Research has long established strong links between neoliberal policies and increasing rates of inequality. Susan George, for instance, argued quite convincingly that increasing inequality stems from the neoliberal practices of placing public wealth into private hands, enforcing huge tax cuts for the rich and suppressing wages for average workers. And a recent study by psychology researchers shows…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
French President Emmanuel Macron officially rejected naming a prime minister from the left-wing coalition that triumphed in the country’s snap election in June, sparking anger from left-wing leaders and advocates who say that Macron is exercising a dangerous power grab. Macron issued a statement on Monday saying that he would not be appointing a prime minister from the Nouveau Front Populaire…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
In late June, Kenyan President William Ruto backtracked on a tax-hiking finance bill after protests left at least 20 people dead and more than 150 injured when police opened fire with live ammunition.
According to Patrick Gathara of The New Humanitarian, the youth-led protests were triggered by a range of proposed new taxes that will increase the financial burden on families already struggling with rising prices.
In response to the ongoing nationwide protests that led up to the aforementioned incident, Ruto said he would withdraw the bill as “members of the public insist on the need for us to make more concessions. The people have spoken.”
Fine words, but Amnesty International had previously reported that 21 social media activists had been abducted by state security agents as the government moved to curb the growing dissent.
Ruto has withdrawn the bill and sacked cabinet members to appease the demonstrators. Whether it will remains to be seen.
Triggering a multi-trillion-dollar debt crisis
In 2021, an Oxfam review of IMF COVID-19 loans showed that 33 African countries were encouraged to pursue austerity policies. This, despite the IMF’s own research showing austerity worsens poverty and inequality.
Days into the shutdown of the global economy in April 2020, the IMF and World Bank were facing a deluge of aid requests from countries in the Global South. Apparently, financial institutions had $1.2 trillion to lend.
Prior to that, in late March, World Bank Group President David Malpass said that poorer countries would be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the lockdowns.
However, such ‘help’ would be provided on condition of the acceptance of a booster shot of neoliberalism:
For those countries that have excessive regulations, subsidies, licensing regimes, trade protection or litigiousness as obstacles, we will work with them to foster markets, choice and faster growth prospects during the recovery.
Two years later, in an April 2022 press release, Oxfam International insisted that the IMF must abandon demands for neoliberal-driven austerity as hunger and poverty continued to increase worldwide.
According to Oxfam, 13 out of the 15 IMF loan programmes negotiated during the second year of the COVID event required new austerity measures such as taxes on food and fuel or spending cuts that could put vital public services at risk. The IMF was also encouraging six additional countries in Africa to adopt similar measures.
Kenya and the IMF agreed a $2.3 billion loan programme in 2021, which included a three-year public sector pay freeze and increased taxes on cooking gas and food. More than three million Kenyans were facing acute hunger as the driest conditions in decades spread a devastating drought across the country. Oxfam said nearly half of all households in Kenya were having to borrow food or buy it on credit.
It was similar in Cameroon, Senegal and Surinam, for example, which were required to introduce or increase VAT, a tax that disproportionately impacts people living in poverty.
In Sudan, nearly half of the population live in poverty, but it was directed to scrap fuel subsidies, which would hit the poorest hardest.
Oxfam and Development Finance International also revealed that 43 out of 55 African Union member states face public expenditure cuts totalling $183 billion between 2022 and 2027.
Many governments are nearing debt default and being forced to slash public spending to pay creditors and import food and fuel. The world’s poorest countries were due to pay $43 billion in debt repayments in 2022, which could otherwise cover the costs of their food imports.
Oxfam has shown that low- and middle-income countries paid $106 billion in debt repayments and interest to G7 countries in 2023.
In a recent article, journalist Thin Lei Win shared a comment from Professor Raj Patel, member of the International Panel of Experts on Food Systems (IPES-Food). He is reported as saying:
Debt servicing at these insane interest rates is making it even harder for countries to make sure the hungry are fed. In Kenya, a neoliberal government has met its citizens’ hunger not with food but with violence and tax increases. This is, alas, an augury of the world to come.
According to the recently released report The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, one in 11 people went hungry in 2023 and more than one in four were cutting back on the quantity and quality of the food they consume.
One in five people faced hunger and more than a half were eating less or nothing at all for days at a time.
Thin Lei Win notes that soaring inflation and stagnant incomes have put healthy food out of reach for many people, while a reliance on global markets to feed the population has made them hostages to either spiking import bills or market volatility.
Solutions
Aside from releasing nations from their heavy debt burdens, the solution involves boosting the resilience of local food systems. With nearly 30% of the world food insecure and 42% unable to afford a healthy diet, it is essential to challenge and move away from a global food regime that relies on corporate-controlled supply chains, creates food insecurity (not least in Africa: see the online article Destroying African Agriculture) and uses debt and dependency to leverage compliance with the demands of powerful agribusiness conglomerates.
That much is made clear in the new report Food From Somewhere (IPES-Food) that argues for building food security and resilience through ‘territorial markets’. It notes that the past three years have seen big cracks emerge in global commodity markets and corporate-controlled supply chains resulting in supply chain chaos, lost harvests, volatile food prices and empty shelves.
The authors say:
Feeding a hungry world requires resilient and robust food systems. In this comprehensive review, IPES-Food finds that a fundamental shift towards close-to-home food supply chains (‘territorial markets’) offers a more resilient, robust and equitable approach to food security.
The report notes that a wide variety of vibrant food provisioning systems exist beyond corporate-controlled supply chains:
From public markets and street vendors to cooperatives, urban agriculture to online direct sales, food hubs to community kitchens; territorial market channels are contributing to feeding as much as 70% of the world’s population every day. They are based around small-scale prducers, processors and vendors, rooted in territories and communities, and play multiple roles within them. Yet they are continuously overlooked.
Territorial markets are the backbone of food systems in many countries and regions, and the report highlights how they build resilience on multiple fronts, including ensuring access to seasonal, diverse, more nutritious foods and diets, demonstrating high degrees of resilience and adaptability to shocks, providing decent prices and steady incomes for small-scale producers and enhancing environmental sustainability by promoting low-input, biodiverse farming.
They also sustain traditional food cultures and foster community connections, solidarity and social capital.
However, governments are propping up fragile, disaster-prone global supply chains through agricultural subsidies, trade and investment agreements, tax breaks and food supply infrastructure skewed towards large-scale, industrial export agriculture.
The report adds:
At the same time, corporate power continues to grow, eroding traditional practices and food cultures, co-opting local and territorial chains and reshaping diets around staple commodities and ultra-processed foods.
It concludes that public procurement and state purchasing should be redirected to schemes that support sustainable small-scale producers and subsidies should be shifted to invest in the infrastructure, networks and people that underpin territorial markets, including public marketplaces, collectives and cooperatives.
Moreover, local markets need to be protected from corporate co-optation. This involves breaking up supply chain monopolies and encouraging sustainable, biodiverse farming practices and diverse healthy diets.
By moving towards food sovereignty in this way, we can not only avert future food crises and the ramping up of a debt-trap strategy but also challenge a food regime that has its roots in a persistent colonialism and imperialism facilitated by the imposition of neoliberal trade policies and World Bank/IMF directives at the behest of global agribusiness interests.
The post Stranglehold of Imperialism: Inflicting Hunger and Hardship in Africa first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
One of the defining characteristics of the current crisis is the speed at which contradictory social, political and ideological dynamics can change with contradictions shifting from primary to secondary, antagonistic to non-antagonist and conflicts of interests, as well as struggles among the capitalist oligarchy producing new intra-bourgeois class alignments.
The replacement of Joe Biden as the presidential nominee of the Democrat party was a dramatic demonstration that the lords of capital are the only segment of the U.S. population with real agency. The fact that select oligarchs, in this case, the cabal that actually runs the Democrat party, can remove a presidential nominee and expeditiously anoint Kamala Harris as his replacement cannot be characterized as anything else but a coup.
While this might read as extreme, the situation that African and oppressed people face in the U.S. and globally is also extreme. From killer cops who occupy cities and college campuses across the country, to genocide in Gaza, naivety is a luxury that the oppressed cannot afford. The oppressed must have a clear and sober understanding of the class and power dynamics in the Democrat Party but also in the broader society. The gangster move by the oligarchs that control the Democrats stripped away any pretense that any real structures of democracy exist in that party.
Moreover, the ultimate expression of naivety would be to believe that it’s a mere coincidence that the driving forces of the coup are based in California and represent the same Silicon Valley class forces that attempted to impose Kamala Harris on U.S. voters in 2020.
That is why the specific details of how this drama unfolded, which is primarily the focus of the capitalist press is a diversion attempting to deflect attention away from the audacity and reality of oligarchical rule and the adaptation of regime change tactics that, up to now, were used primarily in nations in the Global South.
For almost two years it seemed obvious that Biden would not be a credible candidate in 2024 due to his noticeable cognitive decline and the ineptitude of his administration. This writer assumed that the decision was made as early as 2023 by the party bosses and Biden, but could not be made public because he would immediately become a lame-duck president.
But clearly that conversation had not taken place. Apparently, the real plan, which reflects the general low-life character of the bosses of that party, was to clear the field of any viable opponents during the party’s phony primary process. The bosses understood how division may not have allowed Biden to capture all of the delegates and seamlessly permit him to appoint his successor – who was in reality their successor. The money for that successor was on Galvin Newsom, the telegenic airhead governor of California.
That the party bosses set Biden up to take part in the earliest debate in modern presidential election history knowing he was not up to the task was more illuminating than ever. It was a perfectly orchestrated symphony of treachery. Following his ignominious performance, the only problems the party encountered were Biden’s resistance and the annoyance that the Black base of the party would not allow the bosses to overlook Harris as a viable contender. Both of those problems were addressed and solved adroitly.
However, with the anointing of Kamala Harris, what does it suggest for the policies and direction of a Harris administration? Beyond the novelty of a run by Harris, would there be any substantial divergence from the policies and political trajectory of the Biden/Harris agenda?
No daylight between Biden and Harris
Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society… Marx grasped this essence splendidly when he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament.
— Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, August/September 1917
Biden was a warrior for what became the neoliberal counterrevolution that was launched in the seventies. By the eighties, he worked in lock-step with the white supremacist, neoliberal Reagan administration in its assault on Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition and the Keynesian “welfare state,” supporting cuts in state expenditures for critical social services education, the environment, healthcare and more. By the nineties when the Soviet Union collapsed, Biden played a critical role in stripping away the rights of single women for state support (welfare reform) and championed the 1994 crime bill that generated the explosion of imprisonment, primarily of nationally oppressed Africans (Black people), Chicanos, Indigenous peoples and poor whites.
He was also instrumental in building bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq and gave full-throated support to the coups and war policies under the Obama/Biden administration that resulted in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Honduras, Egypt, and the Ukraine and military assaults on Yemen, the destruction of Libya and assassination of its leader, expansion of AFRICOM, the aggressive “pivot to Asia” and the subversion of Venezuela and war against Syria.
Biden’s career and his positions were a metaphor for the right-wing political course of not only the nation but specifically of the Democrat Party. In the thirty-plus years since the 1990s the nation and Democrat Party abandoned any pretense to the commitment to reform liberalism that characterized its politics up until the late seventies. The party gradually embraced what became known as neoliberalism, a neoliberalism that first emerged in the Republican Party under Reagan before migrating to the Democrats after consolidating under Bill Clinton and becoming today the hegemonic ideological and political force in that party.
From Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC) through Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hilary Clinton to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, every presidential contender in the democrat party had to express their fealty to the neoliberal agenda if they had any hope of receiving the largesse of the oligarchy that controlled the party.
Kamala Harris is no exception. In fact, many seem to have already forgotten that the same donors that executed the coup against Biden were the same ones that engineered the rigging of the elections against Bernie Sanders and attempted to impose Kamala Harris as the “new Obama” in 2020. It should not be forgotten that before the first debate during the 2020 Democrat party primary process, Harris led all contenders for the nomination in fundraising, with the base of her support coming from the same Silicon Valley base donors that led the coup against Biden.
Why Harris? Since the Democrat party is firmly in the grip of neoliberal finance and corporate capital, it really didn’t matter who would have been chosen. They would have received full support from the faction of the oligarchy that pulled off the coup.
But since it became apparent that Black voters were not going to allow the party bosses to overlook Harris and she had the office of the Vice President and access to the Biden/Harris war chest, it was more convenient for the oligarchs and party bosses to anoint her. In other words, she was in an advantageous position.
There was nothing about her policies worldview or vision because she has no independent policies, worldview, and certainly no vision beyond the agenda that the party and Biden administration have been committed to over the last three and a half years. The only thing that might be different is that she will drop the anti-trust suit the Biden administration initiated against elements of Big Tech in Silicon Valley.
As Harris said recently , “I am eager to run on the record of what Joe and I have accomplished together.” That means a continuation of the same – wars abroad and austerity domestically.
It is not clear if our dear sister Nina Turner was really serious when she stated that “Vice President Kamala Harris has an opportunity to bring a pro-peace, pro-working-class coalition together. She should come out forcefully against Netanyahu and advocate for policies that will help Americans who are struggling. Hopefully, she takes the opportunity.”
I think Nina has been around long enough to know that it is more likely that Trump would become a born-again Christian and embrace passivism before Harris violates her life experience and allegiance to white power by advocating for the social democratic policies that Turner is suggesting.
For the oppressed in this country and globally, sobriety is the order of the day. We don’t have the luxury of being inebriated by the liberal fantasies of the “toward a more perfect nation” crowd.
The U.S. empire is engaged in what it sees as an existential threat to its continued global dominance and it has demonstrated, from the coordinated attacks on students who were protesting against genocide to the bellicosity toward China, that there will be no deviation from the neoliberal agenda, an agenda that in its essence is fascistic and anti-human.
That means that no matter who sits in the white people’s house in 2025, we the oppressed will have to continue to struggle for a new world in which the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination is no longer a global threat. Authentic decolonization and societal transformation will not be achieved through any other means than the revolutionary defeat of the “collective West.”
Smash the duopoly, build dual and contending popular power, struggle as though your life depended on it, because it does.
The post War, Genocide and Coups: Biden/Harris and The Irreversible Crisis of Neoliberal Fake Democracy first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
José Clemente Orozco (Mexico), The Epic of American Civilisation, 1932–1934.
In his inaugural presidential address on 20 January 2017, Donald Trump used a powerful phrase to describe the situation in the United States: ‘American carnage’. In 1941, seventy-six years before this speech, Henry Luce wrote an article in Life magazine about the ‘American century’ and the promise of US leadership to be ‘the dynamic centre of ever-widening spheres of enterprise’. During the period between these two proclamations, the United States went through an immense expansion known as the ‘Golden Age’ and then a remarkable decline.
That theme of decline has returned in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. ‘We will not let countries come in, take our jobs, and plunder our nation’, Trump declared at the Republican National Convention on 19 July in his speech to accept his party’s presidential nomination. Trump’s words echoed his inaugural address from 2017, in which he said, ‘We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon’.
In seven decades, the United States’s self-image has fallen from the grandiose heights of an ‘American century’ to the bloodied present of ‘American carnage’. The ‘carnage’ that Trump identifies is not only in the economic domain; it defines the political arena. A failed assassination attempt against Trump comes alongside an open rebellion in the Democratic Party that ended with incumbent US President Joe Biden withdrawing from the presidential race and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement. By all accounts, Trump will be favoured to defeat any Democratic candidate at the polls in November, since he leads in a handful of key ‘swing states’ (which house a fifth of the US population).
At the Republican convention, Trump tried to talk about unity, but this is a false language. The more US politicians talk about ‘bringing the country together’ or bipartisanship, the wider the divides tend to be between liberals and conservatives. What divides them is not policy as such, since the two parties both belong to the extreme centre that pledges to impose austerity on the masses while securing financial security for the dominant classes, but an attitude and orientation. A few domestic policies (important as they are, such as abortion rights) play a key role in allowing this difference of mood to emerge.
Robert Gwathmey (USA), Sunny South, 1944.
Reports and rumours filter out of US government documents that give a glimpse of the ongoing devastation of social life. Younger people find themselves at the mercy of precarious employment. Home foreclosures and evictions for those in the lower ends of the income bracket continue as sheriffs and debt-recovery paramilitaries scour the landscape for so-called delinquents. Personal debt has skyrocketed as ordinary people with inadequate means of earning a living turn to credit cards and the shady world of personal loan agencies to keep from starving. The Third Great Depression has made low-wage service workers with no benefits, most of whom are women, even more vulnerable. In earlier instances of economic depression, these women, with those jobs, stretched their invisible hearts across their families; now, even this love-fuelled glue is no longer available.
Hector Hyppolite (Haiti), Marinéte pie chè che (MARinÉ I), 1944–1946.
On 18 July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its staff report on the United States, which showed that poverty rates in the country ‘increased by 4.6 percentage points in 2022 and the child poverty rate more than doubled’. This increase in child poverty is ‘directly attributed to the expiration of pandemic-era assistance’, the IMF wrote. No longer will any government in the United States, with its tanking economy and increasing military spending, provide access to basic conditions for survival for millions of families. One paragraph in the report struck me as particularly significant:
The increased pressure on lower income households is becoming more visible in an upswing in delinquencies on revolving credit. Furthermore, worsening housing affordability has aggravated access to shelter, particularly for the young and lower income households. This is evident in the number of people experiencing homelessness, which has risen to the highest level since data began to be compiled in 2007.
Swathes of the US landscape are now given over to desolation: abandoned factories make room for chimney swallows while old farmhouses become methamphetamine labs. There is sorrow in the broken rural dreams, the gap between the distress of farmers in Iowa not so far from the distress of peasants in Brazil, India, and South Africa. Those who had previously been employed in mass industrial production or in agriculture are no longer necessary to the cycles of capital accumulation in the United States. They have been rendered disposable.
