Shays Rebellion

 Shays’ Rebellion is but one incident in a historic current. In the western regions of the coastal states, on the frontier, lived farmers who were in great debt and burdened by distant and unresponsive governments during the depressions preceding and following the War of the Revolution. Under British or American government there was little relief for those suffering under heavy taxes and excessive rents. There was a period of about fifty years of economic exploitation and discrimination by East Coast rulers. The farmers participated in many disorders and upheavals from the 1740’s, when the Jerseyites refused to pay rents and Massachusetts men marched in Boston in support of a land bank law, until the 1790’s, when the Fries Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were fomented by Pennsylvania mountain men. In 1781 there was a mutiny of the Pennsylvania line of the Continental Army against exploiting “gentry” officers, some of whom were executed by their own men. These revolutionary soldiers elected officers from the ranks and continued to fight for the revolution. There were other mutinies at this time.

There were waves of revolts ‘known by such names as The Wars of the Carolina Regulators in North and South Carolina, The Wars of the New Hampshire Grants in New York and Vermont, Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, and the Fries and Whiskey Rebellions in Pennsylvania and neighboring states. In many states the western counties were in rebel hands for a number of years. No taxes could be collected and the courts were closed to prevent mortgage foreclosures. In reading the following account, we ask that you see it not as an isolated incident or an aberration, but as a small part of a continuous stream of action by people to wrest control of their lives from the state.

–D.B.

Shays’ Rebellion

Mention of Shays’ Rebellion brings to mind a vague memory of a textbook reference to irate farmers with pitchforks. Among the countless instances of suppressed history, Shays’ Rebellion is one of importance, as it reveals much of the true nature of the American Revolution, or at least of the aims and ideals of the “Embattled Farmer,” who provided the backbone of the resistance to England; as one of the people involved put it, “We have lately emerged from a bloody war in which liberty was the glorious prize aimed at. I earnestly stepped forth in defense of this country, and cheerfully fought to gain this prize, and liberty is still the object I have in view.” The rebellion was a defense of the revolution by the people who had made and won the revolution in opposition to the counter-revolution of the merchants, which has gone down in the history books as the real revolution. As a result, suppression of knowledge about the rebellion is necessary in order to cover up the greater falsification of history regarding the revolution as a whole. Nor was the rebellion in any way a localized affair: resistance to the counter-revolution was widespread throughout the country; Massachusetts was merely the place where it was the strongest.

The first thing that must be realized is that the rebellion was not “Shays’.” Shays was the leader only in a purely military sense; despite government attempts to label him a dictator (and English agent), he did not want and was not offered political leadership. His rank in the rebellion was the same as he had held in the Continental Army–Captain. Shays had become a Captain in the army over the objection of the more aristocratic officers only after his Company (consisting of his neighbors) refused to serve under anyone else; he was later forced to resign after committing an exceedingly practical but scandalously ungentlemanly act. At the time of the rebellion he was the poorest man in his town, living in a run-down shack on a tiny farm. **

In each town the rebels elected a Captain to handle their military problems (one Captain, Moses Sash, a private in the Continental Army, was Black); all political matters were handled by the people themselves. At the height of the rebellion, the three western counties were divided into 17 military districts, each under a Captain, whose job was to co-ordinate military activities in his area. The only person to rise to prominence as a political leader was Eli Parsons.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 required possession of greater wealth as a voting requirement than had the last Royal Charter. Greater amounts of wealth were required as qualifications for each public office of higher importance; some towns did not have a single inhabitant rich enough to be sent to the General Court (state legislature). The Constitution could not be amended for 15 years.

During the years after the revolution, the country was in a very bad economic depression. Large numbers of farmers had their property seized by creditors and were offered the choice between jail, where they would be billed for room and board, or working for their creditors at whatever wage they chose to pay. In a few years, the entire rural population would have been forced into serfdom. A delegate to one of the county conventions said, “I’ve labored hard all my days and fared hard. I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; have been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates … been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth. I have been obliged to pay and nobody will pay me. I have lost a great deal by this man and that man and t’other man, and the great men are going to get all we have, and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors, nor lawyers, and I know that we are the biggest party, let them say what they will.”

