A white man was found with a small young Indian child. He was asked “What are you doing with this child?” He answered, “I am protecting him. He’s an orphan.” “And how do you know he’s orphan?” , “I killed his parents.” was the reply.

In just 20 years, after gold was found, 80 percent of California’s Native Americans were wiped out. An estimated 100,000 Native Americans died during the first two years of the Gold Rush alone; by 1873, only 30,000 indigenous people remained of around 150,000. And though some died because of the seizure of their land or diseases caught from new settlers, between 9,000 and 16,000 were murdered in cold blood—the victims of a policy of genocide sponsored by the state of California and gleefully assisted by its new citizens.  In 1848, California became the property of the United States as one of the spoils of the Mexican-American War. Then, in 1850, it became a state. 

The Act for the Governance and Protection of Indians was passed in 1850. The name of the law sounds benign, but it was malign in the extreme. It allowed Native Americans to be enslaved  even though California was admitted to the union as a free state – free as in no black slavery allowed. Indian men, women and children were openly bought and sold in city streets throughout the 1850s. The act “facilitated removing California Indians from their traditional lands, separating at least a generation of children and adults from their families, languages, and cultures (1850 to 1865). This California law provided for “apprenticing” or indenturing Indian children and adults to Whites, and also punished “vagrant” Indians by “hiring” them out to the highest bidder at a public auction if the Indian could not provide sufficient bond or bail. White settlers and the California government enslaved native people and forced them to labor for ranchers through at least the mid-1860s. Native Americans were then forced onto reservations and their children forced to attend “Indian assimilation schools.” It permitted the ownership of Indian children (Section 3: “Any person … obtaining a minor Indian … and wishing to keep it”,) In 1860 the act was expanded to provide for the ownership of Indian men and women into adulthood. And the Act denied Indians equal standing under the law (Section 6: “In no case shall a white man be convicted of any offence upon the testimony of an Indian”).

 Governor Peter Hardeman Burnett explained in his  speech of January 6th, 1851, “That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected.” 

He proceeded to set aside state money to arm local militias against Native Americans. Militias raided tribal outposts, shooting and sometimes scalping Native Americans. Soon, local settlers began to do the killing themselves. Local authorities placed bounties on Native Americans. And at one point the price was about of for a male body part, whether it was a scalp, a hand, or the whole body; and then $5 for a child or a woman. In many cases, they only had to bring in the scalp. And in other cases, the whole body was brought in to prove that they had this individual, they’d killed this person, and receive their reward. 

Militia expeditions and vigilantes to kill at least 6,460 California Indians between 1846 and 1873. The U.S Army also joined in the murder spree, killing at least 1,600 native Californians.

In 1850, for example, around 400 Pomo people, including women and children, were slaughtered by the U.S. Cavalry and local volunteers at Clear Lake north of San Francisco.

It wasn’t until after 1900 when the law was repealed and many Californians learned the fact that it was still legal to kill Native Americans. California only apologized for the genocide it carried out against its indigenous residents in 2019.

  In 2019, life expectancy at birth in the UK was 82.9 years for a woman and 79.2 years for a man (the average for both was 81.1 years). These numbers look good, especially when compared with historical figures. In 1950, for example, the average life expectancy at birth for a UK citizen was 68.9 years. The combined effects of economic growth, better education and an improved NHS have delivered an extra 12 years of life. Impressive.

That is until you start comparing the UK with other European countries. When you do this, you find we have seen smaller increases in life expectancy than the western European average – 5.3 years compared with 5.7 years.

Spain and Italy, for example, both had an average life expectancy at birth of 83.1 years in 2019. In France, it was 82.9 years, Sweden 82.8 years and Germany 81.2. The western European average life expectancy was a whole one year longer than in the UK.

The average healthy life expectancy for the UK in 2019 was 68.9 years, meaning that people in the UK spend an average 12.2 years living with some kind of illness.  Britain has the worst healthy life expectancy of any other European country. We come bottom of the league table. We’ve seen a slower improvement in healthy life expectancy (3.6 years) than the western European average (5.8 years).

