Hermod News (hermodnews.co.uk) was a website I ran in 2020 that morphed from producing typical news journalism (mostly lost to history) to more politically driven pieces (preserved here). The following are some archived articles from that page. Please keep in mind that I wrote these pieces in 2020 when I was 16 and they are pretty sloppy, so don't judge me on them too much. There are some things written here that I don't agree with anymore.
All articles archived here were written by me (Lauren).
"Free" Capitalism is Anti-Freedom
Published 11th of September, 2020
The illusion of “free” capitalism is present everywhere – the idea that businessmen shouldn’t be restricted from farming wealth at the expense of workers just because they came up with an “innovation”. It’s true that innovators should be rewarded, but the people who execute a plan are just as important as those who plan it. These executors are the workers, the ones who are paid as little as possible for doing the majority of the work.
A capitalist talking point I hear on the regular is that it “rewards innovation”. This is merely a side-effect of the infinite greed of the elite – if your innovation doesn’t make a lot of money, it’s discarded, even if it would help us progress as a society.
Capitalism is free for the people at the top – if you can pay for a good legal defence you can get out of breaking the law; if you can pay for your medical fees you can get out of dying; if you can lobby the government to act in your interests you can continue to accumulate more and more and more wealth.
Wealth must come from somewhere though, and that somewhere is the lower class. This practice of paying as little as possible and selling for as much as possible acts like a funnel, pouring all the wealth to sit idly in the wallets of billionaires. What good does this do for society? None.
The money stays there, and accumulates until there’s very little left for the lower class, nothing but the legal minimum wage (often called a ‘living wage’, despite being unlivable) just barely keeping them afloat. This is extremely limiting – they don’t have access to medical services, nor good education, nor good housing. Without those three things they are unable to get higher up in life to maybe get a higher wage – they are stuck in a cycle of poverty.
Does that sound “free” to you?
Why do the people suffer for the greed of billionaires?
An Introduction to Communism
Published 12th of September 2020
It’s understandable that people, especially those of the Anglosphere, don’t know what communism is. It’s been the target of propaganda since around the late 40s, and the word has effectively lost all meaning. To some people it means the ideology of free healthcare and caring for the elderly, to others it means being anti-America, or anti-Britain or otherwise; and to others it means anything they don’t like. None of these are communism. The first is socialism, the second is a result of nationalism, and the last is incorrect.
Communism is an economic ideology that gives the workers the power over the means of production, as opposed to Capitalism, which gives the power over the means of production to the highest bidder, which results in the highest bidder getting higher and higher and higher until nobody can compete with them and they’re effectively a dictator. This is obviously simplified, and perhaps biased, but the main tenets remain intact. Capitalism exploits the poor by limiting their options and then bumping prices up – for example, you can’t buy from a true tailor as easily as buying from a sweatshop-powered corporation, by way of putting the true tailors out of business, or out-advertising them, etc. This phenomenon happens to other industries, such as groceries, food, toys and video-games.
In communism, all property and goods would be owned by the community, and would be distributed based on how much of something you need. For example, if a family needs 3 loaves of bread per week, they would be given 3 loaves of bread per week. A common opposition to this is “who would pay for it?”. The answer is nobody; the issue of having to earn enough currency to support your family is one created by capitalism, and as such it can be removed. Each person would work to support their community, for example farmers would work to fulfil the dietary needs of the people, and tailors would work to provide clothes, etc. Another common opposition is “what if someone just slacks off?”. This is a good question to ask. One of the main reasons people want to slack off in a capitalist society is because they don’t like their job, probably because they chose to get it only for the money. Again, in a communist society money is not required, so anyone who would normally choose a well-paid job they don’t like could easily get the job they like under communism. With this, there is the issue of people not wanting to do “dirty jobs”, such as being a janitor, or someone who works in a sewer, or other disgusting and generally unliked jobs. A solution to this is the following idea: have people on a rotation of doing jobs they like and jobs they don’t like. It’s like if you have 3 people in a flat, and it’s your turn to do the dishes, you do the dishes for the good of the household. If you don’t do the job, everyone is worse-off, including you. Another, harsher approach would be to deny those who don’t do dirty jobs for the good of the community access to what the community gives them in return, i.e. food, water, etc.
“What about the Soviet Union/China?”
Neither executed communism well enough for it to be a true representation of it. Communism has never been pulled off as intended. In the case of the Soviet Union, they let thousands of Ukrainians starve by restricting food imports, because of political issues. Communism shouldn’t be entangled in the web of politicism. It is strictly economic, and is separate from authoritarianism/libertarianism. In the case of China, they do not even execute communism. They still practice capitalism, and are as much “communist” as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are “democratic”. It’s true that they were more socialistic in their early days after their civil war, but the nation has changed to become more of a ruthless and exploitative regime.
Why we should ditch FPTP
Note: This was originally a minor college essay that I decided to post on my website for some reason.
