Chevron Says These People Don't Matter

[milkmiku]

Chevron says the people in these photographs don't matter.
They are, according to the oil giant, literally "irrelevant" players in a 19-year-old legal battle against Chevron for one of the world's largest oil-related environmental disasters.
Hundreds of people have died from cancer caused by contamination left by Chevron in the Ecuadoran rainforest, where it drilled under the Texaco brand from 1964 to 1992. Thousands, more suffer from respiratory illnesses, deformities, skin disease, spontaneous abortions and other ailments.
The Ecuadorans in these photographs and approximately 30,000 other rainforest residents recently won an $18 billion damage award from Ecuador's courts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/chevron-loses-bid-to-vacate-court-order-on-18-billion-ruling.html) against Chevron. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the company refuses to pay. If it did, the money would fund a cleanup of the contamination and provide clean drinking water and health care services for people living in Chevron's former concession area.
In a desperate effort to avoid paying the $18 billion judgment, Chevron lawyer Doak Bishop of King & Spalding recently said (http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2012-02-11-arbitration-hearing-excerpt.pdf): "The plaintiffs are really irrelevant. They always were irrelevant. There were never any real parties in interest in this case... There will be no prejudice to [the rainforest communities] or any individual by holding up enforcement of the judgment."
Anyone who has seen the devastation in the rainforest and spent time with the people there, like I did when I took these photographs, would never make such a statement. (See more photos at: www.loudematteis.com (http://www.loudematteis.com/)).




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lou-dematteis/chevron-ecuador_b_1421407.html?ref=green&ir=Green




America is more worried about Zimmersaten and Romney's wife not "working a day in her life" to give attention.

[Prometeo liberado]

And Chevron is right, they don't matter. Not for second should anyone be surprised by this. Chevron is a for profit company dedicated to bottom line performance and beating wall street expectations. Nothing more, often very less. This is capitalism folks, why are you surprised? The real shock is that people are shocked by their behavior.

[Elysian]

And Chevron is right, they don't matter. Not for second should anyone be surprised by this. Chevron is a for profit company dedicated to bottom line performance and beating wall street expectations. Nothing more, often very less. This is capitalism folks, why are you surprised? The real shock is that people are shocked by their behavior.

The real shock is that most people, even proles, justify such behavior.

[Positivist]

This is horrifying and just because it is expected doesn't mean that we should coldly dismiss it. Do I foresee the victims of this crime being compensated and the criminals punished? No. Though that doesn't mean that I won't cheer on the Ecuadorian's resistance and condemn Chevron's offenses. If only this would receive the proper media attention it deserves, then perhaps the bored American public could erupt into another frenzy (this one totally justified) and demand justice. Unfortunately even if this did occur, it would be dismissed as the evil of a single corporation rather than a problem engrained in the system.

[La Comédie Noire]

The law doesn't mean shit if it can't be enforced. Now Libertarians argue for minimal government and more freedom for businesses, but look how they behave when they know very well no one can stop them.

[milkmiku]

If only this would receive the proper media attention it deserves.


If it threatens the share holders in some way, most big business hold shares on major media corps, then it would not. The media is to busy telling us how evil Obama is and how Republicans hate gays. I suppose there is a slight chance a group of determined people could viral it, only to have pulled by google owned youtube.


Take a look at who owns google in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCrimiUxxQ

and here

http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=GOOG

If you have the time, follow the trail of most of those and you'll find they are owned buy a few big time money movers.

[Positivist]

If it threatens the share holders in some way, most big business hold shares on major media corps, then it would not. The media is to busy telling us how evil Obama is and how Republicans hate gays. I suppose there is a slight chance a group of determined people could viral it, only to have pulled by google owned youtube.


Take a look at who owns google in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCrimiUxxQ

and here

http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=GOOG

If you have the time, follow the trail of most of those and you'll find they are owned buy a few big time money movers.

It appears that there are several variations of the same companies holding the overwhelming majority of google's shares. In this case it would be concievable that policies enacted by google had special interests attached to them. (Other than the constant special interest ofnprofit.)

