By James Cogan
6 January 2010

American military personnel are continuing to take their own lives in unprecedented numbers, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq drag on. By late November, at least 334 members of the armed forces had committed suicide in 2009, more than the 319 who were killed in Afghanistan or the 150 who died in Iraq. While a final figure is not available, the toll of military suicides last year was the worst since records began to be kept in 1980.

The Army, National Guard and Army Reserve lost at least 211 personnel to suicide. More than half of those who took their lives had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The Army suicide rate of 20.2 per 100,000 personnel is higher than that registered among males aged 19 to 29, the gender age bracket with the highest rate among the general population. Before 2001, the Army rarely suffered 10 suicides per 100,000 soldiers.

The Navy lost at least 47 active duty personnel in 2009, the Air Force 34 and the Marine Corp, which has been flung into some of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 42. The Marine suicide rate has soared since 2001 from 12 to at least 19.5 per 100,000.

For every death, at least five members of the armed forces were hospitalised for attempting to take their life. According to the Navy Times, 2 percent of Army; 2.3 percent of Marines and 3 percent of Navy respondents to the military’s own survey of 28,536 members from all branches reported they had attempted suicide at some point. The “Defense Survey of Health-Related Behaviors” also found “dangerous levels” of alcohol abuse and the illicit use of drugs such as pain killers by 12 percent of personnel.

The trigger for a suicide attempt varied from case to case: relationship breakdowns, financial problems, substance abuse, tensions with other members of their unit, a traumatic event. What is clear, however, is that military service has seriously impacted on the physical and mental health of the victims.

The suicide figures for serving personnel are only one indication. The most alarming statistics are those on mental illness related to the hundreds of thousands of veterans of the two wars who have left the military and sought to reintegrate into civilian life.

While there is no exact figure, studies estimate that as many as 20 to 30 percent of veterans suffer some degree of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), hindering their ability to hold down jobs, maintain relationships, overcome substance abuse and, in some cases, maintain their will to live. The worsening economic conditions facing working people in the US are aggravating the difficulties.

A survey last year found that at least 15 percent of former soldiers in the 20 to 24 age bracket were unemployed. An article by the Florida Today site on January 3 reported that 450 of the 800 homeless in Brevard County were Iraq or Afghanistan veterans. Shelters in California are reporting twice as many requests for assistance from new veterans compared with 2007. At the current rate, they will eventually outnumber the more than 100,000 homeless Vietnam vets.

A study of veterans with PTSD published last August by the Journal of Traumatic Stress found that 47 percent had had suicidal thoughts before seeking treatment and 3 percent had attempted to kill themselves. The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has been compelled to substantially upgrade its services. Since its 24-hour, seven-days a week suicide hotline was belatedly established in July 2007, it has counselled over 185,000 veterans or their families and claims to have prevented at least 5,000 suicides. It now has 400 counselors dedicated to suicide prevention though even the Pentagon admits far more are needed.

People who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan make up a growing proportion of the 6,400 veterans that VA estimates take their own lives each year. A 2007 CBS study put the rate among male veterans aged 20 to 24 at four times the national average—more than 40 per 100,000 per year.

The suicide estimates do not include the hundreds of young veterans who die each year in auto accidents, many of which are linked with excessive speed or driving under the influence and kill or injure others as well. In 2008, veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were 75 percent more likely to die in an auto accident than non-veterans and 148 percent more likely to die in a motorcycle crash. Suicide statistics also do not count deaths that are classified as accidental drug-related overdoses.

American society will continue to pay for the harm caused by the Iraq and Afghan wars for decades to come. There is a growing medical consensus that a significant factor in PTSD is actual physical damage to the brain. Developments in vehicle and body armour, combined with advances in medical treatment, have enabled thousands of soldiers to survive bomb blasts that might have taken their lives in earlier conflicts. They survive with trauma to their brain however.

The Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury estimated in early 2009 that between 45,000 to 90,000 veterans of the two wars had been left with “severe and lasting symptoms” of brain injury. Overall, the Defense Department estimates that as many as 20 percent of veterans had suffered some degree of brain injury due to bomb blasts while in Iraq or Afghanistan—a staggering 360,000 men and women.

According to information found at the Web site of the Ohio Secretary of State listing candidates who filed for the May 4th State Primary, Ohio voters will have a choice of eight candidates to consider. They are Democrats Charlena Renee Bradley, Jennifer Brunner, Lee Fisher and Traci Johnson; Republican Rob Portman, Eric W. Deaton of the Constitution Party, Steven R. Linnabary of the Libertarian Party and Socialist Party candidate Dan La Botz.

