Category: poverty

  • Introduction

    All rigged markets, all rigged financial-mechanisms, and, as well as, all the rigged authoritarian-structures of techno-capitalist-feudalism, indeed, did achieve their maturity in the early 21st century, through rampant surveillance, social conditioning, and data-collection. Which did prompt some political-economists to announce the effective end of capitalism in favor of a new economic system that is closer to medieval feudalism; whereupon, a centralized consortium of economic power is now firmly localized in big-tech firms, namely, those big-tech firms strewn throughout the globe and ideologically-concentrated in Silicon Valley, California.

    Notwithstanding, all the way back to the early writings of the political-economists of the late 18th century and early 19th century, we can already discern the rudimentary socio-economic logic, processes, regimes, and relations, that would eventually spawn the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism. That is, the dark age which we are currently living through.

    In truth, what if the aberrant mutant-capitalism we see before us right now, in the early 21st century, has always been present, dormant in the structures, processes, and the early logic of capitalism, outlined by those late 18th century political-economists. What if the end of modern capitalism was not the advent of the demise of capitalism, but, its rebirth, under a new format and/or a new feudal regime of organization aptly called, techno-capitalist-feudalism, or T.C.F. for short.

    In sum, what if the old gentile, powdered-wig, pastoral-capitalism that enthralled the 18th, 19th, and 20th century political-economists, like Adam Smith and company, has merely given way to a new authoritarian form of capitalism, or more specifically, a ruthless amoral form of capitalism, closer to Thomas Malthus than to Adam Smith. Indeed, techno-capitalist-feudalism is Malthusian. It is a reflection and an expression of the Malthusian phase of capitalism, the last phase of capitalism. Thereby, techno-capitalist-feudalism is merely Malthusian-capitalism under a different name. Whereby, force and influence decide everything, i.e., all values, prices, and/or wages, strewn throughout the world economy.

    In fact, from the early beginnings of political-economy and the capitalist-system, all the vital elements which would later metastasize into techno-capitalist-feudalism in the 21st century, were already present in their nascent economic-forms in the 17th and 18th century. And this includes most of the early writings of those first political-economists. Whether, it is colonialism, imperialism, monopoly, oligopoly, slavery, wage-slavery, rent, and/or an overall rigged global marketplace etc., all the ingredients for a return of feudalism, i.e., FEUDALISM 2.0, were already present in rudimentary form at the start of nascent capitalism. These rudimentary forms so prevalent in techno-capitalist-feudalism nowadays, were already exercising their coercive influence and force over the sum of socio-economic existence and the general-population, from the very beginnings of political-economy and the capitalist-system, contra what Adam Smith initially said and wrote, concerning the mechanics of the market logic of capitalism. In short, the new feudalism, i.e., feudalism redux, is a type of technological capitalist feudalism based not on lineage, title, and/or heredity, but, one based first and foremost on profit, power, wealth, rent, and private property, as well as the ruthless logic of capitalism.

    Consequently, throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th century, the capitalist-system has progressively shed its gentile and gentlemanly Smithian, powdered-wig characteristics in order to reveal its true essence, a callous undemocratic ruthlessness in the procurement of economic power and wealth, by a select few ruling overlords, whose capitalist logic of operation is best exemplified in the works of Thomas Malthus.

    Indeed, Malthusianism is the structure of feeling pervading the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism. And Malthusian-capitalism is the idea that force and influence decide everything, whereby, might is right, all of the time. Moreover, for Malthus, social improvement is the product of population control, the coercive control of all aspects of socio-economic existence and the general-population, including the world economy, so as to augment indefinitely the gross national product, i.e., GDP. In the sense that, according to Malthus, might, along with the profit-imperative, comprise the organizing principle, the organizing regime, and the fundamental economic drivers of the world economy, today. And, it is important to note that this has always been the case from capitalism’s very beginnings. Thus, it is accurate to state that the world economy has always been rigged, that is, a simulation of fairness and equality, without actual fairness and equality, present therein. The world market has always been a cunning simulation of economic freedom, equal market exchanges, and economic fairness, from its very inception in the 17th and 18th century, despite being the exact opposite in practice, throughout the micro-recesses of everyday life. And this fact has always been present and dormant in all markets, pertaining to the general mechanics of capitalism.

    In short, capitalism has always been Malthusian to the core. The logic of predation so prevalent today, i.e., rent-extraction, appropriation by dispossession, hyper-imperialism etc., has always been a part of the logic of capitalism from the very start. That is, the logic of predation has always been a vital element in the arsenal of the logic of capitalism from the very start, as a sure means of capital accumulation. Consequently, the logic of capitalism has always possessed totalitarian aspirations. It has always embodied authoritarian characteristics in its inherent structural make-up. And these authoritarian characteristics and totalitarian processes have only metastasize over the last two centuries to become the dominant characteristics and the enslaving economic processes that are the hallmark of the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism. It is because capitalism has reached maturity and has now descended into full-blown senility that we can now clearly see and understand the Malthusian master logic, oscillating non-stop in the reactor-core of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice. Specifically, totalitarian economic control, totalitarian behavioral modification, and pervasive social conditioning, are all types of devilish Malthusian processes undergirding the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, like a seething Orwellian nightmare, of which Malthus would certainly approve and unconditionally celebrate. It is a nightmare, we can no longer wake up from, since, even our dreams and our sleep patterns are now fully-controlled and predetermined by the Malthusian logic, that is, the capitalist mode of production, consumption, and distribution, run-amok.

    Ergo, we, the 99 percent, have become post-industrial serfs, serfs in service of all sorts of capitalist super-monopolies. And high on endless injections of Malthus, these gigantic narcotized super-monopolies, omnipotently tower over us, dwarfing us, atomizing us to the level of insignificant insects, scurrying frantically, here and there, in and across the ghoulish subterranean labyrinths of a totally predetermined and fully-supervised, super-size, global ant-colony, devoid of exit and/or any lasting hope.

    I

    Ultimately, techno-capitalist-feudalism is a socio-economic-formation Malthus would certainly recognize, even if Adam Smith could not. In the sense that techno-capitalist-feudalism runs on Malthusian hatred, Malthusian instrumental callousness, and a deep-seated undemocratic Malthusian authoritarianism, that is full of medieval feudalist overtones, super-charged, through all sorts of fully-automated high-tech. machinery. In short, techno-capitalist-feudalism has enshrined Malthus in the software and fiber-optic cables of its very being. Thereby, the Malthusian logic of capitalism is the very atmosphere and structure of feeling, permeating the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, infusing all of its aspects and features with an all-suffocating gothic gloom, a foreboding hopeless nihilism, i.e., a hyper-centrist neoliberal-fanaticism, which no-one can throw off and/or escape, once and for all.

    According to Raymond Williams, a structure of feeling is the atmospheric mood of an era. Whereby, without articulating it, whole segments of the general-population feel and socially experience the same dreadful emotional sensations in relation to the institutions, apparatuses, processes, hierarchies, policies, and the overall economic organization of a historically specific society, without having to articulate these shared emotive-sensations among themselves. Unlike hegemony, which is predominantly and collectively ideological, a structure of feeling is “where [individual] experience[s] [and their] immediate feeling[s]…are generalized [for all]”, without needing any linguistic articulation for their emotional understanding.1 For Williams, “structures of feeling can be defined as social experiences”.2 As Williams states, a structure of feeling “is a kind of feeling and thinking [tied to a particular set of social experiences, specific to a particular era] of history”.3 Thus, according to Williams, “structures of feeling [are]… actively lived and felt. Structures of feeling [are]…structures of experience, [where] thought [is] felt and feeling [is] thought”.4 And, moreover, these structures of feeling are “the undeniable [collective] experience[s] of the present, [whereby] we may indeed discern and acknowledge [that the dominant societal] institutions, formations, positions [of an era, express a similar unconscious]…feeling”, and/or an overall collective mood, pertaining to the social experiences of the general public, i.e., the 99 percent.5 Finally, according to Williams, “differentiated structures of feeling [coincide with] different [castes]”.6 As a result, all eras of human history have their structures of feeling, i.e., those unconscious sensations felt by all, pertaining to the overall economic organization of the society. And the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism is no exception. All told, the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism is the reflection and expression of a rabid form of ruthless Malthusianism, a Malthusianism encoded into an endless set of algorithms.

    Subsequently, the structure of feeling that best encapsulates the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism today is the overwhelming sense of Malthusian dread, i.e., a degenerate instrumental callousness and/or hatred towards certain types of others, that pervades and circulates throughout all these Malthusian capitalist institutions, apparatuses, and processes, as well as all the everyday lived-experiences of the general-population stationed throughout the global economy. In the sense that the general-population is more or less seen as cattle, as expendable fodder, and as raw material to be used and abused at will, by the powers-that-be, in service of greater economic power and greater levels of super-profit. In sum, the atmospheric mood that saturates the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism is best expressed by Malthus himself, in the underlying sentiment undergirding his shocking but accurate statement, that argues in favor of increased mortality rates among the working poor:

    All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases [so]…the annual mortality [rate could be]…increased.7

    Consequently, this complete devaluation of human life, pertaining strictly to the poor, including persistent calls for increasing mortality rates among those who are poor, reflects and expresses the predominant structure of feeling of the 1 percent in the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, namely, their total disregard for those in need, in poverty, and for those lowly workers, who have nothing to sell but their labor-power. And, according to the Malthusian logic of capitalism, everything and everyone must be conscripted by any means necessary, one way or another, into the draconian mechanical processes of uncontrolled capitalist accumulation, regardless of individual circumstances, due to the fact that the gross domestic product, i.e., GDP, requires it. Therefore, nothing must be exempt from sacrifice upon the blood alter of national GDP, a rising GDP. And, according to Malthus, the life-blood of the laboring poor, i.e., the 99 percent, must always be the first offering to appease the floundering heathen God of GDP. In the end, it is in this regard that the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism is Malthusian, in the sense that, according to Malthus, “no possible sacrifices or exertions of the rich,…could, for any time, place the lower classes of the community in a [better] situation”.8 As a result, according to Malthus, the rich are better to invest their money and their capital in profitable economic ventures that increase national wealth, i.e., GDP, than in trying to ameliorate the lives of the working poor; since, by their inherent weaknesses and inferior biological nature, the working poor are doomed to destitution and endless poverty, namely, misery and vice, regardless of their socio-economic conditions. Thus, for Malthus, it is always better to sacrifice the lives of the poor so that national GDP may live, grow, and prosper.

    To quote Malthus, any “increasing wealth of the nation has…no tendency to better the conditions of the laboring poor,…or to increase [their] happiness”.9 Due to the fact that, for Malthus, “the laboring poor…seem always to live from hand to mouth [and] seldom think of the future. [Consequently,] all that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking, to the ale-house; [as a result, it is necessary to avoid giving the poor higher wages, as] high wages [always] ruin…[them as] workmen” and/or work-women.10 In short, for Malthus, it is better for the rich to suppress the laboring poor, i.e., the 99 percent, since, by their inherent weaknesses and frailties, the poor invariably squander national GDP in fruitless excesses and pointless endeavors.

    Subsequently, the crux of Malthus’ political-economy eloquently captures the underlying sentiment of the 1 percent, i.e., the structure of feeling, pervading and circulating throughout all the ghoulish subterranean labyrinths of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice. That is, the vile hatred, the instrumental callousness, the anti-social tendencies, and the deep-seated undemocratic authoritarianism, which is encoded and pervades all aspects and features of the current draconian neo-feudal system, forever directed at and against the 99 percent. For Malthus, whatever the type of society, it will always be “divided into a class of proprietors, and a class of laborers, with self-love [as] the mainspring of the great machine”.11 And there is nothing that anyone can do about it, since, as Malthus argues, this is the fundamental fact of capitalist socio-economic existence. As he states, “the lower [castes] of people…shall [never] be able to provide…for [themselves or a]…family”, regardless of better circumstances.12 Thus, there will always be a small caste of proprietors managing a great majority of laborers, who themselves are trapped in perpetual misery and vice, by their own choices and devices; whereby, they will always have nothing to sell except their labor-power. But, more importantly, according to Malthus, these “great inequalit[ies] of [wealth and] property [are fundamentally] necessary and useful to society”.13 Because, they keep the poor populations and the means of subsistence in equilibrium, through vice, misery, and death. To quote Malthus,

    we cannot hope for success [in improving the conditions of the poor], we shall…only exhaust our strength [and our national wealth] in [such] fruitless exertions, and remain at as great a distance as ever from the summit of our [benevolent] wishes; [and instead], we shall be perpetually crushed by the recoil of this rock of Sisyphus.14

    Therefore, according to Malthus, the lives of the working poor can never be improved, as the poor are poor due to their inferior biological make-up and because a giant caste of laboring poor people is fundamentally necessary. In effect, from the Malthusian perspective, the laboring poor continually fall prey to their uncontrollable biological urges to procreate, which keeps them perpetually poor and always in need. While, in contrast, the rich are rich because of their superior biological make-up and because a small caste of rulers is fundamentally necessary; whereupon, through their superior reasoning skills, IQs, biological parsimony, and sexual temperance, they are able to amass vast amounts of wealth and capital for themselves and for the glory of the nation. In short, they are superior beings in contrast to the laboring poor.

    Thereby, all great societal inequalities in-between the rich and the poor, simply permit the rich to accumulate vast amount of wealth for the glory of the nation, by allowing them to preserve wealth, rather than squander it, as the poor inevitably do. Thus, for Malthus, the necessity and usefulness of the rich is that they preserve wealth and ameliorate the productive capacities of the nation, by preventing the erosion of a nation’s wealth or GDP in frivolous activities, like philanthropy and/or benevolent poor laws, that do not work and only exacerbate misery and vice among the lower-stratums of society.

    In the end, according to Malthus, the poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich, because, it is a real “improbability that the lower [castes]…in any country, should ever be sufficiently free from want and labor, to obtain any high degree of [intelligence or] intellectual improvement”, pertaining to the procurement and preservation of national wealth.15 As a result, the political economy of Thomas Malthus supports and favors any activity, process, apparatus, organization, institution, hierarchy etc., that empowers the rich and disempowers the poor. And this Malthusian verity, concerning the superiority of the rich and the inferiority of the poor, is the central assumption undergirding the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, informing every aspect of its totalitarian and technological development, ultimately to the benefit of the 1 percent, and, in contrast, to the detriment of the 99 percent. As Malthus states, it is simply an inescapable fact of life that the “inferior…support the superior”.16 In the sense that, according to Malthus, “some human beings must suffer,[because]… these…unhappy persons, in the great lottery of life, have [simply] drawn a blank”.17 And having drawn a blank in the great lottery of life, it is only natural that these poor souls be eternally relegated to the great caste “of people, which [solely] maintains itself entirely by [slavish] industry. [Because such a subservient caste] is [fundamentally] necessary to every [type of] state”, as its indispensable mindless workforce, capable of propping-up a small caste of superior rulers, who are the real benefit to the nation and are not a detriment to it, like the 99 percent.18

    Consequently, it is in this regard that Thomas Malthus would certainly recognize the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, even if Adam Smith did not, since, the underlying infrastructure, software, and the central-operating-code of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice is Malthusian to the core. From alpha to omega, a Malthusian structure of feeling pervades the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice, infecting all the functions and operations of all the machine-technologies, state-apparatuses, mechanisms, organizations, and hierarchies, designed to exploit, indoctrinate, and dominate, the general-population and the natural environment in service of maximum power, wealth, and profit.

