Whenever many of us hear leading members of the Rastafarian Faith speak, it is usually about the evils of the “Babylon” system.  This Babylon system, which is supposed to be the world that we know, is doing everything to destroy and hold down the blackman – especially the black Rasta man.  However, are Rastafarians sure that the Babylon system is holding down us black people?  Is the Rastafarian faith a progressive system or is it a prime example of a confused system – helping to keep us blacks confused?

Marx theory on economic socialism represents the bedrock upon which many postulations emerged including conflict and dialectics that are tenets of a social space in explaining the functioning of society. His thesis played a pivotal role in the formulation of the functioning of dialectic materialism in justifying consensus in capitalist society, and the evolution of revolve from the proletariat class because of conflict and dialectic materialism. It is through dialectic materialism that class-consciousness arises, which challenges the modus operandi of capitalist system.  Marx believed that dialectic is responsible for particular social consciousness, and that conflict is the mode that fashions dissonance in a certain group, which accounts for the revolutionary approach that members take in addressing perceived social facts. Those positions are in essence, a fusion of German philosophy, English economic thought, and the best of French socialism (Rob Sewell, 1994).  As such, Marx matured under an atmosphere of Hegelianism and its unavoidable influence – through radical Hegelianism and the Young Hegelians (Jim Blaut, Hegelian and Marxist Dialects, 2002).  That influence became apparent in Marx’s dialectical approach to understanding the fundamental sociological question: “How is society Possible?”

According to the Dictionary.com, 2003, dialectics is the “contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.”   As such, by extension, therefore, conflict or class struggle is seen as the “struggle between capital and labour” (Bob Jessop, Karl Marx, Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998).  Therefore, it is the resulting contradiction caused by antagonism within the dialectic space of Marx’s sociology.  This suggests that social change, broadly defined, is the post facto occurrence of class conflict.

The role of dialectic, therefore, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces.  Therefore, conflict then, becomes the central theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change.  This, now, is the basis of Marxian theorizing: but, “it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation?” Which call for more in depth analytical exploration of the matter?

The origin of dialectical thought did not begin a few years ago but came about over some two (2) thousand years ago.  This, then, new phenomenon was systematically developed by Hegel, and was further advanced by Marx and Engel.  Marx’s notion of the dialectic is traceable to Hegel, and characterizes every single element of his theory (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998).

Due to Marx contribution to politics, economic and sociology, it may be, easily, accepted and misconstrued that he is the only contributor to the development of the dialectical approach to some theories.  As such, Hegel’s work is said to be significant in at least three (3) respects to the core of Marxian theorizing (Any Austin, Hegelian and Marxist Dialectics, 2002).  These include the Hegelian theory of change (that the transformative overcoming of natural and socially inherent limitations); Hegel’s theory of the “objectification of the material work through human labour” (Andy Austin, 2002); and Hegel’s attack on the liberal conception of the individual.  Therefore it is Hegel, more than any one else, who can be seen as the “genesis of the anthropological hardcore of Marxian materialism’ – (Andy Austin, 2002).

Where as Hegel postulated materialism’ the idea that “the intellectual world of reason and views ultimately determines history” Marx on the other hand, argued that it was the “economic world that provided the key to understanding and transforming historical development” (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998).  Such an intellectual discourse is unambiguously expressed in the philosophical dispute between idealism and realism (mind and matter debate).

Therefore, while Marxian methodology is rooted in Hegelian dialectics, Hegel can be considered as a ‘philosophical idealist’.  Furthermore, Marx accepted Hegel’s vague understanding of the historical dialectic.  He, however, unequivocal rejected and criticized Hegel’s ‘idealism’ and ‘false positivism’, which implicitly justifies the status quo (Michelson, 1994).  According to Marx, because of this idealism in his notion of the dialectic, Hegel “has only found the abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844).  Similarly, in his Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy (1867), Marx bluntly stated that the dialectic suffered a “mystification …in Hegel’s hands” and “it must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell” (pp. 45).

Many commentators have been expressing concerns over the Jamaican economy inability to produce job-creating economic growth and new market expansion. However, government and business entrepreneurs may be ignoring a viable and untapped market that has immense value and unlimited potential.

Insight into the shopping behaviour of inner city residents is critical to retail expansion, economic development and job creation in Jamaica. However, economic expansion can only be fully realized when entrepreneurs duly respect all their customers and acknowledge their value to the success of their businesses. This will provide the basis for accurate segmentation of the market, thus customers would be targeted with the right products and services that will provide optimum utility and profit to both customers and business entrepreneurs.