 And the situation for children is equally bad: the under-five mortality rate in the UK in 2019 was 4.1 deaths per 1,000 live births – one of the worst performances in western Europe, second only to Malta. 

Across the four nations. Scotland has the lowest life expectancy (79.1 years), followed by Northern Ireland (80.3 years), Wales (80.5 years), and England (81.4 years).

The major causes of Britain’s poor health are noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and dementia. The Global Burden of Disease shows that deaths from alcohol and drug use have increased by 280% and 166% respectively over the past 30 years. And the health of our nation is not uniform across the country. There’s an eight-year difference in life expectancy between the north and the south of the UK. Life expectancy is highest in Richmond (84.5 years) and lowest in Blackpool (76.4 years) – worse than the average for China, Turkey, Thailand, Cuba, Chile, Jordan and even the US.

The lowest 10 expectancies in England skew towards the poorest places in the north-west and north-east of the country: Blackpool, Middlesbrough, Hull, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Rochdale, St Helens, Sunderland, Blackburn and Manchester. 

Is it a coincidence that the worst life expectancies in England track the upsurge in coronavirus?

The virus has exposed the inequalities that divide our society. It is deprived areas such as Bolton and Rochdale where infections have been endemic. It’s no accident that Liverpool, which scores high on the list of the UK’s most deprived places, was the first region to be classified as very high risk in Johnson’s recalibrated approach to Covid-19.

At the beginning of the pandemic, 1.5 million people in England were deemed at sufficiently high risk of coronavirus to require shielding. The unfortunate truth is that far more people in the UK are at risk than this number suggests. As work from University College London revealed earlier this year, when one includes those over 70 years of age, and those who are under 70 but live with chronic diseases such as diabetes or cancer, the actual number at risk in the UK is more than 8 million people.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/alarming-data-britain-sick-man-europe-before-covid

 Capitalist politicians have only one way of dealing with a crisis: off-loading their burden on to the backs of working people. Why should any working person vote for any of the candidates in November? It is a choice between Al Capone and Bugsy Siegel, the Italian Mafia or the Colombian Cartel?

Peace, freedom and equality are what every ordinary American, black, brown and white, wishes for and needs. The liberation of mankind is the socialist’s task. The World Socialist Party has sometimes been accused of seeking to overthrow the American government using violence. When we are accused of this, our critics are implying that we want to abolish capitalism with minority support, that we want to impose the will of the minority upon the majority. The opposite is the truth. We believe we need to win a majority of the people to support a change in the system. Many people have a stereotyped picture of what a revolution is like. They say a revolution is barricades and insurrection in a armed take-over. It isn’t.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are owned by the capitalist class and stand for the interests of the capitalist class. The two-party electoral system masquerades as democracy in action. We have never really had a chance to democratically vote to change the nature of this capitalist system. Politicians are the goons for the corporations, Wall Street’s bought and paid for professional liars. We know we can be fooled by good actors and it is no coincidence that one president was ex-Hollywood and another ex-reality TV. Money buys power and influence. Think-tanks determine policy proposals. Lobbyists draft the legislation. All to profit the elite few, to protect the wealth and power inequalities, to divide and conquer any resistance. They ensure peripheral policies such as Confederate statues or mixed-gender restrooms take center-stage

To vote in this election is to prop up a corrupt criminal regime. Trump and Biden are perfect for King Capital.

They distract from the real issues confronting people and it allows the media to turn the political discourse into differences in temperament of their respective personalities. Trump and Biden are essentially puppets and figureheads of the real ruling classes; the billionaires, the corporations, and the investor class. The media insist you vote for the face and not the case. And the debate pivots around identity and gesture politics rather than a real anti-capitalist alternative. You take responsibility for your vote. Politicians promise a lot of things, but can any of them deliver? Never under capitalism is the answer. Any politician who sincerely and genuinely wanted to do good within the system is thwarted at every turn. The politician doesn’t change the system. The system changes the politician. After every election the poor get poorer and the rich richer. Politicians never deliver and always fail. Further, any agreement, any compromise, any concession can be undone and rolled back by the next administration.