In western Massachusetts, the stronghold of the rebellion, the government in Boston was felt to be virtually an oppressive foreign government, no better than the one they had just gotten rid of. Half of the western towns did not send representatives to the General Court. Instead, they continued to operate in the same manner as during the revolution, when there was no real government. Local matters were decided at town meetings. When matters of common interest were involved, county conventions were called; in each town delegates would be chosen and given exact instructions as to what position to take on every possible issue; on their return they would be questioned at great length as to what took place. Among the resolutions passed by county conventions were ones calling for immediate re-organization of the state government, the issuance of paper money to be loaned to debtors (an extremely popular plan to end the economic crisis), an end to prosecution of debtors, and reduction in taxes and state spending.

On August 29, 1786, an act very common at the beginning of the revolution was repeated at Northampton, in Hampshire County. The Court of Common Pleas ‘was scheduled to meet, with several debtors’ cases before it. During the morning, 1500 people came into town from the surrounding countryside, more or less led by Luke Day. When the judges arrived at the court house, they were confronted by ranks of men in Continental uniform, armed with rifles and bayonets. The judges were presented with a petition that claimed the People’s right to protest unconstitutional acts of the legislature and “entreated” the court to adjourn until the “minds of the people can be obtained and the resolves of the convention of this county can have an opportunity of having their grievances redressed.” The Court adjourned “without delay.”

On September 5, the Court was forced to adjourn in Worcester County. Several towns met together to create a court to settle debtors’ cases in a manner more favorable to the debtors.

At Concord, in Middlesex, the court was closed on September 12 by armed men, now calling themselves Regulators, with some contingents coming from the western end of the state. Most sinister about this event was the arrival of Job Shattuck the day before at the head of a large number of wagons containing provisions for several days and material for a camp that was built on the Concord Green. The judges were given a statement: “The voice of the People of this county is that [the Court] shall not enter this courthouse until such time as the People shall have redress of the grievances they labor under at present.”

Berkshire County, at the western edge of the state, had been the first to close its courts during the revolution and the last to re-open them; it had threatened to secede from the rest of the state when the state constitution was ratified. To the surprise of the officials, the militia actually appeared when called to defend the Court, numbering about 1,000 men in all. Upon arriving on the scene, however, a violent dispute broke out over which side to take. Judge Whiting, a rebel sympathizer who was later jailed for “inciting,” suggested they divide into two groups; they did so, 800 opposing the Court, which then adjourned.

In Bristol County, in the southern part of the state, the Court was able to meet but adjourned as a gesture of good will.

In Exeter, New Hampshire, several hundred armed men surrounded the state capital on September 20, planning to keep the legislature inside until it lowered taxes and issued paper money loans. They fled, though, on hearing a rumor that a company of artillery was coming to attack them.

The Supreme Judicial Court indicted 11 people as “disorderly, riotous, and seditious persons.” On September 26, it was to meet in Springfield, where a federal arsenal was located. Both were protected by General Sheppard with 900 militia. On the morning of the 26th, 700 men came, led by Shays, his first appearance in the rebellion. All day long, through the night, and into the next day groups arrived from all over the state. The court was unable to try any cases, as all its personnel, including the judges, were needed to protect the courthouse. Finally, as the rebels were preparing an attack, the Court adjourned. Soon thereafter, Congress authorized the stationing of troops in Springfield to protect against “Indians.”

The General Court’s reaction to all this was to suspend Habeas Corpus, revoke the right to vote and serve on juries for people involved in the rebellion, and pass a Riot Act giving the governor increased powers to put down disturbances. An “Indemnity Act” pardoned all those who took an oath of allegiance and did not commit acts of violence from the time the act was passed. A few vague reforms were passed: the governor’s salary was cut, a few changes in the debtors’ law, and taxes could be paid in goods. Sam Adams, for strange reasons, was going through an arch-reactionary phase at this time and led the forces of repression (later, after the outbreak of the French Revolution, he would become a revolutionary again).

On Nov. 21, the Worcester Court was again unable to meet. On the 28th, the Middlesex Court was able to meet in Cambridge, across the bay from Boston, with the help of 2000 militia. Job Shattuck tried, unsuccessfully, to organize an attempt to stop the court, was hunted down, wounded, locked up in Boston, and became the rebellion’s first martyr.