Definitions for socialism found at One-Look Dictionary range from the classic standards of "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry...an economic system based on state ownership of capital" to an accounting, business studies and economics dictionary definition of "An economic system based on state ownership of land and on a centrally planned allocation of resources" to the one at InvestorWords.com defining it as an "Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution."

Some Americans understand socialism as lazy, non-productive people demanding handouts from industrious ones who produce and save. Such a relationship came in an email to me in the form of a story about industrious ants who work and save but who take pity on lazy, carefree grasshoppers who at first ask the ants to share their bounty and who then show up in mass numbers demanding the now always hard-working but now frightened ants share with them to buy off the grasshoppers with food so their anthills won't be destroyed.

Dan La Botz, 64, a native of Chicago who lives with his wife and children in Cincinnati and teaches Spanish at a local elementary school, has his own reasoned view of socialism and reasons for entering the race.

La Botz said he's running in the senate race for many reasons, one of them being it gives him a chance to talk about domestic and foreign policy issues including what he sees as an environmental crisis and "these terrible wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He believes the nation, at this particular moment, has a "sense of the crisis" and is "searching for answers" to them. For these and other reasons, La Botz said he "wants to be part of that debate."

So far for La Botz, who graduated high school in San Diego County in southern California and who worked at various vocations including truck driver, journalist and community organizer before he started a career as teacher, the only coverage or inclusion by media in Ohio has come with an article in the Cincinnati Beacon and a candidate questionnaire that ran in the Warren Hamilton Tribune newspaper.

Everyone thinks they can control money until it starts to control them

In the sphere of ideas one of the more fruitful results of May 1968 was the spread, in France and elsewhere, of the criticism of the commodity as representing the reduction of useful things to objects of commerce and of social and personal relationships to commercial ones. With commodity production, work ceases to be the creative activity of people producing needed useful things and becomes mere labour turning out articles of commerce for sale on a market. People cease to be related to each other as members of a community, whether democratic or hierarchical, and become mere economic units related to each other only through money as buyers and sellers of some object or other of commerce.

This criticism of the extreme commercialisation of society that capitalism involves goes back to the beginning of the 19th century and to the Romantic tradition that then came into being as a reaction to the ravages of emerging industrial capitalism. Already in 1840 Thomas Carlyle was denouncing the situation where "cash payment has become the sole nexus of man to man". In France in the 1960s and 1970s this sort of criticism of capitalism was expressed in particular by the Situationists who gave a prominent place to the passive consumption of commodities as a feature of the "spectacular society" they were denouncing. The commodity was considered as something undesirable that ought to be done away with.

But what exactly is a commodity? A commodity is, basically, a product of labour and nature that has been produced with a view to being sold. It is, in other words, an object of commerce, an item of wealth that is bought and sold. A commodity is not simply a useful thing, some part of nature transformed so as to be capable of satisfying some human need. It is this, but this is not its essential characteristic.

The essential characteristic of a commodity is that it is a part of nature that has been transformed primarily with a view to being exchanged for some other product. An item of wealth produced for this purpose acquires, in addition to what might be called its natural usefulness, or use-value, an exchange value which is the amount of other commodities that it can exchange for. Commodity-production gives rise to money, prices and buying and selling, and achieves its highest form in capitalism where literally everything can, and generally does, become an object of commerce.

Consumer society

Ironically, or at least it may appear so to some, this criticism of capitalism was provoked, not by capitalist conditions of primary poverty and destitution but by the prolonged period of capitalist prosperity that eventually followed the last world war.

Post-war reconstruction and the expansion of world markets led to full employment and, as a consequence, to rising living standards for wage and salary workers. That workers became materially better off over this period is a fact that cannot be denied. A majority did acquire a whole range of consumer durables that are now taken for granted but which before the war were luxuries enjoyed only by the rich, such things as fridges, washing machines, televisions and of course cars. People were also able to build up savings, go on holidays abroad, and more and more of them to acquire their own house. All this would have been unthinkable before the war and no doubt goes a long way towards explaining why people have accepted capitalism over the last forty years, particularly as the "socialist" alternative appeared to be represented by the Russian state capitalist empire where it was evident that ordinary workers were much worse off.

Defenders of capitalism were able to present their system as a "consumer society" geared to providing an ever-rising standard of living for ordinary people. Critics, however, began to point to the social costs of such a growth-oriented, market society. These criticisms are neatly summed up in the titles of three books written by Vance Packard, an American journalist, in the late 1950s: The Hidden Persuaders (1957), The Status Seekers (1959) and The Waste Makers (1960).