By the time that China developed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to enhance infrastructure around the world in 2013, the United States had slipped into its own rust belt and broken road reality.
It is impossible for the US political class that is committed to this politics of austerity to control, let alone reverse, this downward spiral. Austerity policies cannibalise social life, razing everything that makes it possible for humans to live in the modern world. For decades, the parties of liberalism and conservatism have muted their historical traditions and become shadows of each other. Just as the water in a toilet rushes in a spiral and gets dragged into the sewer, the parties of the ruling class have dashed toward the extreme centre to champion austerity and to allow an obscene upward distribution of wealth in the name of spurring entrepreneurism and growth.
Whether in Europe or in North America, today the extreme centre is increasingly losing its legitimacy amongst populations in the Global North stunted by malaise. Ugly proposals allegedly seeking to spur growth that would have sounded acceptable three decades ago – such as tax cuts and increased military spending – now have a hollowness to them. The political class has no effective answers for stagnant growth and decayed infrastructure. In the United States, Trump has hit upon a politically expedient way of talking about the country’s problems, but his own solutions – such as the idea that militarising borders and escalating trade wars will be able to magically create the investment needed to ‘make America great again’ – are, in fact, just as hollow as those of his rivals. Despite enacting a set of laws to encourage productive investment (such as the Inflation Reduction Act, Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors [CHIPS] and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), the US government has failed to address an enormous gap in necessary fixed capital formation. Apart from debt, there are few other sources for investment in the country’s infrastructure. Even the US Federal Reserve Bank doubts the possibility that the US can easily delink its economy from that of booming China.
Moisés Becerra (Honduras), Luchemos (Let’s Struggle), 1971.
It is tempting to throw around words like ‘fascism’ to describe political tendencies such as those led by Trump and an assorted group of right-wing leaders in Europe. But the use of this term is not precise, since it ignores the fact that Trump and others make up a far right of a special kind, one that is reasonably comfortable with democratic institutions. This far right pierces neoliberal rhetoric by appealing to the anguish caused by the decline of their countries and by using patriotic language that arouses great feelings of nationalism amongst people who have felt ‘left out’ for at least a generation. Yet, rather than blame the project of neoliberalism for that national decline, the leaders of this far right of a special kind blame it on working-class immigrants and on new cultural forms that have emerged in their countries (particularly increasing social acceptance for gender and racial equality and sexual freedom). Since this far right has no new project to offer to the people to reverse this decline, it forges ahead with neoliberal policies with as much gusto as the extreme centre.
Angelina Quic Ixtamer (Guatemala), Mayan Market, 2014.
In 1942, the economist Joseph Schumpeter published Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Schumpeter argued that, over its history, capitalism has generated a series of business downturns when failed enterprises close. In the ashes of these crashes, Schumpeter said, a phoenix is born through ‘creative destruction’. However, even if ‘creative destruction’ eventually produces new lines of enterprise and therefore employment, the carnage it causes results in the possibility of a political turn to socialism. Though the march to socialism has not yet taken place in the United States, larger and larger numbers of young people are more and more attracted to this possibility.
In 1968, the night before he was killed, Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ‘only when it is dark enough can you see the stars’. It now seems dark enough. Perhaps not in this election or the next one, or even the one after that, but soon the choices will narrow, the extreme centre – already illegitimate – will vanish, and new projects will germinate that will enhance the lives of the people instead of using the social wealth of the Global North to terrorise the world and enrich the few. We can see those stars. Hands are striving to reach them.
Warmly,
Vijay
The post The Country of the Rust Belt and the Broken Road first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
In a much-awaited case brought forth by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board), the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled 6-2 on June 25, 2024, that St. Isidore of Seville Catholic K-12 Virtual Charter School is unconstitutional and cannot open and enroll students in Fall 2024.
The online religious charter school is sectarian and not permitted to receive any public funding, said the court. Writing for the majority, Justice James Winchester said that, “the contract between the state board and St. Isidore violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” He added that, “Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school. As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian. However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic faith as part of its school curriculum while sponsored by the State.” Winchester also stated that, “What St. Isidore requests from this court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit, implicating the free exercise clause. It is about the state’s creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the establishment clause.”
The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause make up the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Dustin P. Rowe dissented from much of the majority opinion while Justice Dana Kuehn dissented entirely with the majority.
Reuters stated that the religious online charter school would have siphoned about $26 million from public coffers in the first five years of operation. The real amount is likely higher. Charter schools across the country siphon billions of dollars a year from public schools, increase segregation, and fail and close regularly.
This unprecedented ruling blocks what would have been the first publicly funded religious charter school in the U.S. It invalidates the approval in October 2023 of St. Isidore by the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, an entity comprised mostly of unelected private persons. Charter school authorizers around the country typically consist of many unelected individuals from the business sector. Such entities usually embrace capital-centered ideas and policies.
The sponsors of the deregulated virtual charter school, the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa, have openly stated that the religious virtual charter school would be open to students statewide, rely directly on Catholic teachings, and use public funds to operate. Catholic leaders have never concealed their mission to evangelize students at the online religious charter school. In fact, St. Isidore students would not only “be taught Catholic doctrine,” they would also be “required to attend mass,” reported Oklahoma Voice.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the termination of St. Isidore’s contract with the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, which became the new Statewide Charter School Board on July 1, 2024. “The [nine-person] board will succeed the [five-person] Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, which oversaw only online charter schools in Oklahoma,” says The Oklahoman. The new entity will oversee all charter schools in the state and will be comprised mainly of unelected business people with greater responsibilities and powers.
For their part, the Catholic sponsors of the virtual charter school have pledged to appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they plan to open the online religious charter school in the 2025-2026 school year. On July 5, attorneys for the online religious charter school asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court for a stay of its order to have its contract rescinded by the new Statewide Charter School Board until the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case. The new Statewide Charter School Board, which met for the first time on July 8, held off on terminating the virtual school’s contract. The new unelected board claims that it is waiting to see how legal proceedings play out in the coming weeks and months. On July 17, Drummond scolded the new board for not rescinding the contract for the Catholic virtual charter school. He told the new board, “You must know and accept that no state agency, board, or commission may willfully ignore an order from Oklahoma’s highest court.” Private religious forces are hoping that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that further abolish the distinction between public and private will work in their favor.
Such developments and contradictions arise in the context of neoliberal forces working for the last few decades to restructure the state in ways that change governance and administrative arrangements to expand privatization. Blurring the public-private distinction is central to neoliberal efforts to further privilege private interests while marginalizing the public interest. This is why today there is little distinction between the state and Wall Street. We live in a system of direct rule by the rich. Private monopoly interests, not the public, control the economy and the state. In the years ahead, major owners of capital will strive to further dominate the state so as to privatize more institutions, programs, enterprises, services, and governance itself.
“Public” and “private,” it should be stressed, are legal, political, philosophical, and sociological categories that mean the exact opposite of each other; they are antonyms. Confounding them is problematic, both conceptually and practically. It is self-serving, not just intellectually lazy, to mix up two sharply distinct categories like “public” and “private.” It is like saying hot and cold mean the same thing. In its essence, private property is the right to exclude others from use of said property; it is the power of exclusion; [1] It is not concerned with transparency, inclusion, the common good, or benefitting everyone.
State constitutions typically prohibit states from using public money to support or benefit religious institutions and entities. As a general rule, states cannot use public money to fund religious schools. Historically, there has been a powerful trend in U.S. society to keep religion and state separate (the so-called “wall of separation between church and state”). Modern conditions and requirements dictate that states must avoid sponsoring, promoting, funding, or privileging any religion. There can be no “religious liberty” when a state sponsors, funds, privileges, or entangles itself with any religion or sect. The state is supposed to represent the interests of all members of the polity, regardless of religion.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court argued that had St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School opened as a regular nonsectarian “public” charter school instead of a religious charter school, it could have received public funds and operated normally.
In reasoning in this manner, the court correctly negated publicly-funded sectarian education arrangements but erroneously sanctioned the continued funneling of public funds from public schools to deregulated charter schools that are public only on paper. In other words, the highest court in Oklahoma saw no problem with charter schools siphoning public funds from public schools. The court overlooked the fact that charter schools in Oklahoma, like the rest of the country, are privately-operated and differ legally, philosophically, pedagogically, and organizationally from public schools.
The court thus blundered when it repeatedly referred to charter schools as public schools in its ruling. It uncritically repeated flawed and banal assertions about the “publicness” of charter schools. It incorrectly characterized charter schools as state actors even though private entities are typically the only entities that hold charter school contracts in the U.S.
It is generally recognized that how an entity is described on paper can often differ greatly from how it operates in reality. There can be a large chasm between the two. People understand that words and deeds are not always aligned. Indeed, there has always been a big gap between rhetoric and reality in the charter school sector. Charter school owners and promoters have long confused words on paper with empirical realities. They want people to believe that just because something is on paper, it is automatically true, valid, and unassailable. They have taken abstraction of certain ideas to incoherent and detached levels, while also merging legalese and lawfare to advance their agenda. For 32 years charter school owners and promoters have strived to create a legislative veneer of respectability, but lack of legitimacy remains a nagging problem in the charter school sector.
To be clear, all charter schools in the U.S. are privately-operated and governed by unelected private persons. Unlike public schools, charter schools are not run by publicly elected people. In fact, many charter schools are directly owned-operated by for-profit corporations that openly cash in on kids as their education model. For example, most charter schools in Michigan and a few other states are openly for-profit charter schools. But even so-called “non-profit” charter schools regularly engage in profiteering.
Legally, private operators of charter schools exist outside the public sphere, which makes them private actors, not state (public) actors. Charter school operators are not government entities or political subdivisions of the state. This is why most constitutional provisions apply to public schools, which are state actors, but do not apply to the operators of charter schools or the students, teachers, and parents involved with them. Charter schools teachers, for example, are legally considered “at-will” employees, the opposite of public school teachers. The rights of teachers, students, and parents in public schools are not the same as the rights of teachers, students, and parents in charter schools.
For these and other reasons, charter schools are deregulated independent schools. As private actors, they are not subject to the same requirements as traditional public schools. They do not operate in the same way as public schools. They are not “entangled” with the state in the same way that public schools are. Charter schools do not have the same relationship with the state as public schools. The state, put simply, does not coerce, compel, influence, or direct charter schools to act in the same way as public schools. The state does not play a significant role in charter school policies and actions, certainly not in the way that it does with traditional public schools. This means that the state cannot be held responsible for the actions and policies of private actors.
In the U.S., state laws explicitly permit charter schools to avoid most laws, rules, statutes, regulations, and policies governing public schools. Charter schools can essentially “do as they please” in the name of “autonomy,” “competition,” “accountability,” “choice,” “parental empowerment,” and “results.” It is no accident that charter school advocates boast every day that charter schools are “free market” schools, which means that they are based on the law of the jungle. President Bill Clinton, a long-time supporter of charter schools, once correctly called charter schools “schools with no rules.” Charter schools have long embraced social Darwinism and a fend-for-yourself ethos.
The “free market” ideologies of competition, individualism, and consumerism are therefore central to the creation, operation, and expansion of charter schools. Fending-for-yourself in the pursuit of education is seen as natural, normal, and healthy by charter school owners and promoters. There can supposedly be no better way to organize education and life according to charter school owners and promoters. Thus, when a charter school fails and closes, one is supposed to quickly and effortlessly find a new school, complain about nothing, move on, and nonchalantly accept that “this is just how life is.” In this outdated, disruptive, and unstable set-up, one is expected to be a “rugged individual” who embraces inequality and competition. Winning and losing is supposedly inevitable. Put simply, neoliberals and privatizers do not view education as a basic human right that must be guaranteed in practice. Commodity logic—the logic of buying and selling—guides their outlook and agenda.
Further, the notion, promoted by some, that charter schools are “public-private partnerships” is also flawed and dangerous because it implies that there is a public component to charter schools and that a fair, balanced, equal, meaningful, and mutually-beneficial relationship can exist between the public sector and the private sector. This neoliberal notion covers up the fact and principle that public funds belong only to the public and must not be wielded or controlled by the private sector at any time. If the private sector wants income and revenue, then it should generate income and revenue through its own activities and operations, without using the state to seize public funds that do not belong to it. Public funds must serve the public and not be claimed by private interests through new governance arrangements that harm the public. So-called public-private “partnerships” further concentrate accumulated social wealth in private hands and restrict democracy.
It is disinformation to claim that the public sector needs the private sector for government, society, institutions, infrastructure, and programs to exist and function at a high level. The public sector would be far healthier and more human-centered if a public authority worthy of the name kept all public funds in public hands at all times and used public funds only to advance the general interests of society. It should also be recalled that the private sector has been rife with fraud, failure, scandal, and corruption for generations. We see this in the news every day. Privatization does not guarantee efficiency, success, or excellence. Privatization invariably increases corruption and negates human rights.
Other differences between charter schools and public schools include the fact that, as privatized education arrangements, charter schools cannot levy taxes like public schools and do not accept or keep all students. Unlike public schools that accept all students at all times, charter schools, which are said to be “welcoming,” “free,” and “open to all,” routinely cherry-pick students. In addition, many charter schools are legally permitted to hire uncertified teachers.
Charter schools also frequently fail to uphold even the few public standards enshrined in state charter school laws (e.g., open-meeting laws, reporting laws, enrollment requirements, and audit laws). These are laws and requirements they are supposed to embrace but often violate. It has often been said that the charter school sector is not transparent or accountable, even though it seizes billions of dollars every year from the public, leaving the public worse off—and all under the veneer of high ideals. Dozens of other differences between public schools and charter schools can be found here.
Charter, by definition, means contract. Charter schools are contract schools. Contract law is part of private law in the U.S., not public law. Private law deals with relations between private citizens, whereas public law deals with relations between the state and individuals. Thus, the legal basis and profile of charter schools differs from the legal basis and profile of public schools, which is why, as noted earlier, charter school students, parents, and workers have different rights and protections than public school students, parents, and workers.
Charter schools in the U.S. are private entities that enter into contract with the state or entities approved by the state. The state does not actually create the charter school, it mainly delegates (not authorizes) a function to the private contractor of the school; it is outsourcing education; it is commodifying a social responsibility. This outsourcing of constitutional obligations to private interests does not automatically make said interests state actors.
A private actor does not automatically and magically become a public agency with public power just because it is delegated a duty by the state through a contract. Generally speaking, not a single charter school in the U.S. is owned-operated by a public entity or government unit. Unlike public schools, charter schools are usually created by private citizens, often business people, and often with extensive support from philanthrocapitalists. These private forces or entities do not suddenly become public entities just because they contract with the state or an entity approved by the state. Partnering with the government is not the same as being part of the government. And simply receiving public funds to carry out a function does not spontaneously transform a private entity into a public entity. It is well-known that thousands of private entities in the country receive some sort of public funding but they do not suddenly stop being private entities.
Nor can charter schools be deemed public just because they are called “public” 50 times a day. Repeating something endlessly does not instantly make something true. There would actually be no need to call charter schools “charter” schools if they were public schools proper. The word “charter” before the word “school” instantly sets charter schools apart from public schools. The word “charter” creates a demarcation. Similarly, there would be no need to call charter schools “schools of choice” if they were traditional public schools. “Free market” phrases such as this one also communicate a difference between charter schools and public schools. Today, ninety percent of the nation’s roughly 50 million students attend a public school in their zip code. Neoliberals have successfully starved many of these schools of public funds over the past 45 years.
It is also worth noting that the academic performance of cyber charter schools in the U.S. is notoriously abysmal (see here, here, and here). Equally ironic in this situation is that Epic Charter Schools in Oklahoma, a massive online charter school, has been charged by various government authorities with different crimes in recent years. The owners-operators of Epic Charter Schools have been charged with embezzlement, money laundering, computer crimes, and conspiracy to defraud the state. Such crimes have been widespread in the entire charter school sector for three decades. Equally noteworthy is the fact that under Oklahoma law charter school teachers do not have be certified to teach.
Currently, there are more than 60 privately-operated charter schools in Oklahoma. About 3.8 million students (7.4% of U.S. children) are currently enrolled in nearly 8,000 charter schools across the country.
The inescapable law of the falling rate of profit under capitalism, especially since the mid-1970s, continues to coerce capital-centered forces to privatize as much of the public sector and social programs as they can in order to maximize profits and avoid extinction. Capitalist economies everywhere are in deep trouble and are becoming more reckless in their narrow quest to maximize profits as fast as possible. Greed is at an all-time high.
Capital-centered forces will continue to restructure the state apparatus to advance their retrogressive agenda under the banner of high ideals. This includes raiding the public education sector and privatizing it in the name of “serving the kids,” “empowering parents,” “promoting competition,” and “increasing choice.” So far, “school-choice” schemes have made some individuals very rich while lowering the level of education and harming the public interest.
Charter schools represent the commodification of education, the privatization and marketization of a modern human responsibility in order to enrich a handful of private interests. The typical consequences of privatization in every sector include higher costs, less transparency, reduced quality of service, greater instability, more inefficiency, and loss of public voice. Whether it is vouchers, so-called “Education Savings Accounts,” or privately-operated charter schools, education privatization (“school-choice”) has not solved any problems, it has only multiplied them. [2]
Charter schools are not public schools. If privately-operated charter schools wish to exist and operate they must do so without public money. Public funds belong only to the public and must be used solely for public purposes. This means guaranteeing a range of services, programs, and institutions that continually raise living and working standards. It means serving the common good at the highest level and blocking any schemes that undermine this direction.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The right to exclude is “one of the most treasured” rights of property ownership.
[2] See The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back (2023).
The post Oklahoma Supreme Court Repeats Disinformation That Charter Schools Are Public Schools first appeared on Dissident Voice.