Shays, hearing of Shattuck’s capture, sent out a call for aid: “The seeds of war are now sown. I request … you and every man to supply men and provisions to relieve us with a reinforcement … we are determined here to carry our point. Our cause is yours. Don’t give yourself a rest and let us die here, for we are all brethren.” He put his men in old barracks left over from the revolution and began scouring the countryside for guns and ammunition.

On December 5, the Worcester Court was again stopped. That evening the rebels held an organizational meeting, at which the military districts were formed. The most prominent members of the Committee of 17, which consisted of the Captains of the 17 military districts, were Shays, Luke Day, and Joseph Hinds of Greenwich. A “petition” was sent to the governor, demanding the release of all prisoners, a new indemnity act, and the adjournment of all courts until after the May elections, and stating that they were not afraid of death, war, or “the injuries of hunger, cold, nakedness and the infamous name of rebel, as under all these disadvantages they once before engaged and … came off-victorious.”

In January, the governor began assembling an army of 5000 militia, to be commanded by General Benjamin Lincoln. In response the Committee of 17 sent out a call for men to assemble with 10 days provisions. The objective was the arsenal at Springfield, the only possible source of arms and ammunition to fight Lincoln.

On January 25, 1200 men, the majority veterans of the Continental Army, marched into Springfield, where General Sheppard had 900 men to oppose them. Due to bad weather, many contingents had not yet reached the assembly point, but the attack could not be delayed, as Lincoln’s army was approaching,

The rebels stopped 250 yards from the arsenal, demanded Sheppard surrender, and then began to advance. At 100 yards, Sheppard fired his cannons over their heads, without stopping them, then directly into them, killing four men. After a few more were fired, the rebels fled. Until this time, each confrontation had resulted in one side backing down at the last second; as both the militia and rebels came from the same towns and were literally friends and relatives, neither side really wanted to kill anybody, at least at this time. Aside from the cannon, not a single shot was fired by either side.

The rebels retreated north to Pelham, Shays’ home town, where they found a large quantity of provisions sent from Berkshire. Lincoln’s army arrived a few days later and stopped about ten miles away–passing through Amherst, they found hardly a man in the place, as they were all with the rebels. Negotiations took place between the two armies, the rebels offering to surrender if given a complete pardon.

On February 3, Shays retreated 20 miles to Petersham. Lincoln followed that night and was caught in a blizzard; had the rebels been aware that he was following, they could have destroyed his entire army. Instead, they fled across the New Hampshire border at his arrival.

The rebels officially disbanded and Shays made his way with several hundred others to Vermont, where the government was expected to be more friendly. General Lincoln went west to clean out Berkshire, causing many to flee into New York and Connecticut.

Although the rebels were now broken up, small groups kept up a continuous guerrilla struggle, capturing weapons, freeing prisoners, and destroying the property of government supporters. Across the border in New Lebanon, New York, Eli Parsons began collecting men: “March all the men in your power to New Lebanon without loss of time. Bring arms, ammunition, four days provisions … with snow-shoes, as many as you can get.”

In both Vermont and New York, the rebels were welcomed by the people. The government of Vermont at first openly supported them, but later, afraid of alienating the other states (it was not yet accepted as a state and was claimed by New York), made official proclamations forbidding the people to assist the rebels, without making any attempt to enforce them. A group of Massachusetts militiamen, in Vermont looking for “criminals,” was stopped at gunpoint by the people of a town they passed through, who stated, “No person shall be carried from this state! You are in pursuit of the most virtuous of your citizens.” In New York, a group of militia that captured a rebel in a raid across the border was overtaken by forty New Yorkers, who freed the captive.

On February 26, 130 men, led by Perez Hamlin of Stockbridge, left New Lebanon to attack Pittsfield, where General Lincoln was. They had heard that all but a few of his militia had left, their enlistments expired. Unfortunately, Lincoln was reinforced before they reached Pittsfield, so they turned south to Stockbridge, where they seized the town’s military supplies, captured several prominent government supporters, and ransacked their homes. They then went ten miles further south to Great Barrington, where they freed the inmates of the jail, and started back to New York with their prisoners.