Findings from research studies conducted in USA, Canada, and recently in Jamaica, demystify the myth that inner city shoppers are too poor to be even recognized as a distinct market segment. This glaring misunderstanding of the inner city market existence and behaviour, prohibit retailers from studying and understanding this grossly undervalued market and thus limit their expansion. Among the varied reasons for this misunderstanding is the failure of marketers to recognize that the inner city consumer has real spending power with real money to shop and that the inner city market is characteristically different from the traditional urban market.

What drives the inner city poor to consume brand name clothes against making healthier choices about food? Every human being wants to feel important, every human being wants to be respected thus people will make the sacrifice to acquire brand name products that will convey prestige. A lot of inner city residents tends to want purchase mostly brand name goods, It is believed it is their way of saying that I am not lesser than anyone. Self-esteem is integrally linked to the type job one has, the type of clothes you wear and the way you profile. So someone who has a certain profile based on how he is dressed will hold himself in high esteem.

[Continue]

The unremitting surging global price of oil has crippled the economies of many small, poor nations, and the tourism-dependent Caribbean countries are among the most vulnerable. Into this bleak picture has emerged a possible savior in the person of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and his principled PetroCaribe plan. The arrangement, which was signed with 15 countries last September, promises discounted oil and wide reaching social components. Yet this act of generosity has not gone smoothly, as controversy over the proposal has revealed nasty rifts within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), primarily involving Trinidad and Tobago’s unflinching and self-interested opposition to the proposal, and Barbados’ equally muscular resistance. Nonetheless, whatever objections have been raised by these two nations, PetroCaribe is the best offer on the table, and for the 13 CARICOM governments (along with Cuba and the Dominican Republic) that have accepted it, this could prove to be the best exit from their current misery.

As famed Caribbean reporter Tony Best clearly establishes in the January 24, 2006, issue of Carib News, PetroCaribe does not offer cheap oil, as Venezuela’s OPEC obligations prohibit sales at below market value. Instead, its innovative approach allows area countries to defer part of the payment. The deal functions by a means of a discount whereby contracting countries are required to pay a percentage of the market price, with the remaining cost converted into long term, low interest loans. When market prices rise above US$50 per gallon, as they are now, participating countries will receive a 40 percent discount that will accrue as a 25-year, 1 percent interest loan. If prices rise above US$100, this discount will rise to 50 percent.

Member countries’ debt may be partially amortized by means of paying in goods and services, like Venezuela’s existing arrangement with Cuba. That program is popularly known as “doctors for oil,” in which Cuba sends over ten thousand doctors, nurses, and dentists to provide free health care in clinics in Venezuela’s poorest communities, in exchange for 90,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil per day.

Under the agreement, Venezuela will cover shipping costs, aid in the development of distribution infrastructure and storage sites, contribute to the formation of state-controlled facilities, and provide fuel-efficient systems in member countries. The one catch is PetroCaribe will only deal with a state controlled entity, meaning that the PetroCaribe agreement is based on eliminating all intermediaries. “We're not talking about discounts...We're talking about financial facilities, direct deliveries of products, [and] infrastructure,” said Energy and Petroleum Minister and President of PDVSA, Rafael Ramírez; the goal is to cut down on unnecessary, middlemen costs.

Additionally, Venezuela has created a $60 million fund for social projects on Jamaica. For some island economies, PetroCaribe is seen as a bonanza from heaven. Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer has enthused that, “The current crippling impact of continually rising energy costs on our fragile economies is a current case in point. Venezuela’s offer of stable fuel supplies on concessionary terms through the PetroCaribe initiative is therefore a timely – and welcome – intervention for member countries of the Caribbean Community.” In a like-minded mood, Prime Minister Keith Mitchell of Grenada notes that his country will be able to accrue a total savings of between $10-15 million annually as a result of the Venezuelan deal.

Initially, PetroCaribe’s was offered to the all 15 CARICOM member countries, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent, the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Barbados. However the latter two have quite directly declined the offer. Cuba and the Dominican Republic, who already have existing agreements with Venezuela, are also included in the plan.

Haiti has been at the margins of the deal, as significant controversy revolves around that country’s recent political history. At first, Haiti was not offered inclusion in the PetroCaribe arrangement, as Chávez does not recognize the U.S.-installed controversial Latortue interim government. However, as of early October 2005, Venezuela announced the possibility of Haiti’s participation due to pressure coming from a Haitian interest group, the “Collective to Mobilize against the High Cost of Living,” which Chávez happens to hold in high esteem. As a result, Latortue was allowed to apply for membership in PetroCaribe in November, which would make Haiti the latest country to join, if voted upon.

[Continue]