The UN – Fit for Purpose?

The United Nations deputy secretary-general  Amina Mohammed  said their had been a distinct lack of solidarity regarding the coronavirus outbreak and told DW that a number of countries displayed a “me first” attitude, when the world “needed to come together.”



Mohammed recognized that nations needed to look after their own interests first, before helping others, but now the time has come to work together. She said: “We understand that you need to put the oxygen mask on before you can reach out and help others,” but now it is time to “help in that global response.”



“But today, we have so many more conflicts. We have different needs. And so I think that one needs to look at being fit for purpose. And I would argue that we could do better.”

When the game will be up

When you put the mark of the illiterate on the ballot paper you give up all your power and rights, you hand them to whoever is the winner and forms the new Government.
The Government then acts in the best interests of society as a whole, chiefly the propertied 1% class. They (the government) then can, hit you over the head with a police baton, fire tear gas at you, suffocate you to death, shoot you dead, harass you because of the color of your skin, put you in jail even if you’ve not  committed a crime, and sentence you to death.
When we stop being philanthropists, handing over the wealth we produce to the idle parasite robber capitalist the capitalists. 
When you stop acquiescing.
When you inscribed on your placards and banners: “Abolition of the wages system “
When you vote for yourself for a change. The game will be up.
James19

Pandemic Cannot Curb Russia’s Military Show

Thousands of spectators watched the traditional display of the military in Russia.(The Metro, 25-6-20)



        President Putin who claims Russia has passed the most dangerous stage of the pandemic didn’t wear a mask and didn’t mention the pandemic. 



         The official death toll is 8,513 but the country has reported more than 7,000 new cases.



          Russia has the third highest number of infections worldwide.



Some 14,000 soldiers–not in masks–took part in the parade along with a  flyover of helicopters and fighter planes. 



          This happened after the usual date of May 9th was postponed because of the coronavirus.



           All this happened ahead of a national vote on the constitution that could allow President Puitn to remain in office until 2036.



           The State Capitalist Russian government continues to show its military strength which protects the interests of the few–the Capitalist class.



           We want a world without leaders and the military etc. that oppose The Working Class throughout the world.
        

Going hungry during lockdown

Government figures have revealed that lack of money forced millions of people to go hungry or rely on food banks during the first few weeks of the coronavirus lockdown, with families and young adults worst affected.
Households with children, people with health issues and people aged 16-24 were most likely to either to skip meals or use food charities to feed themselves or their family in April and May, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) data showed.
The FSA said this meant between 6.3 million and 7.7 million adults had reduced meal portion sizes or missed meals because of lack of money, and between 2.7 million and 3.7 million adults sought charity food or used a food bank.
These are the first official figures showing the scale of the problem. 
 “The Covid-19 crisis has made it much harder to access food,” said Dr Rachel Loopstra, lecturer in nutrition at King’s College London.
It is understood there was “push back” over the FSA’s findings from ministers when they were presented to the government’s vulnerabilities task force – but the FSA was adamant they should be published.
The first set of published results show nearly one in six people reported being food insecure in May – meaning they went without meals or cut down meal sizes, a proportion that rose to just under a quarter of families with children, and a third of 16-24 year olds.
Nearly one in five (19%) in five adults with a physical or mental health issue had been food insecure in May, the survey found. Older people aged 55-75 were least likely to struggle to put meals of the table – just 4% skipped meals in May.
Emma Revie, the chief executive of the Trussell Trust, which reported an 89% rise in food bank use in April, said: “It is shocking that 7% of the population of Northern Ireland, Wales and England have been forced to use a food bank and charities during the pandemic.”

Who will get the Vaccines?

 Billions of dollars are flowing into research to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 and over 100 efforts are under way. But how will these vaccines reach the poorest people on the planet?



 Ask pharmaceutical corporations about how they will ensure access to Covid-19 vaccines, and they say “Gavi”. Ask the wealthiest governments in the world what they are doing to ensure global equity, and they too say “Gavi”.



Gavi, the Vaccines Alliance, is a 20-year old public-private partnership that believes the marriage of markets and philanthropy will bring vaccines to everyone in the world. At the Global Vaccine Summit held earlier this month, Gavi raised a record-breaking $8.8bn.   Gavi launched its newest initiative, a fund for future Covid-19 vaccines – the Covax Facility – which invites countries to invest in a wide portfolio of potential vaccines, pool their risk, and gain dedicated access to eventual products.