On the way back, they fell into a militia ambush; In the ensuing battle, the rebels lost three dead and several captured, including Hamlin, who was badly wounded and eventually died in jail. Also among the captured were Peter Wilcox, whose brother died in the battle, and Nathaniel Austin, who had led a particularly active group of cavalry, both in their early 20s, This is the only time both sides fought it out in an actual battle.

A few days after Hamlin’s raid, New York officials sent their militia to clean out the towns on their side of the border, forcing the rebels to move into Vermont and Connecticut. Activities began to die down, but the situation remained volatile.

Elections for the new General Court were held in the Spring; due to the disenfranchisement of the rebel supporters, there were towns with no voters left, while in many others only a few government supporters were left. Except in the places occupied by militia or with strong pro-government factions, the disqualification was ignored: “they chose with an air of insolence to the friends of government and a vindictive triumph over authority the suspected and disaffected characters.” In at least one case, a man in jail was elected. For governor, John Hancock, running on a vague program of reform and leniency, beat the incumbent almost 3 to 1; he was, aside from his platform, also preferred because he had made his money before the revolution and thus was not considered a profiteer. Statewide, only one-fourth of the old legislators were re-elected.

In April, after the elections, the Supreme Court, able to meet by virtue of military protection, began trying the captured rebels. In Great Barrington, six persons, captured in Hamlin’s raid were sentenced to death. In Northampton, another six, most for the attack on the Springfield arsenal. Two others were to be hung in other counties. The High Sheriff of Berkshire County found a note on his door:

“I understand that there is a number of my countrymen condemned to die because they fought for justice. I pray have a care that you assist not in the execution of so horrid a crime, for by all that is above, he that condemns and he that executes shall share alike ..Prepare for death with speed, for your life or mine is short. When the woods are covered with leaves, I shall return and pay you a short visit. So no more at present, but I remain your inveterate ENEMY.”

A Commission of Clemency, appointed by Hancock, decided to hang only five people: Peter Wilcox and Nathaniel Austin in Berkshire, Captain Jason Parmenter (who killed a militiaman) and Henry McCullough (only thought to be a leader because he was once seen at the head of several hundred men) in Hampshire, Henry Gale (one of the few leaders captured) in Worcester, and Job Shattuck in Middlesex. The date of execution was set for May 24.

Throughout early May, frantic preparations were made to rescue the condemned; guns were smuggled into the state and Several hostages seized. Tremendous numbers of appeals from towns and individuals all over the state were sent to the governor. Wilcox and Austin escaped, were recaptured, escaped again, were recaptured again, escaped a third time … The executions were postponed to June, then to August.

In the new General Court, the House repealed the rewards offered for the capture of prominent rebels; the bill was blocked by the Senate, a more aristocratic body, not elected by the people. In the fall, it revised the debtors’ law to free persons who, in effect, declared bankruptcy. The right to serve on juries was restored to the rebels, a necessity, as many towns were incapable of producing a jury. A general pardon was defeated by the House, 100 to 94.

Throughout the summer things remained fairly quiet. On September 12, the militia was sent home, a new pardon offered, and all prisoners pardoned, except Wilcox and Austin, who were no longer pursued.

In December, however, two men, Charles Rose and John Bly, age 22, were hung. Bly had recruited men for Shays, was captured during Hamlin’s raid; released by the Court, he went back to New York, led two raids, and finally took advantage of the new pardon and returned. During the winter raids, he and Rose, of whom nothing is known, took some clothes for a comrade in need. They were charged with burglary and hung. Murder and rebellion were excusable crimes, but not burglary.

In March of 1788, Shays, Luke Day, Eli Parsons, and a few others, who had been excluded from the previous pardon offers, were given pardons. Shays went back to farming, was arrested for debts in 1792, and moved to New York state, where he died in 1825 and was buried in an unmarked grave,

F.G.

Published by: Solidarity, 713 Armitage Ave. Chicago, Ill. 60614, October, 1973

Taken from

 http://recollectionbooks.com/cs/ShaysRebellion.htm

Shays’ rebellion, 1786 (libcom.org)

Golf or Houses?

 Golf courses in London make up an area larger than the borough of Brent and there is enough space on publicly owned courses to house 300,000 people.