About half of eligible voters won’t cast their ballot. So in every election the president is not wanted by the majority. People literally refuse to opt for either candidate for president. How can a system based on capitalism be democratic? It’s fundamentally impossible. Nor can one have political democracy without economic democracy.

Society can only progress and evolve with democratic control of the means of production. It’s that simple. All societies that use money have inequality. There are no examples of long lasting peaceful societies that use money. It’s an eventuality that wherever money is used, unnecessary suffering will be sure to follow. Money literally buys the earth in our system, and the people who possess the most money are holding the planet hostage. We are taking part in an election for people who think it is okay to own people and the planet.

The sad truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us are serfs pushed deeper and deeper into debt with various forms of rent that must be paid to landowners, utilities and food corporations. Our employment is to serve the parasitical and ravenous appetites of the rich who use all imaginable methods at their disposal to coerce and dominate us. The capitalist system is a demeaning and degrading master-slave system. On November 3, people will be deciding who holds the whip.

  The “Great Barrington declaration” on the COVID-19 pandemic has called for an immediate resumption of “life as normal” for everyone but the “vulnerable”, fuelled these notions by casting doubt on the utility of lockdown restrictions. “We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity”, it stated. The declaration’s core assumption is that population immunity will be achieved by allowing life to go on as normal and shielding only the most vulnerable from the virus.  The thrust of its argument is based on a false opposition between those who argue for lockdown and those who are against it, when in fact lockdowns are one of numerous measures that scientists have called for, and are seen as a short-term last resort to regain control. And shutting away the most vulnerable as life continues as normal is not only inhumane, but impossible: by this measure, the carers, household members and frequent close contacts of vulnerable people would also need to isolate. Moreover, young people with pre-existing conditions they don’t yet know about can be equally susceptible, and “long Covid”, with its debilitating host of symptoms, affects people of different ages.

The signing ceremony had been carefully orchestrated for media attention, with a slick website and video produced to accompany the event. Within hours of its launch, it had seeded political and ideological impact disproportionate with its scientific significance. Its three signatories were later  to be received by Alex Azar, the US secretary of health and human services, and by Scott Atlas, recently appointed as Donald Trump’s health adviser, who tweeted  that “top scientists all over the world are lining up with the @realDonaldTrump #Covid_19 policy”. And on a call convened by the White House, two senior officials in Trump’s administration cited the declaration. The trio of scientists who fronted the declaration were able to put the weight of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions behind their statements – Stanford, Harvard and Oxford – giving the declaration a sheen of respectability. The views of these scientists about lockdown and the pursuit of herd immunity are no doubt sincerely held (though, notably, not published in any peer-reviewed scientific articles)

When scientists disagree, we expect them to provide evidence for their position. Yet the declaration’s many contentious statements are unreferenced – and the manner of its launch seems designed to amplify publicity over substance. If anything, the tactics employed in this performance have serious implications for the public’s trust in scientists.

The truth is that a strategy of pursuing “herd immunity” is nothing more than a fringe view. There is no real scientific divide over this approach, because there is no science to justify its usage in the case of Covid-19.  The president of the UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences describes the declaration’s proposals as “unethical and simply not possible”. The science is clear: attaining herd immunity to coronavirus via uncontrolled infection is a fringe view, peddled by a minority with no evidence to back up their position. 

It is already clear that the declaration is being used to legitimise a libertarian agenda. It was a piece of political theatre. Indeed, some authors have questioned if it was ever anything about health, or whether its motivations were always purely economic; as the professor of political economy Richard Murphy put it, the declaration was “the economics of neoliberalism running riot … revealing in the process its utter indifference to the interests of anyone but those who can ‘add value’ within that system”.  

The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), where the declaration was signed, is a libertarian thinktank that is, in its own words, committed to “pure freedom” and wishes to see the “role of government … sharply confined”. The institute has a history of funding controversial research – such as a study extolling the benefits of sweatshops supplying multinationals for those employed in them – while its statements on climate change largely downplay the threats of the environmental crisis. It is a partner in the Atlas network of thinktanks, which acts as an umbrella for free-market and libertarian institutions, whose funders have included tobacco firms, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers. Rightwing free-market foundations and institutions have long attempted to savage the public reputation of well-intentioned policies such as those aimed at curbing ecological threats and limiting smoking.