Due to the growing neoliberal antipathy towards the First Amendment American poetry finds itself in a conundrum, as all who submit their work to literary reviews are straitjacketed by the same censorship constraints as those who write for the mainstream press. Consequently, those who regularly contribute to these publications have long since abandoned any effort at saying something meaningful about the world in which we live. As poetry is as old as humanity and cannot be extinguished without the destruction of human life, the art form has found new ways to survive, and to a somewhat unusual and albeit limited extent, this void has been filled by rappers.
Implausibly, this oldest of art forms has devolved into a strange place where it sees itself largely divided between MFAs with degrees from reputable schools that compete for a minuscule number of places in literary reviews which hardly anyone reads and which publish poetry which is either unintelligible or anchored in neoliberal cult ideology, and rappers who often have something to say (granted, not always something moral), yet typically lack the education with which to express themselves in a nuanced and intellectually substantive manner.
Undoubtedly, there are notable exceptions to this, such as Mike Shinoda (“Kenji”), Meth U (“Mensch Bleibt Mensch”), and Sage Francis (“Conspiracy to Riot,” “Makeshift Patriot,” and “Slow Down Gandhi”), but in general, rappers are illiterate poets. This cataclysmic divide between the soulless literate and the passionate illiterate is deeply emblematic of the alienation, dehumanization, and uniquely destructive powers of neoliberalism.
Let’s begin our discussion of this peculiar poetic form with Lil’ Kim’s “Lighters up,” which draws the listener into the violent underbelly of inner city Brooklyn, specifically in this case Bedford–Stuyvesant, also known to New Yorkers as Bed–Stuy. (Difficult slang words have been translated and are bracketed). The song opens by immediately drawing the listener into a harrowing, tribal, and lawless world:
I come from Bed-Stuy, niggas either do or they gon’ die
Gotta keep the ratchet close by
Someone murdered, nobody seen, nobody heard it
Just another funeral service
Niggas will get at you, come through shinin’ they yap [rob] you
In broad day light kidnap you
Feds get clapped [shot] too, police stay on us like tattoos
Niggas only grind cause we have to
Money is power, sling crack, weed and powder
Fiends [drug addicts] come through every hour
S’all about that dollar and we nuh deal with cowards
Weak lambs get devoured by the lion
In the concrete jungle, the strong stand and rumble
The weak fold and crumble, it’s the land of trouble.
The reference to murders where no one is willing to testify or talk to the police lest they be deemed a “snitch” is indicative of a breakdown in the rule of law, allowing violent criminals to commit serious crimes unimpeded. The authorities also frequently look the other way in the face of black on black violence, which further endangers the peaceful residents of these communities. This de facto empowerment of nefarious inner city elements by the ruling establishment is not unrelated to what Washington has long done to debase and humiliate people in foreign countries.
“Lighters up” raises a motif, which rappers are seldom intellectually conscious of but which is present in virtually all music of this genre, which is the tragedy of post-New Deal and post-civil rights America, a deindustrialized and ghettoized wasteland, where in order to maintain a decent standard of living Americans are increasingly coerced into becoming yes-men for corporations, and where a once robust middle class has been reduced to a distant memory.
Lil’ Kim portrays the police as oppressors but also as victims who can likewise be assaulted without warning. “Lighters up” emphasizes the problems of substance abuse, gambling, and prostitution that plague, not only inner city Brooklyn, but ghettos across the country:
Some are boostin [boasting] 12 year olds prostitutin’
Hitmen hired for execution there’s no solution
Niggas still piss in the hallways
Fiends get high in ’em all day
Another motif in “Lighters up,” and which is common in many rap songs such as Eminem’s “Like Toy Soldiers,” is how tribalism, illiteracy, and the destruction of the middle class have given birth to a new Wild West mired in systemic violence and bloody vendettas:
For a pound leave your face on the wall
R.I.P in memory of
Never show thy enemies love
Is this not the same attitude that Biden has towards Putin? And is NATO not a gang, albeit one armed with F-35s, Black Hawk helicopters, and nuclear weapons? If Russia followed suit with the same infantile and thuggish behavior would we even be sitting here having this conversation?
Furthermore, what is the motivation for the oligarchy to rein in this culture of gang wars when it serves the convenient purpose of deflecting anger and rage away from the ruling establishment and on to one’s fellow workers and countrymen?
This hellscape devoid of security, education, and lawful employment is inextricably linked with a society that has been hijacked by corporations which are really nothing more than organized crime syndicates, and of which the inner city gangs are mere minnows in comparison. Her line that “Niggas only grind cause we have to” acknowledges the bleak reality that in the hyper-privatized “concrete jungle” the poor are forced to do everything in their power to survive. The final lines of the introduction (“S’all about that dollar and we nuh deal with cowards…”) could be emblazoned over the entrance to the headquarters of such august and civic-minded institutions as the CIA, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin or Pfizer. Undoubtedly, many inner city drug dealers are conscious of the fact that they are preying on their own people but know of no other way to earn a living.
Just as America is endowed with a plethora of literate and illiterate poets, there is likewise no shortage of literate and illiterate drug dealers, with the former being permitted to don a white coat, carry a stethoscope, and create drug addicts with impunity.
While addressing the systemic poverty in Jamaica, Junior Gong’s “Welcome to Jamrock” bemoans a similar scenario where youths trapped in poverty are chewed up by an avaricious machine devoid of education, jobs, the rule of law, and where elections are a rigged charade:
Welcome to Jamdown
Poor people a dead at random
Political violence, can’t done
Bare ghost and Phantom
The youth dem get blind by stardom
Now the king of kings ah call
Old man to pickney, so wave unno hand if you with me
To see the sufferation sick me
Dem suit nuh fit me
To win election dem trick we
At the end of the music video Damian Marley (the youngest son of Bob Marley) departs Jamrock in his BMW revealing that he too is enslaved to consumerism and the same economic system which places profits and possessions over human lives.
Tupac Shakur’s touching “Dear Mama” acknowledges that his own mother struggled with a crack addiction, but the song humanizes her and reminds the listener that drug addicts are suffering human beings in need of compassion:
And even as a crack fiend, Mama
You always was a black queen, Mama
I finally understand
For a woman, it ain’t easy tryin’ to raise a man
You always was committed
A poor single mother on welfare, tell me how you did it
There’s no way I can pay you back
But the plan is to show you that I understand
You are appreciated
Wu-Tang Clan, whose members hail from Staten Island and Brooklyn, created the hip-hop song “C.R.E.A.M.,” which stands for “cash rules everything around me,” and which relentlessly and almost hypnotically drives home the stark reality of America’s money-obsessed culture where the ghetto serves as a microcosm to a wider America in the throes of unfettered capitalism. Here the gangsters don Timberland boots and baggy pants rather than Brooks Brothers suits and Allen Edmonds shoes, and unlike their more bourgeois counterparts, have had the misfortune of being born into a prison whose walls are forged not out of concrete but with segregation, illiteracy, an illicit black market economy and virtually nonexistent checks and balances. Inspectah Deck gives a glimpse in “C.R.E.A.M.” of the horrors he experienced growing up in a city where the cards are stacked against the descendants of slavery, and even minors are frequently devoured by the insatiable prison beast:
“I went to jail at the age of fifteen
A young buck sellin’ drugs and such, who never had much
Tryin’ to get a clutch at what I could not—
The court played me short, now I face incarceration
Pacin’, goin’ upstate’s my destination
Handcuffed in the back of a bus, forty of us
Life as a shorty shouldn’t be so rough
But as the world turned, I learned life is hell
Livin’ in the world no different from a cell”
In Nas’ “N.Y. State of Mind” the rapper describes life in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, as “each block is like a maze full of black rats trapped.” However, instead of supporting a progressive position rooted in unionization, checks and balances, and good public health care and education for all Americans, he laments, albeit in his inimitable and ironic way, that he is unable to engage in gangsterism in a more respectable and law-abiding fashion:
I dream I can sit back
And lamp [relax] like Capone, with drug scripts sewn
Or the legal luxury life, rings flooded with stones, homes
I got so many rhymes, I don’t think I’m too sane
Life is parallel to Hell, but I must maintain
And be prosperous, though we live dangerous
Cops could just arrest me, blamin’ us; we’re held like hostages
As is invariably the case with the most talented rappers, Nas exhibits real poetic gifts such as his masterful line from “N.Y. State of Mind” that, “I never sleep, ’cause sleep is the cousin of death.” One can only imagine what he could have accomplished had he gotten a good education.
While it is easy for “educated Americans” (a euphemism for morons with expensive degrees) to thumb their nose at the gangsters of the ghetto, the latter are in fact imitating the behavior of their “successful” countrymen. Indeed, do we not have countless doctors, professors, journalists, politicians, Wall Street jihadists, armaments industry executives, intelligence agents, career officers in the military, lawyers, employees of the prison-industrial complex and the medical-industrial complex, etc., that will do literally anything for money?
The scourge of bullying in America’s public schools is the subject of Eminem and Lil Wayne’s “No Love,” a problem spawned by the demise of social democracy and a post-apocalyptic wasteland whose denizens can increasingly be broken down between the tormented and the tormentor. As with “N.Y. State of Mind,” “No Love” has lines of striking poetry:
I’m rollin’ Sweets, I’m smokin’ sour
Married to the game, but she broke her vows
That’s why my bars are full of broken bottles
And my nightstands are full of open Bibles
A disturbing element to “No Love” is the clarion call, not merely for the right to self-defense, but for a revenge rooted in extreme forms of violence:
Money outweighin’ problems on a triple beam
I’m stickin’ to the script, you niggas skippin’ scenes
Uh, be good or be good at it
Fuckin’ right, I got my gun, semi-Cartermatic [semi-automatic]….
I’m high as a bitch, up, up and away, man, I’ll come down in a couple of days
Okay, you want me up in the cage? Then I’ll come out in beast mode
I got this world stuck in the safe, combination is the G code
It’s Weezy, motherfucker, Blood gang, and I’m in bleed mode
All about my dough, but I don’t even check the peephole
So you can keep knockin’, but won’t knock me down
No love lost, no love found
How many bullied kids have watched this music video (which has over 675 million views) and been inculcated with this very mentality? What does it do to a child’s psyche when all they see around them are sadistic predators and defenseless prey – those who are “up in the cage?” Is it surprising that with so many humiliated people and a country that has more guns than human beings that a certain percentage will seek to “come out in beast mode?” And what could be more tragically American than the notion that life without money is a living death, a Tartarean chasm, and that camaraderie and solidarity are but an elusive ephemeral dream?
In order to understand the demonic nature of the American ruling establishment one must acknowledge the horrors unleashed on Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, etc., but it is also necessary to understand the terrible suffering inflicted on the weakest and most vulnerable who reside within the Stygian bowels of empire. One example of this is the many American children who grow up in poverty, in broken homes and communities, and who are exposed to egregious acts of violence at an early age, something Lil Wayne hauntingly intimates in “No Love:”
Yeah, my life a bitch, but you know nothing ’bout her
Been to hell and back, I can show you vouchers
Harlem’s Immortal Technique unnerved the hip-hop world in 2001 with his controversial “Dance with the Devil,” a gruesome tale of an alienated and ambitious hoodlum whose brain has been warped by materialism and the egregious inequality of “the new economy,” who yearns to join a gang, yet is told he must participate in a sexual assault of a random woman at night as an initiation rite. Upon seeing this through, he ends up inadvertently raping his own mother:
I once knew a nigga whose real name was William
His primary concern was makin’ a million
Bein’ the illest [toughest] hustler that the world ever seen
He used to fuck movie stars and sniff coke in his dreams
A corrupted young mind at the age of 13
Once the protagonist realizes what he has done he commits suicide by jumping off the roof where the assault has taken place:
And so he jumped off the roof and died with no soul
They say death takes you to a better place, but I doubt it”
Unlike in Crime and Punishment, the crime is too heinous. There can be no absolution.
In “Empire State Of Mind” Jay-Z raps about the magic, mystery, and awesome power of New York City, but also cautions his listeners regarding the false gods of materialism and celebrity worship which have slain countless souls:
Lights is blinding, girls need blinders
Or they could step out of bounds quick, the side lines is
Lined with casualties who sip the life casually
Then gradually become worse—don’t bite the apple Eve
Caught up in the in-crowd, now you’re in-style
Into the winter gets cold, en vogue with your skin out
City of sin is a pity on a whim
Good girls gone bad, the city’s filled with them
Mami took a bus trip, now she got her bust out
Everybody ride her, just like a bus route
‘Hail Mary’ to the city, you’re a virgin
And Jesus can’t save you, life starts when the church end
Came here for school, graduated to the high life
Ball players, rap stars, addicted to the limelight
As is extremely common in rap music, Jay-Z holds it to be inevitable that we live in a ruthless Darwinian world where one is either rich or poor, and where it is only natural that New Yorkers are perpetually locked in a brutal war of all against all:
Eight million stories, out there in the naked
City is a pity, half of y’all won’t make it
In a country where public health and education lie in ruins, and millions of lives have been destroyed due to mass unemployment, a catastrophic substance abuse epidemic, unprecedented forms of sectarianism, mass incarceration, and trillions of dollars of household debt Jay-Z boasts a net worth of 2.5 billion USD. Is this “democracy?”
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of shameful rap music that glorifies banditry, conspicuous consumption, anti-intellectualism, black nationalism and misogyny. However, unlike literary review poets who have no other ambition than to see their gibberish in print and acquire tenure, good rappers have something to say, yet due to a lack of education typically struggle to see serious socio-economic problems through any prism other than that of race and tribalism. However, unlike their insipid brethren who speak in the abstruse language of academia and extreme specialization, rappers frequently “fight the power” (to quote Public Enemy), and in so doing, connect with the masses. Alas, the poet is cleft in twain.
Dubious erudition aside, these passages demonstrate that gifted rappers can be poets and prophets in their own right; and like Tiresias, poets don’t always tell us what we’d like to hear. Indeed, in their own way they are trying to alert us to the terrible abyss which we are frenetically galloping towards. It would be wise to heed their warnings.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Jardy Ndombasi (DRC), Soulèvement populaire et souveraineté (‘Popular Uprising and Sovereignty’), 2024.
On 20 June, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemned the attacks on civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) ‘in the strongest terms’. In its press statement, the UNSC wrote that these attacks – by both the DRC’s armed forces and various rebel groups supported by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda – ‘are worsening the volatile security and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the region and further exacerbating the current humanitarian situation’. Five days later, on 25 June, the United Nations peacekeeping force in eastern DRC withdrew, in accordance with a December 2023 UNSC resolution that pledged both to provide security for the DRC’s general elections on 20 December and to begin to gradually withdraw the peacekeeping force from the country.
Meanwhile, the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels continue to push steadily into the eastern provinces of the DRC, where there has been an active conflict since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Over the course of three decades, there has rarely been lasting peace despite several peace accords (most notably the 1999 Lusaka Agreement, the 2002 Pretoria Agreement, the 2002 Luanda Agreement, and the 2003 Sun City Agreement). The total death toll is very poorly recorded, but by all indications, over six million people have been killed. The intractability of the violence in the eastern DRC has led to a sense of hopelessness about the possibility of permanently ending the carnage. This is accompanied by an ignorance of the politics of this conflict and its deep roots both in the colonial history of the Great Lakes region and the fight over raw materials that are key for the electronic age.
Monsembula Nzaaba Richard or ‘Monzari’ (DRC), L’Aube de la résistance Congolaise (‘Dawn of the Congolese Resistance’), 2024.
To make sense of this conflict, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research partnered with the Centre Culturel Andrée Blouin, the Centre for Research on the Congo-Kinshasa (CERECK), and Likambo Ya Mabele (‘Land Sovereignty Movement’) to produce a powerful new dossier, The Congolese Fight For Their Own Wealth. Eight years ago, we assembled a team to study the ongoing war, with a particular emphasis on imperialism and the resource theft that has plagued this part of Africa for the past century. The colonisation of the Congo came alongside the theft of the region’s labour, rubber, ivory, and minerals in the 1800s under the rule of Belgium’s King Leopold II. Multinational corporations continue this criminal legacy today by stealing minerals and metals that are essential to the growing digital and ‘green’ economy. This resource wealth is what draws the war into the country. As we show in the dossier, the DRC is one of the richest countries in the world, its untapped mineral reserves alone worth $24 trillion. Yet, at the same time, 74.6% of the population lives on less than $2.15 a day, with one in six Congolese people living in extreme poverty. What accounts for this poverty in a country with so much wealth?
Drawing from archival research and interviews with miners, the dossier shows that the core problem is that the Congolese people do not control their wealth. They have been fighting against rampant theft not only since the 1958 formation of the Mouvement National Congolais (‘Congolese National Movement’), which sought freedom from Belgium and control over the Congo’s extensive natural resources, but even earlier, through working-class resistance between the 1930s and 1950s. This fight has not been easy, nor has it succeeded: the DRC continues to be dominated by exploitation and oppression at the hands of a powerful Congolese oligarchy and multinational corporations that operate with the permission of the former. Furthermore, the country suffers, on the one hand, from wars of aggression by its neighbours Rwanda and Uganda, aided by proxy militia groups, and, on the other, from interference by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) that enforce neoliberal policies as a requirement for receiving loans.
Just days before the DRC’s elections in December 2023, the IMF provided a $202.1 million disbursement because it felt confident that whoever won the election would preserve ‘programme objectives, including limiting macroeconomic slippages and continuing implementing the economic reform agenda’. In other words, the IMF believed that it could continue to privatise electricity and draft mining codes that have been overly ‘generous’ to multinational corporations – irrespective of the election results (the word ‘generous’ is from the IMF’s own mission chief for the DRC, Norbert Toé). A pittance from the IMF is able to muffle the call for sovereignty over the DRC’s considerable resources.