Nearly half of the capital’s 94 active golf courses are owned by London boroughs or other public bodies, such as the Church Commissioners, and yet serve a tiny fraction of the capital’s 9 million residents.

The 43 publicly owned golf courses in London take up just under 1,600 hectares (3,950 acres) of land in Greater London, bigger than the borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, which has a population of 185,000.

The borough of Enfield alone contains seven courses, but the council receives just £13,500 from Enfield golf club each year to rent its 39-hectare golf course – less than the typical annual rent for a two-bedroom flat in the area.

Russell Curtis, the author of “Golf Belt”, a new study of how London’s golf courses could help address the housing crisis, said he was not calling for all the capital’s golf courses to be turned into housing but that some courses could be made more accessible to the capital’s residents if they became allotments, biodiverse green space, sports facilities or even urban farms.

Said Curtis, “There surely has to be a way of improving the social utility and accessibility of golf courses to benefit the wider population. The redevelopment of golf courses is always presented as a binary choice between beautiful green fields or concrete, but there’s a model in the middle where you could provide new homes and social infrastructure while achieving biodiversity gain.”

Building at a density of 60 homes per hectare on publicly owned golf courses that fall within areas designated as suitable for further development by the London Mayor’s local plan – close to railway stations, for instance – would provide homes for 101,700 people. 

Guy Shrubsole, the author of Who Owns England?, said: “With so much of London devoted to golf courses only used by a small segment of society, surely councils should be repurposing more of them as public parks and nature reserves, with open access for all.”

Britain is home to a quarter of all the golf courses in Europe, with one in 20 found in London, despite the capital making up just 0.65% of the UK’s total land area.

London golf courses could provide homes for 300,000 people, study says | Planning policy | The Guardian

Socialist Sonnet No. 47

 Purse Strings


Kabul has fallen, Washington’s withdrawn.

It seems democracy has been undone,

But, who are the vanquished and who has won?

To find the real power look behind the throne.

Insurgent regime with rifle and tank,

Seizing power and issuing orders,

Raising their flag and closing the borders,

Then it is cap in hand to the World Bank.

It matters not what they do or declare,

Clear principles must end in confusion

Because sovereignty is a delusion

And faith unfounded ends in despair.

 

USA, Taliban, Islamic State,

All subjects of capital’s caliphate.


D. A. 

Socialist Sonnet No. 47

 Purse Strings


Kabul has fallen, Washington’s withdrawn.

It seems democracy has been undone,

But, who are the vanquished and who has won?

To find the real power look behind the throne.

Insurgent regime with rifle and tank,

Seizing power and issuing orders,

Raising their flag and closing the borders,

Then it is cap in hand to the World Bank.

It matters not what they do or declare,

Clear principles must end in confusion

Because sovereignty is a delusion

And faith unfounded ends in despair.

 

USA, Taliban, Islamic State,

All subjects of capital’s caliphate.


D. A. 

Profit in a Pandemic

  Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which found the number of billionaires in the U.S. grew from 614 on March 18, 2020 to 708 as of last week. The nation’s billionaires have seen their combined wealth skyrocket by nearly 62% over the past year and a half, from just under $3 trillion to almost $4.8 trillion.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk alone has gained more than $150 billion since the pandemic struck, a wealth surge of over 600%.

The collective fortune of billionaires in the United States has ballooned by nearly two-thirds during the coronavirus pandemic, and almost none of the $1.8 trillion gained by a few hundred of the nation’s richest people over the past 17 months will be taxed unless Congress enacts progressive tax reforms.



Fire and Rain

 



The climate change crises are now becoming an almost daily occurrence.

The recent rains that flooded much of Western Europe and killed over 200 people have been found to have been exacerbated by global warming which made rainfall events like these up to nine times more likely in Western Europe.

With continued greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, the heavy rainfall that brought misery to parts of Europe will become more common.

Professor Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University explained, “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, as well as improving emergency warning and management systems and making our infrastructure ‘climate resilient’ – to reduce casualties and costs and make them more able to withstand these extreme flooding events.”

