculture (94% ) Fishing (74%) Tourism (72%) Insurance (66%) and Health Services (54%). And the United States could’ve used a overhaul of it’s current economic climate policy by further incentivizing corporations and individuals to innovate by bolstering the American economy while at the same time curving pollution. Logically this is what will most likely help those disenfranchised by the economic collapse of the coal industry. A new industry equals new jobs for those effected by the coal decline. And a business oriented mind such as Trumps should easily recognize the economic benefits of going “green” namely: Incentivizing business by providing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which enables a head start in a new and emerging market, and the creation of more jobs through a “going green” infrastructural overhaul.

But instead Trump has decided to go a different route by pulling out of the Paris Accord. Was it to satisfy constituents by fulfilling his campaign promises? Or perhaps to distract from the scandals going on in the White House(?) Whatever the reason the fact remains that the Trump Administration has pulled out as the symbolic administrative leader of the global climate initiative. And in effect an unsuspecting “green alliance” has been forged to combat the looming global climate crisis.

The European Union and China have agreed to fill the vacuum left by the USA as the leaders of innovation amidst the climate crisis. A week after Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, China and the EU met in Brussels to talk about the future of their climate policies. The two parties (for the first time ever) are now in agreement “to forge ahead” with measures to “lead the energy transition” towards a global low-carbon economy. Specifically by committing to cut back on fossil fuels, developing more green technology, and jointly working to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cut their emissions. This “green alliance” seems to be calculated response to the Trump administrations protectionist economic framework. After all the EU and China’s agreement seem to be in the favor of free trade, economic growth and innovation, while at the same time combating the climate change epidemic. A stark contrast to Trump’s crony and isolationist economic tactics. Furthermore, China has committed to a plan to develop 150 gigawatts of solar energy by the end of the decade, the EU is leading in wind power energy and recently France (via Macron) has additionally incentivized scientists and business leaders alike to come to France, in order to “work on concrete climate solutions”. As of now the EU is the leader for positive climate policy implementation and China is well on it’s way towards that path. And this new green alliance will only seek to economically and environmentally improve both regions.

However there is a silver lining. Despite the Trump Administration withdrawal from the Paris Agreement top American business leaders are still working towards the global climate initiative. CEO’s from Apple, ExxonMobil, Jp Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and most notable Elon Musk (who left the President advisory council after the decision)were ALL in dissent after Trumps withdrawal. Yes that’s right! natural gas companies and big financial firms AREN’T in favor of the decision and will continue to uphold the Paris Accord’s framework. Nick Atkins (CEO of American Electric Power, Coal company) had this to say “(T)his gets a lot of questions from investors, we get a lot of questions from customers, that … want renewable energy solutions, clean energy solutions. And we at AEP want to be as benign to the environment as we can”. However, these businesses could’ve used additional tax incentives by going with clean energy (allowing for further economic growth) and Trump had the power to help. He clearly chose not to.

The majority of the American population doesn’t agree with Trumps withdrawal either, according to a recent Washington Post- ABC news poll that says 59 percent oppose the move. Having said that several states have formed a bipartisan group committed to upholding the Paris Accord, called the United States Climate Alliance. Among the members are New York and California, huge economic influencers. If the USCA was a country it’d be 4th in terms of GDP. Providing hope for the future. After all the President’s decision doesn’t matter if the societal collective refuses to obey.

EDIT: While I wrote this the US Ambassador to China David Rank resigned because of Trumps Climate withdrawal

Sources: “Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change” by the Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law.

Click to access 20160527_1_a1_-_c_2016_2989_f1_annex_en_v1_p1_850173_en.pdf

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21722914-china-and-europe-plan-lead-climate-efforts-whither-world-after-americas-retreat

http://governor.wa.gov/news-media/united-states-climate-alliance-adds-10-new-members-coalition-committed-upholding-paris