Philanthropic Foolery

MacKenzie Scott, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife and the second-richest woman in the world,  says, “There’s no question in my mind that anyone’s personal wealth is the product of a collective effort, and of social structures which present opportunities to some people, and obstacles to countless others,”



Scott  married Bezos a year before he founded Amazon and was one of the firm’s first employees, received a 4% stake from the divorce settlement, shortly after announcing she had signed the Giving Pledge which commits the super wealthy to give away much of their fortunes to charity. Bezos has not joined the Giving Pledge.




Scott has donated  more than $586 million to racial justice organisations and $399.5 million  to groups aimed at advancing economic mobility. Other causes included gender equality, global development and LGBTQ equality. The list of organisations includes the labour advocacy group One Fair Wage, and other non-profits such as Black Girls Who Code. The $20m gift to Tuskegee University, a historically black college, is the largest in the school’s history. In total, MacKenzie Scott says that she has given $1.7bn (£1.3bn) in philanthropic funding.




Brian Mittendorf, a professor at Ohio State University, who researches charity finances, explains, Scott’s approach differs from that of many other high-profile billionaires. He said announcements are often built up in advance, with new organisations that can be slow responsible for distributing funds.


“If the goal of doing this was to generate publicity, you wouldn’t have done it the way she did,” he said. “If the goal was to generate impact…this looks like a pretty good way of doing it.”
The list of recipients suggests Scott is trying to address root causes of inequality and racial injustice – priorities that are “more typical” of female than male donors, said Una Osili, a professor of economics and philanthropic studies at Indiana University’s Lily School of Philanthropy. The effort to promote a diverse group of organisations – both big and small, led by people of colour and women, also stands out, she said.
 The Socialist Party is frequently perceived as stingy scrooges for we criticise the idea of giving to charity and we scold philanthropy. We do not doubt the sincerity or compassion of those who donate to charities. But what is fostered is the dangerous illusion that, either through charitable alms-giving, the many problems of capitalism can be solved by good-will and kind gestures. The  Socialist Party is not indifferent to human suffering but it points out that society is well capable of solving the problems of poverty, hunger and homelessness. What does not exist is the social system of production and distribution can be matched to people’s need. Capitalism is a world of deliberate scarcity, in order to pursue the aims of competition and profit.

Myanmar and Women’s Rights

Myanmar is soon to see the latest version of its Prevention of and Protection from Violence Against Women (PoVAW) introduced in parliament. Legislation that aims to protect women against violence in Myanmar is  long overdue, but it is raising concern among human rights advocates about the inadequate definition of rape, vague definition for “consent”, and anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rhetoric.



The Global Justice Centre (GJC), an international human rights and humanitarian law organisation focusing on advancing gender equality, has pointed out that the legislation falls short of addressing violence against women.



According to GJC, the language used in the law borrows from colonial Myanmar’s 1861 Penal Code and thus perpetuates antiquated understandings of rape, such as; considering rape as violence committed only by men, the definition of “rape” constituting only of vaginal penetration, and no acknowledgement of marital rape.
“The Myanmar government has long shown a lack of commitment to breaking the cycle of impunity for widespread sexual and gender-based violence, a problem that is exacerbated by broader structural barriers with respect to Myanmar’s military justice system, and a lack of robust domestic options for accountability,” the GJC analysis has claimed.
Khin Ohmar, an exiled human rights advocate from Myanmar and founder and chairperson of the advisory board of Progressive Voice — a participatory rights-based policy research and advocacy organisation rooted in civil society, with strong links to grassroots and community-based organisations throughout Myanmar    shared how sexual violence in the country is used in a “systematic pattern to target ethnic women and girls”.
Ohmar was speaking at the United Nations Security Council Open Debate on Sexual Violence in Conflict, where she further reiterated how the military in Myanmar has carried out “unspeakable crimes” against ethnic minorities in the country.
 Akila Radhakrishnan, president of GJC explains:
We’re really talking about laws that haven’t been updated so with the political transition there was a moment when women in civil society saw the opportunity to think it’s time we had a comprehensive law on violence against women, updating progressive positions in the penal code and bring in things like protective orders or a more robust categorisations of kinds of sexual and other types of violence. And in some ways, the military continues to perpetrate mass sexual violence. Some of the key things that civil society has been pushing for is bringing the military under a mandate of the law, which is antithetical to the military’s interest as well.”
 Radhakrishnan continued, “Aung San Suu Kyi is no feminist. She has certainly in the past made stronger statements on sexual violence than she currently takes on but she’s very much seen certain types of political reform as her priority. If you look at the trajectory of the laws that were initially passed through the transition, most of the laws were really wound around issues that enabled foreign investment, for example. There were certain laws that were due to be changed around issues such as certain types of press freedoms, many of which have been regressing in recent times in any case. There was never kind of a feminist priority set from the leadership.”