Last year was the warmest on record across Europe, say scientists. Temperatures across the region were more than 1.9C above the long-term average between 1981 and 2010. New data shows that Europe’s temperature margin over previous years was significantly greater than previously thought.  There were huge temperature differences from the long-term average in some countries with Estonia, Finland and Latvia all recording anomalies of 2.4C.

“This level of difference to the previous long-term average, which is a large difference, is something that is concerning,” said Dr Robert Dunn, a senior climate scientist at the UK Met Office. “It is something to sit up and take notice of, but it’s not just the temperatures that are increasing, the extreme events, the heat waves we’re seeing this year, and last year as well. We’re seeing these responses across the world.”



“The amount by which the previous record has been exceeded should worry us all,” said Prof Gabi Hegerl, professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh,

The State of the Climate 2020 report from the American Meteorological Society says temperatures in the Arctic are also rising rapidly.

Temperatures over land reached worrying new heights, getting to 2.1C above the 1981-2010 average. This was the highest since the series of records began 121 years ago.

It was also the seventh year in succession with an annual average temperature more than 1C above the average.



The hot, dry and windy weather conditions fueling the huge wildfires that have besieged the western US this summer have increased in frequency over the past 50 years, a new study has foundThe study’s findings, based on data from weather stations across the region, are consistent with other recent research suggesting that in many parts of the west, increased temperatures from climate breakdown are leading to more parched summers.



“It’s clear that conditions we’re seeing right now in the west are very different from what we saw a few decades ago,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California, Los Angeles. “The increase in hot and dry conditions appears to be fueling an increase in extreme fire.”

Climate change: Europe’s extreme rains made more likely by humans – BBC News


Climate change: Europe’s 2020 heat reached ‘troubling’ level – BBC News


‘Fire weather’: dangerous days now far more common in US west, study finds | Climate crisis in the American west | The Guardian

Factory farming – Let off the hook

 Animal health experts and UN leaders have called for a significant reduction in antimicrobial drug usage in food animals, which is already causing a “silent pandemic”.

But other experts say the statement is “a real missed opportunity”, pointing to its failure to set reduction targets or even call for a ban on the use of antibiotics for animal growth promotion.

Antimicrobial drugs, which include antibiotics, antifungals and antiparasitics, are used in food production all over the world, the statement said, and are “administered to animals not only for veterinary purposes (to treat and prevent disease) but also to promote growth in healthy animals”. 

The enormous quantities of these used in animal production result in a far higher probability of drug-resistant bacteria and viruses emerging. This could lead to some of the world’s most important drugs becoming ineffective against common infectious diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis and gonorrhoea, with death rates rising. Drug-resistant diseases already cause at least 700,000 human deaths globally every year.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the UN’s global leaders group on antimicrobial resistance called for “significant and urgent reduction in the amounts of antimicrobial drugs, including antibiotics, used in food systems” and said this was “critical to combating rising levels of drug resistance”.

According to the statement, “The world is rapidly heading towards a tipping point where the antimicrobials relied on to treat infections in humans, animals and plants will no longer be effective.”

Despite the statement’s strong wording, experts said it had few teeth.

Although commendable, the statement does not say “quantitatively what they mean by significant”  said Thomas Van Boeckel, an antimicrobial resistance, disease, and livestock production systems scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. “Basically what this call lacks is a clear target for reduction.”

“This statement is far too cautious and a real missed opportunity,” said Cóilín Nunan, a scientific adviser at the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics. “There is no target and not even a call for an immediate end to the use of antibiotics for livestock growth promotion.” He said, is how little the statement says about intensive farming. “Intensive farming, the root cause of so much animal disease and antibiotic use, is once again let off the hook. Where is the global leadership that is needed if we are ever to move to more sustainable farming practices and drastically cut farm antibiotic use?”

Henk Hobbelink, an agronomist and co-founder of the small-farmer focused NGO Grain, agreed and said the use of antimicrobial growth promoters in factory farming needed “to be banned, immediately and everywhere”.

UN criticised over statement on overuse of antibiotics in farming | Environment | The Guardian

Yemen has not gone away

 The media’s attention is upon Afghanistan yet within capitalism there are multiple humanitarian tragedies ongoing. 