We see at play in the Great Barrington declaration: discredit the scientific consensus, spread confusion about what the right response is and sow the seeds of doubt. It seems that lockdown restrictions aimed at bringing the virus under control are merely the latest target in this rightwing stealth campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/covid-herd-immunity-funding-bad-science-anti-lockdown

 Humphreys county in Mississippi has an unemployment rate double the national level. The local economy was already in a shambles when the coronavirus hit. But the pandemic has made things worse. Yet the county’s residents have been targeted by the IRS for claiming a tax credit that aims to lift working parents out of poverty.

Joe Jackson, the mayor of Belzoni, said, “Most people around here are kind of adjusted to the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That’s not surprising to people in our area.” 

The Internal Revenue Service audits Humphreys county taxpayers at a higher rate than anywhere else in America that’s about 12 out of 1,000 tax returns are audited each year in the county. That’s 53% higher than the national average and raises the question of why such a place is the subject of such IRS attention. Why not the haunts of millionaires and billionaires, like Manhattan?

The IRS audits about 300,000 taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit, or EITC, each year. These taxpayers are targeted more often than high-income and high-wealth taxpayers because the audits of EITC claimants are easier to do, according to a 2019 letter written by the IRS Commissioner. The IRS’s policy has resulted in higher rates of tax audits in poor communities of color than the rest of the country. Eight of the most heavily audited counties in the country are in Mississippi. In Humphreys county, 76% of the 8,000 residents are Black.

The IRS audits most EITC claimants by mail, but wealthy taxpayers are typically audited in person and the audits require more training. In the 2019 fiscal year, about 80% of individual taxpayer audits were done by mail. But 52% of the $6.9bn recovered from these tax audits came from audits done in person, which are typically performed on wealthier taxpayers. 

The IRS commissioner, Charles Rettig, wrote that the IRS needs more money to hire and train auditors in order to balance the number of audits across all income levels. Between 2010 and 2017, the IRS budget was cut by about $2bn. The budget cuts shifted the focus of IRS audits from high-income taxpayers to low- and middle-income EITC claimants.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/18/tax-audit-earned-income-tax-credit-mississippi

 The BBC website carries a report on how sex workers in India had to undergo medical examinations by the British colonial authorities. 

As usual, the BBC’s reporting is belated. The Socialist Party were early critics of the Empire’s use of women to “service” the troops. 

And an article appeared on an Indian based progressive website based upon this blog post.

The Conscripted Prostitutes

During the days of Empire when Britain ruled India there were licensed brothels for the use of the occupation troops. Each regiment had at its disposal from twelve to fifteen native women, who dwelt in what were called “chaklas.” These women were allowed to consort with British soldiers only, and were registered with the local magistrate. If a woman tried to escape from the chakla, she would be punished with fine or imprisonment. In charge of the women was placed a superintendent or brothelkeeper, called the “mahaldarni.” She also was expected to procure women. “Ameer has supplied the 2nd Derby Regiment with prostitutes for the past three years, and I recommend her to any other regiment requiring her for a similar capacity.” -S. G. M., Quartermaster 2nd Derby Regiment.”

The price of the visits of soldiers to the chakla was fixed and was so low that the soldier would scarcely miss what he paid. When the soldiers were on the march, the women were carried in carts, with British soldiers to guard them.

Their sexual exploitation was justified by Colonel T. G. Crawley, commanding Allahabad District, describing the monetary compensation calculation: —

“It stands to reason that the women could not be in debt, for if a woman only received six men daily for twenty-three days in a month, at the rate of only four annas [about fourpence] per visit, that would represent thirty-four rupees eight annas, and even allowing one-fourth of this to go to the mahaldarni, rent two rupees, and food at the rate of four annas daily for thirty days, a woman would have fully seventeen rupees [a little more than one ]pound] a month clear.”