    In short, the military-industrial-complex of techno-capitalist-feudalism is the embodiment of Malthusian ruthlessness. That is, techno-capitalist-feudalism is capitalism unfettered, vile and amoral. It is the Malthusian form of capitalism, run-amok, butchering itself and all global collectivities, mutual-aid communities, upon the blood altar of corporate super-monopoly, runaway fees, endless debt, debt penalties, and rent. All of which is designed to enshrine unpaid servitude as a badge of honor and a test of faith in the ultimate supremacy of totalitarian-capitalism, i.e., Malthusianism unchecked, unbound, and viscerally inhuman, ad vitam aeternam.

    II

    Indeed, the dark of age of TCF is dystopian and insidiously authoritarian, by means of total surveillance and pervasive data-collecting algorithms. It is an economic-system that Thomas Malthus would recognize, and, as well, encourage with joyful enthusiasm, even if Adam Smith was at a lost to do so. In the sense that, the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice is Smithian in form, but, wholeheartedly, Malthusian in content. Meaning, the overall global system is Smithian in rhetoric, but, wholeheartedly, Malthusian in praxis and ethics. Which offers an explanation, why so many people readily exclaim the end of capitalism, since, they have been cunningly massaged to believe that capitalism is Smithian; when in reality, it has always been Malthusian in practice, upon the ground floors of everyday life. Thus, having drank the intoxicating cool-aid of Smith’s invisible hand and his gentlemanly version of mom and pop, powdered-wig capitalism, it is understandable that some people would bemoan the death of Smithian powdered-wig capitalism as the death of capitalism itself, when they finally realize that the logic of capitalism does not truly follow any line of economic reasoning laid out by Smith. Genuinely disappointed that capitalism is Smithian in rhetoric only, but not in its actual practices, some individuals have started to bellow that capitalism is dead, having failed once again to notice the Malthusian snake coiling itself around the logic of capitalism, magnifying the ruthlessness of the logic of capitalism, now running wild and roughshod in and across the micro-stratums of our everyday lives.

    In fact, Malthusian principles and Malthusian ruthlessness is the software and central-operating-code that pervades the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice, informing all economic mechanisms and business ventures. Of course, everywhere we see and hear Adam Smith trumpeted. Everywhere, we are told that “the best way of advancing a people towards wealth and prosperity is not to interfere with them”, especially in economic matters.19 And everywhere, we are told, by the powers-that-be, to trust in the autonomous regulating mechanism of the market, i.e., Smith’s invisible hand of the market, which directs any and all industries onwards towards the most efficient and maximizing manners of production, exchange, profit-making, and capital accumulation. Whereby, according to Adam Smith, all humans in the end are finally cared for and ultimately “led . . . by [an economic] invisible hand [to always] promote ends which where not part of [their] original intention[s]”.20 But, this is pure economic fairytale and a lullaby. And ultimately, it is sham, which is continually lulling the workforce/population to sleep and into apathy, by cunningly manipulating them to cede the sum of their political sovereignty and their decision-making-authority to the State and/or to the large-scale ruling power-blocs, which possess huge levels of economic power, capable of shackling any type of invisible hand to any type of degenerate highly-partisan directives.

    Furthermore, the set of mystical properties embodied in this occult regulating mechanism, or more specifically, the invisible hand of the market, simply reflects and expresses the vast Malthusian network of ruling power-relations and/or ideologies, undergirding the overall system. Thus if, as Malthus surmises, “our present great commercial prosperity is temporary, and [the result of the]…worst feature of [the capitalist] commercial system, [namely, that its]…rising [wealth and profits only augment] by [means of] the depression of others”; then, it should come as no surprise to anyone, that the rising economic inequality nowadays in-between the 1 percent and the 99 percent is a direct result of the rise of Malthusian capitalist super-monopolies, i.e., those giant monopolies inspired by Malthusian principles and Malthusian ruthlessness.21

    In sum, techno-capitalist-feudalism functions and operates by means of Malthusian principles and a Malthusian economic ruthlessness. That is, it functions and operates by means of a series of Malthusian zero-sum-games; whereby, the same economic winners of the game of capitalism must be continually off-set by the same economic losers, over and over again. In short, thousands must be rendered destitute or homeless in order to manufacture a single billionaire. And such a gruesome economic-system can only be Malthusian to the core. So forget Adam Smith, because to defeat capitalism, capitalism as it really is, i.e., Malthusian, it is necessary to defeat and demolish Thomas Malthus, the father of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice, namely, the first systems’ engineer of the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism. As Malthus states, “all monopolies yield high profits”.22 Thereby, all business ventures, whatever they may be, must strive for monopoly power or oligarchic power, whereupon, the maximization of capitalist profit, wealth, and power, by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible, is ultimately assured and guaranteed, ad infinitum. In the sense that monopoly power, or oligarchic power, guarantees that any capitalist enterprise, which possesses monopoly power or oligarchic power, will always be privy to massive revenues and super-profits, due to the advantageous circumstances of them having huge levels of force and influence over the world market, commodity prices, and the general-population. And, in contrast, large segments of the general-population must inevitably fall into pauperism so as to accommodate the pressing needs of these super-monopolies and/or oligopolies, attempting to amass super-profits, as well as, greater levels of economic power for themselves. In short, super-monopolies add to the general wealth of the nation, i.e., its GDP, while, the general-population does not and only subtracts from it.

    Therefore, according to Malthus, the masses are constantly “being placed in a situation in which the growing prosperity of [super-monopolies is a]…signal of [their] own approaching ruin”, and this is done by design and not by random accident, as all zero-sum-games are fundamentally Malthusian in the end. That is, they are the consciously planned product of the Malthusian logic of capitalism, rigged in favor of the 1 percent.23 Ergo, all rising wealth and/or super-profits require the pauperization of the masses, without exception. And this is a fundamental rule and/or an axiom of Malthusian-capitalism, i.e., techno-capitalist-feudalism, namely, that we must have the pauperization of the masses, alongside the constant enrichment of the ruling oligarchy or aristocracy, so as to effectively augment national GDP. In the sense that a superfluous segment of the workforce/population is needed in order to keep wages artificially low. And ultimately, this underlying economic principle of techno-capitalist-feudalism is directly derived from Malthus, and not from Adam Smith. Thereby, to quote Malthus, this central economic principle of techno-capitalist-feudalism, i.e., that the pauperization of the masses is necessary, “is the [fundamental] reason why so many noble efforts in the cause of freedom have failed, [when it comes to the laboring poor], and why almost every [socialist] revolution, after long and painful sacrifices, has [always] terminated in military despotism”; because, regardless of the type of revolution, it is inevitable that a small caste of rulers will govern over and against a large caste of commoners and/or serfs, regardless of the type of revolution and/or socio-economic circumstances.24

    As a result of this ruthless principle, according to Malthus, it is best that societies put their trust and financial resources to good use through a small caste of ruling capitalists, rather than to throw their financial lot with the laboring poor; since, “indolence and improvidence…prevail among …[ these laboring poor] people. [In the sense that these poor] peasant[s]…[have] not been [groomed to have any type of lasting]…industrious habits”.25 Ultimately, according to Malthus, the laboring poor are lazy and shun industrious work, every chance they get. Thus, any precious resources directed at benevolence and alleviating poverty among the laboring poor will be squandered away in all sorts of fruitless endeavors, initially designed to help these poor people. In short, for Malthus, the poor have too much money and power, while the rich have too little money and power. Therefore, it is imperative to create and implement a series of state-policies and Malthusian traps that continually reverse this uneven polarity of wealth and power in-between the 1 percent and the 99 percent, in favor of the 1 percent. Due to the fact that, it is only the 1 percent that augments the power of the nation and national GDP. While, in contrast, the poor only erode the power of the nation and national GDP, through their irresponsible and lazy habits.

    For instance, to quote Malthus, in any type of advanced capitalist society the most important people are to be found in financial speculation; that is, it is “the man [or woman] who is [prone to constant]…speculation [that] is a positive and decided benefactor to the [nation] state”.26 In sum, it is these titans of finance, through their many speculative ventures, that drive economic progress forward and permit individual nations to augment their productive capacities and Gross Domestic Product, through their many speculative investments. While, according to Malthus, the laboring poor only subtract from the nation and national GDP, due to their insatiable, ravenous, and unchecked needs, including their overall general laziness.

    Consequently, in the dark age of TCF, Malthusian principles and Malthusian ruthlessness rule. Meaning, all economic intentions in the dark age of TCF are Malthusian, despite paying homage to Smith’s Wealth of Nations, verbally and rhetorically. That is, the general framework of techno-capitalist-feudalism is roughly configured according to the political-economic framework of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, but, the intentions, practices, mechanisms, and ethics, behind the political-economic framework of techno-capitalist-feudalism are Malthusian to the core. In fact, all sorts of shady Malthusian elements and economic traps inform the mechanisms and features of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice, whereby, they are all fundamentally designed and re-designed to empower to the 1 percent and disempower the 99 percent, just as Malthus prescribed in the early days of capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century. To quote Malthus, “a [rich] person who contemplates the state of the lower [castes] of people…would [be advised]…to retain them forever in that [lowly depraved] state, by preventing the introduction of [affordable] manufactured [goods] and luxuries [for them]”.27 In this manner, he or she would keep the lower castes of laborers stationary, subservient, and forever in bondage, as an industrial army of cheap laborers, willing and ever-ready to lend a helping hand to their capitalist social betters, stationed higher-up upon the social Darwinian wealth-pyramid.

    Ergo, for Malthus, such economic ruthlessness towards the lower castes of society is fundamentally necessary. It is a necessary evil, in the sense that “evil exists in the world, not to create despair, but [industrious] activity”, especially among the laboring poor.28 In other words, according to Malthus, the laboring poor lack industriousness; they are “ inert, sluggish, and averse [to] labor, unless compelled by necessity”.29 Hence, it is the task of all rich capitalists to spur them onwards, towards ever-increasing productivity, so that the glory of the nation and national GDP may be magnified annually, progressively, and unconditionally.

    In the end, techno-capitalist-feudalism may have evolved beyond Adam Smith in various ways, but it has not evolved beyond Thomas Malthus, who being the first to theorize about the ruthless logic of zero-sum capitalism, namely, unfettered inhuman neoliberal-capitalism, out of control. Thereby, the dark age of TCF, is Malthusian to the core. And, in fact, techno-capitalist-feudalism marches on towards ever-higher forms of hyper-Malthusianism, as the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice descends deeper and deeper into the deathly morass of evermore powerful, evermore authoritarian, and evermore refined forms of capitalist-totalitarianism. That is, an authoritarian form of capitalism, a Malthusian-capitalism, a totalitarian-capitalism that is directed squarely above and against the laboring poor, i.e., the 99 percent, ad infinitum.

    Conclusion

    In sum, techno-capitalist-feudalism has barbaric tendencies. It is Malthusianism, run-amok. And, as an all-encompassing totalitarian-system, techno-capitalist-feudalism readily destroys the land of resources and fleeces the people of their personal information and labor, without remuneration and/or any type of equivalent exchange. In the sense that the growth of the productive forces and national GDP require it and are only speedily improved by such draconian Malthusian methods. Bottom-line, techno-capitalist-feudalism is Malthusian predation to the maximum and beyond, without any regards for the well-being of the 99 percent. Whether this is imperialism, colonialism, barbarism, creative-destruction, runaway debt-peonage, rent, war etc., Malthusianism pervades the software of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice. And Malthusianism always commands the total curtailment and immobility of the laboring masses forever upon the lower-stratums of the system, via rampant authoritarian forms of population control. In the sense that through stringent population control, exercised at the micro-levels of everyday life, the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice may achieve an ever-increasing annual GDP and national glory, as well as its own continuous systemic betterment throughout.

    Consequently, techno-capitalist-feudalism concerns itself, first and foremost, with maintaining the overall supremacy of a set of Malthusian multi-national super-monopolies over and against the global citizenry, which itself, is scattered, atomized, disillusioned, and increasingly impoverished in and across the globe. At its most basic, techno-capitalist-feudalism functions and operates to maintain, safeguard, and expand, super-monopolies in and across the global economy, insuring their dominance over the workforce/population by keeping the workforce/population, i.e., the 99 percent, forever in financial bondage and in poverty, due to the fact that, according to Malthus, every type of society requires huge masses of the laboring poor in order to effectively function and operate, smoothly; since, the laboring castes are “the foundation on which the whole [social] fabric rests” and is woven together, as one terrifying mental and physical draconian ensemble.30

    Thereby, the laboring poor must remain forever upon the lower stratums of the system, without opportunity or chance of ascendancy, so that the maximization of national wealth, i.e., national GDP, may continue to augment and progress, unabated. Ultimately, the truth of the matter is, according to Malthus, that the laboring poor can never escape from misery, vice, and/or death, regardless of philanthropy and/or human benevolence, as “death [and] pain [among the laboring poor] is absolutely necessary”, for any type of socio-economic improvement to occur and/or for any type of civil society to exist.31 As a result, from the Malthusian perspective, it is an inescapable fact of life in the dark age of TCF, that huge bulbous masses of laboring poor must exist and be continually manufactured, by the titans of super-monopoly, so as to keep our global capitalist society afloat and moving onwards, towards ever-heightened levels of technological development and GDP.

    So, indeed, techno-capitalist-feudalism has shed the gentlemanly, powdered-wig, pastoral-capitalism of Adam Smith and revealed itself to be pure economic ruthlessness, namely, Malthusianism unfettered, the callous inhuman horror of totalitarian-capitalism, rabid and foaming at the mouth. In short, techno-capitalist-feudalism is the first economic system in history that has fully-shed its Smithian exoskeleton so as to reveal its true economic essence, its true economic nature, stretched-out and fully-bloomed, i.e., a dark totalitarian-Malthusianism, an all-consuming wickedness, avarice, a pathological economic madness, gone berserk. That is, a terrifying multiplying hydra, ghoulish and gory, without flesh and without legs, slithering the four corners of the earth, ravenous and un-dead, monstrous and insect, a buzzing litany of devilish heads protruding, gigantic, out of its giant mammoth neck, devouring our best, and leaving grim death to claim the rest, all those fleshy meaty leftovers, diced and sliced, and piled-on high, atop of the medieval capitalist gut-wagon.