Ending Yemen’s ongoing famine is an “overarching humanitarian priority” amid a litany of crises, Martin Griffiths, the UN’s outgoing special envoy for the country told the UN Security Council.  

Roughly two-thirds of the war-ravaged country’s population – about 20 million people – rely on humanitarian aid for their day-to-day needs. Roughly five million people “are one step away from succumbing to famine and the diseases that go with it”, he warned. An additional 10 million people “are right behind them”, added Griffiths.

“Famine isn’t just a food problem. It’s a symptom of a much deeper collapse. In many ways, it is all of Yemen’s problems rolled into one, and it demands a comprehensive response,” he said. Griffith called for an end to “profiteering” 

Much of the country’s starvation is tied to the extreme depreciation of Yemen’s national currency and the collapse of the economy, with GDP plummeting 40 percent since 2015 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the country. The Yemeni riyal is trading at record lows to the US dollar.

Khaled Mohamed Khiari, assistant UN secretary-general for the Middle East, raised further alarm over widespread fuel shortages that are worsening in Houthi-controlled territories. Only three ships carrying oil supplies were allowed to dock at Yemen’s strategic port city of Hodeidah since July, while four others remain in a holding area controlled by the Saudi Arabia-led, anti-Houthi coalition, Khiari said. The port of Hodeidah – which has remained largely shut over the years – is Yemen’s main port and a major lifeline for humanitarian supplies entering the country. All but one Yemen Petroleum station in Houthi-controlled territories have closed because of the shortages, and waiting times to refill gas canisters used for cooking have reached one month.

Khiari explained, “All parties must prioritise civilian needs and abstain from weaponising the economy, particularly in light of the critical humanitarian situation in the country.”

Millions ‘one step away’ from famine in Yemen, UN warns | Houthis News | Al Jazeera

Situation desperate in Afghanistan

Dr Richard Brennan, the WHO emergency director in the region, said: “While the eyes of the world now are on the people being evacuated and the planes leaving, we need to get supplies in to help those who are left behind.”

UN agencies have warned of food shortages in Afghanistan as early as September.

 It has already emerged first aid supplies, including surgical equipment and severe malnutrition kits, were stuck due to restrictions at Kabul airport. The World Health Organization (WHO) said the closure of the airport to commercial flights has held up key deliveries.

The World Food Programme (WFP), which brings in supplies by road, said it was getting food through four different supply routes for the moment, but could start running out of food by next month. Andrew Patterson, the WFP’s deputy country director in Afghanistan, said they were transporting food through humanitarian crossings, including from Uzbekistan, though 50% of supplies arrived, as well as via Pakistan and Turkmenistan.

“Winter is coming. We are going into the lean season and many Afghan roads will be covered in snow. We need to get the food into our warehouses where it needs to be distributed,” said Patterson. “We’ve got 20,000 metric tonnes of food in the country now, we’ve got 7,000 metric tonnes on the way.” He pointed out that, “We need another 54,000 metric tonnes of food to get the Afghan people through to the end of December. We could start running out of food by September.”

 The WFP needed $200m (£146m) to buy food for up to 20 million people who they predict will need it. Nearly 18.5 million people – half the population – already rely on aid, and the current drought is expected to exacerbate that.

Henrietta Fore, the executive director of Unicef, said that about 10 million children across Afghanistan need humanitarian assistance, 1 million could die without treatment and that conditions are expected to deteriorate further.

Even before the Taliban seized power, the country was in great humanitarian need following the second drought in three years. At the beginning of 2021, a third of the country’s population was facing crisis and emergency levels of food insecurity, and half of all children under five were malnourished. 40% of Afghanistan’s crops were lost to drought this year and the socioeconomic impact of Covid has left essential food out of reach for many families. Wheat prices are 24% above the five-year average.

Afghanistan could start to run out of food by September, UN warns | Global development | The Guardian

New Zealand’s Socialist Party

 



Recent media headlines indicate that the super-rich considers New Zealand a safe haven from the catastrophes they expect to overcome our planet. For example, Google’s co-founder, Larry Page, the world’s sixth-richest person, was recently granted New Zealand residency, following the lead of PayPal founder, Peter Thiel, another ultra-wealthy individual.