The first was a description of the methods employed by advertisers to try and manipulate people into buying things by using brainwashing techniques derived from psychology. The second, perhaps the weakest, described how people strove to acquire consumer goods as much as a status symbol as for their usefulness, while the third exposed how manufacturers employed techniques such as planned obsolescence to maintain the market for their goods.

Packard was an investigative journalist rather than a social philosopher but in his books are to be found all the themes that have been developed at a more philosophical and theoretical level by others, particularly in continental Europe and those in its tradition like Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm. For example, the theme that in capitalism the needs which the market is supposed to be geared to meeting are not our real needs but artificial ones created by capitalist manipulation of our psychology, and the theme that a growth-oriented society involves a waste of resources and an unbalanced relationship with the rest of nature.

Such a theory of the commodity provided the basis for a modern criticism of capitalist society. The needs which a commodity is supposed to satisfy are denounced as false needs. The advertising required to create these false needs is denounced for commercialising society and turning it into one huge marketplace. And the consumption of materials and energy to produce the goods to satisfy these false needs is denounced as waste placing an intolerable burden on nature.

This theory does have some attraction, even some substance, but when the question of what sort of society should replace capitalism arises, as it has to, weaknesses appear. Nearly all of the exponents of the theory, while certainly critical of the market-motivated, growth-oriented society that is capitalism, and indeed providing some trenchant criticisms of it, turn out to be in favour of retaining some degree of commodity production and exchange.

Truly human society

One example is Jeremy Seabrook. In The Myth of the Market, published last year, he powerfully criticises the spread of market values for "leading to social disintegration in the West, and in the Third World to the destruction of indigenous cultures that are the only surviving examples of how people can truly live in harmony with their environment". Only he then ends lamely by denying that the way-out is to get rid of the market and the production of useful things as commodities:

The issue is not so much one of going 'beyond' the market economy, but rather of reducing it to a minimal, functional level in our lives, putting it in its (necessary) place (page 33).

Another example is the Canadian writer William Leiss in his book The Limits to Satisfaction, subtitled "On Needs and Commodities", that was first published in 1976. After criticising capitalism for inciting insatiable needs, he speaks only about the "limitation of the sphere of commodity exchange" (British edition, page 116) and of the need to "lessen the importance of commodities as factors in the satisfaction of human needs" (page 122):

There is nothing inherently evil in commodities and market exchanges as such, and there is no reason to believe that it would be desirable to extirpate them completely. There is cause for concern only when commodity exchange tends to become the exclusive mode for the satisfaction of needs (page 117).

Such observations show Leiss to be a superficial critic of the commodity. Clearly, his objection is not to the exchange-value aspect of the commodity as a product of labour and nature that has become an object of commerce, but merely to the fact that, in his view, most commodities have now ceased to be real use-values since they are being produced to satisfy manipulated needs. Abolish this aspect of the modern commodity and, for him, commodity production and exchange become acceptable.

What critics like Leiss of the commodity as an expression of false needs have overlooked is that there is another reason for doing away with commodity production and exchange: that this will end the domination of production by blindly-operating economic laws which impose the accumulation of exchange-value as the primary objective of production.

Wherever wealth is produced for sale on a market—wherever, that is, there is commodity-production—economic forces are unleashed which come to dominate production and orient it away from satisfying people's needs. The operation of these laws means that production is not subject to human control, with the result that it is not human values that are paramount in society, but market values, commercial values, the cash nexus.

If a truly human society is to be created where we can relate to each other as members of a real community instead of as isolated atoms colliding on the market place, then the commodity-form must disappear completely. This is not a question, as Leiss suggests, of the "extirpation" of commodity-production, money and buying and selling as things that are "inherently evil", of using coercive means to prevent commodity exchange from taking place; what is involved is creating the conditions (common ownership of productive resources by the whole community) in which it has no sense. The death of the commodity will be the beginning of a truly human society existing in harmony with the rest of nature.

- www.worldsocialism.org

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-12-2009/jim-cramer-pt--1

-Kyle Helle

(download)

Click here to download:

photos.zip (90 KB)

Currently, one of the favorite methods conservatives like to use to scare ordinary, everyday people is to tell them that if they're not careful socialism will take over the country. They use Sweden, England, Iceland, and others as examples of "failed" socialist societies. According to Glenn Beck and Fox News socialism is a one-way ticket to the apocalypse. What good can come out of socialized healthcare and education, generous labor benefits, and other collective public programs? Well it just so happens that many of these so-called socialist nations have some of the highest standards of living in the world (unless of course you measure the standard of living by the number of Wal- Marts and Cub foods per square mile, then the U.S. wins hands down). Iceland in particular has been pointed out in particular after its economy collapsed back in 2008. However, contrary to popular belief, "socialist" countries have not been the only ones affected by the current world recession, and I'm guessing that a little island nation like Iceland didn't cause this global catastrophe all by itself. Regardless, I took it upon myself to travel to Iceland and investigate the accusations of my fellow conservative Americans for myself and get to the bottom of the socialist mystery.