M Kadima (DRC), Congo Is Not for Sale, 2024. Reference photograph by John Behets.
The Great Lakes region of Africa has been prevented, on several fronts, from solving the problems that plague it: entrenched neocolonial structures have prevented the construction of well-funded social infrastructure; the extraordinary power of mining companies, until recently largely Australian, European, and North American in origin, have derailed efforts to achieve resource sovereignty; imperial powers have used their money and military power to subordinate the local ruling classes to foreign interests; the weakness of these local ruling classes and their inability to forge a strong patriotic project, such as those attempted by Louis Rwagasore of Burundi and Patrice Lumumba of the DRC (both assassinated by imperial powers in 1961), has hindered regional progress; there is an urgent desire for the creation of such a project that would bring people together around the shared interests of the majority instead of falling prey to ethnic divisions (there are four hundred different ethnic groups in the DRC alone) and tribalism that tear communities apart and weaken their ability to fight for their destiny.
Such a project thrived following the independence of DRC in 1960. In 1966, the government passed a law that allowed it to control all unoccupied land and its attendant minerals. Then in 1973, the DRC’s General Property Law allowed government officials to expropriate land at will. Establishing a project that uses material resources for the betterment of all peoples, rather than stoking ethnic divisions, must again become the central focus. Yet the idea of citizenship in the region remains entangled with ideas of ethnicity that have provoked conflicts along ethnic lines. It was these ideas that led to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The absence of a common project has allowed the enemies of the masses to creep through the cracks and exploit the weaknesses of the people.
Monsembula Nzaaba Richard or ‘Monzari’ (DRC), Aurore Africaine (‘African Aurora’), 2024.
An alphabet soup of political and military fronts – such as the ADFL, FDLR, RCD, and MLC – catapulted the region into resource wars. Reserves of coltan, copper, and gold as well as control over the border roads between the DRC and Uganda that link the eastern DRC to the Kenyan port of Mombasa made these armed groups and a few powerful people very rich. The war was no longer only about the post-colonial consensus, but also about the wealth that could be siphoned off to benefit an international capitalist class that lives far away from Africa’s Great Lakes.
Fascinatingly, it was only when Chinese capital began to contest the companies domiciled in Australia, Europe, and North America that the question of labour rights in the DRC became a great concern for the ‘international community’. Human rights organisations that formerly turned a blind eye to exploitation began to take a great interest in these matters, coining new phrases such as ‘blood coltan’ and ‘blood gold’ to refer to the primary commodities mined by the Chinese and Russian companies that have set up shop in several African countries. Yet, as our dossier – as well as the Wenhua Zongheng issue ‘China-Africa Relations in the Belt and Road Era’ – show, Chinese policy and interests stand in stark contrast to the IMF-driven agenda for the DRC as China seeks to ‘kee[p] mineral and metal processing within the DRC and buil[d] an industrial base for the country’. Furthermore, Chinese firms produce goods that are often made for Global North consumers, an irony that is conveniently ignored in the Western narrative. The international community purports to be concerned with human rights violations but has no interest in the African people’s hopes and dreams; it is driven instead by the interests of the Global North and by the US-led New Cold War.
Young, talented artists spent weeks in the studio coming up with the illustrations featured in the dossier and in this newsletter, the result of a collaboration between our art department and the artists’ collective of the Centre Culturel Andrée Blouin in Kinshasa. Please read our fourth Tricontinental Art Bulletin to learn more about their creative process and watch the video on Artists for Congolese Sovereignty, made by André Ndambi, which introduces the artists’ work.
Monsembula Nzaaba Richard or ‘Monzari’ (DRC), Le peuple a gagné (‘The People Have Won’), 2024.
Reference photograph: Congopresse via Wikimedia.
Our dossier ends with the words of Congolese youth who yearn for land, for a patriotic culture, for critical thinking. These young people were born in war, they were raised in war, and they live in war. And yet, they know that the DRC has enough wealth to let them imagine a world without war, a world of peace and social development that surpasses narrow divisions and unending bloodshed.
Warmly,
Vijay
The post The War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Will End first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
President Emmanuel Macron’s risky gamble to call a snap legislative election after his party suffered a humiliating defeat at the European Parliament elections on June 6-9 did not pay off. In fact, it backfired in a big way as voters, who turned out in record numbers, abandoned the center and cast their ballot for the far right and the left-wing parties that came together to form a new “Popular…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Just when one thought that the neoliberal dystopia created in Greece since the eruption of its debt crisis could not get any darker, the current right-wing government of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has replaced the nation’s five-day workweek with a six-day workweek and flexible working hours. The controversial new law kicks into effect July 1, as Greeks have accepted it with little…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Orientation
How dare you!
Anyone who is critical of the Democratic party from the left will be greeted by these slogans, warnings and accusations.
What is dogmatism?
A little over a year ago I wrote an article titled The Dogmatic Personality. In it I attempted to show fourteen characteristics of dogmatic thinking and contrasted it to open-minded thinking. Please see the table at the end of this article. As in my previous article, I will follow Judy J. Johnson’s book What’s So Wrong with Being Absolutely Right: The Dangerous Nature of Dogmatic Belief.
Which social class is dogmatic?
When we think of a dogmatic personality, we are likely to imagine a conservative “Archie Bunker” type, a lower middle-class or working-class man. The open-minded person seems likely to be a well-educated middle-class or upper middle-class liberal, and probably someone who votes for the Democratic Party. But times have changed. For the last 50 years, the Democratic Party has shifted from a center-left party to a right-wing Neoliberal party which has been increasingly embattled and compromised through its involvement in overseas wars, a deindustrialization process, financial debt accumulation and austerity programs for working class and poor people. I will describe in this article that, in fact, the Democratic Party has become a dogmatic, authoritarian party whose leaders and loyalist followers can easily be characterized as dogmatic in all fourteen characteristics.
What is the relationship between dogmatism and authoritarianism?
Now that you have reviewed the fourteen characteristics of dogmatic thinking in the table, we need to clarify what its relationship is to authoritarianism. Johnson sees authoritarianism as a subcategory of dogmatism. According to Bob Altemeyer in his book The Authoritarian Specter, authoritarianism means the principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual autonomy in thinking and acting. He defines authoritarianism as the co-variation of three kinds of attitudes:
The first nine characteristics of dogmatism plus characteristic number 14 are all psychological or social psychological qualities. Authoritarianism is more sociological involving the relationship between groups (characteristics 10-13). In terms of personality, Judy Johnson says that 6 out of the 14 characteristics of dogmatism would qualify a personality as dogmatic. While it is hard to imagine an authoritarian personality with characteristics 10-13 would not have the other dogmatic qualities as well, it is not too far-fetched to imagine a dogmatic person minding their p’s and q’s when it comes to large groups.
My claim
My aim in this article is that the Democratic Party and its upper middle class loyalists have all of these dogmatic and authoritarian characteristics.
Five Cognitive Ingredients in Dogmatic Thought
The Five Characteristics of Dogmatic Cognition are:
Intolerance of ambiguity
The Neoliberal Democrats insist that there are only two choices: Democrats or Republicans. Any votes outside the Democratic Party are a vote for Trump. Under these conditions, the Democrats cannot imagine that people voting for a third party do so in the hopes of building a third party over time. For them a vote for a third party can only be a vote for a second party. But what about the people who don’t vote? In any given election, over the past fifty years between 40-50% of the population do not vote. For Neoliberal Democrats this is not a problem. Why? Because they treat people who don’t vote as if they are the ignorant, stupid or apathetic lower classes. What Neoliberal Democrats cannot comprehend is that the reason people do not vote is because there are no candidates that represent their interests. They think the uncommitted are weighing between them and a Green party, when what is really going on is the uncommitted weighing between voting Green and not voting at all.
Defensive cognitive closure
The Neoliberal Democratic candidates act like they are entitled to the vote of anyone on the socialist left. They don’t think they have to work to get it, or that they might be expected to answer to potential voters for their past failures. They insist they are the only game in town for “reasonable” people. Only a privileged person can afford to vote for the Green Party. In other words, racial minorities are all voting Democrat and as a white person you would be voting against them. The problem with this argument is that Trump is gaining more and more support of African American and Latino voters. Just as large numbers of working-class people left the Democratic Party decades ago, so now their much-vaulted race base is starting to break ranks.
Rigid certainty (cannot state the conditions for admitting they are wrong)
As many of you know, the philosopher of science Karl Popper claimed that a good scientific theory must insist on stating the conditions under which they can be proven wrong. It is also a good rule in argumentation classes to state the conditions under which your claim could be wrong. Do the Democratic Party politicians or their loyalists do this when they solicit new voters? No, they don’t. To be fair, the entire politician system in Mordor is not set up for parties to actually account for the contradictions between their promises and what they deliver. But if you talk to an upper-middle class loyalist and ask them what are the conditions under which they would give up on their loyalty to the Democrats they look like deer caught in the headlights. Next to no one has traced the relationship between promises and deliverance. Though well-educated, they have not thought seriously about what their liberal beliefs really are and how well the party has been faithful to them. No matter what the Democrats have done or not done over the past four years, they expect you to wipe the slate clean and simply say we have to vote for them.
Cognitive compartmentalization – sealing off contradictory beliefs
My hunch is that a large number of people who consider themselves liberal today believe the following:
I could go on but you get the idea. The problem is that when the Democratic Party has gained power over the last 50 years they have not done any of these things. It takes a great deal of cognitive internal gyrations to know these things and still vote for Neoliberal Democrats.
Lack of self-reflectiveness – refusal to bend back and analyze themselves
Hillary Clinton, with all the Deep State wealth and the Neoliberal capitalists behind her, managed to lose to Donald Trump. In a political party that was sensitive and self-reflective, they would say “where did we go wrong? Why did so many people not vote? We used to depend on working class votes. How can it be that many working class people are Republicans? What is wrong with our candidates? What population demographics were weak?”. They did none of this. Instead, in true paranoic style they blamed the Russians. Since 2016, whenever the Democratic Party failed it was the Russians. This is a powerful change in party affairs. For 15 years the Democratic Party mocked and dismissed the 9/11 Truth movement for its tinfoil, paranoic conspiracy theory. For the past eight years the Democratic Party has so little understanding of its right-wing 50-year drift that its answer to all its problems are now “the Russians”.
The Four Emotional Disorders
Although Neoliberal Democrats, being upper middle class, have more control over their minds than working class dogmatists they can still reify their emotions, making them “rigid states” rather than processes that can be changed by cognitive changes in interpretations, explanations or assumptions. Neoliberal Democrats, like everyone else, has a need for social connection, but as an upper-middle person they are surrounded by most people who are not like them. Yet they must find commonality with them became they want them to join the Democratic Party. Because they are more or less oblivious of the social class distinctions, they find ways to avoid talking about them. They are most emotionally sensitive to race relations, since most African-Americans and Latinos are not upper middle class.
The four kinds of emotional issues that arise, according to Judy Johnson are:
For Neoliberal Democrats the anxiety and fear they have centers around:
Anxiety and fear
Faithfully, like clockwork, the only claim to winning voters over is fear of is what will happen if a right-winger like Trump gets in. Over the past 4 years with the Democratic Party in power, we have billions of dollars wasted in Ukraine followed by a massacre of Palestinians funded by the Democratic Party. How much worse can it be than this? The Neoliberal fears know no bounds. They never state the conditions under which they are willing to admit there really is not much difference between the two parties, let alone to say there is only one party, capitalism, with two wings.
Secondly, Neoliberal Democrats fear the great unleashing of the great unwashed Trump followers. These folks are imagined to be goosestepping Gestapos terrorizing these liberals when they decide to have an outdoor brunch. It will be too late for liberal Karens to call the police! In reality the laughable power of Trump’s followers came about over a temporary “take-over” of the White House in 2021. Did his followers block the roads, seize the radio and TV stations and begin broadcasting like what would happen in a real coup? No, they simply wandered around, perhaps breaking a few things before being taken over by the police. For Neoliberal Democrats, this is the end of civilization. As for their treacherous fascist leader, Trump, he was nowhere to be found.
Lack of a sense of humor
Having a sense of humor means you can step out of situations and see them in perspective. Humor allows for a break in being serious before returning to serious endeavors. Lack of humor (being humorless) means you are serious all the time. This comes out most clearly in the Neoliberal attempts to control people’s vocabulary so they are “politically correct”. Up to a point it is reasonable to expect people to upgrade their vocabulary to be more sensitive racial and sexist issues. But past a certain point, as communication grinds to a halt because every word is dissected, the situation becomes laughable. But for the Neoliberal Democrat, this is no laughing matter. The combination of self-righteousness mixed with completely unrealistic expectations makes it understandable why the right-wingers get fed up at best and full of hatred at worst.
Oversensitivity to unintended infringements which result in anger
At the same time, the Neoliberal Democrats are terrified of being called a racist.
After all, they work so hard to “understand” the history of racism and the conditions of Blacks and Latinos today. They feel betrayed when they themselves are called out on some racism. This is where accusations of being a “snowflake” really come from. For example, liberals are only dimly aware of their racism when it comes to Black politicians. For them, any Black man or woman who is well-educated must be liberal. Lo and behold, when presented with people like Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell or Barak Obama it comes as a great surprise they could be so right-wing. No, Obama was never FDR in waiting. He is a Harvard lawyer, trained in the Chicago School market fundamentalism and his political actions were consistently right-wing. But to this day Neoliberals refer to him as a great liberal. Their racism comes in when they do not grant the full political spectrum to any minority politician.
Excessive pessimism and despair
As I’ve pointed out in other articles, the beginning of Neoliberalism came about through the Rockefeller orchestrated Club of Rome report followed by a book called the Limits to Growth. Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was founded around the same time. This was a clarion call to let Americans know that the days of abundance, a high standard of living, more leisure time and a better life through science was ending. Instead, we were told that people needed to tighten up their belts and do with less (Jimmy Carter). Why? Because nature was limited. Secondly, there were too many people on the earth and the population problem would soon be out of control. Thirdly, there was global warming caused, according to them, by the industrial revolution. Lastly, thanks to all our high living we have polluted the earth. This systemic attack on the values of the Enlightenment by the Rockefellers, together with their control over Think Tanks and Universities and mass media has been the methodical message of Neoliberal Democrats for 50 years. Ironically, the countries of the multi-polar world like China, Russia and Iran are carrying on the Promethean tradition of the Enlightenment with their infrastructure projects, harnessing of many forms of energy.
Five Behavioral Characteristics of Dogmatism
Dogmatism is not just what is going on cognitively and emotionally inside of people. Dogmatism is also about how people behave and act. The five behavioral characteristics of dogmatism are:
An Arrogant, dismissive communication style
Because Neoliberals usually make their living from speaking and writing, like lawyers and academic professors, they are at home in stressing the importance of language. Compared to them, both Trump and his supporters are at a disadvantage. Neoliberals are at their worst when it comes to attempting to control language. Secure in their tenured college professions Neoliberal professors control their classroom by making them open forums for every possible identity politics group to have their say. At the same time they insist that other members of the class learn to use the right words while addressing an identity politics group from gender pronouns on down the line. In their drive to inclusivity, they imagine they are liberating humanity and winning new people for the Neoliberal Democrats. The problem is that the largest sector of the population is unaffected by these battles about identity politics on college campuses. Some of the most interesting hypocrisy within Neoliberal Democrats is that the arm-twisting that takes place on college campuses never reaches the upper echelons of the party. Are Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden going to be corrected by Kamala Harris when they refer to a non-binary man as “he” when he prefers to be addressed as a “they”?
Preoccupation with power and status in form
Neoliberal Democrats are snobs. A very simple comparison which brings this out is the difference between how they react to Obama vs how they react to Trump. Obama above all has all the formal qualities they look for. First of all, he is Black, but not too black, not Marshawn Lynch black. He is tall, slender and graceful in mannerisms. He is articulate, seems easy-going and reasonable. He doesn’t seem to get angry and he plays basketball. He went to the right schools and did well for himself as a Harvard lawyer. As Neoliberal Democrats swoon over the lure of his appearance and his rhetorical skills the way he acted as a president – the wars started, his failure to stem the economic tide of 50 years of decline, his failure to help working class Blacks economically – go unnoticed.
On the other hand, Trump is viscerally hated. He is a loud blowhard who neither knows nor cares about political protocol or diplomacy. He is fat, with a ridiculous wig along with orange face makeup. He looks like the worst lower middle-class used car salesman you can imagine. He knows nothing of history and bullies his way through press conferences. He has a string of unsuccessful business disasters under his belt and his behavior towards women infuriates Neoliberal feminists. He prides himself in mocking the politically correct. He has the attention span of a gnat and has no coherent foreign policy. But if you ask Neoliberals about his political actions, whether domestic or international they usually don’t know. What matters is they find him disgusting on a personal and psychological basis and that is enough for them and unsuited to be the President of the United States.
The same class contempt is visited upon his followers. For Neoliberals, Trump followers are “deplorables”. They are uneducated, don’t care about facts and do not know how to reason logically. They think dualistically and more are likely to be some kind of ignorant, fundamentalist Christian. They know nothing about history, or geography and could care less. They are fat, have teeth missing and don’t dress properly. They watch too much TV and are preoccupied with the worst types of entertainment from World Wrestling to Reality Shows. This class contempt blinds Neoliberal Democrats from being sympathetic to the fact that Trumpsters are overworked and underpaid, have insecure jobs and are living from paycheck to paycheck. Secure in their own professional jobs, Neoliberals are too proud to visit the Trumpeters where they live and come electoral campaigns, deal with their own discomfort. Trump did next to nothing for working-class or lower middle-class in his four years, but he did visit them, unlike Queen Hillary or Bernie Sanders who stayed close to the college campuses.