Pharmaceutical companies say they will make no money off the pandemic, that they will supply vaccines at a cost. Yet, they have already seen multibillion dollar increases in their market capitalisation, and are unwilling to relinquish the monopolies that drive their outsize profits. Leaders of rich countries (apart from the US) have said all the right things about equitable access to vaccines. Yet they are entering into multiple advance deals to stock up on possibly far more vaccines than they will ever need



The first deal – a US$750m agreement with AstraZeneca for 300 million doses of the potential Oxford University vaccine – was heralded as a commitment by industry to meet the needs of the world’s poorest countries. But it came at a high price, representing only a minor discount over the full price paid by the US government. The problem is, we know very little about this deal because the agreement isn’t public, despite all the public money involved. We don’t know if, for example, AstraZeneca gets to keep the money if its vaccine fails. We don’t even know for a fact that all the vaccines bought are intended for use in poor countries.



The World Health Organization’s forthcoming Global Allocation Framework will specify that the most vulnerable people in the world be given the vaccines first and in a fair and equitable way.  Yet, a report prepared for the Gavi board meeting that starts this week, and circulated ahead by Gavi to stakeholders, including civil society organisations, proposes that rich countries can ignore the WHO framework, with only poor countries having to abide by it. According to the document, it seems Gavi will allocate rich countries enough vaccines for a fixed percentage of their population, which their “national advisory bodies” will decide. Poor countries, meanwhile, will only get vaccines for their highest priority people, after demonstrating proof.



Rich countries are “encouraged (but not required)” to donate vaccines if they have more than they need, but we do not know when poor countries will get these donated vaccines: will it be at the same time as the rich countries, or only after they have used up all the vaccines they need? 



The prospect of a two-tiered system puts into question the fundamental issue that Gavi was founded to address: equitable access to vaccines.



Three decades of getting medicines and vaccines to poor people have revealed the problem and the solution: monopolies over vaccines in the pharmaceutical industry, enforced through patents which, when suspended, result in prices going down and supply going up. The rich countries and organisations who fund Gavi are equally culpable: the US, UK and EU have committed billions towards vaccine research, almost all of which has gone to private pharmaceutical companies – without any conditions to prevent them from monopolising their vaccines. All these countries have further stockpiled future vaccines by making direct deals with manufacturers, again without any access conditions whatsoever. At best, Gavi has failed at negotiating control over the vaccines it funds. At worst, it believes that pharmaceutical monopolies, which have thwarted equitable access, are somehow essential to achieving it.



Seth Berkley, the Gavi CEO, cannot claim to want “the world to come together” with “no barriers” while failing to tackle both rich country nationalism and pharmaceutical industry greed.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/24/worlds-poorest-people-coronavirus-vaccine-gavi

Poverty – UK

Britain entered the coronavirus crisis with a less generous welfare safety net, and after the worst decade for income gains for households since comparable records began in the 1960s. Families falling out of work during the coronavirus crisis will get £1,600 less on average in benefits. 



Even after taking account of emergency additions to the welfare safety net launched as the virus spread to Britain earlier this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said benefits for out-of-work households were worth 10% less than in 2011.



 For an average out-of-work household with children, the shortfall jumps to £2,900 a year or 12%, less than was available in 2011 before the cuts kicked in.



Highlighting the scale of the Tories’ austerity drive and the stuttering recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, the IFS said cuts to working-age benefits and tax credits meant low-income households in particular had experienced stalling improvements in living standards.



Finding that the impact was entirely down to benefit cuts, which offset growth in wages over the period, it said incomes for the poorest 10th of households were essentially the same in 2018–19 as they had been five years earlier in 2013–14.



Without the temporary changes announced by Rishi Sunak in March to raise the value of universal credit and other benefits to soften the blow delivered by Covid-19, households would have been 15% worse off, and families with children 16% worse off, the IFS said. The changes are due to last for 12 months. Unemployment is expected to more than double this summer.