Okay, so I was actually just going on vacation to Iceland, but that didn't mean I couldn't take the opportunity to observe what a truly socialist society looked like. If I actually took Fox News seriously and were a much, much dumber man, I would probably have expected Iceland to be a barren landscape of inefficient farming communes with military police roaming the streets, and downtrodden people wearing 19th century attire. Of course I knew better, so I did my own research on Wikipedia (hurray). 

Even with my extensive studying I was still surprised during my stay in Iceland, especially the capital city of Reykjavik. Here's the low down: the city is very modern, but very unique to its own landscape and climate. There are very few buildings made out of wood since there are barely any trees. Also, wood does not fare well in the constant rain and wind. Instead buildings are constructed out of steel and concrete. Education is highly valued and as a result most Icelanders can speak English. Everyone seemed to have a decent car. By this I mean there weren't any 1987 Ford Taurus’s burning down the street. All the taxis were Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, BMW, or some other luxury brand. Icelanders have a very high value on sanitation and cleanliness and therefore facilities were exceptionally clean. Iceland also sports a very low crime rate making it a very safe place for foreigners and there is a much smaller income gap between the rich and poor. Downtown Reykjavik is packed with boutique shops, cafes, restaurants (casual and sophisticated), and 24-hour groceries. The people are unusually beautiful as well as friendly and everyone seemed to have a great sense of style. Public buildings sported modern architecture and stood as a symbol of Iceland's progress.

The people are much more receptive to new ideas and freedom of speech. A city newspaper printed their front-page story on the local anarchists and there activities. I then walked past an ally decorated with socialist graffiti. Even Halldór Laxness, Iceland's most famed novelist and winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize, was an ardent socialist. Later, on our way to our hotel we passed the parliament building where a demonstration was taking place with more protesters showing up every minute (what they were protesting I do not know). I did ask a man how often people organize demonstrations and he responded, "often." Shortly afterwards, we discovered that the headquarters for the Left-Green Movement, Iceland's socialist-environmentalist party, was located directly behind the guesthouse we were staying at. Currently, power is being shard by a political coalition comprised of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement. Socialists and social democrats took power shortly after the former conservative-dominated government collapsed with the economy in 2008. The current prime minister of Iceland is Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir of the Social Democratic Alliance. She also happens to be the world's first openly gay head of state. Jóhanna has been accused of being a communist by conservatives while more passionate leftists and anarchists claim her to be too far-right leaning. 

All in all, from my perspective, Iceland was by no means socialist. It is a welfare state, just like America, except they do a better job of it (and they don't have a military). The government operates many different social and economic programs that help provided a better standard of living for all citizens. The people are more trusting of the government being involved in their lives because they believe it to be a government of the people. Of course, Iceland has unique features that make social programs like these successful. For example, the fact that it is an island means that it has a better abililty to regulate what comes in and what goes out (ideas, technology, ect.). Also, there is little racial or ethnic diversity in Iceland as most people are white protestants of scandenavian descent. This probably contributes to good social cooperation throughout the country. Most importantly Iceland has a very small population of just under 300,000 people. This creates very tight knit social networkings where everyone seems to know everybody, further strengthening cooperation and collective goals. The U.S. on the other hand is just about as opposite in social make-up in comparison to Iceland as a country can get.

Aside from all of the great progress Icelanders have made, the country is still riddled with advertisement, materialism, big business, and corruption. In fact, the major cause to their collapsing economy was their banking industry upon which they heavily relied on. After the collapse, three of Iceland's major banks were nationalized in effort to restore value back to the Icelandic Krona, which plunged from an exchange rate of about 70kr per U.S. dollar to 123kr per U.S. dollar. This was actually the deciding factor in our vacation decision. What better time to travel to one of the most notoriously expensive countries when everything is half-off? It's kinda like a big sale at Kohls. In light of my observations, I can safely say that Iceland is not socialist, although it is probably on the right track. The people are naturally accepting to change. Even the most conservative Icelander would be considered a left-wing pinko commie in the States.

All in all I can only hope that our country can turn away from our foolish pride and look at countries like Iceland as examples of progressive change for the better of society, one that is more efficient, more equal, and has a higher standard of living (and also elaborates on what exactly determines living standards). Even with 24-hour daylight and summer temperatures averaging 45-50 degrees it is hard not to love a place like Iceland where everyone is so friendly and everyone seems happy to help you out with directions.