    ENDNOTES:

    1. Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 129.
    2. Raymond Williams, p. 133.
    3. Raymond Williams, p. 131.
    4. Raymond Williams, p. 132.
    5. Raymond Williams, p. 128.
    6. Raymond Williams, p. 134.
    7. Thomas Malthus, An Essay On The Principle Of Population, London, U.K.: Reeves and Turner, 1878, p. 411-412.
    8. Thomas Malthus, An Essay On The Principle Of Population And Other Writings, UK: Penguin Books, 2015, p. 118-119.
    9. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 135.
    10. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 44-45.
    11. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 90.
    12. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 119
    13. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 123.
    14. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 145.
    15. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 95.
    16. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 157.
    17. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 89.
    18. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 68.
    19. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 254.
    20. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations: (Book I–III), London: Penguin Books, 1999, p. 24.
    21. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 206.
    22. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 205.
    23. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 208.
    24. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 193.
    25. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 276-279.
    26. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 181.
    27. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 144.
    28. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 163.
    29. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 151.
    30. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. xxv.
    31. Thomas Malthus, 2015, p. 162.

    The post Techno-Capitalist-Feudalism Is Malthusian to the Core! first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nigel Farage’s comment about tampons and the reactions to it have shown us how much stigma still exists around periods.

    Farage may be attempting to distract us from that thing he doesn’t want us to know about (ahem, Nige knew about the Russian bribes). Instead, though, he has highlighted two very real problems. One – far too many people in this country cannot afford period products. And two, there is still a massive stigma around menstruation.

    Period poverty: and vegan tampons are the problem?

    According to ActionAid, period poverty has risen dramatically in recent years. Period poverty is when someone is unable to access period products, hygienic facilities, or education due to either the cost associated with doing so or stigma. In 2023 alone, period poverty rose from 12% to 21%. Since then, the cost-of-living crisis has only intensified.

    Access to sanitary products is a fundamental human right. Yet in the UK, 40% of girls have had to use toilet roll in place of period products at some point, because they cannot afford proper sanitary products.

    As if that isn’t bad enough, 14% of girls did not know what was happening when they got their first period. An additional 26% did not know what to do.

    The real issues here are a lack of education and poverty. Not ‘vegan tampons in men’s toilets’.

    So, aside from the fact that the National Trust put tampons in men’s toilets for any trans men who may have their period, anyone using the bathroom who has friends or family who cannot afford period products can take some. And what about the single Dads who can’t afford period products? Or the women experiencing homelessness who have male friends who can grab them a few extra pads? Or the person with endometriosis who is bent over the toilet in agony, who texts her partner to grab her a tampon?

    I think we all know how Farage would react if all these people decided to free bleed. He’d be disgusted – as would the majority of men.

    But once again, we have a rich white man making comments about an issue he has never personally dealt with.

    Gynaecological health conditions add more pressure

    Around 10% of women and girls have endometriosis, and up to 20% have adenomyosis. Both are agonising and debilitating conditions, which cause extremely heavy bleeding – often for far more than the two to seven days of a standard period. Some people bleed for weeks or months at a time.

    This means that the cost of sanitary products can be enormous for people with these conditions. Added to the cost of having to take time off work, medications to control pain, fatigue and all the other symptoms – it’s safe to say that a male friend being able to grab you a few extra tampons or pads would make a massive difference.

    From the end of 2018 until 2020, I was homeless. I relied on free period products, from public toilets, from charities, and from the kindness of strangers and friends – of all genders. And as a woman who had both endometriosis and adenomyosis at the time, I got through them fast.

    I had a hysterectomy at the end of 2023, at the age of 28. Aside from not being in debilitating pain every single day and being able to live a relatively normal life now, I also must have saved thousands of pounds from not having to buy sanitary products.

    Stigma still exists – as Farage just showed

    Half of the population menstruates, yet so many people – yes, mainly men – are disgusted by them.

    Society teaches girls from a young age not to talk about periods. Women walk around terrified of wearing white clothing or leaking during their period because it’s embarrassing or shameful. But why? Do we laugh at toddlers who wet themselves, people who have had surgery, or men who spill a coffee on their crotch during a meeting? No, we don’t.

    Why? Probably because, of course, women are just sexual objects. How dare they bleed from their vaginas?

    And if period blood upsets you – that says a hell of a lot more about how society has taught you to see women’s bodies, than about the blood itself. Oh, and you might want to sit down before I tell you where you came from.

    Not to mention innuendos like ‘that time of the month’, ‘shark week’, or hearing ‘she must be on her period’ because a woman dares to show an ounce of emotion. All these euphemisms do is add stigma – they emphasise that periods are something to hide. They lead to more embarrassment, young girls being afraid to ask for help, and reinforce that periods are disgusting and not to be talked about. Do we have the same euphemisms for digestion? Or breathing? Both, like menstruation, are normal bodily functions. Stop beating around the bush and call it what it is.

    The fact that Farage is married to a woman astounds me – because he has clearly never listened to one.

    This is yet another example of how Farage and Reform’s “protect women and girls” mantra is complete bullshit. If he really cared about women and girls, he’d be supporting access to period products.

    Feature image via Monika Kozub/Unsplash

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Jeanine Hourani from the Palestinian Youth Movement spoke at a Your Party rally in Leeds on 8 October, and she insisted that:

    Palestine has well and truly been the final nail in the coffin of the Labour Party of this country.

    She added:

    Whether it’s supporting genocide abroad or austerity at home, the political elite of this country will never act in the interest of the people. This is what Palestine has illuminated over the last two years.

    On top of the horrors of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, she pointed out that:

    Every day in this country nearly half of parents skip a meal so that their children have enough to eat. This winter it’s estimated that over two million households will not be able to heat their homes.

    A survey in early 2025 revealed that “48% of parents [say] they have skipped a meal to ensure their children are fed”, with 32% doing this on multiple occasions. And another report from last month stated that “more than two million households plan to avoid turning on their central heating this winter – a 22% increase on last year – for fear of soaring energy bills”.

    In organising the resistance to this system, Hourani believes we can learn important lessons from the movement for Palestinian liberation.

     

    Jeanine Hourani: grassroots pressure matters

    Jeanine Hourani’s media visibility has attracted attention from the Israeli settler-colonial project. And as she argued, the activism of the Palestinian Youth Movement has absolutely made an impact in Britain.

    In May, she noted, the group co-released a report that exposed UK arms sales to Israel. This revealed the shocking extent of Britain’s support for Israel as it committed genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip. And it revealed that Keir Starmer’s Labour Party had continued to send munitions despite the September 2024 suspension of some export licences. As Hourani stressed:

    In the weeks that followed, we saw the mounting pressure materialise.

    This included dozens of MPs calling on Labour to respond to the report’s findings.

    The government began to threaten more symbolic action in response to Israel’s war crimes. But after many months of insufficient action, Hourani said:

    we continued to take matters into our own hands. We shut down 17 Labour offices around the country and successfully disrupted this year’s Labour Party conference.

    The ongoing resistance on the ground against Labour’s complicity in genocide, meanwhile, has kept pressure on media outlets to do their job too. For example, a recent Channel 4 News investigation revealed that the value of UK arms going to Israel actually reached a record high of around £400,000 this June. And last month was the second highest on record, at £316,000:

    Building on these lessons in a new left party

    The struggle against Labour’s support for Israel’s crimes is not over. But as Jeanine Hourani insisted:

    If the research produced by a group of young, unpaid volunteers who are fighting to end the genocide of our people can expose the lies of the Labour Party of this country, make its way into parliament, catalyse shutdowns at Labour Party offices and events, and strike at the political establishment of this country, what can a new socialist party achieve if we get organised?

    The shocking establishment support for Israel’s genocide has undoubtedly been a turning point. People have witnessed the horrors in Gaza for two years now. We’ve seen politicians drop their masks of civility and throw all morals in the bin. And at the same time, we’ve faced ongoing attacks on our own rights and wellbeing.

    This genocide hasn’t just woken us up. It has shown us the power of grassroots resistance. And the lessons we’ve learned can help us to reshape our country and world into places of compassion, peace, and justice.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 52 years – a lifetime of work. That’s how long it would take the average UK earner to join the richest 10%. And that’s if the less individual didn’t spend a single penny of their earnings and saved the lot.

    Yet the richest 10% rely on average earners to maintain society, especially essential workers. The Resolution Foundation report notes how skyrocketing inequality corresponds with an increase in the amount of passive income the rich are receiving. The amount the rich gain from inflated property prices and rent is the highest driver of passive income. This essentially means the rich are sponging off the working class and gaining money for free. And the way the system is set up means they’ve claimed an everyday individual’s entire lifetime.

    The wealth the rich own vastly outpaces the amount workers produce. The Resolution Foundation points out that the total of Britain’s wealth is 7.5 times GDP.

    Attlee V Thatcher

    The wealth gap is also reflected in intergenerational terms. From 2006/8 to 2020/22, inequality between people of their early 30s and people in their early 60s doubled, the Resolution Foundation notes. Baby boomers benefited largely due to the post war policies of the Clement Attlee government, where he nationalised 20% of the economy, bringing down the cost of living for every individual and businesses.

    Housing was readily available and affordable, with home ownership the key driver of the intergenerational wealth gap. Now housing is extremely expensive and key utilities are privatised. The last time housing was as pricey as today, compared to average earnings, was 1876. The ruling class’ neoliberal counter policies, first under Margaret Thatcher from 1979, have taken us 150 years into the past.

    “Doubling concerning”

    The Resolution Foundation also finds that 76% of people from low income families do not move one decile up or down in wealth over a four year period. This means that the class one is born in largely determines outcome, rather than work.

    The thinktank further points out that wealth inequality depends on location. Median wealth per adult is £290,000 in the South East and just £110,000 in the North East.

    Molly Broome, Senior Economist at the Resolution Foundation, said:

    Wealth gaps in Britain are now so large that a typical full-time employee saving all their earnings across their entire working life would still not be able to reach the top of the wealth ladder. These gaps are doubly concerning as wealth mobility in Britain is low – people that start life wealthy tend to stay wealthy, and vice versa. Rising house prices and changes in the value of pension promises account for most of the growth in wealth gaps since the early 2010s, rather than any active behaviour on the part of individuals, such as buying homes or acquiring new assets.

    Soaring wealth and an acute need for more revenue has prompted fresh talk of wealth taxes ahead of the Budget next month. But with property and pensions now representing 80 per cent of the growing bulk of household wealth, we need to be honest that higher wealth taxes are likely to fall on pensioners, Southern homeowners or their families, rather than just being paid by the super-rich.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Christopher Bill

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rio de Janeiro is approaching a crisis where policing and killing may become indistinguishable. A new proposed law would reward police officers with cash bonuses for every suspect they kill.

    Supporters argue this is an effective step to combat organised crime, but critics describe it as a state-sanctioned execution.

    Rio de Janeiro police bill: bonuses for deadly bullets

    To many residents of Rio de Janeiro’s poorest communities, living in the shadow of both drug gangs and police raids, it feels like something out of a dystopian movie. Imagine waking up in a community knowing that your life or your child’s life might be worth money to someone with a badge and a gun.

    The people sworn to protect you are now given financial incentives to treat the streets like a hunting ground.

    Human Rights Watch director César Muñoz said:

    Giving bonuses to police for killings is not only outright brutal but also undermines public security by creating a financial incentive for officers to shoot rather than arrest suspects.

    Rewarding lethal force and encouraging abuse of power

    The bill (6027/2025) risks turning the fight against crime into a deadly competition, a real Squid Game, where the scorecard is written in blood. Rather than incentivising arrests or prosecutions, it rewards lethal force.

    It won’t be the wealthy in gated communities who’ll suffer. It won’t be the politicians drafting this bill protected by bodyguards, living behind marbled walls. It’ll be the young man or woman walking home from work, the child playing soccer in an alley. Undoubtfully, mistakes will be made, because under this law “mistakes” might mean bonuses.

    On 24 January, Jeronimo Gomes da Silva, 44, a resident of Complexo do Alemão, one of Rio de Janeiro’s largest favelas, reported that a grenade was thrown from a drone into his home. He said:

    They threw a grenade from a drone onto my balcony, destroying my house. My family and I almost died here.

    Reports have also emerged of agents from Rio de Janeiro’s military police BOPE (Special Operations Battalion) entering a home in Complexo do Alemão and robbing a family, an incident that highlights abuse of power.

    Speaking with Brasil de Fato, Jacqueline Muniz, an anthropologist, political scientist, and specialist in public security, warned that this bill could have far-reaching effects, particularly in how it blurs the line between policing and organised crime. She explained:

    The police start organising organised crime itself, so they don’t just get close to the crime, they become partners, associates, okay? If you kill people who know about organised crime, you’re sabotaging the investigation itself and the production of intelligence that would serve to identify how organised crime works, who’s who within organised crime. You’re rigging the police for partisan purposes, for all sorts of rigging.

    This ends up revealing corruption schemes, a logic of partnership with crime, right? It reveals, therefore, that death doesn’t result from a high-risk action, but rather becomes a commodity. It’s as if the state has militarised its police force and even cheapened the lives of police officers.

    The price of a life

    Brazilian authorities have claimed the policy would boost morale in a force stretched thin by violence and underfunding, while sending a tough message to cartels and militias that dominate Rio de Janeiro’s favelas.

    But the cost of this action is crystal clear: human lives, particularly those of young, poor, and Black men who already make up a disproportionate number of victims in police confrontations.

    Every year, Brazilian police are responsible for more than 6,000 deaths, many of them young Black men. Black Brazilians are about three times more likely to die in confrontations with the police compared to white Brazilians.

    In 2024, Rio’s military police and civil police killed 703 people, almost two per day. At least 86% were Black. Between January and August this year, they’ve killed 470 people.

    When the state decides that some lives are worth less, that some deaths are worth cash, it tells an entire class of people: you are disposable.

    International groups, including Human Rights Watch, have condemned the bill warning it’d encourage extrajudicial killings, deepen mistrust between communities and the state, and establish a cycle of violence that has already scarred Brazil for decades.

    Injustice reigns and scars are visible. Families who have lost sons in police raids hardly ever see accountability. Courts rarely prosecute officers involved in questionable shootings. Adding financial rewards only makes justice more elusive.

    Crime comes from inequality: police violence entrenches it

    Rio de Janeiro, and Brazil, stand at a crossroads. One path leads to more violence, more mistrust, more broken families, and the other demands courage and will, investing in education, creating real opportunities in the favelas, reforming police systems, and addressing poverty as the root of the crime.

    Crime in Rio isn’t born from lack of policing, but from inequality.

    The easy solution are bullets, the hard road is building a society where police do not need to be blackmailed to protect, where children don’t grow up expecting to die young, where safety comes from justice, not from fear.

    Policies like this reduce people to targets, strip away humanity until all that’s left is a number: one more ‘suspect’ eliminated, one more ‘bonus’ earned.

    For Muniz, the debate around public security goes beyond policing strategies and touches the core of Brazil’s democracy. She argued that real reform can only happen when armed institutions are brought under civilian control and when elected governments are able to exercise their authority without challenge.

    She warned:

    If we want to play democracy, we must do it for real. The first dimension of democracy to guarantee legitimately elected governments, whether left or right, is the control of the sword. Something that has become out of control in Brazil.

    A call to conscience for Rio de Janeiro

    The world should not look away because what’s happening in Rio de Janeiro isn’t just Brazil’s problem, it’s a stark warning. Any society that starts placing a bounty on its own people, edges closer to societal collapse.

    This bill is not protection, nor justice. This is blood money, and history will not forgive those who turned human lives into a pay-per-kill system.