Pascale Bourquin, research economist at the IFS, said: “The years following the great recession [2008 financial crisis] do not provide a good blueprint for a bounce-back: in the last decade, we have witnessed the slowest growth in household incomes since records began as earnings and productivity stalled and working-age benefits were cut sharply. We now have the dual challenge of trying to recover the ground people have lost in their careers and employment prospects, and addressing the problems we already had.”

UK Inequality

Figures reveal the gulf between the income of the top 20% of UK households – enjoying typical household incomes of £105,000 – and those in the bottom 20%, on just £7,700.
“The richest one-fifth of people had an average household original income that was 13.7 times larger than the income of the poorest one-fifth – £105,000 compared with £7,700, after adjusting for household size and composition,” said the The Office for National Statistics (ONS) 

White households in the UK have incomes 63% higher than black households, and even after taxes and benefits are nearly a fifth better off.



ONS also found that income inequality in the UK has widened over the past two years – partly due to the benefits freeze – and indicated that it is likely to widen further as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.



The average white household income in the financial year to 2019 was £42,371, compared with £35,526 in Asian households and £25,982 in African-Caribbean households. After tax and benefits, the average white household had a “final” income of £38,222, 9% more than Asians on £35,023, and 18% more than black households on £32,353.



ONS said it did not have separate data for different groups under the “Asian” category, which included Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Chinese. But it pointed to earlier data from the Family Resources Survey, which found that 42% of Indian households had an income above £1,000 a week, compared with just 20% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani households.



Income inequality had been rising for two years before Covid-19 struck, said the ONS, which it said “most likely reflects a moderation in the value of cash benefits”. The UK Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, rose by 1.5 percentage points between the financial years 2016-17 and 2018-2019. A higher Gini number indicates higher inequality. Overall, inequality in the UK rose sharply in the late 1970s and through the 1980s, and has remained at elevated levels since.



It is also likely to worsen as a result of the pandemic, said the ONS. It found that employees in occupations that had a higher propensity for home working were on average more likely to have a higher household disposable income. It also found that 40% of workers in the poorest fifth of households work in occupations that have great exposure to coronavirus, such as care work and catering.



https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2020/jun/23/white-household-income-in-uk-is-63-higher-than-black-households-ons-finds

Universal Credit – “irrational and unlawful”

An appeal court ruled that rigid universal credit payment rules that leave tens of thousands of working benefit claimants out of pocket were irrational and unlawful. 
 Solicitor Tessa Gregory said: “The secretary of state committed to a ‘test and learn’ approach in rolling out universal credit, yet refused to listen to these four hard-working mums when they raised this issue over two years ago.”
The case revolved around the Department for Work and Pensions’ refusal to change universal credit assessment period regulations, which have the effect of penalising claimants whose salary is paid towards the end of a month, resulting in fluctuating levels of income.
Danielle Johnson, a school catering assistant who brought the original case, had argued that the DWP’s refusal to allow her to adjust the date of her universal credit assessment period meant she was left about £500 worse off each year, and was therefore subject to cashflow problems and put at risk of eviction. Johnson is paid on the last day of each month, and her universal credit assessment period runs from the last day of the month to the penultimate day of the next month. In some months, due to a weekend or bank holiday falling at the end of the month, her wages are paid into her bank account two days earlier than normal. The universal credit system reads this as her having earned twice as much in one month and none in the next, meaning that her benefit payment amount fluctuates wildly, and cancelling her work allowance in several months, leaving her £500 a year worse off.
court ruling last year found in favour of Johnson and three other single mothers, concluding that it was “odd in the extreme” that the DWP was unwilling to modify universal credit arrangements even when claimants were perversely affected. Currently around 85,000 claimants are estimated to be affected by the rules.
Between them, the four had been forced into rent arrears, and borrowed money and used food banks to make ends meet. One of the mothers was so exasperated by the system that she gave up work to look for another job that had no clash between her pay date and universal credit assessment period.
The government argued at the appeal that to have to change the way the benefit’s online computer calculation system worked in line with the original court ruling would undermine the principle of universal credit, cost at least £7.5m and require thousands of calculations to be administered manually.
 Lady Justice Rose said she agreed with the original ruling. The DWP had presented no reason why Johnson and the others should lose money simply because of the date in the month in which they had started their claim. The situation faced by Johnson and others was “perverse”, she said.
She said“This case is, in my judgment, one of the rare instances where the secretary of state for work and pensions’ refusal to put in place a solution to this very specific problem is so irrational that I have concluded that the threshold is met because no reasonable minister would have struck the balance in that way.”