Masked Workers



Unite, the GMB and Community trade unions have all said that where masks are believed to be helpful at work, they should be provided employers and workers should not have to foot the bill themselves. Surgical-grade face masks must be provided for all workers who need to wear them including those on the daily commute.



“The government should provide proper masks and finance it. If this can be done in other countries successfully it should be done here,” said Rob Migeul, Unite’s health and safety adviser. The surgical-grade three-layer mask should have a waterproof outer layer, Unite said, inline with the WHO guidelines. “If you’re going to say use face masks, there must be a standard for them,” he said.



Head of research, policy and external relations at Community, Kate Dearden, said: “If employers need their workforce to re-enter the workplace then they need to be providing them with the necessary PPE for all activities related to their work.



A spokesperson for the GMB said: “Most people have no idea about face-mask standards. They should be the WHO backed ones, of three layers. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide the mask. Something that explains what employers are meant to do would be beneficial when it comes to protective equipment.”



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/unions-call-for-face-masks-to-be-provided-for-free-to-all-workers

Lest we forget

On July 29, 1910, citizens in the small, predominately African American town of Slocum, Texas were massacred in an act of terror designed to maintain economic white supremacy.

That morning, hundreds of white citizens from the surrounding community converged on Slocum. Over the following days terror reigned for the African American citizens as individuals were gunned down working fields and seeking shelter in their homes.
Even those who tried to leave town were not safe. Many bodies were found shot in the woods, with their travel packs at their sides. While there has never been a clear figure of how many died, estimates range from 8 to 25. Many suspect the toll was much higher.
This was one of many towns, such as Rosewood and Tulsa, where a successful, self-sufficient African American community was the subject of a terrorist attack designed to maintain economic white supremacy.
In each town, the incident that sparked the attack was relatively insignificant and often fabricated. In Slocum, there were various trigger incidents such as a disputed debt between a well-regarded black citizen and a white citizen as well as anger from some whites when an African American man was put in charge of local road improvements.
The aftermath? As E.R. Bills explains in The Dissident Voice:
[After the massacre], the personal holdings of many Slocum area Anglo citizens fortuitously increased.
The abandoned African-American properties were absorbed or repurposed as the now majority white population saw fit. The standard southern Anglo-centric world order was restored, and this order has endured, even to the present day.
According to recent demographic statistics, most of the communities around Slocum have an African-American population that ranges between 20-25%. Grapeland’s is 35%, Rusk’s is 30% and Palestine’s and Alto’s is 25%. Slocum’s African-American population is just under 7%.
Today, Slocum is still an unincorporated community and that’s probably wise. If there was an elected civic leader or assembly in Slocum, they might be asked to apologize for the massacre or explain why there are no placards acknowledging the event or the American citizens who were slaughtered there and covered up in unmarked graves in the woods and creek bottoms.

More information “A Forgotten Slaughter of African-Americans in Texas: The Slocum Massacre” – in Dissident Voice “Town’s 1910 racial strife a nearly forgotten piece of Texas past” -in the Statesman The 1910 Slocum Massacre: An Act of Genocide in East Texas, a book from History Press “Burned Out of Homes and History: Unearthing the Silenced Voices of the Tulsa Race Riot” by Linda Christensen. – teaching aid

hat-top to Libcom

Human Nature?

The ‘human nature’ objection to socialism manifests itself in numerous ways, though it is usually the human nature of others, the wider society, which is acting as the barrier to socialism, never that of the model citizen and objector.