Glorification of the in-group and vilification of the out-group
For this category let’s turn from domestic to international affairs. For Neoliberal Democrats Russia has been their enemy even after the break-up of the Soviet Union. When you hear the name Vladimir Putin the Pavlovian response is “evil dictator”. There is normal reasoning about his political leadership with its pros and cons. Neoliberal Democrats who get on their hobby horses of “Putin”, “Putin” usually have no understanding of what Putin has meant for the recovery of Russia after being left for dead by Obamas buddies the Chicago boys in the 1990s. The same dualistic sloganeering treatment is metered out for Syria, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and Venezuela.
In the case of the glorification of an in-group let us turn to Israel. “The only democracy in the Middle East” has just massacred over 40,000 Palestinians and yet the Democratic president supplied the Zionists with billions of dollars in weaponry. “Israel has a right to defend itself”! What are you, antisemitic?” Then there is the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians fascists became “freedom fighters” for Neoliberals against the evil Putin. It never occurs to these Neoliberals that the money spent on arming Ukraine could have been spent on infrastructure repairs at home, building low-cost housing, supporting the growth of unions and upgrading the minimum wage. Since the working class is invisible to Neoliberal Democrats this alternative way of spending money never occurs to them.
Thanks to the work of Matt Ehret and Cynthia Chung, the British Empire has been exposed as at the root of imperialism in the Western world. The British Empire sided with the South in the American Civil War. All along the line, this Empire tried to prevent the United States from industrializing because it feared the competition. In the 20th century the British Empire was supporting the growth of fascism in Europe long before Mussolini or Hitler. After the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis, the British Empire helped arrange to have Nazi scientists and political bigwigs safely transported to the Western world where they were never prosecuted. Yet England is naively seen by Neoliberal Democrats as some kind of benign “liberal democracy” worthy of a “special relationship”.
Dogmatic authoritarian submission to authorities
To understand this let us look at the manner in which the Democratic Party dictated that there will be no competing candidates in the 2024 primaries. This is an attempt at totalitarian control of the party. “No” you might say, “the other candidates agreed not to run a campaign”. Was that a real democratic process? During the Moscow Purges, members of the Communist Party willingly confessed their guilt before the Central Committee and were purged. “No” say the anti-communist Democrats. There must have been some ‘sinister psychological brainwashing’ on the part of the evil Stalin”. But when it comes to the dictates from on-high, Powers that Be within the Democratic Party saying that there will be no party competition, where is the outcry from the Neoliberal Democrats? Why aren’t we permitted to imagine there must have been some sinister psychological brainwashing on the part of the Democratic Party elite to keep other candidates from running. No Neoliberal Democrat would dare point the finger at AIPAC, the most powerful Israeli Lobby in the United States. That would be antisemitic!
There is also passivity of liberal Democrats to leaving their own party and building another one. Upper middle-class Neoliberals make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. There is no reason why they couldn’t pool their money and start a new party closer to an FDR model. Sure, it would take maybe 12 years to become a force to be reckoned with. However, upper-middle class people are trained to think long-term in their work. They are well-educated and can envision a long-term trajectory, not just within Mordor, but internationally. Since liberal Democrats support capitalism, surely they are smart enough to notice that finance capital and wars are not productive for capitalism in the long-run. Why is there no movement to leave the Democrats? To do so would be disobedient to the leaders of the Democratic Party and those capitalists’ national and international interests that stand behind them.
Dogmatic authoritarian aggression towards minorities
If the Neoliberal Democratic Party lived up to its name, it would welcome competition from a third party, especially from the left. They would say “let us compete! Your program will teach us some things and the competition will be good for our ‘democracy’”. Instead, faithfully every four years it spends a great deal of money on lawsuits attempting to keep the Green Party off the ballot. It rigs the debates so the Green Party candidate cannot compete with the Republican and Democratic candidates on the stage. The Democratic Party would scream “totalitarianism” if there were only one party to vote for. Somehow the addition of one more party makes the political system go from totalitarian to democratic. But if you add a third or fourth party wouldn’t that make it more democratic? Not for Neoliberal Democrats. A third or a fourth party would make things chaotic and confuse people. Besides, authoritarian Democrats know what’s best for the people even though two thirds of the Mordor population wants more than two parties.
Conclusion
When Judy Johnson wrote her book on dogmatism it appeared that the targeted population were the lower middle-class and the working-class people. Middle-class and upper middle-class people could breathe easy since dogmatism was not really much about them. In fact, liberals like these were probably the model for fourteen characteristics of open people. My argument has shown that Neoliberal Democrats could be just as dogmatic in these fourteen characteristics. The following is a summary of how the Neoliberal Democrats and how their loyalists stack up against fourteen characteristics of dogmatism.
Intolerance of ambiguity
You cannot vote for a left-wing party. There are only two parties, you have to pick one.
Defensive cognitive closure
We are entitled to your vote regardless of past failures. Only privileged people vote for third parties.
Rigid certainty (cannot state the conditions under which they are willing to admit they are wrong)
Past failures are ignored. The Party’s 50 year slide to the right is ignored. No matter how bad they are, the Republican party (Trump) is worse.
Cognitive compartmentalization
Both the DNC and their loyal followers act like social-schizophrenics. They pretend to be following tried and true liberal principles while, in fact, they fund wars all over the world, blow up pipelines, support fascist Ukraine and support right wing Jewish fundamentalism against Palestine.
Lack of self-reflectiveness: refuse to bend-back and analyze themselves
The Democratic Party blames Russia for its losses, rather than examine its internal failures. They become paranoid and see the “evil” Putin everywhere.
Anxiety and fear
The Democratic Party and their loyalists know no limits to how the horrible things can be if Trump or any Republican wins an election. Similar fear of what the Trumpster followers will do if Trump wins. Yet their ineptitude shows in the pathetic political theater of January 2021.
Lack of a sense of humor
They have a seriousness and moralistic policing of people’s vocabulary to the point of failing to recognize the humor in trying to change people’s vocabulary all at once.
Oversensitivity to unintended consequences which result in anger
They imagine that they could never behave in a racist way, not realizing that Black politicians can be extremely right wing: Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Barak Obama are examples. Their racism is not granting blacks the full political spectrum of commitment that they grant to whites.
Excessive pessimism and despair about the future
By buying hook, line and sinker the anti-Enlightenment Rockefeller program of austerity, global warming, overpopulation and pollution.
Arrogant, dismissive communication style to the lower classes
The war of college professors and their loyalists in the public and students who do not care about identity politics and gender pronouns. They silence students in their communication unless it conforms to their standards. They have a double standard since the heads of the Democratic Party do not have to adhere to these standards.
Preoccupation with power and status of appearance and rhetoric
Their obsession with good form and rhetoric skills in politicians like Obama. Hatred of the bad form, appearance and personality weaknesses in both Trump and his followers. They downplay the political content in their political performance.
Glorification of the in-group and vilification of the out-group
In international affairs the out-group, the evil Russia (Putin), Iran, North Korea and Syria can never do anything good. Meanwhile in Mordor, their European vassals along with Israel carry on the great tradition of liberalism, democracy and human rights. For this in-group these Neoliberals always find extenuating circumstances for all coups, assassinations and imperialistic pillaging.
Dogmatic authoritarian submission to the authorities
This has to do with the Neoliberal Democratic, upper-middle class loyalists’ acceptance that there will be no competition in the Democratic primaries. This authoritarian move has been meekly accepted. Neither do serious New Deal liberals have the nerve to break with their own party and found a new party which is closer to an FDR model.
Dogmatic authoritarian aggression to minorities
This is found in the repression of the Green Party to block their access to getting on the ballot and for controlling the ground rules for the Green Party for getting into the debates.
Dogmatic vs Openminded Thinking
| Dogmatic Thinking | Open-minded Thinking |
| 1) Intolerance of ambiguity Black and white Either/ Or Thinking |
Tolerance of ambiguity Can suspend judgment |
| 2) Defense cognitive closure (Having barbed wire around declarations) |
Open, inviting a response |
| 3) Rigid certainty
Cannot state conditions of being proven wrong |
Flexibility Qualifying statements Falsification—stating conditions where you could be proven wrong |
| 4) Compartmentalization Sealing off contradictory beliefs |
Dialectically using contradictions to create new knowledge |
| 5) Lack of self-reflectiveness Refusal to bend-back and analyze themselves |
Self-reflective of one’s own part in creating problems |
| 6) Belief associated with anxiety or fear (they underestimate their ability to cope) |
Curiosity and confidence in their ability to cope |
| 7) lack of a sense of humor to keep perspective If humor is used, it is sarcasm to undermine the gravity of the situation |
Uses humor to keep things in perspective |
| 8) Belief associated with anger Oversensitivity to unintentional infringements |
Does emotional work Gives people the benefit of the doubt |
| 9) Excessive Pessimism | Moderate optimism, not pollyannish |
| 10) Pre-occupation with power and status | Is aware of, but not preoccupied with, status and power |
| 11) Glorification of in-group Vilification of out- group |
Critical of in-group Welcoming of out-group |
| 12) Authoritarian aggression towards minorities
|
Assertive, not aggressive Sympathetic to minorities |
| 13) Authoritarian submission Excessive obedience and blind trust of authorities |
Critical of the authorities |
| 14) Arrogant, dismissive communication style | Open to what is strange or what appears to be a problem |
• First published in Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Earning enough to pay the rent or mortgage, cover utility bills and travel costs, buy food and have the occasional coffee is difficult, impossible for many.
But it’s not hard for everyone, is it? There are a small number of people living among us who don’t have to worry about the bills, are not troubled when food prices increase or rents balloon.
They are the rich and the obscenely rich. On the surface they look like the rest of us, but they live in a completely different world to the one most of us inhabit. A pristine space of privilege and political influence.
The statistics around wealth and income inequality are manifold and horrifying. There are, according to Forbes, more billionaires in the world than ever before; 2,781 individuals with fortunes in excess of $1Bn (up 141 on 2023), of which 14 are “centi-billionaires”; i.e., fortunes over $100 Bn. Mostly the super rich are men. Oxfam records that, “Globally, men own US $105 trillion more wealth than women.”
During the last ten years, (which saw the 2008 financial crash, Covid and the Ukraine/Russia war) the collective wealth of this tiny shiny gang has increased by 120%. As Forbes puts it, “Even during times of financial uncertainty for many, the super-rich continue to thrive.” At the same time, on the same planet, as the hyper rich drown in money and stuff, around five billion people around the world are poorer now than they were in 2019.
The poorest everywhere are women, people of colour (“in the USA, the wealth of a typical Black household is just 15.8% of that of a typical white household”) and marginalised groups; the same sections of society coincidentally that were most severely impacted by Covid.
Remember all the talk during the pandemic of a socio-economic reset, of tackling social injustices, creating fairer, more integrated ways of working and living etc, blah, blah blah. Well, Oxfam reveals that in subsequent years while “average real wages of nearly 800 million workers have fallen” across 52 countries, the worlds billionaires are $3.3Tn richer than they were pre pandemic……and their wealth has grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.”
Unimaginable wealth for a tiny number of individuals while the majority of humanity live in varying levels of poverty or economic hardship. “The wealth of the world’s five richest billionaires has more than doubled since the start of this decade, while 60% of humanity has grown poorer.” Can anyone really still believe in ‘Trickle down economics’ (“gush up” as Arundhati Roy rightly describes it)?
In parallel to unprecedented concentrations of wealth, the corporations that many of these individuals lead or own have also been making unprecedented profits. Oxfam: “148 of the world’s biggest corporations together raked in $1.8 trillion…in total net profits in the year to June 2023, a 52 per cent jump compared to average net profits in 2018-2021.”
Record profits as the majority struggle to feed themselves, are in many cases falling into debt and destitution, whilst being told to ‘tighten their belts’, by obnoxious, often wealthy, politicians beholden to corporate leaders.
Virtually all profits are dished out to shareholders, with companies refusing to pay their staff properly; less than 0.5% of over 1,600 of the world’s largest companies “pay their workers a living wage.” Corporate greed knows no limits it seems, nor the level of worker exploitation.
Corporate political power fuels inequality not just by shareholder payouts, but by keeping wages low, avoiding paying taxes, absorbing and running public services and feeding climate change.
Multiple inequalities
There are various forms of inequality that flow from the underlying cause, financial inequality: climate change, political influence, housing, access to the arts and internet, good health care and stimulating education among others.
In addition to growing inequality within countries, the gap between the Global north and the Global south is also increasing, and as the impacts of climate change escalate this disparity will only increase. Under the socio-economic system of the day all is dependent on money. Financial hardship/poverty places individuals and nations in a position of disadvantage, making it impossible, for example, to live in a comfortable home, eat a balanced healthy diet, attend a good school, visit art galleries and the theatre, access the internet; travel, have a voice that is listened to by the political class.
The systemic cause of this madness is, of course, the inherent injustice/s sewn into the DNA of the pervasive socio-economic model. The more extreme, the more fundamental the form of capitalism becomes, concentrations of wealth intensify and narrow, inequality increases, democracy flounders, social divisions and anger grow.
Since the 1990s, thanks largely to that fanatical duo, Thatcher and Reagan, and intensifying year on year, the socio-economic paradigm has moved from twilight to utter darkness. Neo-Liberalism or Market Fundamentalism, has expanded its reach, until it now dominates virtually all areas of life, in almost every corner of the world.
The Paradigm of Greed and Destruction champions excess while dismissing sufficiency, simplicity and moderation. Everything is seen as a commodity, including health care, education, and people, to be monetised, exploited to the last drop and profited from. Everyone is regarded as a consumer, every nation, city or village analysed as a potential marketplace.
It is a deeply materialistic, extremely crude, albeit complex way of organising society, that humanity is enthralled to and entrapped by. Obsession with objects and sensory experiences has resulted in mankind being divorced from him/herself, from the natural world and that underlying reality, which we call god. It is choking the life out of humanity, poisoning the planet and driving climate change.
Yes, the underlying cause of climate change and ecological vandalism is consumerism, therefore greed. Not consumerism within poor developing nations (including China) of course, but relentless irresponsible consumerism in rich western nations (US leads the pack by some margin), particularly the richest members within these societies. “The richest 1% globally emit as much carbon pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity [roughly 5.4billion].”
It doesn’t have to be like this
Keeping the masses poor, physically exhausted and emotionally drained, whilst concentrating wealth into the pockets of the already rich is not a new game, of course. As Priya Sahni-Nicholas of the Equality Trust explains, “The super-rich have spent centuries diverting wealth into their hands, making our democracy less responsive to people’s needs and damaging our communities. The result is we [society/nations] are poorer, sicker, less productive, unhappier, more polarised, and less trusting.”
The values of the market are destroying communities and literally making people ill – physically and psychologically (and, of course, the two are inter-twinned). These insidious tools of control create the conditions for all kinds of conflict, individually and collectively. They fuel tribalism, deny/pervert democracy, encourage corruption, and make peace impossible. All of which is by design; the last thing the ruling elites want is a contented happy, and well informed populace.
Despite the dogmatic rhetoric from politicians of all colours this is not the only way to live, the only option. We can change this, and if we are to prosper, we must change this.
At the heart of any re-imagining must be the inculcation of that simple attitude and spontaneous action that parents routinely encourage in their children – Sharing. We need to learn to share; fundamentally to share the essentials required to live – water, food, shelter; share the knowledge, information, and technology. Ensure everyone, irrespective of income has access to good quality health care and stimulating education, and begin to create a just world where trust can blossom, differences dissolve and relationships form.
Sharing is the first step of such a shift. If introduced as a guiding principle, it would have a profound impact, not just in the way basic needs are met, but in the collective consciousness. It would facilitate a kinder, fairer, society and allow a space to open up in which stress could gradually dissolve. The mechanisms for building sharing into the machine could easily be designed and introduced, if — and, of course, it’s a colossal if — the political will was there.
In parallel with structural simplification, purpose needs to be rediscovered and actions cleansed. Humanity must – or potentially face extinction – move away from the relentless pursuit of material, sensory pleasure, which demands constant stimulation through consumption, and therefore, ensures perpetual discontent and environmental catastrophe, to a quieter, simpler mode of living.
This may sound ridiculously ambitious, and given the determination by corporations, the exceedingly rich and weak politicians with vested interests, it may well be. But unless purpose is re-imagined, and unless ‘root and branch’ economic ‘reform’ takes place, the social-economic-political divisions will not just continue, they will intensify, and the unbelievable extremes will become normalised, baked into everyday life and everyday politics.
Everything is in a state of collapse; all the forms, all the systems and, in societies throughout the world, particularly the West, many of the people are falling apart. This is the time for such a move; if not now, when?
The post 2024: People Starve as the Rich Get Richer first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
By looking at right-wing politics around the world, we can better understand conservatives’ abiding preoccupations and priorities, and how they might be thwarted.
Introducing our Spring 2024 issue, “The Global Right.”
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
The virtues of left unity are still obvious, but the grounds for compromise are harder to see.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
The long-simmering crisis over Israel’s genocide of Palestinians has reached a breaking point. Campus protests in solidarity with Gaza have erupted across North America, spanning at least 45 U.S. states, Canada and Mexico. Similar demonstrations have surged across Europe, including in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The food transition, the energy transition, net-zero ideology, programmable central bank digital currencies, the censorship of free speech and clampdowns on protest. What’s it all about? To understand these processes, we need to first locate what is essentially a social and economic reset within the context of a collapsing financial system.
Writer Ted Reece notes that the general rate of profit has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s. By late 2019, many companies could not generate enough profit. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cash flows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent.