    In the end, this issue isn’t about crime rates or police bonuses, it’s about what kind of world we choose to build, one where life is valuable, or one where death has a price. Unless another path is chosen, the streets of Rio may soon resemble a game where survival itself is the prize.

    Feature image via Al Jazeera English/Youtube.

    By Monica Piccinini

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The share of the U.S. wealth pie owned by the top 0.1 percent grew 59.6 percent from 1989 to 2024, according to an Institute for Policy Studies analysis of Federal Reserve data, while the share of the U.S. wealth pie owned by the bottom 50 percent of households has declined 26.1 percent, adjusted for inflation.

    This bottom half of households in America — 66 million of them — had $4.1 trillion all together at the end of 2024. The 905 billionaires in the United States hold a combined $7.8 trillion in wealth, according to Forbes data from September 29, 2025. This alarming narrowing of wealth has given those at the very top political influence and power that undermines our democracy.

    The post Billionaire Wealth Concentration Is Even Worse Than You Imagine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The issues facing social housing in the UK right now could fill a library, never mind an extensive tag on the Canary website. From hundred-year waiting lists to failing to meet proper health standards, there’s plenty to pick from. However, the BBC has run an article titled:

    Carpet poverty: ‘I cried when I saw our new home had bare floorboards’

    This kind of framing is typical of the mainstream media. Plumping for a headline like “I cried when I saw our new home had bare floorboards” is, at best, ignorant of the heart of the issue. At worst, it’s setting the cause up for dismissal, especially by people who only read the headlines.

    So, what is ‘carpet poverty’?

    Carpet poverty

    The actual article itself is slightly better than its flippant headline, mentioning the danger of exposed nails and splinters. However, there are plenty more reasons why unfinished floorboards in a property are a safety issue, not just an aesthetic issue or one of carpet poverty.

    Campaign group End Furniture Poverty explained:

    There are 1.2m people living without flooring in the UK and over 66% of them live in social housing.

    Living without flooring is uncomfortable, and it can be dangerous for elderly people or those with disabilities because they are much more likely to hurt themselves if they fall. It makes life very difficult for families with young children if the home has concrete floors or dirty floorboards. The lack of flooring can create noise issues in flats and increase anti-social behaviour complaints and damage neighbourly relations. And it can mean homes feel and are colder without adequate flooring.

    Many social landlords also rip out flooring when tenants move out, no matter what the quality, so the incoming tenant faces concrete floors, and even exposed grippers and nails.

    Usually, people are moving into social housing precisely because they don’t have money to spare. Moving into any new house is a heavy financial burden in itself. Then, there are more important things to sort out immediately, like furniture and appliances. This can lead to a vicious circle where flooring is never at the top of the list of priorities. Especially, that is, when carpeting even a small house can cost upwards of £1,000.

    The law doesn’t currently require the landlord to provide flooring anywhere other than the bathroom and kitchen. In social housing, it’s common practice for landlords to rip out the previous tenants’ flooring, on the grounds of hygiene. Conveniently, this also avoids liability for the state of the existing carpet. This, in turn, creates an environmental issue, as all of the flooring is sent to landfill each time social housing changes hands.

    Decent Homes Standard

    However, carpet poverty isn’t nearly the end of the issues facing people living in social housing right now. The BBC article also quoted a spokesperson for the ministry of housing saying:

    it is wholly unacceptable for social housing providers not to meet the highest of standards.

    That is why the government is introducing a reformed Decent Homes Standard so that all families have access to a safe home.

    That ‘reformed Decent Homes Standard’ (DHS) refers to the outcomes of a currently-nebulous government consultation on socially and privately rented homes. It includes proposals for whole-property flooring requirements, along with security and energy efficiency minimums.

    The reform consultation also included requirements for properties to be free of damp and mould, also known as Awaab’s law. It’s named for two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died from a severe respiratory condition brought on by black mould in his social housing.

    Awaab’s law

    The details of Awaab’s law are more set-in-stone than the other outcomes of the consultation. Government guidance on Awaab’s law states that:

    Awaab’s Law will come into force for the social rented sector from 27 October 2025. From this point social landlords will have to address all emergency hazards and all damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants to fixed timeframes.

    In 2026 we will extend regulations to include the following hazards where they present a significant risk of harm:

    • excess cold and excess heat
    • falls associated with baths etc., on level surfaces, on stairs and between levels
    • structural collapse, and explosions
    • fire, and electrical hazards
    • domestic and personal hygiene and food safety

    In 2027, we will extend regulations to all remaining HHSRS hazards (apart from overcrowding) where they present a significant risk of harm.

    Whilst these new requirements are all well and good, they’ll mean very little without proper enforcement. Unfortunately, rental industry research suggests that even the current version of the DHS is barely being enforced:

    According to Inventory Base, in 2013, more than ten years after the DHS was introduced, approximately 593,000 social homes still fell below the standard.

    By 2023, that number had fallen by 27.8%, but these latest figures suggest around 428,000 social rented properties in England, more than 10% of the total stock, still failed to meet the required standard.

    Inventory Base estimates that by the end of 2025, nearly 405,000 homes will still be classified as non-decent, almost a quarter of a century after the standard was first introduced.

    Landlords cannot just be relied upon to treat their tenants with a basic level of human decency. They are financially incentivised to cut corners and leave properties in squalor. The potential reforms to the DHS – mould, heating and all – are good. However, they must be accompanied by actual consequences for the slumlords that fail to meet them.

    Bare floors are just one facet of the litany of ways in which landlords are allowed to treat tenants as undeserving of a basic quality of life. We at the Canary are unsure where carpet poverty falls on the scale from bread to roses. But we’re damn sure that people in social housing deserve warm, safe, dry homes – and carpets too, while we’re at it.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Four years after defeating the US in battle, in 1955, Mao told colleagues, “If we can’t overtake America in 100 years we don’t deserve to exist. We should be wiped off the face of the earth”. Less than seventy years later, China overtook America.

    Today, Chinese are much richer than their American and European counterparts, they live longer, healthier lives and their children graduate from high school three years ahead in STEM subjects. Before we examine China’s rise, however, let’s review the West’s decline:

    • Most Americans have saved less than $10,000. Only 0.1% hold $5+ million, the minimum required for retirement.
    • “Twice a week the YMCA holds a free food distribution for the military community, and every week, there are more families in the line than food to serve.” NBC News, 8/2/25.
    • The official US poverty rate is 11.6%, with 38 million people living in poverty. US Census
    • “Most Americans don’t earn enough to afford basic costs of living, analysis finds,”

      Megan Cerullo, CBS News.

    • The bottom 50% of American citizens own 2.5% of national wealth. St. Louis Federal Reserve.
    • In 2007, the median US homebuyer was 39 years old. Today, she’s 56.
    • In 2025, the average Dane works 6500 hours for each year of retirement. Their Chinese work 4600 hours.
    • Last year, the median net worth in Germany’s richest city, Berlin, was $89,000, says Bundesbank.

    How China did it

    American workers’ real incomes have not risen since 1975, their savings have fallen steadily since 1989 and the results are undeniable.

    Chinese workers, by contrast, have doubled their real incomes every 10-12 years since 1955 and they saved 35% of their incomes every year. In 2020, urban Chinese families’ median net worth was $200,000. In 2025 it will be $250,000.

    Our media and government will suppress news of this change for as long as possible but, once it becomes common knowledge, it will permanently change the world.

    I’ll speculate about that revolution next week.

    The post The World’s Richest People are Chinese, not Americans first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Youth campaigners from Green New Deal Rising set up a mock budget briefcase scene outside the Labour Party conference on Monday 29 September.

    It featured a figure dressed as Rachel Reeves, standing between two red budget boxes, one reading “billionaire’s budget”, the other “people’s budget”. The campaigners held placards urging the chancellor to introduce wealth taxes on the super-rich at the Autumn Budget.

    Labour Party conference protest: ‘Rachel Reeves’ weighs up wealth tax

    The action at the Labour conference comes as polling consistently shows Reform UK well ahead of Labour. Voters are angry and frustrated at Starmer’s first year in power. Many are calling on the chancellor to address this in the Budget. This includes Labour’s own MPs, former Labour leader Neil Kinnock, the former shadow chancellor, Nobel-prize winning economists, trade unions, and groups of millionaires themselves. They are urging the chancellor introduce wealth taxes like an equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax rates, taxes on the big banks. Most prominently, they are calling for a 2% wealth tax on individuals with assets over £10m.

    On Saturday, Welsh first minister Eluned Morgan came out in favour of a wealth tax to address child poverty. And Andy Burnham, who has been making waves with leadership manoeuverings, is backing Mainstream, a new Labour grouping. It has also expressed support for wealth taxes.

    Reeves has in recent months refused to be drawn on the question of wealth taxes, as speculation about what tax rises we will see in the Autumn budget continues. Campaigners point to wealth taxes as a clear route towards raising significant revenue for public investment. Crucially, this would do so without breaking Labour’s manifesto commitments.

    Autumn Budget: time to tax the rich

    Co-director of Green New Deal Rising Hannah Martin said:

    After a disastrous first year, now is the time for a major reset to start delivering the deep economic change the public voted for. That means proper investment in our schools, hospitals and high streets – and action to deal with the climate crisis. The money for this investment is there. While child poverty hit a record high, billionaires added £35 million to their fortunes every day last year. At the budget, it’s time for Rachel Reeves to finally introduce wealth taxes on the super-rich.

    Climate justice adviser at Oxfam GB Beth John said of the Labour conference protest:

    On average, the world’s fifty richest billionaires produce more carbon through their investments, private jets and superyachts in under three hours than the average Brit does in their entire lifetime. A wealthy, high-polluting few have gained extreme riches – harming both people and planet.

    At the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor must choose to fight inequality and climate change by introducing a wealth tax – a policy supported by 78% of the British public – which is essential to help to build a fairer, safer and more caring world.

    Feature image supplied.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • I first heard the word ‘depression’ when I was about sixteen. My mother took me to the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bengaluru, India, to be seen by a professional for what I had just considered to be nightmares and difficult afternoons. I was lucky. Today, only 9% of people in the world receive treatment for depression. The doctor spoke to me for a long time, and I spent several days at NIMHANS being treated by this and other doctors. It was clear to me that my problems largely stemmed from a traumatic incident that took place a few years earlier, when I was raped in my school.

    My parents held me through the process, giving me the courage to get through the aftermath and shielding me from what they thought would be the absolute humiliation of a public display of the violence.

    The post Over A Billion People In The World Suffer From Mental Health Ailments appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The day the Labour Party’s conference wraps up, energy firms will hike the public’s bills again. So, campaign group Fuel Poverty Action will be taking a stand. As delegates leave the event, it will rally outside the Wheel of Liverpool to tell them the government can’t leave citizens in the cold this winter.

    Energy bills to soar as Labour Party conference comes to a close

    On Wednesday 1 October, the energy price cap will rise 2% to £1,755 a year. Energy regulator Ofgem announced the increase in August for the period covering October to December. Notably, it said that:

    For a typical household, their energy bills will increase by £2.93 a month or £35.14 per year. This is 2.2% per year higher than the price cap set for the same period last year, from 1 October to 31 December 2024 (£1,717).

    However, this is misleading. Specifically, the figures represent what the ‘average’ household increase will be. In reality, it means that for many households, the rise will be a lot higher. This applies to those whose typical energy bill sits above this average – often because they need more gas and electricity. Because what really matters is how much the unit price – the price per kilowatt hour of energy – the cost is going up by.

    Of course, this means chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions. Alongside this, people in less energy efficient housing will invariably pay more for their fuel costs as well. Naturally, many pensioners will also be among those with larger energy demands too.

    The price cap rise on Wednesday means that the public will see energy companies raise their bills the day Labour will bring its conference to a close.

    Time to call out another broken pledge – again

    Of course, this is the same Labour Party led by now-prime minister Keir Starmer who promised pre-election that a Labour government would “freeze energy bills” (not the public). However, the reality has been repeated energy price cap rises like this one.

    In August, Ofgem tried to spin it. In its press release over the announcement, it said:

    compared to the start of 2023, this is £625 (26.3%) lower than when the energy crisis was at its peak.

    However, the Fuel Poverty Coalition has pointed out that the rise actually means average bills will actually be £713 (68.43%) higher than pre-energy crisis levels of winter 2020/21.

    It also highlighted how the bill hike will therefore hit the 12 million households already in fuel poverty hardest.

    Given all this, Fuel Poverty Action is calling for people to join it outside Labour’s conference on the closing day. The group will be present from 9.30am with banners outside the Wheel of Liverpool. It will kick off its demonstration at 12pm, as delegates start to filter out the conference building.

    It’s also pitching up outside the site at 4pm on 30 September to to flyer and chant as MPs pass by.

    Fuel poverty is a political choice

    Last year, the group rallied outside Labour’s conference demanding a U-turn on the winter fuel payment cuts.

    After Labour was forced to U-turn, Fuel Poverty Action says it is:

    going back to ask what about the rest of us?

    It is demanding that the government make ‘Energy For All’ by:

    guaranteeing everyone’s essential needs like heating, lighting, washing and cooking.

    And crucially, it has argued that:

    This government has the power to deliver it. Nothing is out of their hands, fuel poverty is a political choice. Ultra-cheap energy is already being generated on our doorstep without the benefits being passed onto us.

    The group has laid out a manifesto on this, and is asking members of the public to email their MPs about the real solutions on offer. You can write to your MP using Fuel Poverty Actions email tool here.

    It declared that it “won’t accept high energy bills as the new normal” – and needs as many people as possible to join it next Wednesday in making it known.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Aporophobia is a negative attitude toward poverty that often culminates in an irrational fear of very poor people. It is the plight of being terrified by physical destitution when having to walk by a boozed-up bum. The word comes from the ancient Greek áporos (without resources). It sums up the horror the well-meaning citizen experiences seeing clear evidence that the system doesn’t work for all.

    The roots of aporophobia are difficult to pin down. Most people, living in a safe comfortable home and regularly eating nice square meals, cross the street without thinking twice at the sight of a lunatic panhandler, or reflexively clutch their pearls. They try to avoid eye contact as if their lives depended on it. There’s an unenunciated belief that poverty is contagious if you brush against it, even ever so lightly.

    If severe, aporophobia can interfere with daily activities such as making loads of cash or going on luxury vacations.

    Cognitive behavioral therapy is the most commonly used treatment, although sometimes medication has to be prescribed to alleviate anxiety attacks.

    Final note on aporophobia: Next time you bump into a deranged derelict, say a prayer for his soul, and also thank somebody up there that you’ve survived the encounter. Let’s call it what it is, the compassion of the Twenty-First Century.

    The post Aporophobia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Stormont’s landmark document on tackling poverty in the North of Ireland has been subjected to scathing criticism as it reaches the end of its consultation period. The report, entitled The Executive’s Anti-Poverty Strategy (2025-2035) was also criticised upon release in June 2025, with the Social Democratic and Labour Party’s (SDLP) Mark H. Durkan describing it as “underwhelming” as he called:

    into question the Executive’s ability to tackle poverty.