[DinodudeEpic]

Great, so regulating them is going to solve the problem? (Even though they will just go around it somehow.)

The only way to stop the effects of Capitalism is to destroy it! If and only if the workers take control and ownership over the businesses will businesses not be coercive to the people.

[Rafiq]

Great, so regulating them is going to solve the problem? (Even though they will just go around it somehow.)

The only way to stop the effects of Capitalism is to destroy it! If and only if the workers take control and ownership over the businesses will businesses not be coercive to the people.

That isn't abolishing capitalism. Capitalism isn't defined by the unique ways in which buisnesses are owned. It is defined by the very concept of a buisness being owned as private property, democratically or not.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[milkmiku]

It appears that there are several variations of the same companies holding the overwhelming majority of google's shares. In this case it would be concievable that policies enacted by google had special interests attached to them. (Other than the constant special interest ofnprofit.)


Exactly, reality is you do not become a worldwide corporation without the investments and inevitably interest of a half dozen powerful corporations. Just check the stock holders of any compney that is a household name and you'll find nearly all of them eventually lead back to those power brokers.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

And Chevron is right, they don't matter. Not for second should anyone be surprised by this. Chevron is a for profit company dedicated to bottom line performance and beating wall street expectations. Nothing more, often very less. This is capitalism folks, why are you surprised? The real shock is that people are shocked by their behavior.

J has a point. Chevron doesn't think these people have any say about their actions. I mean, really, it doesn't surprise me but the fact remains that it isn't right. This is what we get when the big-wigs in the white house promote laissez-faire policy for corporations. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if congress, even the president, still accepted kickbacks from wealthy business owners.

[DinodudeEpic]

That isn't abolishing capitalism. Capitalism isn't defined by the unique ways in which buisnesses are owned. It is defined by the very concept of a buisness being owned as private property, democratically or not.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

So, you wouldn't let workers found their own businesses outside of your almighty state in your system? Restricting the workers from owning what is rightfully theirs is the complete opposite of socialism. Maybe in communism, but not in socialism.

Historically, capitalism was ALWAYS defined as the concept of a business being owned by businessmen and not the workers. Workers' control IS socialism, as the definition was historically.

[Rafiq]

So, you wouldn't let workers found their own businesses outside of your almighty state in your system? Restricting the workers from owning what is rightfully theirs is the complete opposite of socialism. Maybe in communism, but not in socialism.

Fuck off, those aren't workers, they are potential members of a new Petite Bourgeoisie.

You are for the rule of the Petty bourgeoisie, and I in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You still cannot even think outside the constraint of the capitalist mode of production, can you? Fucking pathetic.

"Businesses" could not exist, they do not exist naturally, they can only exist with the capitalist mode of production in place, which would be squashed by the state.


Historically, capitalism was ALWAYS defined as the concept of a business being owned by businessmen and not the workers.

Fucking hell, you actually believe that? Capitalism isn't defined by management techniques, you moron. ALWAYS by who? By you?

It's defined as the rule of capital, in short, which you would gladly retain. The pint is not a moral debate about "Who" should own. The point is hat capitalism contains systemic contradictions which will eventually eat itself up, therefore needs to be abolished. These same contradictions would be present in your fairy tale Utopia that you are so keen in asserting must be established.


Workers' control IS socialism, as the definition was historically.


"Socialism" external from 20th century Stalinsim as a system does not exist. It is a movement, and an ideological weapon. Sorry, piss off now.

[Ocean Seal]

So, you wouldn't let workers found their own businesses outside of your almighty state in your system? Restricting the workers from owning what is rightfully theirs is the complete opposite of socialism. Maybe in communism, but not in socialism.

Historically, capitalism was ALWAYS defined as the concept of a business being owned by businessmen and not the workers. Workers' control IS socialism, as the definition was historically.
Mutuals==capitalism

[RGacky3]

The real shock is that most people, even proles, justify such behavior.

If they know about it.

[DinodudeEpic]

Mutuals==capitalism

Evidence?

[Ocean Seal]

Evidence?
They retain the nihilistic production which exists under capitalism, they don't provide for human need, and instead encourage commodity production. Lastly, they encourage competition and I would say that Yugoslavia is a perfect example of why we shouldn't do them.