An 1886 military order, written by the Commander-in-Chief of the army in India (Lord Roberts) laid out the rules:

“In the regimental bazaars it is necessary to have a sufficient number of women, to take care that they are sufficiently attractive…”

His orders were carried out. The officer in command of the 2nd Battalion Cheshire Regiment sent the following application to the magistrate of Umballa Cantonment: “Requisition for extra attractive women for regimental bazaar, in accordance with Circular Memorandum 21a…Please send young and attractive women..” Another commanding officer writes: “There are not enough women; they are not attractive enough. More and younger women are required, and their houses should be improved.” Yet another commanding officer writes: “I have ordered the number of prostitutes to be increased to twelve, and have given special instructions as to the four additional women being young and of attractive appearance.” Another case cited was one commanding officer who issued orders to his quartermaster to arrange with the regimental Kutwal [an under-official, native] to take two policemen, and go into the villages and take from the homes of these poor people their daughters from fourteen years and upwards, about twelve or fifteen girls at a time. They were to select the best-looking. Next morning, these were all put in front of the Colonel and Quartermaster. The former made his selection of the number required. They were then presented with a pass or license, and then made over to the old woman in charge. The women already there, were then examined by the doctor, and found diseased, had their passes taken away from them, and were removed by the police and these fresh, innocent girls put in their places.

Innocent females were denounced as suspected prostitute and made to register to live among the soldiers. Corrupt police made large sums of money by threatening to thus hand over girls to the magistrate, and demanding bribes as the alternative of such a fate.

The above facts are taken from a missionaries book “The Queens Daughters in India”. Despite the Christian morality it espouses against the state-sponsored prostitution it does offer some other insights about the subjugation of India by the British Empire.

“Wages are so low in India as to constitute the native the virtual slave of the Anglo-Saxon.

By means of the pitiful wages paid for work, not one-half the comfort is provided by white masters to Indian servants that was secured to the black men in America, by the few of those owners of slaves who were really humane. The very fact that the slave was a rather scarce article and a good price paid for him in America, made it to the interest of his owner to look after his health and comfort to a certain extent. We are not defending slavery – it is an abomination in the sight of God, whether it exists under the disguise of abnormally low wages or shows itself openly; and slavery is always a greater moral curse to the master than to the oppressed. England virtually owns a whole nation of slaves in her control of India, and the effect of this fact upon the morals of that country will depend wholly upon whether she rules to redeem her subjects or to enrich herself. The worst feature of all in slavery is the appropriation of women by their masters. And this form of villainy is always excusing itself by slandering the oppressed women.”

 Different states have different rules for write-in candidates, but they can be divided into three categories. Nine states—Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota—won’t accept any write-ins at all. Most states are in the middle in that they accept write-in candidates, but require them to file paperwork ahead of time for their votes to be counted. However the following are the states that socialists can express their support for the World Socialist Party of the United States (WSPUS)

Iowa

Iowa is one of the seven states that do not require a write-in presidential candidate to file some paperwork in advance of an election. In Iowa, a write-in candidate is not required to file any special paperwork in order to have his or her votes tallied.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire state law does not require write-in presidential candidates to file any special paperwork in advance of the election.

New Jersey

New Jersey state law does not appear to require write-in candidates to file any special paperwork in advance of an election

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election. Voters may write in the names of candidates on the Pennsylvania general ballot

Rhode Island

Rhode Island do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election. Rhode Island law does not require a write-in presidential candidate to file any special paperwork in advance of the election.

Virginia

Virginia do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election. A write-in presidential candidate is not required to file any special paperwork in advance of the election

Vermont

Vermont do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election. A write-in presidential candidate is not required to file any special paperwork in advance of the election.

A write-in candidate cannot become president because we the people do not actually elect the president. We elect ELECTORS, who comprise the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. They are chosen by political party leaders. That’s how the Constitution designed presidential elections, because the Founding Fathers did not TRUST the judgement of the American citizens. So, the winner of the presidential election is NOT the person who gets the most votes, but the person who gets a majority of nominated ELECTORS.