    Save the Children NI’s Peter Bryson also said at the time that the strategy:

    raises serious questions about the Executive’s commitment to children, families and communities impacted by poverty.

    Stormont’s anti-poverty strategy: ‘underwhelming’ at best

    Subject to a two-decade(!) delay and billed by Minister for Communities Gordon Lyons as a “strategy which could help make a meaningful difference to those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage in our society”, the document sets out its definition of poverty as meaning that:

    a person or family’s income and other resources are not sufficient to meet their basic needs. This includes paying for essentials such as housing, heating, food, clothing and social activities.

    It begins by laying out the core statistics related to poverty (after housing costs) in the six counties, with 18% and 15% of the population overall suffering relative and absolute poverty respectively. For children the equivalent figures are 25% and 21%. 20% of:

    those individuals living in families where someone is disabled are considered to be in relative poverty.

    A gender disparity also exists, with 16% of women and 14% of men respectively placed in poverty by our dysfunctional economic system. The absolute poverty figures for the population as a whole had been steadily falling for decade to a figure of 12%, before climbing in recent years to the current 15%.

    Three key pillars with no substance

    It then goes on to focus on “three key pillars” where actions will be put in place to supposedly aid those with limited means:

    • Minimising Risk – risk factors for entering a state of impoverishment are listed, such as low educational attainment, debt and disability are among those cited
    • Minimising Impacts – this outlines the consequences people suffer as a result of poverty, including negative health impacts, increased exposure to crime and substandard housing
    • Exiting Poverty – finally four ways out of poverty are listed: economic/employment conditions; employment; further education; and childcare

    A range of policy initiatives are then listed as a means of addressing these goals, such as programmes claiming to bolster education, improve health and provide better careers guidance.

    More than words, we need action

    However, civil society groups such as the Law Centre NI have issued scathing criticism on the Stormont plan, calling it a:

    grossly inadequate approach to poverty [which] cannot be accepted.

    The charity, which provides “free and independent legal services” castigated the authors for failing to include “measurable objectives, targets, and timelines”, prevaricating on the disastrous two-child limit on benefit payments, and ignoring the plight of the economically disadvantaged migrant community. In an X post, it concluded by saying:

    Northern Ireland needs more than words. We need action. We need accountability. We need a strategy that works, for everyone.

    The report’s call to merely “undertake research to understand the impact of Westminster’s two child limit on poverty indicators” has come in for particular criticism, given the clear evidence of its harm.

    Similarly damning were the comments of Dr Ciara Fitzpatrick, a senior lecturer in law at Ulster University, who slammed the strategy as:

    devoid of solutions that would make a genuine difference in people’s lives.

    She also said the work is:

    insulting – it needs to be re-written. The NI Executive needs to demonstrate that they care about disadvantaged communities.

    The Women’s Support Network concentrated on the views of ordinary women who acted as participants in the strategy’s focus group. They put forward the simple steps that could have been brought in to provide immediate help to those on low income, such as “Giving an increase in money to the people that need it and then capping the costs of school uniforms,” or an additional welfare payment at Christmas:

    Give people an extra payment of their benefits like they do down South, that would help because lots of people really struggle at Christmas.

    Another simply declared:

    There’s nothing in the draft to help me.

    Concrete solutions distant from the minds of the business-bought political class

    The elephant in the room that went almost entirely unaddressed in the 31-page government plan is the vampiric economic system causing all this misery and inequality in the first place.

    While the strategy dedicates four tiny paragraphs to somewhat veiled references to blood-sucking employers, acknowledging that “in-work poverty has largely continued on an upward trend and stood at almost 13% in 2018/19” and mentions “Northern Ireland’s issue in relation to low pay relates to the private sector”, it offers scant solutions to the core dysfunction of an economic model that allows enormous concentration of resources in few hands. The word ‘union’ appears not once in Stormont’s great masterplan.

    Boosting the powers of unions and throwing off the shackles of notoriously restrictive laws on organising would enable such groups to fight more effectively for better terms and would shift things in favour of those being increasingly impoverished. Lessening the power of bad employers would also decrease their ability to lobby for the destruction of welfare services generally, benefiting everyone else in the process.

    Such an approach is clearly distant from the minds a political class that has long since sold out to big business, however. They would rather give handouts to polluters and genocidaires than assist those unable to feed their children or heat their homes. Until they’re taught a lesson at the ballot box, we will continue to suffer through glossy brochures promising much but ultimately delivering sweet FA.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Robert Freeman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Office of National Statistics’ (ONS) new inflation figures are now out for August 2025. The banner headline is that inflation overall has held steady at 3.8%, far above the Bank of England’s 2% target. Food prices have also continued to spiral upwards ahead of that rate. Moreover, this 3.8% increase is significantly higher than those predicted for other major nearby economies like Germany and France.

    The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) increased by 3.8% from August 2024 to August 2025. The CPI measures how the costs of common goods and services that most people need – things like food, transport, recreation, and electronics – change over time. It serves as the main measure of inflation overall in the UK.

    Food and drink

    However, food and non-alcoholic drink prices rose by 5.1% for the year. This included far bigger increases for some very basic products. Coffee and chocolate prices both rose by 15.4%, dairy products like milk and butter rose by 12.6 and 18.9% respectively, and the price of beef rose by a whopping 24.9%.

    Supermarkets blamed a multitude of factors for the continual increases. These included the climate crisis and the combination of a wet Spring and dry Summer in the UK driving up the cost of basic goods, along with the ongoing war in Ukraine – previously a primary producer of grain for Europe.

    Alongside these rises, supermarkets and suppliers also complained about April’s rise in minimum wages and national insurance contributions. It would appear that these costs to producers and retailers have been passed directly to the consumer – and then some, in some cases.

    For example, Tesco posted an adjusted operating profit increase of 10.6% for 2024-2025. Likewise, Sainsbury’s underlying operating profit rose by 7.2% for a similar period. Both of these profit increases are far ahead of the average 5.1% increase in food prices. Both Tesco and Sainsbury’s were also guilty of above-inflation price gouging during the pandemic, as revealed in a 2023 investigation by Unite.

    So what gives?

    So if food costs are rising above inflation, what exactly is keeping the overall increase of the CPI basket steady?

    The ONS stats also showed that average house prices in the UK in July had increased by 2.8% compared to July 2024. That’s down from a 3.6% price growth from June to June. However, private landlords’ rent increases rose by 5.7% August to August. That’s the smallest annual increase since December 2022, but still well above general inflation,

    Prices in transport also rose overall by just 2.4% in the year up to August 2025. Air fares made a significant downward contribution to this rate, and petrol and diesel prices fell by 4.9% in the same period, compared with a greater fall of 6.7% July-July.

    Overall

    So what does this mean overall? As ever, it is the poorest people in the UK who will feel the brunt of changing prices. The fact the air fares are increasing slower will mean little to you if you don’t regularly leave the country. Rising rates of private renting are far more significant if you’re not in a position to buy a house. And, of course, the cost of the most basic foods rising at sometimes as much as six times general inflation will sting if you regularly struggle to buy groceries.

    Chancellor Rachel Reeves said:

    I know families are finding it tough and that for many the economy feels stuck. That’s why I’m determined to bring costs down and support people who are facing higher bills.

    Usually, the Bank of England (BoE) seeks to curb inflation by increasing interest rates. Interest rates account for both the cost of borrowing money and the gains from saving it. The logic goes that if borrowing goes down and saving goes up, then spending will go down, meaning that prices will fall, thereby lowering inflation.

    So, with inflation holding at 3.8%, experts are predicting that the BoE will keep interest rates fixed at 4%. However, Paul Nowak – general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has warned that this won’t help the average family:

    Global challenges mean food costs keep rising. Higher inflation is also being driven by water and energy bills rising. Keeping interest rates high will not bring down these prices – but instead, rates are adding to the pain for families and businesses.

    The Bank of England should cut interest rates tomorrow to ease pressures on households and businesses. This will help to boost growth and make life more affordable for everyone.

    Autumn budget

    A lot now hinges on the chancellor’s Autumn budget, set to be released on 26 November. Reeves faces a very difficult balancing act. Increased minimum wages and NI contributions from employers were popular among low-wage workers, but big businesses immediately foisted those costs onto consumers.

    Last year, Reeves promised businesses that she wouldn’t hike taxes further – however, there is now widespread speculation that she will do just that, amid reports of falling productivity forecasts. If businesses once again pass these costs directly to consumers, it could spell disaster for the poorest among us.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Krzysztof Hepner

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • We are in desperate need of remembering the UK’s rich history of social struggle. Fortunately, the Wigan Diggers Festival reminds us how this history holds the keys to improving our country today.

    Wigan Diggers Festival: bringing radical history into the present

    In celebration of the life and ideas of Gerrard Winstanley, the Wigan Diggers Festival on Saturday 13 September did just that. A free event for all with a day of live music, entertainment, inspiring poetry, stalls, and speakers, the community was able to come together and share in their common interests.

    Winstanley, a local legend, championed social justice in the 17th century, fighting for the oppressed people of England to have a right to share in the ‘commons’ and be able to work the land to grow much-needed food for their communities. This was in direct challenge to the status quo of the time, when wealthy lords restricted access and increased taxes on ordinary people for their own profits. People fighting for a better Britain in 2025 can, and should, draw inspiration from this movement.

    There were stalls representing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Make Votes Matter, Your Party, Wigan’s local Green Party, the Socialist Worker, and several other social justice and reform groups.

    Addressing people’s anger

    After the anger that was on display at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest on Saturday, the Wigan Diggers Festival was a markedly different space.

    As Winstanley said in his appeal to the House of Commons in 1649, oppression breeds anger, the flame currently ignited in our society, and Winstanley argued that the only way to “quench” that flame is to champion values of love, justice, and compassion. Winstanley instead appealed to the most wealthy and powerful to prioritise social justice and individual freedoms:

    And truly the hearts of the people are much falling from you, for your breach of Promises when you have the power to keep them, and for your neglect of giving them their freedom, and removing burthens; and what danger may ensue by that to yourselves, and the Nations, you know how to judge.

    Curbing billionaire power and wealth

    When we consider the social issues we face today – widening inequality, decreasing access to opportunity, and families struggling to feed their families sufficiently and nutritionally, it is hard not to see the relevance of Winstanley’s words, further signifying how our society still has a long way to go to ensure ordinary people have the right of freedom from exploitation by the richest in our society.

    This is evidenced even further when we see the growing disparity between the extreme wealth of the rich and the income stagnation affecting the majority. Oxfam says that currently 3,000 billionaires across the world hold 14.6% of global wealth, seeing a surge of £4.8tn, whilst the incomes of the majority stagnate and inflation keeps rising, costing hard-working families even more.

    In the UK, according to the Equality Trust, the average wealth of billionaires has increased by 1000% between 1990 and 2024, whilst paying a disproportionately low tax rate of 0.3% of their wealth, significantly lower than the average worker in the UK, who have also experienced stagnating wages since the financial crash of 2008. According to TUC, before the financial crash, weekly wages saw an increase of 1.7% each year, dropping to -0.2% since 2008.

    Proposing a tax of 2% on the annual wealth of billionaires, French economist Gabriel Zucman argued that “there is overwhelming public support for this idea”, with 130 countries in support of a minimum tax on multinationals. Zucman stated this is technically feasible and could raise up to £197bn per year.

    The commons of today

    In modern times, our essential services could be argued to be the commons of our day: the NHS, our schools, water and energy, together with our democratic freedoms of free speech and the right to protest.

    All of these face a severe threat from some of the super-rich in our society, and foreign wealth, who exploit the anger of our fellow citizens and our growing need for their own private profits. Through civil agitation directed at immigrants and refugees, there are blatant attempts to divert blame for our shared struggle away from the richest in our society, cashing in on monopolies and lucrative contracts, onto those suffering real hardship and trauma.

    Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary Fran Heathcote spoke on Saturday in the anti-racism counter protest:

    Trade Unions only succeed in winning for working class people when we unite working class people, all of us standing together. The billionaires, the corporations, the landlords and the media barons, they want us to be divided…Scapegoating migrants won’t get you better pay, reduce NHS waiting lists, or reduce your rent and mortgage.

    Class war and inequality have long been tools of the oppressor, as we see through Winstanley’s advocacy, and it is clear we’re facing the greatest threat to our society as it is currently working in the favour of the richest in our society, exploiting the anger of the majority, leaving minoritised people in fear for their safety.

    Time for hope and moral leadership

    As Winstanley predicted in 1649, in his Appeal to the House of Commons, and still relevant today:

    Unrighteous oppression kindles a flame; but love, righteousness, and tenderness of heart, quenches it again.

    Britain must listen to the calls to tax the richest, and support Brazil’s call at the G20 to implement a fair tax on billionaires and multimillionaires. Then we can finally address the urgent issues in our society, ensuring no community feels left behind or disadvantaged.

    Until then, people driven by love must fill the vacuum and address the anger in our communities. This is how we remove the hate that is blinding the disenfranchised, and strengthen the bonds in our communities.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Sadfish9889

    By Maddison Wheeldon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 40 MPs and MSs have joined urgent calls for the government to reform council tax collection, as council tax debt and bailiff use rises.

    Bailiff use rises in council tax debt collection

    The MP and MSs, from the Labour Party, Greens, Plaid Cymru, and Independents, have joined union leaders and councillors in signing open letters community union ACORN has published today, 15 September.

    The letter calls for the governments in London and Cardiff to take urgent action to tackle the growing crisis of council tax debt. It urges them to use early intervention and support for those struggling to pay, rather than heavy-handed enforcement action and court orders. All too often, this pushes people further into debt, where they’re made liable for a full year’s bill overnight, and leaves them living in fear of a knock at the door from bailiffs.

    ACORN is also calling for an end to the postcode lottery faced by people who fall into council tax arrears. It demands mandated protocols to make sure everyone gets access to support and fair treatment wherever they live. It’s also calling for the government to commit to replacing unfair and ineffective council tax with a proportional property tax.

    As well as improving the wellbeing of people and our communities, these changes could also help increase revenues for local councils.

    Bailiffs barging into homes with intimidation and threats

    The calls come as the government is considering changes to council tax administration, with a consultation closing last week. It also sits amidst rising council tax debt, with recently published figures showing that that constituents now owe £6.6bn to local authorities in England, up 11% on the previous year, and the public owes £264m in Wales.

    Campaigners delivered the letter to the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Alison McGovern, and separately to Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford on 15 September.

    ACORN National Chair Chelsea Phillips said:

    Council tax arrears have increased dramatically over the past couple of years, with more and more families struggling to pay as the cost of living crisis continues.

    Research shows that one in three people in council tax debt live below the poverty line – and the punitive way council tax arrears are collected means people are pushed further into debt, with added liability fees and charges from bailiffs, and can even be made liable for an entire year’s bill at once.

    Too many people are coming into contact with bailiffs, and these visits often involve intimidation, threats and shutting down the opportunity of other ways out, such as discussing repayment plans.

    It’s hurting people, it’s hurting families, it’s hurting communities, and it must end now.

    ACORN has already been successful in reducing bailiff use for council tax debt. It has won campaigns in both Manchester and Brighton, where the local council stopped sending enforcement agents out to anyone in receipt of council tax support, affecting around 50,000 low income families in each city respectively.