Published October 10th, 2020
“First Past The Post should be retained for use in General Elections as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages”
I very strongly disagree with this statement. FPTP is not representative enough to be used for the House of Commons – we should use a different system like STV because it allows for better representation within the government. FPTP doesn’t give much of a voice to smaller parties – even when they get reasonable portions of the vote. For example, in 2015 the Green party got over 1,100,000 votes but only was awarded one seat, because they were spread out over multiple constituencies. This is also piercingly apparent again in the same year where the U.K. Independence Party got almost 4,000,000 votes but, like Green, only was awarded one seat in Parliament. This obviously isn’t representative of what the people want (as indicated by the popular vote). On the other hand, the Scottish National Party in 2015 got only 4.7% of the popular vote, and 8.5% of the seats in Parliament. This doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s almost double what they would get under a more representative system! Both points are quite strong but cancel each other out. Some small parties get too much, the others too little. That is not representative enough to govern the country.
The system is also quite dated – it has remained essentially the same since 1832. This has its positives, namely that the system is known by all ages – if it were to change, people might not want to get used to the new system and might not vote. On the other hand, it also means that it was designed for a different Britain; in the 1800s we had different demographics, needs & wants, and different parties. Old systems are generally outdated – while tradition is important, accurate governing is more so. Even still, the age of the system outlines its consistency: if the system has worked this far, it should work for the foreseeable future! That point is not a strong one I think (the same things were said for monarchies!), the demographic of Britain is changing fast and the ability to vote representatively is crucial.
An argument for the FPTP system is that it is decisive: if we have more representation it would result in more dissenting views, which slow things down. An example of this would be in county councils – there are so many people involved in the decisions that the council makes that it takes a very long time to get much done. However – FPTP has rarely produced decisive governments in recent years, 2 out of the last 4 elections resulted in a “hung” parliament (where no party or coalition has a majority), one of the other two being extremely unrepresentative, and the other only barely resulting in a Conservative majority. I would argue that being representative is more important than being fast – you can’t have your cake and eat it. Decisive systems can easily get into the wrong hands, as has been the case many times for example in early Hungary and Romania.
Some other floating points against the FPTP system would be:
FPTP is opaque and confusing: It might be simple to write an X on the ballot, but to know what exactly that means is confusing, for example with the spoiler effect or tactical voting.
FPTP usually results in minority rule: Because candidates don’t need to get a majority to win the election (just more votes than the others), often over 50% of the electorate in a constituency don’t feel represented by their MP.
This can be seen very extremely in Ceredigion in Wales, where over 70% of the electorate didn’t vote for their representative!! Even so in the House of Commons, 54.6% of the population didn’t vote for the Conservative party – that portion of the population is represented by only 43% of the seats. That is a whole 11% difference!
What are Caucuses and Primaries and how do they work?
Published October 11th, 2020
A year before the primaries, Democratic Party politicians started announcing that they were running for the presidential nomination. At the start of the race 28 total politicians announced their candidacy, however many of them pulled out of the race prematurely due to lack of funding or support. This number was reduced to 11 candidates at the start of primary season.
The Caucuses are an informal party gathering, allowing voters to declare their support for their candidate. Candidacy support is usually measured by a headcount or insecure ballot. The first one of these is held in the state of Iowa (this year it was held on the 3rd of February). Usually many states hold Caucuses, but this year it was drastically reduced to 4 states: Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming. I can only assume the reduction was related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The state of Iowa is important in this regard, as it can help give a winning candidate a boost of momentum for their campaign, which can help them during the primaries (assuming they do not drop out of the race in the meantime). However – Iowa is not representative of the Democratic Party voters, the state’s demographic having a drastically higher percentage of white people than Party voters of all states.
The Primaries are similar yet different to the Caucuses (both being election-type gatherings) however the Primaries are less social, allowing voters to just go into a polling booth and vote for their desired candidate. The more votes a candidate gets, the more delegates they are assigned. Each state has a number of total delegates that can be assigned to candidates. A candidate must get at least 15% of the popular vote (the popular vote is the actual number of supporters’ votes, not delegates) to get any delegates at all – this was quite an obstacle this year because of the unusually large amount of candidates that persisted to the Primaries (eight), meaning that candidates found it more difficult to reach the 15% voter threshold.
If any one candidate reaches an unbeatable majority (>50%) of delegates, then they automatically become the Democratic party nominee for the presidential candidacy. However, if there is no clear majority then the delegates must run the process again – voting for ‘superdelegates’ who in turn vote for the party nominee.
The Conservatives are starving British children
Published October 11th, 2020
What kind of party opposes feeding hungry children in the middle of a pandemic? - The Guardian
The answer to this question is the Conservative Party – a party of bullies, tyrants and persecutors. The party that gives £42,000 per week to a failing test-and-trace system, gives £520,000,000 to re-open businesses during the pandemic, but cannot spare £24 million (under 5% of the previous sum) to feed starving children over the winter months.
The country has suffered from years of Conservative government. Policies like the two child limit on benefits has sunk many more into poverty – 600,000 more children are living in poverty than in 2011-2012, which is frankly disgraceful for the 6th richest country in the world.
And yet, the Conservative party has left it to local businesses and restaurants to feed the children of Britain. It is truly heart-warming that takeaways, pubs and cafés are helping those who need it, but the fact that this crisis was caused by the Tories refusing to extend Free School Meals over the winter leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many people (including myself).
Keeping innocent children fed shouldn’t have been left to a vote.
The Conservative Party does not care about you.