Often neglected because of its geographical isolation but now gradually increasing its participation in the World Socialist Movement is the small World Socialist Party of New Zealand that presently exists of a mere handful of members.

In a country noted for its supposed progressive social reforms whereas early as 1879 men had the vote, and by 1893 women were also entitled to vote, poverty and squalor has never disappeared. Living costs in New Zealand have risen sharply as has the price of homes, however, workers’ wages have lagged a long way behind. 

History provides more proof that reformism cannot solve the problems of the working class. If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that we can see a greater than ever need for a socialist organisation for the overthrow of capitalism. Similar to Canada, New Zealand was a fertile breeding ground for quack remedies to cure capitalism such as with the Douglas social credit movement at one time proving popular. The World Socialist Party of New Zealand holds that socialism is the only solution for the effects of capitalism. While capitalism continues so the workers must suffer from its effects and their condition become worse.

Jacinda Ardern’s government has not succeeded in fixing poverty and it has offered many excuses for its failure. UNICEF in September 2020, compared the performances of 41 high-income countries on child welfare issues; from suicide rates to childhood obesity, education and environment. New Zealand was at the bottom third at 35.

The extent of wealth inequality in supposedly egalitarian New Zealand has been laid bare by 2020 figures showing the wealthiest individuals have over NZ$140bn in trusts – and overall have nearly 70 times more assets than the typical New Zealander.



The data show that New Zealand’s wealthiest 1% of adults – around 38,000 people – have $141bn in trusts. Another 150,000 or so people, rounding out the rest of the wealthiest 5%, have trusts worth a further $122bn.



The 1% have an average of $3.6m held in trusts, $1.6m in shares and $470,000 in cash. Their debts are on average just $80,000. The typical person in the 1% is worth $6.2m.

In contrast, the typical New Zealander is worth only $92,000 – 68 times less. 



Among those in the poorest half of the country, meanwhile, the average person owns assets worth just $46,000 and has debts of $33,000, leaving them with a net worth of $12,000. They have negligible wealth in trusts and on average just $4,000 in the bank, leaving them vulnerable to sudden financial shocks.



When it comes to those on middle income – the 40% of the country who are above the mid-point but below the wealthiest 10% – have a higher net worth, on average $352,000, most of it tied up in housing.



Overall, the wealthiest 10% have 59% of all the country’s assets and the middle income is around 39%. That leaves the poorest half of the country with just 2%.

Jacinda Ardern’s government has shown little enthusiasm for redistribution of the riches of the wealthy, much less abolish the rich which is the goal of we socialists. Ardern’s suggestion that employers consider a four-day working week and other flexible working options to help employees address persistent work and life balance issues have excited many New Zealanders.

The World Socialist Party (New Zealand), however, has a better idea. What about socialism as the answer? 

What distinguishes us from other political organisations is that we insist that it is futile to concentrate on just a part of capitalism’s problems. The only effective policy is to campaign exclusively for its abolition and replacement with socialism.

The WSPNZ is frequently chastised for advocating our fellow workers to spoil their vote by writing “world socialism” across the ballot. The media is full of messages which say, “if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, or “it is your duty to vote”, or “Whatever you do, just make sure you get out there and vote”. 

The members of the WSPNZ are always being lectured on the virtues of voting for the lesser evil. Don’t play the game, don’t be forced into a false and hypocritical “choice”. Between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, our advice is to spoil the ballot paper and abstain from voting for either. If you cannot vote for what you want, it is folly to vote for what you do not want.

Our vote, like a razor, is an instrument for a purpose. If you cannot use it to shave as it was intended, it is madness to cut your throat with it. And by voting for your class enemies, full of traitors and charlatans, you are surely slashing your own throat.

Call the WSPNZ naive and idealists if you so wish but it aspires towards global revolution and world socialism. That is the message it sends and it won’t be distracted by squabbles within the capitalist class that doesn’t benefit us working people as a class.

Contact

World Socialist Party (New Zealand) P.O. Box 1929

Auckland, NI, New Zealand

E-mail: moggiegrayson@gmail.com

WebsiteWorld Socialist Party – History (worldsocialism.org)

(Details on other pages of their website have not been updated and requires to be amended but cannot any longer be accessed. A new website is in the process of being developed)