    Now the union has launched a national campaign, ‘Bailiff Free Britain‘. It wants to see the government change enforcement rules across the board to end what it calls the cruel and unnecessary use of bailiff intimidation against people in financial hardship.

    ‘Nobody should have to experience that’

    Viv Roberts (not her real name), an ACORN member in Manchester, experienced a bailiff visit in 2019 after she was late with a council tax payment. Viv, who was working as a childminder and had children with her at the time of the bailiff visit, was made liable for the whole year’s council tax bill.

    She said:

    There was a knock at the door. I was surprised – there were bailiffs there demanding I pay the council tax bill for the whole year.

    Of course I told them I couldn’t afford this, I didn’t have that money just lying around. I asked if I could pay with a repayment plan, in instalments, and they flat out refused.

    I asked the options, they said I would have to pay it there and then, or they would take my belongings – my TV, my kids toys, my cars, or I could go to prison.

    Luckily I was able to borrow the money from a family member, but that very easily could have not been the case. I was shaken, and that interaction still affects me today.

    Bailiffs threatened Niahl Hubbard, an ACORN member in Norwich, with enforcement action. He had liability order fees added, after missing an increase in his council tax bill.

    He said:

    I fell into council tax debt a year ago, after a period of struggling with my mental health. I fell behind on post and emails, and missed a 5% increase and subsequently didn’t update my direct debit.

    Over a couple of months this added up, and because I had previously been in council tax arrears, this was immediately escalated to the courts, with more fees added on.

    I had a letter saying bailiffs would be coming to my home, and this was truly terrifying. I was staggered at how quickly this had escalated, from £20-£40, to £hundreds, and the threat of bailiffs which only added to my health issues.

    Thankfully things improved for me, and I was soon able to get on top of it and managed to pay it off, but for many people I just don’t think this would be the case.

    Nobody should have to experience that – the threat of bullies coming to your home, your place of safety, to shake you down for money.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • While Labour claims to be “making Britain work for working people”, the reality is very different when it comes to quality of life. A new study from Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has come up with a new set of ‘real’ minimum income standards (MIS) that accurately represent how much people are struggling to afford to live, despite working full-time.

    What are minimum income standards?

    The minimum income standards are a yearly report which looks at the cost of food, housing, bills and all other outgoings. Importantly, it also includes things that allow people to have a “dignified life” such as a holiday once a year, hobbies, and nice toiletries. From this, they build a budget and contrast it with how much people actually earn across different household groups.

    The study found that to “participate in society”:

    • A single person now needs to earn £30,500 a year.
    • A working-age couple without children needs to earn £43,000 (£21,500 each) a year.
    • A single parent with two children, aged between 2-4 and 5-11, needs £61,000 a year.
    • A couple with two children needs to earn £74,000 a year between them.
    • Single pensioners need £17,400 if they are receiving pension credit, but those who are on a state pension need £19,000.
    • A pensioner couple on pension credit needs £29,000 a year, and those who only get state pension need £29,200.

    The report says

    For many in the UK, the gap between what they have and what they need for a decent standard of living has not reduced.

    It continues

    Many households in the UK do not have the income they need to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living, whether they are in work or not.

    So how does this compare to what people are actually getting? Well, it’s not looking good. The report points out that over a year into the current Labour government, not much has changed in terms of living standards.

    Work doesn’t pay, actually, Rachel Reeves

    The report points out that whether people are in work or relying on Universal Credit, they’re still falling short of their basic needs. Of course, these costs are much more keenly felt by those on benefits. One thing to point out here is that this is a report based on earnings. That means personal independent payments (PIP) aren’t included, as that is not a means-tested benefit. Single people with no children on out-of-work benefits are reaching just 27% of the MIS, while couple households with no kids, where at least one person is on out-of-work benefits, are hitting 26%.

    Working does raise the standard of living, but not enough. A single person working full-time still only has 75% of what they need to reach the MIS. Meanwhile, a couple where one works part-time and the other full-time still only reaches 83%. However, if they’re both full-time time it exceeds the MIS by a whole 13%.

    The report estimates that a working-aged single adult needs to make £30,500 a year to have enough for a good life. Couples need £43,000, or £21,500 each. However, in reality a full-time job on the national living wage only pays £23,875 a year. Such a wage leaves single people seven grand short of what they need to reach MIS per year.

    Even harder for parents

    Single parents on out-of-work benefits get just 44% of what’s needed to have a “dignified” standard of living. After housing costs, they fall short by around £362. Whilst working does increase a single parent’s disposable income, it still only gets them to 69% of the MIS.

    However, due to Universal Credit (UC) tapering, parents won’t feel much difference if they move from part-time to full-time work. As their UC is tapered, their childcare costs for a child who is not yet in full-time education, will also increase if they move into full-time work as they won’t receive as much support.

    A single parent with 2 children would need a huge £61,000 a year to have a good quality of life for them and their children. And, that’s gone up from £57,000 in 2024.

    A couple with two children who are on out-of-work benefits reach just 37% of the MIS. Under these projections, their weekly income would fall over £500 below what is needed to have a good life. Whereas couples without children who worked full time exceeded the MIS, couples with children who work full time on the national living wage still only reach 82%. To be able to fully meet their needs and their children’s needs, they would need to earn a humongous £74,000 a year between them.

    Pensioners fare better, but it’s still not enough. Pensioners reach 90% of MIS regardless of whether they have their pensions topped up. Single pensioners need £17,400 a year, but if they get a full state pension, they need £19,000. This is partly down to the fact that other benefits, such as housing benefit and council tax support, are tapered as income increases and that those on a state pension don’t get the winter fuel allowance.

    We all deserve a good life, but that’s not happening

    The report concludes:

    These findings come in a year when work has been prioritised as a key element of the new Labour government’s plans for economic growth, and a focus on ‘making work pay’ has underpinned its strategy for labour market reform.

    However, households where at least one person is in work make up an increasing proportion of those with incomes below MIS.

    It is apparent that for many households, paid employment is not enough on its own to provide a minimum living standard, despite substantial increases in the NLW [national living wage] over recent years.

    The report highlights more than anything that, despite Labour pushing the agenda that “work pays”, this is clearly not true. Those who do work still do not have enough disposable income to live a good and meaningful life, instead of just about scraping by.

    If Labour truly want people to live a good life, they need to prove it. They need to actually increase living standards.  Bills must come down through allowing companies to charge through the roof for basic utilities. Everyone deserves to live in a society where we thrive, not just survive.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Christina Radevich

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On the same day that a new report from the Utility Regulator revealed a rise in complaints among domestic gas customers, gas network firm Phoenix Energy reported a doubling in profits.

    The 9% rise in complaints can be found in the annual report on the North of Ireland’s energy market overall, which also features data related to electricity supply. Most complaints relate to “bills, payments and accounts”, which account for 44,128, or 69.1%, of total complaints. Anyone familiar with gas bills in this part of the world will find this unsurprising, as they will have no doubt received many wildly inaccurate usage estimates, which strangely always seem to guess a figure in excess of the real one, rather than the reverse.

    Phoenix Energy: profiteering in the North of Ireland

    The report also revealed how few customers switch electricity supplier. The main supplier is Power NI, and 49% of its domestic customers have never switched. Changing supplier can be a notoriously bureaucratic process with credit checks involved for switching to direct debit from a typically more expensive prepayment metre. Such checks already disadvantage vulnerable or deprived households, and the checks themselves can often be wildly inaccurate, lacking up to date data. Suppliers will often take advantage of these switching difficulties, leaving customers on a higher tariff than the ‘special offer’ they perhaps initially signed up for. Tools like Power To Switch can help encourage customers to change their supplier on a regular basis and get a better deal.

    Meanwhile Phoenix Energy Group, which runs gas networks serving almost half of the six counties population reported pre-tax profits of £35.2 million. It attributed this to its right to recoup profits in 2024 following a cold year in 2023, with less gas being used. This is based on a “six-year price determination” agreed with the regulator, that allows a certain level of profit, while factoring in costs like maintaining the network.

    Customers of Phoenix Energy may well ask, however, why it is necessary for ordinary households to subsidise director remuneration of £700,000, including an amount of £600,000 paid to the highest paid director, in a region where fuel poverty is estimated to hit 40% of adults.

    Households going without heating and electricity

    The National Energy Action Northern Ireland (NEA NI) poll also found that:

    A quarter (27% of households) said they went without heating (oil/gas) or electricity at a point during the last 24 months because they could not afford the costs of energy.

    It also pointed out that:

    68% of households in Northern Ireland rely on home heating oil, a non-regulated fuel.

    This figure is dramatically higher than figures in England, Scotland, and Wales, with the antiquated source of energy also being hugely carbon intensive. While Ireland as a whole makes relatively good use of its unique geographic location to generate over 35% of its electricity demand from wind turbines, there is still huge underdeveloped potential in offshore wind and hydropower.

    Obstructing the North of Ireland’s energy transition means soaring bills

    The Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland inquiry identified:

    three key themes…obstructing Northern Ireland’s energy transition

    These included:

    • Inadequate infrastructure to support NI’s net zero transition, where the committee cautioned that NI should rely on a broader renewable energy strategy;
    • An unsupportive policy environment, including a disjointed planning system “weighed down with delays”; and
    • A lack of consumer awareness.

    A generally sclerotic political class must urgently refocus on these issues to ensure our obligations to the planet are met, along with lowering bills for long-suffering bill payers in a region that lags behind the rest of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales in terms of incomes.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Robert Freeman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • There are three major motion pictures that every working stiff should watch… and recommend to others. The first such film ( and of course there are so many more) this writer recommends is Martin Ritt’s The Molly Maguires (1970). Inside the disgrace of the feudal element of coal mining we have coal miners working for the corporation (weren’t they all?) and living in shacks owned by the company. Most of their wages goes to pay the rent and the foodstuffs sold to them by… you got it, the company store.  The big event for those men is the rugby matches sponsored by the owners against workers from other mines, also owned by the Super Rich masters of industry. The Irish and Scots caught in this web turned to secret, radical movements to give hope to a hopeless cause.

    The next film, and equally as disheartening, is John Sayles’ Matewan (1987 ), based on the 1920 Matewan Coalminer’s Strike that turned into what historians called the Matewan Massacre. The mine owners had the Baldwin Felts Detective Agency AKA Armed Thugs come in to intercede on the strike. The miners were outgunned, as usually was the case when Capital is paid to subjugate Labor. The similarity between all three films is how the workers had to pay too high rents and too high foodstuff prices to the owners of the mines. One does not have to look hard to realize why alcoholism became paramount in the lives of these working stiffs. Working at least 10 to 12 hours down in a mine and breathing in that Black Dust  gave little hope to the men… and their women. So, before falling into bed, many men would first go to the saloon nearby (owned by the boss) and drink it up.

    Claude Berri’s 1993 film classic Germinal captured the failures of coal miners in striking against the mine owner in late 1880s France. Once again we see the miners having to live in shacks owned by the Lord of the Manor and paying top dollar for it. And, as with ALL the feudal aspects of such a system, the miners paid top dollar for their foodstuffs and merchandise from the company store. Down the hatch each morning and returning with Black Lung each evening was just a fact of life for these poor souls. One scene from the film that has always stuck in my craw was when the miners formed a committee to go and negotiate with the boss. They arrived at his manor house, not too far from their own despicable accommodations, and were ushered into his drawing room. The Lord of the Manor sat at his desk as the small group entered. Then, each of the men took his cap off to offer indulgence to this feudal king. It turned this writer’s stomach!

    Do you think that things have changed much in 21st Century Feudal Amerika? The country, as with most capitalist nations, is inculcated with millions of rental housing owned by absentee landlords. Many are major real estate corporations. Others are private equity landlords who hide behind their own serfs, the Management class, who will sell their soul for another few shekels. Or, we have the individual so called entrepreneurs who always wanted to make money off of the urgent needs of another’s shelter. The old days that this baby boomer was raised under seem to fade from memory. In that era a couple bought a two family home and rented out the other apartment to help pay their mortgage. It made sense and devoid of any radical ideology. We need to go back to that world and outlaw absentee landlords. Let the community own the property and rent it out a fair rates… with the caveat of allowing the tenant a chance to save and buy that unit eventually.

    The guy in NYC is but attempting to chip away at that iceberg of feudalism. Let’s hope he sets the example that so many super rich are doing their upmost to sabotage.

    The post Absentee Landlords first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new report from the leading food bank charity Trussell has revealed that hunger and reliance on food banks have gotten even worse since 2022.

    Trussell’s Hunger in the UK 2025 report, released today Wednesday 10 September, found that in 2024, 14.1 million people across the UK lived in households that struggled to afford food. This compares with 11.6 million in 2022 – that’s 16% of households in the UK, and an increase of 2.5 million people in just two years.

    Trussell: food insecurity deepens, especially for the marginalised

    As Trussell points out, people were classed “food insecure” if at some point in the last year:

    They ran out of food and were unable to afford more, reduced the size of their meals or ate less because they couldn’t afford food, or went hungry or lost weight due to a lack of money

    The report also found that one in four children (3.8 million) are growing up in households where their parents are struggling to feed them or skipping meals themself so their kids can eat.

    As always, it’s even worse if you’re disabled. 74%, or three in four people referred to Trussell food banks in 2024, were disabled, which is a huge amount of disabled people, considering just 24% of the population is disabled. Eight in ten, or 79% people referred to food banks said they came from a disabled household. This compares to the fact that just 38% of all people say they live in a household with a disabled person.

    One in four disabled people (27%) experienced food insecurity in 2024, which is more than double the amount for non-disabled people (11%). However, 35% of people with a mental health condition struggled, along with 43% of learning disabled people.

    It’s not just disabled people, though: 25% of people from a racialised community experienced food insecurity, while just 14% of white people did. This shoots up to 38% of Black or Black British people. One in three LGBTQIA+ people (34%) had experienced food insecurity, which was well over double the amount of people who weren’t part of that community (14%).

    Deprivation leads to hunger, who would’ve guessed?

    Let’s pretend to be shocked that people in the North of England were worse off. 26% of households in the North West and 23% of households in the North East experienced food insecurity. This compared with 12% of households in the South East and 14% in the South West.

    Unsurprisingly, living in a more deprived area means that you’re more likely to struggle to afford to eat. Trussell found that those living in the most deprived areas of the UK were three times more likely to experience food insecurity than the least deprived areas. Children growing up in the most deprived areas were more than twice as likely to be in a food insecure household.

    While many politicians and the media act like being on benefits is a golden meal ticket, the reality is, of course, very different. Over half of the people who got Universal Credit (52%) went hungry last year. This rose to 62% for people who saw their payments deducted. Most people who accessed food banks last year (87%) were on some form of means-tested benefit, while 75% got Universal Credit – despite just 9% of the general population claiming it.

    Poverty becoming normalised

    One worrying part of the report is that 61% of people who experienced food insecurity last year did not access food banks or any other type of charitable service last year.