Professor Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University has described how closing down the global economy in early 2020 under the guise of fighting a supposedly new and novel pathogen allowed the US Federal Reserve to flood collapsing financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
According to investigative journalist Michael Byrant, €1.5 trillion was needed to deal with the crisis in Europe alone. The financial collapse staring European central bankers in the face came to a head in 2019. The appearance of a ‘novel virus’ provided a convenient cover story.
The European Central Bank agreed to a €1.31 trillion bailout of banks followed by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations. This package of long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks was sold to the public as a necessary programme to cushion the impact of the pandemic on businesses and workers.
In response to a collapsing neoliberalism, we are now seeing the rollout of an authoritarian great reset — an agenda that intends to reshape the economy and change how we live.
Shift to authoritarianism
The new economy is to be dominated by a handful of tech giants, global conglomerates and e-commerce platforms, and new markets will also be created through the financialisation of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the notion of protecting the environment.
In recent years, we have witnessed an overaccumulation of capital, and the creation of such markets will provide fresh investment opportunities (including dodgy carbon offsetting Ponzi schemes) for the super-rich to park their wealth and prosper.
This great reset envisages a transformation of Western societies, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance. Being rolled out under the benign term of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic Forum (WEF) says the public will eventually ‘rent’ everything they require (remember the WEF video ‘you will own nothing and be happy’?): stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ and underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
Climate alarmism and the mantra of sustainability are about promoting money-making schemes. But they also serve another purpose: social control.
Neoliberalism has run its course, resulting in the impoverishment of large sections of the population. But to dampen dissent and lower expectations, the levels of personal freedom we have been used to will not be tolerated. This means that the wider population will be subjected to the discipline of an emerging surveillance state.
To push back against any dissent, ordinary people are being told that they must sacrifice personal liberty in order to protect public health, societal security (those terrible Russians, Islamic extremists or that Sunak-designated bogeyman George Galloway) or the climate. Unlike in the old normal of neoliberalism, an ideological shift is occurring whereby personal freedoms are increasingly depicted as being dangerous because they run counter to the collective good.
The real reason for this ideological shift is to ensure that the masses get used to lower living standards and accept them. Consider, for instance, the Bank of England’s chief economist Huw Pill saying that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. And then there is Rob Kapito of the world’s biggest asset management firm BlackRock, who says that a “very entitled” generation must deal with scarcity for the first time in their lives.
At the same time, to muddy the waters, the message is that lower living standards are the result of the conflict in Ukraine and supply shocks that both the war and ‘the virus’ have caused.
The net-zero carbon emissions agenda will help legitimise lower living standards (reducing your carbon footprint) while reinforcing the notion that our rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. You will own nothing, not because the rich and their neoliberal agenda made you poor but because you will be instructed to stop being irresponsible and must act to protect the planet.
Net-zero agenda
But what of this shift towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and the plan to slash our carbon footprints? Is it even feasible or necessary?
Gordon Hughes, a former World Bank economist and current professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, says in a new report that current UK and European net-zero policies will likely lead to further economic ruin.
Apparently, the only viable way to raise the cash for sufficient new capital expenditure (on wind and solar infrastructure) would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10 per cent. Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war; even then, never for more than a decade.
But this agenda will also cause serious environmental degradation. So says Andrew Nikiforuk in the article The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics, which outlines how the green techno-dream is vastly destructive.
He lists the devastating environmental impacts of an even more mineral-intensive system based on renewables and warns:
The whole process of replacing a declining system with a more complex mining-based enterprise is now supposed to take place with a fragile banking system, dysfunctional democracies, broken supply chains, critical mineral shortages and hostile geopolitics.
All of this assumes that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Not everyone agrees. In the article Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, journalist Thierry Meyssan argues that net zero is based on political ideology rather than science. But to state such things has become heresy in the Western countries and shouted down with accusations of ‘climate science denial’.
Regardless of such concerns, the march towards net zero continues, and key to this is the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals.
Today, almost every business or corporate report, website or brochure includes a multitude of references to ‘carbon footprints’, ‘sustainability’, ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutrality’ and how a company or organisation intends to achieve its sustainability targets. Green profiling, green bonds and green investments go hand in hand with displaying ‘green’ credentials and ambitions wherever and whenever possible.
It seems anyone and everyone in business is planting their corporate flag on the summit of sustainability. Take Sainsbury’s, for instance. It is one of the ‘big six’ food retail supermarkets in the UK and has a vision for the future of food that it published in 2019.
Here’s a quote from it:
Personalised Optimisation is a trend that could see people chipped and connected like never before. A significant step on from wearable tech used today, the advent of personal microchips and neural laces has the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms which could work out exactly what we need to support us at a particular time in our life. Retailers, such as Sainsbury’s could play a critical role to support this, arranging delivery of the needed food within thirty minutes — perhaps by drone.
Tracked, traced and chipped — for your own benefit. Corporations accessing all of our personal data, right down to our DNA. The report is littered with references to sustainability and the climate or environment, and it is difficult not to get the impression that it is written so as to leave the reader awestruck by the technological possibilities.
However, the promotion of a brave new world of technological innovation that has nothing to say about power — who determines policies that have led to massive inequalities, poverty, malnutrition, food insecurity and hunger and who is responsible for the degradation of the environment in the first place — is nothing new.
The essence of power is conveniently glossed over, not least because those behind the prevailing food regime are also shaping the techno-utopian fairytale where everyone lives happily ever after eating bugs and synthetic food while living in a digital panopticon.
Fake green
The type of ‘green’ agenda being pushed is a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining the pockets of rich investors and subsidy-sucking green infrastructure firms and also part of a strategy required to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
It is, furthermore, a type of green that plans to cover much of the countryside with wind farms and solar panels with most farmers no longer farming. A recipe for food insecurity.
Those investing in the ‘green’ agenda care first and foremost about profit. The supremely influential BlackRock invests in the current food system that is responsible for polluted waterways, degraded soils, the displacement of smallholder farmers, a spiralling public health crisis, malnutrition and much more.
It also invests in healthcare — an industry that thrives on the illnesses and conditions created by eating the substandard food that the current system produces. Did Larry Fink, the top man at BlackRock, suddenly develop a conscience and become an environmentalist who cares about the planet and ordinary people? Of course not.
Any serious deliberations on the future of food would surely consider issues like food sovereignty, the role of agroecology and the strengthening of family farms — the backbone of current global food production.
The aforementioned article by Andrew Nikiforuk concludes that, if we are really serious about our impacts on the environment, we must scale back our needs and simplify society.
In terms of food, the solution rests on a low-input approach that strengthens rural communities and local markets and prioritises smallholder farms and small independent enterprises and retailers, localised democratic food systems and a concept of food sovereignty based on self-sufficiency, agroecological principles and regenerative agriculture.
It would involve facilitating the right to culturally appropriate food that is nutritionally dense due to diverse cropping patterns and free from toxic chemicals while ensuring local ownership and stewardship of common resources like land, water, soil and seeds.
That’s where genuine environmentalism and the future of food begins.
• The author writes on food, agriculture and development. For further insight into the issues discussed above, you can access his two free books on the food system at Academia.edu or the e-book section on the Centre for Research on Globalization homepage.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The food transition, the energy transition, net-zero ideology, programmable central bank digital currencies, the censorship of free speech and clampdowns on protest. What’s it all about? To understand these processes, we need to first locate what is essentially a social and economic reset within the context of a collapsing financial system.
Writer Ted Reece notes that the general rate of profit has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s. By late 2019, many companies could not generate enough profit. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cash flows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent.
Professor Fabio Vighi of Cardiff University has described how closing down the global economy in early 2020 under the guise of fighting a supposedly new and novel pathogen allowed the US Federal Reserve to flood collapsing financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
According to investigative journalist Michael Byrant, €1.5 trillion was needed to deal with the crisis in Europe alone. The financial collapse staring European central bankers in the face came to a head in 2019. The appearance of a ‘novel virus’ provided a convenient cover story.
The European Central Bank agreed to a €1.31 trillion bailout of banks followed by the EU agreeing to a €750 billion recovery fund for European states and corporations. This package of long-term, ultra-cheap credit to hundreds of banks was sold to the public as a necessary programme to cushion the impact of the pandemic on businesses and workers.
In response to a collapsing neoliberalism, we are now seeing the rollout of an authoritarian great reset — an agenda that intends to reshape the economy and change how we live.
Shift to authoritarianism
The new economy is to be dominated by a handful of tech giants, global conglomerates and e-commerce platforms, and new markets will also be created through the financialisation of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the notion of protecting the environment.
In recent years, we have witnessed an overaccumulation of capital, and the creation of such markets will provide fresh investment opportunities (including dodgy carbon offsetting Ponzi schemes) for the super-rich to park their wealth and prosper.
This great reset envisages a transformation of Western societies, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance. Being rolled out under the benign term of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the World Economic Forum (WEF) says the public will eventually ‘rent’ everything they require (remember the WEF video ‘you will own nothing and be happy’?): stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ and underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
Climate alarmism and the mantra of sustainability are about promoting money-making schemes. But they also serve another purpose: social control.
Neoliberalism has run its course, resulting in the impoverishment of large sections of the population. But to dampen dissent and lower expectations, the levels of personal freedom we have been used to will not be tolerated. This means that the wider population will be subjected to the discipline of an emerging surveillance state.
To push back against any dissent, ordinary people are being told that they must sacrifice personal liberty in order to protect public health, societal security (those terrible Russians, Islamic extremists or that Sunak-designated bogeyman George Galloway) or the climate. Unlike in the old normal of neoliberalism, an ideological shift is occurring whereby personal freedoms are increasingly depicted as being dangerous because they run counter to the collective good.
The real reason for this ideological shift is to ensure that the masses get used to lower living standards and accept them. Consider, for instance, the Bank of England’s chief economist Huw Pill saying that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. And then there is Rob Kapito of the world’s biggest asset management firm BlackRock, who says that a “very entitled” generation must deal with scarcity for the first time in their lives.
At the same time, to muddy the waters, the message is that lower living standards are the result of the conflict in Ukraine and supply shocks that both the war and ‘the virus’ have caused.
The net-zero carbon emissions agenda will help legitimise lower living standards (reducing your carbon footprint) while reinforcing the notion that our rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. You will own nothing, not because the rich and their neoliberal agenda made you poor but because you will be instructed to stop being irresponsible and must act to protect the planet.
Net-zero agenda
But what of this shift towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and the plan to slash our carbon footprints? Is it even feasible or necessary?
Gordon Hughes, a former World Bank economist and current professor of economics at the University of Edinburgh, says in a new report that current UK and European net-zero policies will likely lead to further economic ruin.
Apparently, the only viable way to raise the cash for sufficient new capital expenditure (on wind and solar infrastructure) would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10 per cent. Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war; even then, never for more than a decade.
But this agenda will also cause serious environmental degradation. So says Andrew Nikiforuk in the article The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics, which outlines how the green techno-dream is vastly destructive.
He lists the devastating environmental impacts of an even more mineral-intensive system based on renewables and warns:
The whole process of replacing a declining system with a more complex mining-based enterprise is now supposed to take place with a fragile banking system, dysfunctional democracies, broken supply chains, critical mineral shortages and hostile geopolitics.
All of this assumes that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Not everyone agrees. In the article Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, journalist Thierry Meyssan argues that net zero is based on political ideology rather than science. But to state such things has become heresy in the Western countries and shouted down with accusations of ‘climate science denial’.
Regardless of such concerns, the march towards net zero continues, and key to this is the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals.
Today, almost every business or corporate report, website or brochure includes a multitude of references to ‘carbon footprints’, ‘sustainability’, ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutrality’ and how a company or organisation intends to achieve its sustainability targets. Green profiling, green bonds and green investments go hand in hand with displaying ‘green’ credentials and ambitions wherever and whenever possible.
It seems anyone and everyone in business is planting their corporate flag on the summit of sustainability. Take Sainsbury’s, for instance. It is one of the ‘big six’ food retail supermarkets in the UK and has a vision for the future of food that it published in 2019.
Here’s a quote from it:
Personalised Optimisation is a trend that could see people chipped and connected like never before. A significant step on from wearable tech used today, the advent of personal microchips and neural laces has the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms which could work out exactly what we need to support us at a particular time in our life. Retailers, such as Sainsbury’s could play a critical role to support this, arranging delivery of the needed food within thirty minutes — perhaps by drone.
Tracked, traced and chipped — for your own benefit. Corporations accessing all of our personal data, right down to our DNA. The report is littered with references to sustainability and the climate or environment, and it is difficult not to get the impression that it is written so as to leave the reader awestruck by the technological possibilities.
However, the promotion of a brave new world of technological innovation that has nothing to say about power — who determines policies that have led to massive inequalities, poverty, malnutrition, food insecurity and hunger and who is responsible for the degradation of the environment in the first place — is nothing new.
The essence of power is conveniently glossed over, not least because those behind the prevailing food regime are also shaping the techno-utopian fairytale where everyone lives happily ever after eating bugs and synthetic food while living in a digital panopticon.
Fake green
The type of ‘green’ agenda being pushed is a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining the pockets of rich investors and subsidy-sucking green infrastructure firms and also part of a strategy required to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
It is, furthermore, a type of green that plans to cover much of the countryside with wind farms and solar panels with most farmers no longer farming. A recipe for food insecurity.
Those investing in the ‘green’ agenda care first and foremost about profit. The supremely influential BlackRock invests in the current food system that is responsible for polluted waterways, degraded soils, the displacement of smallholder farmers, a spiralling public health crisis, malnutrition and much more.
It also invests in healthcare — an industry that thrives on the illnesses and conditions created by eating the substandard food that the current system produces. Did Larry Fink, the top man at BlackRock, suddenly develop a conscience and become an environmentalist who cares about the planet and ordinary people? Of course not.
Any serious deliberations on the future of food would surely consider issues like food sovereignty, the role of agroecology and the strengthening of family farms — the backbone of current global food production.
The aforementioned article by Andrew Nikiforuk concludes that, if we are really serious about our impacts on the environment, we must scale back our needs and simplify society.
In terms of food, the solution rests on a low-input approach that strengthens rural communities and local markets and prioritises smallholder farms and small independent enterprises and retailers, localised democratic food systems and a concept of food sovereignty based on self-sufficiency, agroecological principles and regenerative agriculture.
It would involve facilitating the right to culturally appropriate food that is nutritionally dense due to diverse cropping patterns and free from toxic chemicals while ensuring local ownership and stewardship of common resources like land, water, soil and seeds.
That’s where genuine environmentalism and the future of food begins.
• The author writes on food, agriculture and development. For further insight into the issues discussed above, you can access his two free books on the food system at Academia.edu or the e-book section on the Centre for Research on Globalization homepage.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
This article begins with a short video based on an interview with researcher Sandi Adams, who describes the plans for agriculture in the rural county of Somerset in south-west England and the UK in general. It’s an important clip because what she describes appears to be part of a wider United Nations agenda handed down by an extremely wealthy unaccountable, unelected elite.
This elite thinks it can do a better job than nature by changing the essence of food and the genetic core of the food supply (via synthetic biology and genetic engineering). The plan also involves removing farmers from the land (AI-driven farmerless farms) and filling much of the countryside with wind farms and solar panels. Although the food system has problems that need addressing, this misguided agenda is a recipe for food insecurity that no one voted for.
Farming Crisis KEY POINTS from Sandi Adams interview (youtube.com)
Throughout the world, from the Netherlands to India, farmers are protesting. The protests might appear to have little in common. But they do. Farmers are increasingly finding it difficult to make a living, whether, for instance, because of neoliberal trade policies that lead to the import of produce that undermines domestic production and undercuts prices, the withdrawal of state support or the implementation of net-zero emissions policies that set unrealistic targets.
The common thread is that, by one way or another, farming is deliberately being made impossible or financially non-viable. The aim is to drive most farmers off the land and ram through an agenda that by its very nature seems likely to produce shortages and undermine food security.
A ‘one world agriculture’ global agenda is being promoted by the likes of the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. It involves a vision of food and farming that sees companies such as Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and Cargill working with Microsoft, Google and the big-tech giants to facilitate AI-driven farmerless farms, laboratory engineered ‘food’ and retail dominated by the likes of Amazon and Walmart. A cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and e-commerce platforms at the commanding heights of the economy.
The agenda is the brainchild of a digital-corporate-financial complex that wants to transform and control all aspects of life and human behaviour. This complex forms part of an authoritarian global elite that has the ability to coordinate its agenda globally via the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other supranational organisations, including influential think tanks and foundations (Gates, Rockefeller etc).
Its agenda for food and farming is euphemistically called a ‘food transition’. Big agribusiness and ‘philanthropic’ foundations position themselves as the saviours of humanity due to their much-promoted plans to ‘feed the world’ with high-tech ‘precision’ farming’, ‘data-driven’ agriculture and ‘green’ (net-zero) production – with ‘sustainability’ being the mantra.
Integral to this ‘food transition’ is the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, a commentary that has been carefully constructed and promoted (see the work of investigative journalist Cory Morningstar), and net-zero ideology tied to carbon farming and carbon trading.
The ‘food transition’ involves locking farmers (at least those farmers who will remain in farming) further into a corporate-controlled agriculture that extracts wealth and serves the market needs of global corporations, carbon trading Ponzi schemes and institutional investors and speculators with no connection to farming who regard agriculture, food commodities and agricultural land as mere financial assets. These farmers will be reduced to corporate profit-extracting agents who bear all of the risks.
This predatory commercialisation of the countryside uses flawed premises and climate alarmism to legitimise the roll-out of technologies to supposedly deliver us all from climate breakdown and Malthusian catastrophe.
In society in general, we also see the questioning of official narratives discouraged, censored and marginalised. We saw this with the policies and the ‘science’ that were used to legitimise COVID-related state actions. A wealthy elite increasingly funds science, determines what should be studied, how it should be studied and how the findings are disseminated and how the technology produced is to be used.