[DinodudeEpic]

They retain the nihilistic production which exists under capitalism, they don't provide for human need, and instead encourage commodity production. Lastly, they encourage competition and I would say that Yugoslavia is a perfect example of why we shouldn't do them.

Firstly, nihilism is rejection of 'meaningful' aspects of life. That has little to do with production of goods for sale. Secondly, human need providing is not socialism, unless you want to count social democracy as socialism. Thirdly, competition is a good thing in my opinion.

As for Yugoslavia, the country's worker-managed enterprises were under strict state regulation and ownership, and there was still an economic boom during that time in Yugoslavia. It was only when foreign investors start promoting private capitalism and ethnic divisions worsen did Yugoslavia collapse. Note that I am not a Titoist, and I strongly criticize Yugoslavia for it's authoritarianism. It also was not socialist, but instead experimenting with a semi-socialist system. (Although, it wasn't as bad as say the Warsaw Pact countries or Maoist China.)

Also, those enterprises were not cooperatives, but rather worker-managed state enterprises. I advocate cooperatives that are independent of the state.

[Grenzer]

The real shock is that most people, even proles, justify such behavior.

How is it shocking?

Weren't you just whining the other day about people being too moralistic? Yet, it seems to be exactly what you're doing here.

[DinodudeEpic]

"Fuck off, those aren't workers, they are potential members of a new Petite Bourgeoisie.

You are for the rule of the Petty bourgeoisie, and I in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You still cannot even think outside the constraint of the capitalist mode of production, can you? Fucking pathetic.

"Businesses" could not exist, they do not exist naturally, they can only exist with the capitalist mode of production in place, which would be squashed by the state.



Fucking hell, you actually believe that? Capitalism isn't defined by management techniques, you moron. ALWAYS by who? By you?

It's defined as the rule of capital, in short, which you would gladly retain. The pint is not a moral debate about "Who" should own. The point is hat capitalism contains systemic contradictions which will eventually eat itself up, therefore needs to be abolished. These same contradictions would be present in your fairy tale Utopia that you are so keen in asserting must be established.



"Socialism" external from 20th century Stalinsim as a system does not exist. It is a movement, and an ideological weapon. Sorry, piss off now."

I am the one who wants a Fairy Tale Utopia? Or are you the utopian! You seem to want a society completely without markets, barter or money-based. No such society existed aside from isolated farming towns and tribal society. It is utopian to assume that you can remove markets from the equation.

Furthermore, you had provided NO evidence for your claims. No evidence that I support petty-bourgeosis rule, no evidence that there is no socialism that is not Stalinist, no evidence of a 'capitalist mode of production'. You are the pathetic delusional one around here, because you provided no evidence for your claims outside of your Marxist (Actually, a bastardized version of Marxism.) fantasies of proletarian chauvinism and ex

If what you say is true, then every single anarchist and left communist in history is not a socialist. And, only your authoritarian subset of Marxism is socialism. Sorry to say this, but authoritarianism only became the main trend with Bolshevism during the Russian Civil War.

Also, what is a petty-bourgeois? The people of that class or the economic relationship. If the former, then the Petty-Bourgeois would not be ruling over anyone. Considering that there will be no person ruling over one another. Maybe, a collective tyranny of the majority arises, but that's why we have constitutions for. If the latter, then everyone is going to be petty-bourgeois. If everyone is a petty-bourgeois, then there are no classes. This puts into question if 'DOTP' is possible. How can there be a DTOP if the proletariat are defined by being ruled by a capitalist?

Finally, socialism is based on the main economic relationship of the society. You chase after classes, thinking that they won't arise again. I destroy the conditions that promote such a stratified society.

I use reason to draw up a political program that is the best for our current society. You merely just use a fuzzy philosophy that makes some very faulty basic assumptions as the center of your politics.

It is not only a moral contest, but a contest about what system improves society the most. (A free society has been proven, over and over again, to be the most efficient in that regard.)

Finally, sorry for posting this late. I just was too busy to notice your post.