    Trussell said:

    There are concerning signs that unacceptable experiences of severe hardship are becoming normalised

    55% of people who didn’t access any services despite struggling to afford food said they didn’t consider themselves to be in financial hardship. 32% said they weren’t needy enough, and 23% didn’t want to use food banks as others needed them more. This is the grim reality that has been created by the government and media acting like working people should be struggling.

    However, the stigma around food banks also put many off; one in six (17%) people said they were too embarrassed to use a food bank, while one in eight (12%) were afraid of being judged for using a food bank. Many people who were surveyed by Trussell were scared of being recognised by others or saw needing to use food banks as a sign of failure.

    Trussell’s recommendations for the government – actually live up to your promises

    The reasons for needing food banks, however, remained the same: sky-high rent and bills, no access to secure jobs, and a social security system that just doesn’t give enough support and protection from food insecurity.

    Trussell has several recommendations for the UK government. It said:

    Recent analysis by Trussell shows that taking this action would not just mean fulfilling political commitments or moral obligations but deliver economic gains too

    The trust reminded the government that Keir Starmer pledged that:

    Tackling poverty and breaking down barriers has to be central to everything that we do

    It said that the government needs to “redouble its efforts” to this commitment to end food insecurity.

    Trussell continued that:

    There can be no serious pathway to ending the need for emergency food without investing in further updates to our social security system.

    Its recommendations reflect this. It pointed to the fact that scrapping the two-child limit would lift 670,000 people out of severe hardship, including 470,000 children, by 2026/27. If the government uprated and maintained Local Housing Allowance, this would lift 265,000 people out of severe hardship.

    The charity said that if the government did more to ensure that everyone who is eligible for benefits receives them, it would lift 565,000 out of severe hardship. Finally, it said that if the government took on the Essentials Guarantee, this would lift 2.2 million people out of severe hardship by 2026/27.

    Government needs to actually commit to ending poverty – not just for political point scoring

    Trussell said:

    This evidence is an urgent reminder of the need for more determined action. We need a clearer vision from the UK government on how we tackle the severe hardship that is so deeply rooted in our communities.

    And that’s what this should be about. For too long now, politicians have used poverty as a political football, when at the heart of it, their commitment to ending food insecurity should be because they actually care about lifting the poorest out of poverty.

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Philadelphia’s transit system plunged into crisis on August 24, when the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) slashed bus, trolley, subway, and Regional Rail service by 20%. SEPTA eliminated 32 bus routes, shortened 16 more, and reduced the frequency of other bus and train lines. The crisis occurred as a result of state lawmakers failing to close a USD 213 million budget gap. The funding standoff left the city’s 746,500 SEPTA riders stranded and pushed the nation’s sixth-largest transit agency toward what officials call a “death spiral” – which has deeply impacted the disproportionately Black and lower-income SEPTA ridership.

    The post Public Transit ‘Death Spiral’: A Warning For Other Underfunded Cities appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.

    — James Baldwin

     The Film That Stirred the Ashes

    It came quietly, like a whisper from the margins. A DVD in the mail—When Did I See You Hungry? by Gerard Thomas Straub, narrated by Martin Sheen. A gift from a friend in South Carolina, sent after reading my essay on poverty. I watched it once. Then again. And then I wept.

    The film did not show me anything new. I had seen hunger before—in the eyes of barefoot classmates, in the bellies of children bloated from malnutrition, in the silence of mothers who had nothing left to give. But this film did something else. It stirred the ashes. It summoned the ghosts of my childhood and the fire of my rebellion.

    I remembered the beatings. I remembered the uniform I gave away. I remembered the food I carried from our farms to children who had none. And I remembered the fury of my maternal uncles, guardians of a feudal legacy, who struck me for daring to share.

    That was the beginning of my exile from my own family in silence, from complicity.

     Born Into Feudalism, Baptized By Rebellion

    I was born into a matrilineal tribe in Adeiso-Armaaman, Eastern Ghana—a place where my great-grandfather and his ancestors ruled as kings. Landowners. Lords of a colonial legacy. They owned the soil, the harvest, even the cemetery. My uncles groomed me to inherit this “small kingdom.” But I rebelled.

    I questioned the unequal distribution of land and harvest. I gave my school uniform to classmates who had none. I shared food from our farms. And for that, my uncles beat me. The more I gave, the more they struck. That was the beginning of my exile—from own family, from feudalism, from silence.

    Even as a child, I knew: power without compassion is tyranny. I began to rebel—not with weapons, but with witness.

     Kinship Not Only to My Bloodlines

    Thank God for my father.

    He was a man of kindness, with farms and a village of more than a hundred families—Sui-Attohkrom in the Western Region of Ghana. When I left my maternal family, I found refuge in his world. A world of generosity, humility, and communal care.

    I embraced his ethic. I housed Liberian refugees during their civil war—including relatives of Justice Minister Jenkins Scott, who was in political exile in Guinea-Conakry. I fed them. Clothed some of them. Funded two who were in Guinea-Conakry to their travel to other Countries in West Africa

    I sheltered Dragon Noire, the African world record wrestling champion, along with his wife and son, when they were in crisis. I gave them what I had. Not because I was wealthy, but because I was willing.

    My kinship is not only to my bloodlines. It is open to all humankind. I walk alone in America. But I stand with all who hunger.

     Poverty Is a Global Wound

    Poverty is not a local wound. It is a global affliction. I have seen it in Ghana, Liberia, Guinea in European Countries, and the streets of New York. It wears many faces, but its eyes are always hollow.

    It is not just lack—it is theft. It steals dignity, voice, and breath. And yet, we dress it in theology. We call it “God’s will.” We birth children into scarcity and say, “It is written.”

    But I say: we must rewrite what is written.

    We must think outside the box. No—think as if there is no box. We must exercise possibility thinking. We must calibrate our minds to be each other’s keeper.

    No man is born poor. Society makes him so. And only society can unmake it.

     The Walking Cane as Mantle and Witness

    I do not carry a cane for weakness. I carry it as a symbol of witness. It is the staff of memory, the rod of rebellion, the walking stick of those who refuse to forget. My grandmother, who saw children bulldozed in Germany at age 14, taught me that silence is complicity. I walk with her stories. I walk with the weight of history. And I walk to remind the world: we have seen this evil before. We must not see it again.

    America: Exile and Empathy

    I live in America without kin. No family to greet me in the morning, no one to mourn me should I fall. But I am not without witness. In a New York restaurant, a Ghanaian man recognized my father’s name. Even in exile, the roots remember. I walk alone—but I carry a village, a lineage, a rebellion. I write not to be heard, but to awaken. Each word is a drumbeat. Each sentence, a march.

    Faith Communities Must Rise

    I am a chaplain-in-training. I do not preach comfort—I preach conscience. The Riverside Church is my sanctuary, but the streets are my pulpit. Faith must not be a sedative. It must be a summons. We must stop dressing poverty in theology. We must stop calling injustice “God’s will.” The sacred is not in silence—it is in solidarity.

    The post The Walking Cane and the Mantle first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nationwide – Between September 21 and October 2, 2025, tens of thousands of people will participate in over 5,300+ nonviolent actions to protest violence, war, poverty, racism and environmental destruction as part of the 12th annual Campaign Nonviolence Action Days.

    Stretching between the International Day of Peace (Sept 21) to the International Day of Nonviolence (Oct 2), the annual effort rallies numerous national, international, and local groups to ‘build a culture of peace and active nonviolence, free from war, poverty, racism, and environmental destruction’.

    Amidst concerns about gun violence, mass shootings, political violence, climate crisis, rising authoritarianism, war and genocide, Campaign Nonviolence brings people together in solidarity to work for an end to violence in all its forms.

    The post Over 5,300+ Actions Planned To ‘End War, Poverty, Racism And Environmental Destruction’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Despite repeated pledges to tackle the deepest injustices, the Labour Party government has so far refused to scrap the two‑child benefit cap—a stubborn policy that continues to punish low‑income families and trap countless children in poverty. Now, a new report has shamed Keir Starmer over the cap – but will he and his government bother to act?

    Scrap the two-child benefit cap

    The Poverty Strategy Commission is a cross-party group looking at poverty. Now, as the Guardian reported it has called on the government to abolish the two‑child benefit cap—a rule denying roughly £3,500 annually for every third or subsequent child in households claiming Universal Credit. That means 1.7 million children are presently affected by this punitive rule.

    The Commission said that reversing the cap, coupled with strengthened investments in housing, childcare, and Universal Credit, could lift 4.2 million people out of poverty, including 2.2 million trapped in deep poverty—a figure that should shame any government that claims to put fairness first.

    Yet remarkably, despite widespread consensus on the cap’s cruelty, the Labour government remains unmoved, citing fiscal constraints and failing to deliver any timeline for change.

    This inaction comes at enormous human cost. Recent data show that the policy has plunged at least 350,000 children into poverty, while another 700,000 kids have been pushed into deeper hardship. That means over a million young lives are made permanently harder by a benefit rule that could be reversed tomorrow if political will existed.

    Critics are right to call the cap “brutal” and “shameful”. Meanwhile, charities such the Child Poverty Action Group are ramping up pressure.

    A May 2025 poll revealed that 73% of the public believe every child deserves a good childhood regardless of cost, and 71% say children should be prioritized in government investment—sentiments clearly at odds with Labour’s current posture.

    The government says…

    In response to the Commission’s report on the two-child benefit cap, a government spokesperson told the Guardian:

    This government is determined to drive down poverty and ensure that every child gets the best start in life. We are overhauling jobcentres and reforming the broken welfare system to support people into good, secure jobs, while always protecting those who need it most.

    In addition to extending free school meals and ensuring the poorest children don’t go hungry in the holidays through a new £1bn crisis support package, our child poverty taskforce will publish an ambitious strategy to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.

    However, as the Canary has documented, Labour’s rhetoric around the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) masks the reality: that it has cut chronically ill and disabled people’s benefits – and, as we only just reported, it seems it is planning to go even further with that. This alone will plunge more kids into poverty – on top of the two-child benefit cap.

    Interconnected issues

    Even beyond the two‑child benefit cap, the interconnected overall benefit cap continues to deny meaningful support to families already reeling from soaring living costs. Removing one restriction without addressing the other leaves 100,000 children still vulnerable, according to earlier government estimates. 

    The government’s own numbers only underscore the urgency: parliament’s research estimates that abolishing both the benefit cap and the two‑child benefit cap could reduce child poverty by around 620,000, at an annual per‑child cost of about £5,400—a price far outweighed by the potential long-term social and economic gains.

    Meanwhile, the broader context is grim. In the financial year ending 2024, 2.72 million children across the UK—22% of kids aged 0–15—lived in relative low‑income families, a rise from prior years. The striking contrast between the scale of the problem and the government’s lack of bold action is inexcusable.

    Labour’s hesitation on this vital issue not only betrays its own rhetoric of fairness and progress but opens a moral and political vacuum. If the Party cannot lead on dismantling deeply damaging welfare constraints—especially ones that target children—what can it realistically promise?

    Let there be no more excuses. The two-child benefit cap must go. Children’s futures should not be collateral damage to fiscal incompetence. True leadership would scrap this cruel policy now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Go to school, but don’t become an educated dummy.

    — Eddie Zinn to son Howard when he was a boy, Howard Zinn: A Life on the Left

    Labor Day is a good time to pay tribute to the late Howard Zinn, a rebel historian who broke with the tedious orthodoxy of “patriotic” history to tell the tale of those consigned to the bottom of the social pyramid: Indians, slaves, factory workers, indentured servants, sharecroppers, farmers, immigrants, political prisoners, soldiers, socialists, pacifists and other anti-war protesters. His most famous work, A People’s History of the United States, has by now surpassed four million in sales, an unheard of success record for a history book.

    Raised in grinding poverty, Howard grew up resenting smug media commentators, politicians, and corporate executives who talked of how in America riches were the inevitable reward of hard work. No matter how well this lie was told, it implied with insulting clarity that people who had not become rich could only blame themselves for lack of effort. Howard knew better from personal experience, that hard labor was the least rewarded, and certainly no ticket out of poverty. His father carried trays of food at weddings and restaurants for decades until a sudden heart attack ended his life at 67. He frequently had to borrow to make the rent and never had the means to retire.

    Eager to rid the world of poverty for everyone, Zinn urged his students and readers to not only read history but also make it. He flatly refused to lead an uncommitted life, eagerly participating in protests, marches, and civil disobedience campaigns concerned with civil rights, economic and social justice, imperial war, and exploitation. In his early career he was a teacher at Spelman College, an all-black women’s school, where he was fired for his anti-Jim Crow politics; later he taught at Boston University, where his classes were so popular and so subversive of orthodoxy that president John Silber sought to limit participation in them, while denying Zinn salary increases at every opportunity.

    Unlike the vast majority of professors, Zinn was more comfortable on a picket line than in most academic settings, where the urgency of class conflict was easily ignored or dismissed, though not by Zinn.

    A revealing anecdote captures the spirit of the people’s historian better than any ponderous essay could even hope to. The year was 1970 and professor Zinn was due to appear in court in Boston for an act of protest he had engaged in. He chose to ignore his court obligation and participate in a Baltimore debate entitled, “The Problem of Disobedience,” which he had been invited to do. During the debate Zinn argued that the problem wasn’t civil disobedience, but obedience: “Our problem is the number of people across the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their governments and have gone to war, and millions have died from that obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and famine and stupidity and war and cruelty. That is our problem.” When he returned to Boston, two police detectives arrested him outside his classroom for violating his court date.

    The anecdote reveals what Zinn thought about history, that it had much more to do with how we act than what we think, a conviction that encouraged his conclusion that change comes when masses of people realize this and mobilize to resolve their grievances directly. Elections and politicians don’t produce change, they react to it.

    It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn, therefore, that during the early days of Obama-mania a skeptical Zinn sounded a discordant note, warning that Obama would not implement change unless surrounded by a sufficiently powerful and persistent social movement forcing him to. “Our time and energy should be dedicated to educating, agitating, and organizing our fellow citizens at the workplace, in the streets, and at school,” Zinn said, pointing out that the great changes in the time of Lincoln, FDR, and the 1960s came about precisely because the American people rose up and took such responsibilities seriously in those years.

    Unfortunately, these waves of popular agitation can’t last forever, although the next one is always already on the way. Zinn regularly reminded us of that, showing that history is made up of fortuitous surprises only detectable in retrospect. He liked to point out that when his colleagues in the 1950s used to lament the apparent lack of prospects for racial change due to the failure of Americans to mobilize, just in those moments small and isolated acts of rebellion and disobedience were occurring in the South, eventually converging and exploding into the Civil Rights Movement.

    Given the way change actually happens, Zinn thought, progress should not rightly be seen as a gift handed down from above, but rather, as the hard fought reward for popular education and organizing over a period of years. Strikes, boycotts, soldiers refusing to fight, multitudes renouncing injustice and war, these signal the arrival of a better world.

    Given his commitment to social change, Howard could not be satisfied with transmission of knowledge as a measure of his teaching success. “I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it,” he said.

    He rejected academic neutrality as a false standard. He believed in being as scrupulous as possible in adducing the facts, but did not feel objectivity was actually attainable. This was clearly a recipe for trouble, but submission to injustice was everywhere a permanent disaster.