This elite has the power to shut down genuine debate and to smear and censor others who question the dominant narrative. The prevailing thinking is that the problems humanity face are all to be solved through technical innovation determined by plutocrats and centralised power.
This haughty mindset (or outright arrogance) leads to, and is symptomatic of, an authoritarianism that seeks to impose a range of technologies on humanity with no democratic oversight. This includes self-transmitting vaccines, the genetic engineering of plants and humans, synthetic food, geoengineering and transhumanism.
What we see is a misguided eco-modernist paradigm that concentrates power and privileges techno-scientific expertise (a form of technocratic exceptionalism). At the same time, historical power relations (often rooted in agriculture and colonialism) and their legacies within and between societies across the world are conveniently ignored and depoliticised. Technology is not the cure-all for the destructive impacts of poverty, inequality, dispossession, imperialism or class exploitation.
When it comes to the technologies and policies being rolled out in the agriculture sector, these phenomena will be reinforced and further entrenched – and that includes illness and poor health, which have markedly increased as a result of the modern food we eat and the agrochemicals and practices already used by the corporations pushing for the ‘food transition’. However, that then opens up other money-spinning techno-fix opportunities in the life sciences sector for investors like BlackRock that invest in both agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
But in a neoliberal privatised economy that has often facilitated the rise of members of the controlling wealthy elite, it is reasonable to assume that its members possess certain assumptions of how the world works and should continue to work: a world based on deregulation with limited oversight and the hegemony of private capital and a world led by private individuals like Bill Gates who think they know best.
Whether through, for instance, the patenting of life forms, carbon trading, entrenching market (corporate) dependency or land investments, their eco-modern policies serve as cover for generating and amassing further wealth and for cementing their control.
So, it should come as little surprise that powerful people who have contempt for democratic principles (and by implication, ordinary people) believe they have some divine right to undermine food security, close down debate, enrich themselves further courtesy of their technologies and policies and gamble with humanity’s future.
The author writes on food, agriculture and development. For further insight into the issues discussed above, you can access his two free books on the food system at Academia.edu or the e-book section on the Centre for Research on Globalization homepage.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The defeat of hardline national-Catholic rule was welcomed with euphoria by the big-tent opposition. The outcome for the Polish left is more ambiguous.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
This week’s revelation that Donald Trump is already plotting new ways to try to put himself permanently above the law is just the latest reminder of the looming threat of lawless and emboldened right-wing forces in the United States. Trump’s new scheme to expand a Nixon-era policy memo to prohibit the Justice Department from prosecuting presidents, even after they leave office, is just a tiny hint…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
In the 1990s, neoliberalism was a kind of utopian program. What remains after the crises of the twenty-first century?
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
Matt and Sam interview historian Jennifer Burns about her new biography of Nobel Prize–winning economist and libertarian intellectual Milton Friedman.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
Emilio Pettoruti (Argentina), Arlequín (‘Harlequin’), 1928.
Before he won Argentina’s presidential election on 19 November, Javier Milei circulated a video of himself in front of a series of white boards. Pasted on one board were the names of various state institutions, such as the ministries of health, education, women and gender diversities, public works, and culture, all recognised as typical elements of any modern state project. Walking along the board, Milei ripped off the names of these and other ministries while crying afuera! (‘out!’) and declaring that if elected president, he would abolish them. Milei vowed not only to shrink the state but to ‘blow up’ the system, often appearing at campaign events with a chainsaw in hand.
The reaction to Milei’s viral video and other such stunts was as polarised as the Argentinian electorate. Half of the population thought that Milei’s agenda was madness, the sign of a far right out of touch with reality and rationality. The other half thought that Milei displayed precisely the kind of boldness required to transform a country mired in poverty and skyrocketing inflation. Milei did not just win the election; he won it handily, defeating the outgoing government’s finance minister, Sergio Massa, whose stale, centrist promises of stability did not sit well with a population that has lived with instability for decades.
Milei’s proposals to solve the downward spiral of the Argentinian economy are not unique, nor are they practical. Dollarisating the economy, privatisating state functions, and suppressing workers’ organisations are pillars of the neoliberal austerity agenda that has plagued the world for the past several decades. To debate Milei on this or that policy misses the point behind the ascendancy of the far right across the world. It is not what they say they will do to solve the world’s actual problems that matters so much as how they say it. In other words, for politicians like Milei (or Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and former US President Donald Trump), it is not their policy proposals that are attractive, but their style – the style of the far right. People like Milei promise to take the country’s institutions by the throat and make them cough up solutions. Their boldness sends a frisson through society, a jolt that masquerades as a plan for the future.
Fátima Pecci Carou (Argentina), Evita Ninja, 2020.
There was a time when the general mood of the international middle class centred on guaranteeing convenience: they hated the inconvenience of being stuck in traffic jams and queues, of being unable to get their children into the school of their choice, and of being unable to buy – even if by credit – the consumption goods that made them feel culturally superior to each other and to the working class. If the middle class was not inconvenienced, then that class – which shapes the electorate of most liberal democracies – would be content with promises of stability. But when the entire system convulses with inconveniences of one kind or another – such as inflation, the rate of which was 142.7% in Argentina at the start of the elections in October – then the assurance of stability holds little weight. The political forces of the centre, such as of Milei’s opponent, are trapped in a habit of speaking about stability while their country burns. They promise little more than incremental destruction. In this context, timidity is not always attractive to the middle class, let alone to workers and peasants, who require a bold vision rather than a fixation on mild cost-of-living increases alongside taxation holidays for big businesses.
This timidity is not merely about the character of the political force that seizes the moment. If that were the case, then merely shouting louder should win the centre-left and left votes. Rather, it reflects the increasing timidity of the centre-left and its political platform, deflated by the immense stresses and strains that have damaged society at the neurological level. The precariousness of employment, the state’s retreat from providing care for its people, the privatisation of leisure, the individualisation of education, and other strains have, together, produced overwhelming social problems (not to mention the impact of the climate catastrophe and brutal wars). The political horizon of large sections of the centre-left has been reduced to merely managing this decaying civilisation (as our latest dossier, What Can We Expect from the New Progressive Wave in Latin America?, points out). The persistent failure of governments to solve the problems of society has made politics itself foreign to large sections of the public.
Two generations of people have been raised in the world of austerity, sold falsehoods by technocratic experts who promise to improve their social condition through neoliberal economic growth. Why should they believe any expert who now cautions against the economic cannibalism promoted by the far right? Besides, the erosion of education systems and the reduction of the mass media into a gladiatorial contest have meant that there are few avenues for serious public discussion about the troubles facing our societies and the solutions needed to address them. Anything can be promised, anything can be implemented, and even when neoliberal agendas create catastrophic outcomes – as with Modi’s demonetisation scheme in India – they are touted as successes and their leaders are celebrated.
Neoliberalism has increased not only the precariousness of the global majority, but also sentiments of anti-intellectualism (the death of the expert and expertise) and anti-democratisation (the death of serious, democratic public education and discussion). In this context, Milei’s triumph is less about him than it is a product of a broader social process, one that is not exclusive to Argentina but holds true around the world.
Raquel Forner (Argentina), Mujeres del Mundo (‘Women of the World’), 1938.
Pillars of neoliberalism such as the privatisation and commodification of state functions created the social conditions for the rise of twin problems: corruption and crime. The deregulation of private enterprise and the privatisation of state functions have deepened the nexus between the political class and the capitalist class. Granting state contracts to private enterprises and cutting back on regulations, for instance, has provided immense avenues for bribes, kickbacks, and transfer payments to proliferate. Simultaneously, the increased precarity of life and the evisceration of social welfare increased the volume of petty crime, including through the drug trade (as demonstrated by a Tricontinental research project on the war on drugs and imperialism’s addictions, which will bear fruit soon).
The far right has fixated on these problems not in an effort to address the roots of the problem, but to achieve two results:
The far right’s misleading representation and weaponisation of corruption and crime has placed the left at a deep disadvantage. On these issues, the far right has an intimate relationship with old social democracy and traditional liberalism, who generally accept the content of the far-right agenda, objecting only to their brash approach. This leaves the left with few political allies when it comes to these core battles, forcing it to defend the state form despite the corruption that has become endemic to it through neoliberal policy. Meanwhile, the left must continue to defend working-class communities from state repression, despite the real problems of crime and insecurity that confront the working class due to the collapse of employment and social welfare. The dominant debate is framed around the surface-level realities of corruption and crime and is not permitted to probe deeper into the neoliberal roots of these problems.
Diana Dowek (Argentina), Las madres (‘The Mothers’), 1983.
When the election results came in from Argentina, I asked our colleagues in Buenos Aires and La Plata to send me some songs that capture the current mood. Meanwhile, I buried myself in Argentinian poetry of loss and defeat, mostly the work of Juana Bignozzi (1937–2015). However, this was not the mood they wanted to put forward in this newsletter. They wanted something robust, something that reflects the boldness with which the left must respond to our current moment. This mood is captured by the rapper Trueno (b. 2002) and the singer Víctor Heredia (b. 1947), crossing generations and genres to produce the moving song Tierra Zanta (‘Sacred Earth’) and an equally moving video. And so, from Argentina:
I came into the world to defend my land.
I am the peaceful saviour in this war.
I will die fighting, firm as a Venezuelan.
I am Atacama, Guaraní, Coya, Barí, and Tucáno.
If they want to throw the country at me, we’ll lift it up.
We Indians built empires with our hands.
Do you hate the future? I come with my brothers and sisters
from different parents, but we don’t stay apart.
I am the fire of the Caribbean and a Peruvian warrior.
I thank Brazil for the air that we breathe.
Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win.
But it is not in vain to die for the land that I love.
And if outsiders ask what my name is,
my name is ‘Latin’ and my surname is ‘America’.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The rain has been almost constant these early months of 1996. Great storms from the US have arrived even to here, the Caribbean coast of Honduras, thousands of kilometers to the south. At times in Tela, the run-off courses thigh-deep.
And every day, it seems, some piece of news about those Northern-owned Fruit Companies has flooded the papers. A banana war has begun between them and the European Community. Accusations and denials gust through the pages of El Tiempo and La Prensa.
In February, I read in La Prensa of some campesinos who have taken over lands of the Tela RR Co. The Company official’s words echo through my mind: “I’m glad the military used no force. I’m glad the government respects private property rights.” I’d like to hear those campesinos’ stories. Tacamiche. I can’t find this village on any maps.1
Another gust flutters the pages of the dailies in my hands. The Honduran government has said no to any attempt by the Tela RR Co. to decrease train service. The poor need an inexpensive means to travel, argue the politicians. I pull out the maps again.
The Ferrocarril Nacional owns the lines from Puerto Cortés to Baracoa, and beyond to San Pedro Sula. The Company, the one from Baracoa to Tela—as well as others running deep into the fincas. There are really three Chiquita trains: one that makes a trip through those plantations between El Progreso and La Lima; The Machangay, a weekly service from that Port to the emerald hearts of their lands, carrying merchandise to the Company stores; and, in part, from Puerto Cortés to Tela.
If I can’t find Tacamiche, I can surely find a railroad.
The weather, for the first time in weeks, is sunny—and muggy. But I won’t be prepared for the storm that will cast me in a whirlwind for the next thirty-six hours.
*****
In the cracking dawn, I gather with many others for a train to Baracoa, then on to Tela. Opposite this Portón Nº 7, is the shell of a building. Its brick and concrete crumble under today’s dry sky. The metal date is still intact: 1922. Its former name is a faint shadow: Hyller Ralston and Son.
A thin-limbed ladino wobbles from one person to another, showing off his pride. From his front pocket, he pulls out an ancient, long-barreled revolver.
The train arrives. The rush is on. Quickly the cushioned seats in the lone first-class car are taken. I opt for a wooden one in second. There are three of these wagons, as well as four fruteros converted to passenger use, two baggage cars, and the locomotive.
Our journey begins, clattering through the awakening city, over a bridge spanning a laguna. Shanties built upon stilts above the marshy ground. In the window of one, a woman washes dishes. The sink hangs off the sill. Soiled water drains to the swamp below.
Though it is still early, the swelter grows. I tuck my journal into my back pocket, leaving the scenes of small rustic settlements and molded Company towns that slip by my window.
Through the fruteros, stepping over people’s legs stretched out to the center bench. Perdone … con permiso … To the first baggage car to buy a soda. But the entrance is jammed with passengers and bundles of firewood. I return to my seat, stepping over legs, defeated.
“What’s the matter?” The words cut through my self-pity. I hadn’t noticed someone’s eyes were watching me on my unsuccessful quest. An Afro-Honduran man studies me with deep brown eyes.
“Oh, I thought of getting a gaseosa. But the way is blocked.” I shrug and begin turning towards my car.
“What flavor would you like?” He gets up from his place.
“Oh, no,” I shake my head, single braid wagging. “It’s all right, señor.”
“No, I insist. Sit down, please.” He offers the bench with an open hand. “What kind would you like?”
“Grape would be fine, please.”
Within minutes, he returns. One chocolate-colored hand embraces the bottle.
“How much do I owe you?” I reach into my pocket after taking the lukewarm soda.
He smiles. “Nothing. It’s my treat.” He sits next to me.
This is Eduardo, going home to San Juan, a Garífuna village near Tela. He farms some land there, in the mountains. For more money, he fishes a few months at a time, out of Puerto Cortés.
Flashes of sunlight through the slats of this frutero dance within the car. We talk about the railroads here, and their owners. Our conversation flows to the banana companies: who they are and where they rule.
West of Tela is Chiquita-land with bananas and citrus. It used to be United Fruit. East of Tela—La Ceiba, Trujillo—belongs to Standard Fruit, or Dole. It mainly grows bananas and pineapples. Nueva Tela and Lancetilla were United’s territory.
“And there are others, too. A new one, also from the United States. … No, it’s independent from the other two.” Eduardo blows the smoke of his cigarette. It swirls in the sunlight slipping in. “There was some old company, Italian.” He shakes his just-beginning-to-grey head. “I don’t remember the name any more. It, too, used to be on the coats. But it got bought up years ago.”
I take a swig of my grape gaseosa, listening to his melodic voice.
He wrinkles his brow, eyes squinted in thought. “And there was another—Cuyamel. It worked west of Puerto Cortés. It got bought up, too. There aren’t any fincas that way any longer.”
I wipe my mouth. “Why’s that, don Eduardo?”
He shrugs. “I suppose because the soil’s not as good. Lots of small plantations there, though. Some are collectives, others private. They grow bananas, sugar cane, yucca and the like.” His flicked ash falls through a hole rotted in the wooden floor.
I place the bottle between my feet. “Just on the other side of the river there, in Guatemala, the Company has many large fincas.”
“Oh, yeh.” His smile is bright. “They’ve got some very good land there.”
“You know, don Eduardo,” I look him in the eyes, “it’s good to meet someone who knows so much about the bananeras. So many Hondurans have told me differing things. Like Tela had belonged to Estandard Fruit.”
He laughs quietly. “Well, I know some, because I’ve travelled so much around the country.” He falls serious. “Plus, if I don’t know something, I say I don’t know, instead of pretending I do and misinforming.”
I nod, picking up my soda. I sip the last of it.
“And I used to work for the Company many years ago.”
I glance at him. His eyes are gazing at something in that past. “When was that?”
“Oh, ’51 to ’66.” He drags his cigarette.
“Wasn’t there some sort of big strike back then? In ’53 or ’54?”
“Fifty-four.” His head moves plaintively up and down. “You had to conform.”
“And how was it?”
Eduardo turns to me. “Low pay. Had to conform. Step out of line, and you were out.” He tromps his bud. “I decided to get out of that. Went to work in other agriculture and fishing. I devote myself to that now.”
I hold the empty bottle up. “Well, I guess I should go return this.”
On my pass back through, Eduardo nods towards the landscape. “We’re already coming into Tela.”
I peer out between the slats. We’re entering the railyard. This train clatters by the old Tela RR Co. building and decaying frutero cars.
“Don Eduardo, thanks for the soda—and the lessons.”
He nods de nada with a smile.
I go to my second-class seat to retrieve my knapsack. I watch our approach through the open window. We have pulled onto the fractured pier, and now backing along a spur line. Beneath a bridge, the river swirls black-green and tan-grey. We arrive at the Old Tela station.
I lose sight of Eduardo in the crowd on the road leading past the cheap-dive hotels and market. The mud is crusting into ruts. The late-morning sun is strong.
I have no interest in spending even a night here. The five weeks I’d spent in February, going into March, was enough. I head straight for the bus terminal. I’ll go to La Ceiba, the cradle of Standard Fruit. Then on to Trujillo.
*****
A thin wind whirls dust and litter around my feet. I step through the rear door of this school bus. It is dim inside. Most seats are already taken.
A young ladino, perhaps mid-20s, offers the one next to him, in the back here. As soon as I sit down, he says with a big smile, “So, are you from the United States?”
Oh, boy, this is going to be a long ride. “I’m from Alaska,” I respond flatly.
“Oh.” Disappointment washes over his bony face. “I thought …”
A heavy silence drifts between us.
I look away. I feel a hollowness in the pit of my stomach.
“Well, I work at Estandard Fruit.” He pulls out his worn leather wallet and hands me his identification card. “In a packing plant. Four years now.”
Bewilderment washes over my face. “That’s strange. On the train from Puerto Cortés just now, I met a man who used to work for the Company. He said wages were low and one had to conform.”
This young man nods enthusiastically. “Oh, yeh.”
He leans over the back of the seat, pulling off his ball cap. He fans a banana box in the cargo hold behind us.
“What you got there?”
“Oh,” he sits back down with a clunk. “A hen, a rooster—and five chicks. I have my own piece of land now and setting up livestock on it.”