Picture this:



Scene: The High Courts of Justice, London. On trial is a 30 year-old man, charged with 3 armed robberies, 3 counts of attempted murder, and 5 charges of assaulting police officers and another of incapacitating a police dog. The QC for the prosecution has finished summing up. He sits down, satisfied he had done enough to see this psychopath imprisoned for 350 years, and now the defendant’s barrister approaches the jury, one hand in his pocket and fidgeting with his car keys.



Barrister: Members of the Jury! It’s an open and shut case as far as I can see. It’s human nature, innit? Humans are by nature greedy, selfish and aggressive. We’ve been like this for donkey’s years. Nothing you can do about it, eh? He can’t help it (points to defendant) – he’s naturally predisposed to be a violent robber. I, therefore, urge you to find my client not guilty on account of this ’ere human nature thing.



The jury retires and the judge adjourns. Five minutes later the jury returns. The foreman of the jury hands the usher a note which is then passed to his Lordship Justice Fairlaw. The judge looks at the slip of paper, raises an eyebrow and puts the note to one side.



Justice Fairlaw:  Have the ladies and gentlemen of the jury reached a verdict on which you are all unanimous?



Foreman of the Jury: Yes, M’Lud.



Justice Fairlaw:  And it is?



Foreman of the Jury: We find the defendant not guilty, M’Lud. We’re all agreed it’s not really his fault. Like his barrister said, it’s human nature, innit?’



Justice Fairlaw: In that case you’re free to go Mr Stabbemall



If you read this account of a trial in a newspaper you would be flabbergasted. You’d think this some huge joke or, if not, that the judge, barrister and jury were completely and utterly bonkers. Your faith in the criminal justice system would be shattered into a billion pieces.



This, however, is just the kind of logic socialists come up against when trying to convince people of the benefits of a socialist society. People will hear us out, agree that capitalism is insane and that our vision of a future society sounds perfect, and then wallop you with their evolutionary psychological analysis of human society, saying:



“Yeah, I agree with everything you say. But it ain’t gonna work, is it, coz of human nature? At the end of the day, humans are greedy selfish and aggressive. Always have been, always will be.”



Which immediately puts your socialist on the defence: “Are you greedy, selfish and aggressive?”



“No, but . . . err . . . I’m . . .”



“Good to hear it. Neither am I. Hold on a sec, I’ll ask this bloke here.” And the socialist holds out an arm and attracts the attention of a passer-by. “Sorry to bother you. I wonder if I could ask you a question.”



“Yeah, sure?” The passer buy joins the socialist and his critic.



“Right, would you consider that you are greedy and selfish?”



“Most certainly not.”



“Maybe aggressive?”



“No.”



“Thanks. That’s all.”



“That it?”



“Yes, thanks. Have a leaflet.” The socialist turns back to the evolutionary psychologist. “I’ll ask this woman crossing the road.”



The street psychologist walks off, muttering under his breath that the socialist is distorting his words.




John Bisset 

from here

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/07/exploding-human-nature-myth-2006.html

Germany’s Fertility Rate Falls

The number of children born in Germany in 2019 sank by more than 9,000 compared with the year before. Some 778,100 babies were born in Germany in 2019, a drop of 9,400 compared with the year before.



Germany’s total fertility rate (TFR), also sank from 1.57 to 1.54.

The average number of children per woman also dropped, with the capital, Berlin, registering the lowest rate. Fourteen of Germany’s 16 states recorded a drop in the TFR, with only Bavaria and Bremen remaining at the same level. Bremen and Lower Saxony, both in the northwest of the country, had the highest TFR at 1.6, while Berlin had the lowest at 1.41.



 Germans had a TFR of 1.43, only marginally below that of 2018 (1.45). The figure sank more significantly, from 2.12 to 2.06, among non-Germans in the country.