    Economic security for its own sake never interested Howard, who lived by the maxim that “risking your job is a price you pay if you want to be a free person.”

    Daniel Ellsberg called Zinn “my hero,” while dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky held him in similarly high esteem: “There are people whose words have been highly influential, and others whose actions have been an inspiration to many. It is a rare achievement to have interwoven both of these strands in one’s life, as Howard Zinn has done. His writings have changed the consciousness of a generation, and helped open new paths to understanding history and its crucial meaning for our lives. He has always been on call, everywhere, a marvel to observe. When action has been called for, one could always be confident that he would be in the front lines, an example and trustworthy guide.”

    Chomsky was also impressed by Zinn’s remarkable performance on the speaker’s platform: “What has always been startling to me . . . is Howard’s astonishing ability to speak in exactly the right terms to any audience on any occasion, whether it is a rally at a demonstration, a seminar (maybe quite hostile, at least initially) at an academic policy-oriented graduate institution, an inner-city meeting, whatever. He has a magical ability to strike just the right tone, to get people thinking about matters that are important, to escape from stereotypes and question internalized assumptions, and to grasp the need for engagement, not just talk. With a sense of hopefulness, no matter how grim the objective circumstances. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

    Zinn had no use for history written without a social conscience behind it; or merely as a professional duty, if it was done only to get something published or get a university position, tenure, a promotion, or to earn prestige. He saw the profit system behind such shallow motives, making private gain the key to what gets produced while leaving a lot of valuable things unproduced, and many stupid things produced in great abundance. Most historians just play it safe and cash history in for their personal advantage. Howard refused to do that.

    He knew that courting controversy went with the territory of being a good teacher, honest writer, and decent citizen. In an interview with David Barsamian he noted that long before the Nazis there was a European holocaust in the Americas, that “perhaps 50 million indigenous people or more died as a result of enslavement, overwork, direct execution and disease. A much higher toll even than the genocide of Hitler.”

    Were Howard Zinn still with us today, there can be little doubt that he would be reminding us that the spectacle of two million Gazans being massacred or starved to death grotesquely insults any pretense of there being a human civilization in the world, and especially not in the United States and Israel, the countries most directly responsible for the unrestrained barbarism.

    He would be on the front lines of the struggle to liberate Palestine.

    Sources:

    Howard Zinn, The Future of History – Interviews with David Barsamian, (Common Courage, 1999)

    Howard Zinn (with David Barsamian), Original Zinn – Conversations on History and Politics, (Harper, 2006)

    Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader – Writings On Disobedience and Democracy, (Seven Stories, 1997)

    David Detmer, Zinnophobia – The Battle Over History in Education, Politics, and Scholarship, (Zero Books, 2018)

    Howard Zinn, You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train – A Personal History,  (Beacon, 2022)

    Martin Duberman, Howard Zinn – A Life on the Left, (New Press, 2012)

    Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, (HarperCollins, 2003)

    “American curios / El historiador rebelde,” La Jornada (Spanish), August 29, 2022

    The post The People’s Champion: Howard Zinn first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Poverty is an artificial creation. Join political activist Ajam Baraka and members of the Communist Party of Kenya on a trip, making the case using Kibera, Africa’s largest slum.

    It is symptomatic of a larger issue because, despite Nairobi being the wealthiest county in Kenya, contributing 27% of the country’s GDP, 60% of its 5 million residents live in squalor across 200 slums. Successive governments since independence have done little to change the status quo, leaving the people to predatory organisations that, at best, provide a band-aid to a gaping wound, or at worst, serve to depoliticise the masses.

    Black Agenda Report & North-South Project for Peoples-Centered Human Rights have come together to re-release African Stream’s Mini-Doc.

    The post Structural Foundations of Africa’s Biggest Slum first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Gary Stevenson is an economist and former trader who’s one of the UK’s leading proponents for wealth taxes. In his latest video via Gary’s Economics, he’s taken apart the “childish” arguments against the UK implementing a wealth tax. He also gives reason to be optimistic about the future.

    Gary’s Economics: growing inequality

    In the blurb for “Welcome to Gary’s Economics”, he describes himself as follows:

    I’m Gary Stevenson. I made millions of pounds working in The City, betting inequality was going to destroy our economy.

    On this channel I’m going to explain what is really happening in the economy – what this means for you, and what you can do about it.

    Key to his message is that more and more money is held in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and this growing inequality is destabilising the country.

    Groups like the Equality Trust have done excellent work highlighting what this inequality looks like, highlighting:

    The UK has very high inequality of income compared to other developed countries; the 9th most unequal incomes of 38 OECD countries (OECD, 2022).

    The UK’s wealth inequality is much more severe than income inequality, with the top fifth taking 36% of the country’s income and 63% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom fifth have only 8% of the income and only 0.5% of the wealth according to the Office for National Statistics.

    The group has also shown that the problem of inequality was getting better for a time until the wealthy managed to regain the upper hand (not that the rich have ever been anything other than on top):

    Graph showing income inequality changing over the 20th century

    “idiotically simplistic discussions”

    Gary’s latest video on Gary’s Economics is titled “How to Build a Wealth Tax“, and it begins with him arguing:

    Correct implementation on tax policy is a job of experts and government and and civil service. It is not the job of fucking YouTubers.

    For those who come to his channel looking for answers, the opening might confuse them. The video does clarify the point, however, as Gary explains that establishing the finer details of a wealth tax require teams of smart people working on the problem:

    Listen, I would be more than happy, more than fucking happy to be involved in making sure this tax policy is designed well, obviously. But the way that you do that is you get the tax experts, you talk to me, you talk to the other guys, you build a team of proper good tax experts. You think about the question of how do we deal with people who leave the country? Can we still tax them on the UK assets like, like we did to Abramovich, like China does? You look at how these issues were dealt with in the past. You look at how wealth inequality was reduced significantly in the 20th century.

    You have sensible discussions, but I’m constantly faced with these like idiotically simplistic discussions which are totally bad faith, which is like, “Oh, okay. You’ve recognised that the ship’s going to sink. Well, why don’t you fucking fix the hole your fucking self then, you fucking idiot?” It’s unbelievably childish and it’s unbelievably chaotic. Like, listen, we’re supposed to be adult, grownup, mature countries here.

    Gary isn’t the only one working in this space, of course, with groups like Tax Justice UK pushing for:

    a new wealth tax: a 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million – it would affect 0.04% of the UK population and would raise £24 billion a year. We’re also campaigning to apply national insurance to investment income, raising up to £10.2 billion a year.

    He’s right, though, that there’s only so much independent campaigners and pressure groups can achieve. To genuinely tax wealth, it will require serious people and serious consideration. It may also depend on us getting money out of politics, with the Electoral Reform Society highlighting:

    Scandal after scandal reveals an ever-growing arms race when it comes to party funding, with voters often coming second to big donors and spending rules sidestepped. Left to themselves the big parties have failed to find a solution.

    A fifth of all major political donations in the two decades between 2001 and 2021 came from just 10 men.

    Our politicians urgently need to clean up the way parties raise and spend money.

    Good democracy always has a price tag. An open, clean and fair model of funding the parties would give taxpayers far better value for money. It would ensure our politicians don’t have to dance to the tune of trusts, union bosses or City interests.

    All the parties have been tainted by party funding. It’s time for action.

    British taxes on British assets

    One of the examples Gary gives on Gary’s Economics is that of Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch and former owner of Chelsea football club. The UK government sanctioned Abramovich following Russia’s invasion, with the “£2.5bn in proceeds” from his sale of Chelsea currently frozen “in a UK bank account”, according to the BBC. In January 2025, a joint investigation from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the BBC, and the Guardian unveiled:

    Roman Abramovich may owe as much as a billion pounds in UK tax and potential penalties on profits made through a vast offshore hedge fund operation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal after an analysis of leaked documents.

    If HMRC found wrongdoing and levied the maximum penalties available, this would surpass former F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone’s £653m record tax settlement last year.

    Between the late 1990s and early 2022, the billionaire – who is now sanctioned in the UK and EU – held as much as $6bn in a global network of hundreds of hedge funds. The sums totalled nearly half his estimated fortune.

    These generated huge returns, which were then used to bankroll other parts of his business empire – including his financing of Chelsea Football Club.

    The relevance of Abramovich is that:

    In simple terms, Abramovich’s companies were registered offshore but were apparently being run from the UK. That would mean they should have been paying UK taxes.

    Gary uses the Abramovich example to counter the argument that rich people will just flee the country if we try to tax them:

    The truth is, and I’ve always said this, I’ve never tried to hide this, actually raising taxes on the rich is going to be really, really hard for a variety of reasons, right? One of the biggest reasons is obviously they control a lot of the media narrative.

    They can sell lot of scare stories. “If you tax us, we’ll leave.” Or they can do a lot of sort of personally attacking of me as an individual. But the truth is there are things they can do and you need to deal with those things. Like the truth is they can leave, right? And I’ve always said, and I constantly believe, you know, look at the Abramovich situation, which shows like here’s a rich man who tried to leave. And we just said, “Okay, well you can leave, but if you’re going to own British assets, we can tax British assets.”

    And that’s always been my comeback to that. And that is true, but you need make sure that you have your legal systems in place.

    All together

    Another interesting point Gary makes is that:

    And people sometimes criticise me like, “Oh, that form of wealth tax is not good. We need another form of wealth tax.” I’m here for that. Let’s have those discussions, let’s build a tax policy, you know?

    It’s a good attitude to have, as the more people we have arguing for taxes on the wealthy the better. An example of someone with good faith criticism of Gary’s slogan “tax wealth not work” is Richard Murphy who argues that there are plenty of millionaires who work (as opposed to just siphoning money from their assets), and we need to be taxing those people too:

    This sort of discussion is good as it expands the case for reducing inequality, and the more people we have making the case the better.

    Gary’s Economics: progress

    While it’s always enjoyable to see Gary’s Economics take down “idiotically simplistic discussions which are totally bad faith”, the video also provides a welcome dose of optimism. As he notes:

    the reason I’m here and I’ve finally done a video on implementation is because we’re winning the debate

    If anything, the fact that the arguments against a wealth tax are becoming dumber and dumber is a sign that the arguments for implementing one are winning. The key now is for everyone to keep shouting about it until the case for ending inequality becomes undeniable.

    Featured image via Gary’s Economics YouTube Channel

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Poverty is an artificial creation. Join political activist and Black Agenda Report’s contributing editor Ajamu Baraka and members of the Communist Party Marxist-Kenya on a trip to Kibera, Africa’s largest slum. It is symptomatic of a larger issue because, despite Nairobi being the wealthiest county in Kenya, contributing 27% of the country’s GDP, 60% of its 5 million residents live in squalor across 200 slums. Successive governments since independence have done little to change the status quo, leaving the people to predatory organizations that, at best, provide a band-aid to a gaping wound, or at worst, serve to depoliticize the masses.

    Black Agenda Report & North-South Project for People(s)-Centered Human Rights have come together to re-release African Stream’s Mini-Doc: “Inequality in Kenya: View from Kibera”.

    The post ‘Inequality In Kenya: View From Kibera’ Documentary Premieres appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • President Trump mobilized the D.C. National Guard under the guise of restoring security in the nation’s capital — despite D.C.’s crime rate being at a 30-year low. What began as a deployment of 800 D.C. National Guard troops has grown to encompass 2,091 as of this writing, as Republican governors send hundreds more.

    Trump hasn’t just complained about alleged crime in the district — he’s placed a target on people experiencing poverty and homelessness. Claiming that we’re “getting rid of the slums,” Trump has called on troops and police to forcibly remove unhoused people from the city.

    Federal law prohibits deploying the military on U.S. soil, except under certain extraordinary circumstances.

    The post Trump’s Invasion Of Washington DC Costs Over $1 Million A Day appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In the theatre of global conflict, where empires clash and ideologies contend, one truth remains tragically constant: it is not the architects of war who suffer its consequences, but the poor. The dispossessed, the voiceless, the expendable—these are the true casualties of geopolitical ambition. Their pain is not incidental; it is structural. It is the very currency by which power is transacted.

    Ukraine: A War Between Blood Brothers and Colonial Ghosts

    The war in Ukraine is often framed as a struggle for sovereignty, democracy, or territorial integrity. Yet beneath these abstractions lies a more intimate tragedy: a fratricidal conflict between peoples bound by history, language, and blood. Slavic brothers now spill each other’s blood—not for ancient grievances, but for the ambitions of post-imperial actors manipulating borders and allegiances from afar.

    This war is not merely a regional dispute—it is a symptom of unresolved colonial legacies. The descendants of former colonizers, now cloaked in the garments of liberal democracy, stoke the flames of division while the poor—Ukrainian and Russian alike—are conscripted, displaced, and buried. The pain is not evenly distributed. It is the peasant, the pensioner, the factory worker who pays the price through lost sons, shattered homes, and economic ruin.

    Gaza: A Fire Ignited by Promises and Betrayals

    The tragedy of Gaza is not an accident of history—it is the consequence of deliberate design. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was not a gesture of goodwill but a colonial maneuver that set in motion a century of dispossession. Palestinians were displaced to make room for Jewish refugees—many of whom were themselves victims of European persecution. Thus, the persecuted were resettled through the persecution of another people, not by moral necessity but by imperial convenience.

    Today, Gaza is ablaze. Not metaphorically, but literally. Homes reduced to ash, families annihilated in seconds, children buried beneath rubble. And yet, much of the world hesitates. It equivocates. It attempts to rationalize genocide with the language of security and self-defense. The perpetrators, led by Netanyahu and his coterie of war profiteers, are shielded by a U.S.-led order that privileges power over principle.

    The Moral Logic of Emergency

    In moments of crisis, humanity instinctively prioritizes the most imperiled:

    • In a burning building, evacuation begins with the floor most engulfed in flames.
    • In a hospital, triage dictates that the most grievously wounded receive immediate attention.

    This is not ideology—it is moral logic. So why, when Gaza is engulfed in fire, does the world avert its gaze? Are Palestinians not human enough to warrant the same compassion? Has our moral compass been so thoroughly colonized that we no longer recognize suffering unless it is politically convenient?

    The Architecture of Global Oppression

    The so-called “rules-based order” is not a neutral framework for peace and prosperity. It is an architecture of oppression, meticulously designed to preserve the privileges of the powerful and diminish the aspirations of the poor. It criminalizes resistance, monetizes suffering, and pathologizes poverty. It is a system in which the pain of the Global South is treated not as a crisis, but as a constant—an ambient hum beneath the cacophony of global capital.

    This order does not merely fail the poor; it feeds upon them. It is sustained by their labor, their displacement, their silence. And when they speak—when they resist—they are labeled as threats, extremists, or terrorists.

    Conclusion

    The poor bear the brunt of the pain. Because they have no lobbyists, no media machines, no seats at the table. But they have graves. They have scars. They have stories. And those stories must be told—not as footnotes to history, but as its moral center.

    Let us not be seduced by the ill-conceived language of diplomacy while children are incinerated. Let us not mistake silence for neutrality. In the face of systemic violence, silence is complicity.

    The post The Poor Bear the Brunt of the Pain first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.