Is capitalism the best way?
For too long, the major winners and the many defenders of capitalism have argued that, despite its faults, it remains the best of all systems – and in any case, they say, look at the alternatives. Nevertheless, the Big tobacco targets Africa front page (21 July) got me thinking: can we really remain forever satisfied with such a conclusion?
This one issue of the Weekly certainly provided food for thought, as it went on to highlight drilling for oil in the Arctic, corruption in the Brazilian oil industry, corruption in a wide range of economic sectors in South Africa, intensifying inequality even in Sweden, capital’s failure to invest in the fourth industrial revolution, multiple instabilities in the Chinese economy, the unfettered power of the tech giants, and last, but not least, the gathering sixth mass extinction.
It might be time to reconsider the balance of costs and benefits of capitalism as we contemplate another edition of such Guardian Weekly stories and these two big realities: that after 500 years of capitalism eight men own the same as half the global population, and that the planet’s very existence is under increasing threat.
Is this really the best we can be?
Stewart Sweeney
Adelaide, South Australia
Reining in the tech giants
So Google is to be fined for abusing its dominance in the search-engine market, with European regulators wanting rival firms to be able to compete on a “level playing field” (7 July). Well, that sounds good but why such a big fine all of a sudden? My presumption is that Google is starting to tread on the toes of other big players, who have pushed Brussels into action.
So what of creating a “level playing field”? Where were the fines when transnational corporations were building up their businesses with convenient offshore tax arrangements? Brussels didn’t seem very interested in taking much action then, did it? And of course, since these big boys moved in, countless small and medium-sized companies have gone out of business. So much for fair conditions.
Alan Mitcham
Cologne, Germany
• Charles Arthur is too pessimistic (21 July) in concluding that “there doesn’t appear to be an easy way to opt out” of the effects of the “rising sea of data” being collected by companies such as Google and Facebook, as they increasingly invade privacy and subtly influence behaviour.
The solution lies in his own words: just opt out. Don’t use their products. Or at least use them as little as possible. Vote with your fingers.
Andrew Chesterman
Helsinki, Finland
Overwhelmed by plastic
We are being overwhelmed by more than bottles (14 July). It seems that everything sold by all establishments is swathed in plastic.
At London’s Marylebone Station I watched as an electric truck delivered supplies to a kiosk. Not only was each item contained in plastic, but so were the boxes in which it was packed, and the whole cartload was enveloped in sheets of plastic. A mound of the stuff was produced by this small delivery.
Multiply this incident by the provisioning of all our retailers and you have an almost insuperable problem. Each time I shop at supermarkets I find more products in plastic containers. For example fruit, once sold loose, is packed in such containers, used once, then put out for recycling. But “refilling, refreshing and repurposing” is surely not going to affect the smothering degradation that is assaulting our environment.
We should not use so much plastic in the first place. As for bottled water, use what comes from the tap, in a washable vessel, and abolish the entire business.
Phileen Tattersall
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Briefly
• I was a student in Andermatt, Switzerland, when the Madam computer was introduced at Manchester University (Archive, 7 July). The school year started with our teacher, Franciscan Brother Kolumban, insisting that we memorise the 450-plus lines of Friedrich Schiller’s Lied von der Glocke (Song of the Bell).
From time to time, throughout the year, he interrupted whatever we were studying and asked us to relate it to a passage in Schiller’s poem. Brother Kolumban gave us what Madam never could have: instead of teaching us how to multiply 12-figure numbers, he taught us how to think.
André Carrel
Terrace, British Columbia, Canada
• One obvious step toward dampening down trolling online is to ban pseudonyms and anonymity of correspondents (21 July). If writers had to put their own names to what they write, the level of vitriol would drop immediately. That applies to all social media conversations. Surely a ban on false names is possible?
Cal Swann
Cooloongup, Western Australia
• Timothy Morton implies a way out of the near inevitability of catastrophic ecological damage (14 July). His article suggests a helpful response: should we fiddle while Rome burns, or like the Norse gods at Ragnarok, fight in the face of inevitable defeat? We should fight, but we should not let the prospect of defeat depress us so much that we cannot enjoy fiddling breaks.
Tim Miles
Scarisbrick, UK
Email letters for publication to weekly.letters@theguardian.com