The TFR is the average number of children that would be borne per person of child-bearing age and ability if the person’s birth pattern resembled that of everyone capable of giving birth and who was between 15 and 49 in a particular year.



https://www.dw.com/en/number-of-births-in-germany-sank-in-2019/a-54362168

Germany Wants Immigrants

Petra Bendel, chairwoman of the Expert Council of German Foundations for Integration and Migration (SVR), said that Germany would continue to rely on migration for the foreseeable future, even in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Bendel said migration was the key to solving the problem of “demographic shrinkage of the population.” 
Despite rising slightly in recent years, Germany has consistently had one of the world’s lowest birth rates since the end of the second World War.
The share of people with a migrant background in Germany rose to 21.2 million last year, the Federal Statistical Office said in a report on Tuesday. They represent roughly 26% of Germany’s population. The figure represented a 2.1% increase from the previous year, but it was the slowest rise in people with a migration background since 2011.
In Germany, a person is considered to have a ”migration background” (Migrationshintergrund) if they, or at least one of their parents, were born without German citizenship. Being born in Germany is not an automatic qualification for citizenship as in some countries, although in the majority of cases, eight years residence will suffice. Of the 21.2 million people with a migrant background, just over half were born as German citizens, meaning at least one of their parents had become or was a German citizen.
Some 65% of all people with a migrant background came from another European country. Of these, roughly, 7.5 million (35%) people with migrant background came from a fellow EU member state. Asians accounted for 4.6 million people or 22% of all inhabitants with a migrant background. Some 3.2 million (15%) came from the Middle East and just under 1 million people (5%) had roots in Africa. A little over half a million people (3%) came from North, Central and South America and Australia. The largest single group, forming some 13% of people with a migrant background, originated from Turkey. Those from Poland and Russia followed respectively.

Breaking the Trust

America’s Congress has an opportunity, a real chance, to cross-examine the powerful men in charge of the tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Facebook and Apple. But whatever happens on Wednesday, this won’t be end of the story. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust panel said it would hold a hearing in September to discuss Google’s dominance in online advertising.
 These corporations apply shrewd and ruthless Copy/Acquire/Kill strategies. Copy others’ ideas, buy a company that threatens you – and even potentially kill it off.
Their practices has been difficult to police. Traditionally, anti-competition, anti-trust law has been focused on consumer pricing. In a typical monopoly or cartel, there’s a simple test. Are consumers paying more because of a lack of competition?
The US “trusts” of the early 20th Century were found to be driving up prices. Companies like Standard Oil and railway companies used their dominant position to harm consumer’ interests.
That’s much harder to prove with hi-tech companies.
For example Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are free. Amazon often drives down prices to beat competition. Google’s search engine is free. YouTube – owned by Google – is free. And apps on iPhones can often be downloaded for free.
Critics say that these companies hurt consumers in a more subtle way, killing off smaller companies and strangling other businesses. The charge is that they are in fact damaging the economy. That’s what legislators are looking to examine.
The corporate bosses have already lost one battle before the hearing even begins. They wanted to be grilled one by one. But that’s not going to happen. They’ll be questioned together and the hearing will – perhaps aptly – be virtual.
“We want to leave as little room as possible for them to hide behind each other,” Sarah Miller, from the American Economics Liberties Project, told me last week.
With companies like TikTok and Huawei attracting the ire of the Trump administration, one defence will go something like: “Break us up, overregulate us, and you give Chinese tech companies more power.”

A Free Lunch for Workers?