We must make it clear that the World Socialist Party seeks the votes only of those who want socialism. Vote-catching ploys and making opportunist statements which are not compatible with our Declaration of Principles so as to make the socialist case seem more enticing to our fellow workers commits an injustice to our party, as well as to those who would under those circumstances misguidedly cast their vote for ourselves. If we promised a host of reform measures then these votes would not express support for socialism but for those false remedies and in the next ensuing election are quite as apt to be turned against us, if another party comes up with an even more palatable platform of palliatives. Votes acquired by seeking ameliorations of workers’ conditions under capitalism are not votes for socialism but are fictitious. In our election campaign we state our principles clearly, speak the truth, seeking not to flatter, but only to convince our fellow workers and win them over to our cause through an intelligent understanding of our case.

No possible good can come from any kind of a political alliance with any other supposed “workers” or “progressive” party. We most certainly seek the support of trade-unionists, environmental campaigners and community activists but only of those who desire socialism and are ready to vote and work with us for the overthrow of capitalism. We hold no brief for those candidates who engage in political demagoguery merely for the sake of votes and we hold in contempt those who seek election for the mere sake of holding office. Their campaign promises are filled with empty platitudes and meaningless phrases. The World Socialist Party buys no votes with false promises or wishful thinking.

The World Socialist Party is the only party which honestly represents the working class in this general election. 

Members and supporters of the World Socialist Party  cast a write-in vote by writing “WORLD SOCIALIST Party” across the ballot paper.

What’s the alternative? To not vote at all? More and more people are doing this, and it’s not as bad as voting for one or other of the parties that stand for keeping capitalism going. But it’s a bit of a cop-out. The anarchists like it, because they don’t believe in electoral political action. We don’t agree with their view. Our predecessors were right to struggle for the vote. The fact that up to now it hasn’t been used properly is no reason for rejecting it as ineffectual. We say in this election, the working class should write-in for ‘WORLD SOCIALIST PARTY’. You don’t have to vote for any wannabe leader. The more people who stand up for socialism, the more able we’ll be to link up, and work towards the change we need. 

The World Socialist Party is like no other political party. First, because it doesn’t want power for itself. In the new society we advocate, there will be no power structures anyway and our organization would cease to exist. Second, because we have no leaders or followers and think instead that collective decision-making – democracy – is the only suitable way to operate a free society. Do you know of any other organization that can say this? We doubt it.

So what’s the catch? The catch is, we will not lead you and we can’t do all the work for you. You have to be your own leader, otherwise democracy is meaningless. So if you’re prepared to stand up for yourself, don’t wait for other people to do it first – get in touch with us and help out.

We say work with us for the overthrow of this system and the building of a new one that will be in keeping with our shared interests. The WSPUS do not support any capitalist faction anywhere or at any time. We will not engage in any tactical voting ruse such as support for the lesser evil.

  Of almost 4,700 confirmed foreign victims of trafficking,  Of these, 549 adults and just 28 children were granted discretionary leave to remain as trafficking victims, an immigration status that gives people a temporary right to stay in the UK if they have suffered extreme hardship over a four-year-period. For nearly three-quarters (74%) of all trafficking victims granted discretionary leave, the period lasted between seven months to a year. A further 7.8% were given even less, between zero and six months.

The figures have shocked anti-slavery campaigners. The data challenges the claim that Britain is a world leader in tackling modern slavery.

A divided world has failed to rise to the challenge of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. He explained that far more could have been done if countries had worked together to combat the disease, which has killed more than one million people.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a major global challenge for the entire international community, for multilateralism and for me, as secretary-general of the United Nations. Unfortunately it is a test that, so far, the international community is failing.”

He said that if coordinated measures were not taken, “a microscopic virus could push millions of people into poverty and hunger, with devastating economic effects in the years to come”.

Guterres also criticised countries for a lack of unity in trying to solve other global challenges including the conflicts in Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria.

“It is a source of enormous frustration,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-un/divided-world-is-failing-covid-19-test-says-frustrated-u-n-chief-idUSKBN2720JB?il=0