“Once you get it established, are you going to leave the Company?”
The cock crows.
The man’s head bobs with a slight grin. His eyes twinkle.
“So, how much do you earn?”
“Oh, 25 lempiras a day. Per month, 750.”
About minimum wage here. At the present exchange rate, that would be about $70US per month.
“I saw in the newspapers that the minimum wage will be increasing soon.”
He shakes his head. The sunlight shimmers on his black hair. “I’m not so certain.”
“Why’s that?”
“Lawyers of the big companies are fighting it.”
I’d read that, too.
He reaches back to fan his chickens again. “I have to keep my investment cool,” he says with a laugh.
I smile at him.
That sunbeam is so warm. This has already been a long day. I begin nodding off….
I awaken, my shirt damp with sweat. It’s hellaciously hot. I reach for my water bottle.
My seatmate is cooling his chickens once more. He grins fincas are fading into miles of pineapple groves along either side of the highway. We are nearing La Ceiba.
*****
Once settled into this city, I wander through the central park. Caimans and turtles are keeping cool in their tank beneath the massive rubber tree. And I wander across the Avenue to the railroad park in the Company town. Under an ancient mango tree, a couple trysts. A slight breeze rustles its lance-shaped leaves. A mosaic of leaf-shadow and sunlight dances on the brick path.
I’m reading the sign by the old San José locomotive. A man walks up behind me. He watches me write, I see from out of the corner of my eye, and the holstered pistol he wears.
Many times during my journeys, I have found my fascination for trains intermeshing with the history of the banananeras.
I turn around to face him. “Excuse me, sir. Do you work here?”
“Sí, senora.” This ladino studies me: long hair in a single braid, blue jeans, tennis shoes. His face is official. “I work vigilance in this park.”
“Pues, perhaps you can help me. I am writing a book on train journeys. I understand there might be cargo service to La Ceiba. Is that true?” I’ve long wanted to travel these lines around here. But a previous visit to Sambo Creek proved it couldn’t run very far east.
“No, Estandard Fruit doesn’t ship by train any longer. It uses trucks. All the lines now belong to the government. There is, however, a special tourist train every day.”
“What hours does it run, señor?”
“From seven in the morning until about six in the evening. Every hour and a half or so.” His arms are crossed. He watches me jot this down.
“And where does it go to?”
“To a pineapple plantation about a kilometer from here.”
Hmmm, this could be a fun ride. “How much does it cost, sir?”
“Seventy centavos each way.” He turns to a taller, stockier man who just walked up to us. He also wears a pistol.
“The railroad station here in the park. Is it the original passenger station?”
The first man shakes his head. “No, it’s out in a neighborhood …”
“Quite a distance from town,” his co-worker interjects.
“It’s now in bad disrepair,” the skinnier one finishes.
“Was this, then, the station for the Company town and headquarters?”
They shrug.
The brusquer one responds, “The main Company headquarters has always been elsewhere.”
I raise an eyebrow. That’s different. “Where is that, señor?”
“I don’t remember the name of the place. But this,” he nods his head towards the white cookie-cutter buildings, “was a local branch, until two years ago. These offices now handle tourism for this park, and for Cuero y Salado.” Cuero y Salado is a natural reserve about 30 kilometers west of La Ceiba—as the vulture flies.
I look at him questioningly, “Why did it move?”
“Well, with the change of president two years ago, the Company pulled out majorly from the area. The previous administration had been funding a new port for Estandard Fruit east of here. But with the change, Estandard said no. So, now the new government has had to abandon the port. It’s not completely built.”
“Pues, why did the Company decide to pull out of the project?”
“Oh, the new government only cares about,” his broad face scrunches, “its ‘moral revolution.’” His stubby fingers quote those last two words. “It doesn’t care about the country itself. Just look at the condition of the roads along this coast.” He spits on the ground.
“When did Standard stop using La Ceiba as a port?”
The first man looks at his partner before responding, “1986.”
“You’d said Estandard had majorly pulled out. In what ways?”
The second ladino wipes his mouth. “Sí, it’s dropped more and more operations. This port …”
“… the railroad,” adds the other.
“The port project.”
“Oh, and it closed down big pineapple fincas to the west.”
“And those African palm plantations outside of town. To whom do they belong?”
The two men look at each other. The larger one answers, “They’re mostly Honduran companies.”
“Well, we should be getting back to work.” The thin man elbows his co-worker.
“Sí, we have to make sure no-one steps on the grass or anything. Adiós, señora.”
I stroll across the park, to the Avenida, down to the old pier. This is a quieter Sunday than two years ago. No boats await to go to the Bay Islands. A few families sit on the edge, dangling and swinging their legs. A man pulls up his hand-held line. A silver fish flips on the hook. Until dusk, I lean against a mooring, listening to the music of languages around me—Spanish, English, Garífuna. The sunset colors sparkle the blue-green water.
A few clouds speckle this new morning. The sun is already an hour or so old. It plays through the leaves, swaying in a now-and-again breeze.
I sit under the arbor. That finca train should come some time. I must have missed the first one. The time passes. I write. Three women catch their ride to work. I light a cigarette.
A man comes up to me. His Quimipro ball cap casts his serious eyes in shadow. “Excuse me. May I have a cigarette, please?” He sits next to me, blowing the smoke slowly. “Are you waiting for someone?”
“The tourist train. And you?”
“Oh, a lift to Estandard Fruit.”
“Do you work for it?” My flicked ash scurries across the path.
He shakes his head. The scattered sunlight catches on his high cheekbones. His skin is pale. “No, for Blanquita. I used to work for it, though.”
I put my journal under my thigh. “Really?”
“Sí.” He drags his cigarette. “I began there when I was 8. I trained as a locomotive mechanic. I worked ten years for the railroad—two under Estandard, the rest with the government, until it closed down operation of the lines. From there, I went to work for Blanquita, as a processing assessor.”
“And Blanquita. Who does own it?”
“Pues, it’s Honduran-owned and independent. But the real owner is Estandard Fruit. It’s just another arm of it.” He gazes at his hands, then takes another puff. ·The African palm plantations mostly belong to Blanquita. Some, though, are independent farmers who sell the fruits to it.”
“Are the Standard offices here in La Ceiba?” I step on my butt.
“Sí. Those buildings over there.” He points to the large white ones across from the railroad park. “It also has other offices. Out on the fincas, in Puerto Cortés, and Puerto Castilla.”
“Why doesn’t it use the port here anymore?”
With his long, bony fingers, he flicks his remnant into the grass. “It’s obsolete. Can’t handle the big cargo container ships. Now it’s only used to send produce out to the Islands.”
“I heard the government had been building a new port for Estandard. But the project had to be abandoned because the Company pulled out.”
His features become sharper. “It’s a lie.” He glances out to the parking lot. Nothing yet.
And I watch the railroad shed on that other side. Nothing yet, either.
I lean forward, arms on thighs. “Why doesn’t Standard use the railroad any longer?”
One hand rubs a knee of his black pants. “Because of the irresponsibility of the workers.” He looks up. “The Company would hire people to unload boxes from the train when it arrived at the pier.” He nods down towards the seafront. “The workers would stack the boxes four or five high. Many bananas got damaged—more easily done the riper they get. Pues, there were many complaints from the US and Europe. The Company was losing lots of money. So it had to end.”
A silence blows between us. We both study that lot.
His eyes fall to his work-worn hands. “Plus, the workers were mañoso.2”
I wrinkle my brow. “Mañoso? What does that mean?”
“Pues, for example. There’s a pineapple finca to the west of here,” he turns and points that way. “Montecristo Piñales. It’s very large. Has permanent employees. Well, they’d report in in the morning, then request to see a doctor. They had a pain here,” he points to his side, “a pain there,” to the head, “everywhere. The doctor would write up a one-week excuse, and Estandard would pay wages for that week.” He looks at me. “It wasn’t just one worker who did that, but many. It cost the Company a lot of money.” He straightens up, his gaze fixed out there. “The plantation is still operating, but with different workers. All of them were replaced. Con permiso.”
He walks off to the parking lot, to a pick-up truck pulled in. I watch him greet a man. They drive away.
I wait for my train a while longer, passing the time scribbling notes in a small red notebook. The leaf-mosaic waltzes over the page, over my hand.
It is now almost 10 a.m. Still no train. I decide to pack it in and go to Trujillo.
*****
During this bus trip, no conversation interrupts my contemplation of the countryside. West of Savá is a kilometers-long banana plantation. White plastic wraps the racimos. Arrow-straight dirt roads lead into its depths. Workers bow under the already-heavy heat of this day. A yellow-red sun warns not to collect fruit.
I pick up today’s La Prensa from my lap. An article catches my eye, about the Port of Cabotaje.3 This is the one we’d talked about in La Ceiba. Yes, it was built by the previous government. There’s a lack of funding from this new administration to do the necessary dredging of channels to keep it clear.
My pen jolts with the rhythm of the bus. My usual chicken scratch is now almost indecipherable. I glance out. We have now left Savá. Fincas of African palm patch the roadside. I turn my attention back to the story: “… and with the pull-out of Standard Fruit Company, this port lost its importance in the country.”
But there is no mention of why the Company pulled out.
I fold the paper, giving it back to its owner, and stuff the little notebook in my pocket. We are now near Tocoa. “The Cradle of Agrarian Reform,” proclaims a faded sign. Citrus groves blanket the countryside.
*****
Over the next few weeks, those northern storms once more arrive to this coast. The rains muddy the streets of Trujillo. Many days, gusts of wind flutter the pages of the newspapers.
Tela RR Co. executive Fernando Sánchez (formerly the US consul to this country) makes an offer to the government. The Company will invest $100 million US in finca infrastructure and increase previously fallen banana production by 40%. However … Honduras must decrease taxes by 50 US cents per exported box.4
More accusations in the Banana War. This in relation to the Stalinsky case. A two-page letter-ad runs, written by a former Chiquita employee. It details the dirty work he claims the Company asked him to do.5
And Standard Fruit will be returning to Nicaragua, after having left in 1982 (… during the Sandinista Revolution, which instituted an agrarian reform and new labor laws …).
The drizzle of conversations, too, continues. From public library to the clutter of a museum. From dim market to café. On street corners …
My little book becomes drenched with the rains….
ENDNOTES
1 Four months later, The New York Times (22 July 1996) would publish an article on this.
2 Mañoso – crafty, cunning, tricky, sneaky
3 18 March 1996 edition.
4 El Tiempo, 19 March 1996.
5 La Prensa, 20 March 1996.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Increasing global repudiation of United States complicity with Israel’s genocidal slaughter of civilians in Gaza underlines the stakes for the Biden administration as it prepares to host 21 heads of state and leading CEOs at the annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in San Francisco November 12-18. This will be the first global summit since the Gaza war began…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
For all the friendly feelings toward organized labor in the United States today, a new workers’ movement remains incipient.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
From 9 to 15 October, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held their annual joint meeting in Marrakech (Morocco). The last time that these two Bretton Woods institutions met on African soil was in 1973, when the IMF-World Bank meeting was held in Nairobi (Kenya). Kenya’s then President Jomo Kenyatta (1897–1978) urged those gathered to find ‘an early cure to the monetary sickness of inflation and instability that has afflicted the world’. Kenyatta, who became Kenya’s first president in 1964, noted that, ‘[o]ver the last fifteen years, many developing countries have been losing, every year, a significant proportion of their annual income through deterioration of their terms of trade’. Developing countries could not overcome the negative terms of trade in a situation where they sold raw materials or barely processed goods on the world market while being reliant on the import of expensive finished commodities and energy, even if they raised their volumes of export. ‘Recently’, Kenyatta added, ‘inflation in the industrial countries has led to further and important losses to the developing countries’.
‘The whole world is watching’, Kenyatta said. ‘This is not because many people understand the details of what you are discussing, but because the world looks to you to find urgent solutions to problems affecting their daily lives’. Kenyatta’s warnings went unheeded. Six decades after the meeting in Nairobi, the loss of national income to debt and inflation remains a serious problem for developing countries. But, in our time, the whole world is not watching. Most people do not even know that the IMF and World Bank met in Morocco, and few expect them to solve the world’s problems. That is because, across the globe, people know that these institutions are, in fact, the authors of pain and are simply not capable of solving the problems that they have created and exacerbated.
Ahead of the meeting in Morocco, Oxfam issued a statement that strongly criticised the IMF and World Bank for ‘returning to Africa for the first time in decades with the same old failed message: cut your spending, sack public service workers, and pay your debts despite the huge human costs’. Oxfam highlighted the economic crisis facing the Global South, pointing out that ‘more than half (57 percent) of the world’s poorest countries, home to 2.4 billion people, are having to cut public spending by a combined $229 billion over the next five years’. On top of this, they showed that ‘low- and low-middle income countries will be forced to pay nearly half a billion dollars every day in interest and debt repayments between now and 2029’. Though the IMF has said that it plans to create ‘social spending floors’ to prevent cuts in government spending on public services, Oxfam’s analysis of 27 IMF loan programmes found that ‘these floors are a smokescreen for more austerity: for every $1 the IMF encouraged governments to spend on public services, it has told them to cut six times more than that through austerity measures’. The fallacy of ‘social spending floors’ has also been demonstrated by Human Rights Watch in its recent report, Bandage on a Bullet Wound: IMF Social Spending Floors and the COVID-19 Pandemic.
At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we continue to monitor the IMF’s impact on developing economies, including in our new dossier, How the International Monetary Fund Is Squeezing Pakistan (October 2023). Written and researched by Taimur Rahman and his colleagues at the Research and Publications Centre (Lahore, Pakistan), the dossier lays out the structural problems facing Pakistan’s economy, such as low productivity in its export-oriented industry and the high costs of imported luxury goods. Because of the lack of investment in industry, Pakistan’s labour productivity is low, and so its exports are priced out by other countries (as is the case with the textile industry in Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam). Meanwhile, the import of luxury goods would be far more devastating for the economy if not for the dollars earned by remittances from hard-working but ignored Pakistani workers, mainly in the Gulf states. Pakistan’s ballooning deficit, the dossier explains, is ‘driven by the fact that Pakistan is no longer competitive in the international market and has continued to import goods and services at a rate that it simply cannot afford’. Furthermore, ‘IMF-imposed conditions have further dried up the investment that Pakistan sorely needs to upgrade its infrastructure and accelerate industrialisation’. Not only does the IMF prevent investment for industrialisation, but it enforces cuts on public services (importantly, for health and education).
In July, the IMF approved a $3 billion stand-by agreement with Pakistan that it claimed would create ‘the space for social and development spending to help the people of Pakistan’. However, the IMF is simply feeding Pakistan the same tired neoliberal package, calling for ‘greater fiscal discipline, a market-determined exchange rate to absorb external pressures, and further progress on reforms related to the energy sector, climate resilience, and the business climate’ – all measures that will exacerbate the crisis. To ensure the permanency of these policies, the IMF spoke not only with the government of Caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, but also with former Prime Minister Imran Khan (who was removed from office in 2022 in a move that was encouraged by the United States due to his neutrality on the war in Ukraine). As if this were not enough, through its role facilitating the agreement, the US government pressured the Pakistani government to supply weapons to Ukraine in secret through the disreputable arms dealer Global Ordnance. This makes an already bad deal even worse.
Similar deals have been made with countries such as Argentina, Sri Lanka, and Zambia. In the case of Sri Lanka, for instance, the institution’s senior mission chief for the country, Peter Breuer, described the IMF agreement as a ‘brutal experiment’. The social consequences of this experiment will, of course, be borne by the Sri Lankan people, whose frustrations have been stifled by the police and military forces.
This dynamic was also on display in February in Suriname, where large numbers of people who took to the streets to protest against the IMF-imposed austerity regime were met with tear gas and rubber bullets. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Suriname has defaulted three times on its foreign debt, which is largely owed to wealthy bondholders in the West, and in December 2021 the government of President Chan Santokhi told the IMF that it would cut subsidies for energy. We zijn Moe (‘We Are Tired’), a movement against austerity, protested for years but could not move an agenda against the IMF-imposed starvation politics. ‘A hungry mob is an angry mob’, Maggie Schmeitz wrote of the protests.
These protests – from Suriname to Sri Lanka – are the latest cycle in a long history of IMF riots, such as those that began in Lima (Peru) in 1976 and sprung up in Jamaica, Bolivia, Indonesia, and Venezuela in the years that followed. When the IMF riots unfolded Indonesia in 1985, long-time CEO of the Bank of America Tom Clausen was presiding over the World Bank (1981–1986). In remarks that he made five years prior, Clausen encapsulated the attitude of the Bretton Woods institutions towards such popular uprisings, stating that ‘When people are desperate, you have revolutions. It’s in our own evident self-interest to see that they are not forced into that. You must keep the patient alive, because otherwise you can’t effect the cure’.
Clausen’s ‘cure’ – privatisation, commodification, and liberalisation – is no longer credible. Popular protests, such as those in Suriname, reflect the broad awareness of the failures of the neoliberal agenda. New agendas are needed that will build upon the following ideas, such as:
This list is not comprehensive. If you have other ideas for a credible ‘cure’, do write to me.
The photographs featured in this newsletter and the dossier are by Ali Abbas (‘Nad E Ali’), a visual artist based in Lahore, Pakistan, whose work explores themes of alienation, belonging, and the in-between spaces that exist in all cultures. The photographs are from his series ‘Hauntology of Lahore’ (2017–present), borrowing the term from philosopher Jacques Derrida. In Abbas’s words, ‘within the very landscape of Lahore, amidst its bustling streets, ancient structures, and vibrant communities lies a reservoir of untapped futures and unrealised potential’.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The core analytic framework for economists on the left has not changed in nearly a century. We need a new paradigm to make sense of the world we inhabit.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.