The System is Rotten



“To make a thief, make an owner; to create crime, create laws.” Ursula Le Guin, ‘The Dispossessed’

The capitalist system has subjected people all over the world to racism, poverty, inequality, ecological devastation, and militarism. Globally, government have introduced policies to fatten the pockets of those who can’t fit any more money in their already overstuffed pockets. Meanwhile there is enough food, enough clean water and sufficient resources for every human being on our planet to live with dignity. People are being neglected and abandoned amid abundance. Who’s getting more than their share of that abundance? The never-ending wars and the never-ending flood of resources into armament production. There’s always money for a bigger military but never enough for education and healthcare. 54 cents of every discretionary federal dollar goes to the military, while just 15 cents goes to anti-poverty programs. 

Poverty that is harsh, degrading, and indecent offends dignity. Unnecessary poverty, on the backs of the powerless and to the benefit of the powerful, is unjust. The everyday living conditions of the poor demands the same drastic political and economic responses as the pandemic crisis yet it is not defined as a national emergency. The world of the poor does not feature on prime time television as a catastrophe. Their situation and suffering do not qualify as a national crisis. FEMA is not mobilised for the homeless. When politicians declare that all people matter and that we are “all in this together” it is a lie.

Socialism means unifying, standing shoulder to shoulder empowering each other. Socialism is a people’s movement for a humane and fair society. We have no choice but to dismantle this ridiculous social system and replace it with one that reflects decency and empathy. What comes next? Where we all become more human, equal and free, or the continuance of exploitation. 


Sharing the planet’s resources will lead to a better tomorrow.

The Racist Roots of Agriculture

Poverty is not an accident. It’s imperative to address how the success of global agriculture has been sown with the blood and sweat of people of color.
In the United States, modern agriculture was built on the backs of enslaved people who were used as property and valued only as production units. They produced cotton, tobacco, sugar, indigo, rice, sweet potato, peanuts, watermelon and okra. This unrelenting free labor, coupled with simultaneous extraction of farming knowledge, directly led to America’s economic domination of the 18th century and pervasive industrialized agricultural ascendancy that remains today — facilitating an empire of production, processing and trade. When slavery finally became illegal, the tradition of Black exploitation for food-flow gain continued in the form of tenant farming, sharecropping and land grabbing.
In the 1930s, as minimum wage and other legislation was enacted to protect labor rights, the agricultural industry remained exempt and farmworkers (at the time, predominately African American) were excluded; this loophole was not modified until the 1980s. Simply put, our country’s designation as the ‘crop basket of the world’ would not have been possible without the unwilling sacrifice of Africans and African Americans.  Today, the Black community is disproportionately impacted by food insecurity, malnutrition, diet-related disease, lack of land ownership and largely exclusion from agriculture as a whole.
 Most of our favorite grocery items are a product of colonialism, widely available thanks to the almost standardized practice of one powerful predominantly white nation dropping anchor onto a foreign land, conquering and brutally subjugating its indigenous people, ravaging the soil with the compulsory workforce of human ‘property,’ and sending resulting agricultural goods back to its own and other wealthy countries at an enormous profit.
The Dutch East Indies brought Arabica and sugar, British India produced tea and spices, German East Africa ushered in sesame and Robusta, French West Africa brought chocolate and peanuts and the Belgian Congo palm oil and sugar. When slavery was no longer condoned, oppressive conditions on stolen land remained. While each wave of colonialism has its own nuanced narrative, they all propagated from the same seed – racism.
This subjugation continues to play out, under new names but similar practices, all over the world. In many countries, racial, indigenous, ethnic or caste groups are deemed ‘less than’ – less worthy of basic safety and human rights, of fair pay and equal opportunity and of dignity. Considering 70% of the world’s hungry are or used as food producers, it’s a statistical certainty that what is on our plates stems from one of these groups.
When entire groups of people experience similar forms of socio-economic marginalization, that is by design. It is intergenerational. It is systemic, born of racially and ethnically driven oppression. It is intolerable. We cannot change the past, but we can actively acknowledge it.