A government-commissioned review into food and healthy eating by the National Food Strategy warns that the country’s eating habits are a “slow-motion disaster”. It warns of the toxic connection between poor diet and child poverty. It calls for many more children to be eligible for a free meal at school, as “only 1% of packed lunches meet the nutritional standards of a school meal”.
The review says they should be available to a further 1.5 million children, in addition to the 1.3 million already eligible – so almost one in three children would get free meals. The extension of free school meals, at a cost of £670m per year, would bring them in reach of all children in families claiming universal credit. Such a move would aim to stop pupils being hungry at school. It also proposes making a long-term commitment to feeding more families over the summer holidays, by making another 1.1 million children in England eligible for the “holiday activity and food programme”. Included as well is the expansion of the Healthy Start fresh fruit, milk and vegetables voucher scheme for pregnant mothers, increasing its value and encouraging supermarkets to supplement the voucher with free fresh produce.
The review issued warnings about “misleading packaging” of unhealthy products and the report challenges the “false virtue” of how the food industry presents itself. Behind the ethical ambitions, the report suggests there is still a culture of “unhealthy multi-buy offers”. Report author Henry Dimbleby said a nutritious diet was the “foundation of equality of opportunity”. He spoke of some apparently healthy fruit snacks that are “clothed in a veneer of goodness and might not be better for you than a Mars bar”. Dimbleby was scathing of brands and supermarkets that mislabelled sugar-filled products as healthy sweets. This practice was rampant, he said, though he singled out popular M&S sweets for particular criticism, saying: “I have had a bugbear about Percy Pigs for a while. Percy Pigs are a sweet that is marketed on the front with all-natural fruit juice and it’s right by your kids’ little fingers, and on the back [of the packet], if you understand calorie labelling, the first four ingredients are forms of sugar. I just think that is not right.”
There are serious consequences, says the review, with one in seven deaths in the UK attributable to poor diets.
“A nutritionally poor-quality diet is the leading risk factor for ill-health in the UK, yet we do not treat it with the same seriousness afforded to other risk factors. That has to change,” said Susan Jebb, Oxford University professor of diet and population health, who worked on the report.
The Socialist Party does not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers’ lives. The current proposal to introduce increased free school dinners is a more noble aspiration than could scarcely be imagined – an attempt to eradicate poor diets and consequent poor health of children.
However, any subsidised services that falls into our laps becomes an opportunity for those that live off our labour to lower their costs, and increase their profits.  Free school dinners would be an example of this process in action. Working people with children would be relieved of the cost of providing those meals to their children. This would result in a decline in the monetary cost of maintaining themselves and their family, and thus a decrease in the upwards pressure on wages. The typical wage would then tend to fall towards something nearer to living costs of those of a childless worker. This would thus benefit the employing class, both through cutting the overall direct cost of wages, but also through ending the situation in which childless workers were paid unnecessarily from the point of view of the employers. The employer could be prevented from gaining from this process by an increase in taxation – whether nominally on the workers’ wages or directly on employers’ profits; this would serve to cream off the difference between the old and the new prices of labour power. In this way, the free school dinners scheme could be made to pay for itself. This would, though, merely represent a redistribution of poverty for the working class, the intervention by the state into the labour market to ensure a more efficient allocation of the workers’ ration, so that children get a protected share. 
Our criticism is, then, that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. 

Working People – Less Leisure

The gender divide between the amount of paid and unpaid work being carried out has decreased since the mid-1970s, according to a thinktank, but it remains significant. The findings set out in the report, entitled The Time Of Our Lives (pdf), suggest total working hours among men and women are now close to being equal.
In a study to examine changes in the last 46 years in how people use their time, the Resolution Foundation said men are now doing less paid work, while women are doing more. It said women have increased their paid working hours by five hours and 18 minutes to 22 hours a week, while reducing their unpaid hours – such as time spent cooking, cleaning and taking care of children – by two hours and 44 minutes to 29 hours a week. Meanwhile, men have reduced their paid hours by eight hours and 10 minutes to 34 hours a week, while increasing their unpaid hours by five hours and 35 minutes to 16 hours a week.
While both groups do 50-51 hours work a week, men on average do about 12 hours more paid work than they did in the mid-1970s, while women now do about 13 hours a week more unpaid work. However, the report also highlights what it described as a “new divide” across household income levels, with women in high-income households having the biggest increase in paid work.
In contrast, the fall in paid work among men has largely been driven by those in low-income households who are working three hours fewer per day than they did in the mid-1970s. 
The foundation suggests the result of this is that the gap in total hours of paid work between high and low-income households has grown from 40 minutes per week in 1974 to four hours and 20 mins in 2014-2015.
It also noted one in seven workers in low-income households want an increase in their hours of work, compared to just one in 30 workers in high-income households.
George Bangham, economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “Debates around how people spend their time often focus on a single goal – speeding up the move to a shorter working week to enable more time for socialising, sport and hobbies. But this isn’t how people’s lives have changed over the past four decades, desirable as it may be.
He explained, “Men are doing less paid work, while women are doing more. Both have less time for play, with childcare up and leisure time down. Instead, a worrying new ‘working time inequality’ has emerged, with low-income households working far fewer hours per week than high-income ones.” He added: “As many households rethink their time use in light of the lockdown, it’s important to remember that while some people want to work fewer hours, others want or need to work more. And for many, control of working hours can be as important as the amount they do.”