Author: ajohnstone

India grows increasingly hungry

 The Right to Food Campaign held a press conference in Delhi on October 21, 2022 highlighting the situation of hunger in India and the inadequate policy response of the government. All the speakers drew attention to the plight of people facing loss of livelihoods, low wages, inflation and hunger.

The Global Hunger Report 2022 ranks India at 107 among 121 countries. Each year since the report has been released in 2006 India has ranked extremely poorly highlighting that hunger and malnutrition remains a serious concern in the country. The current situation post-covid is even worse and is not entirely reflected in the report as the data are not available.

High levels of child malnutrition (stunting and wasting) in India are a reflection of food insecurity in households, poor dietary diversity, lack of maternal and child care services, low status of women and inadequate access to health and sanitation. 

It is indeed a matter of concern that over 35% of children in the country are stunted (low height for age) and 19% children are wasted (low weight for height) according to the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-2021). The WHO prevalence cut-off values for public health significance state that stunting above 30% and wasting above 15% is “very high”.

 All evidence points to increasing inequality and poverty in the country. 

Right To Food Campaign Flags The Alarming Situation Of Hunger In The Country| Countercurrents

Profit before Railway Workers’ Health

 Representatives of the United States’ major freight rail companies, the National Carriers’ Conference Committee,  rejected a proposal from the third largest rail workers union which called for just seven days of paid sick leave per year.

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED) requested the addition of paid sick days — modeled on a system used for federal workers in which employees accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked — last week as its members voted against a proposed contract. That contract included unpaid days off for medical care, but no paid sick days.

Clark Ballew, for the BMWED, noted that having reported more than $10 billion in stock buybacks and dividends in the first six months of 2022, rail companies “can very easily afford” to provide workers with paid leave when they are sick, as they did during the coronavirus pandemic hit before vaccines were available to employees.

“It is not unreasonable… and they’d still be making record profits if they agreed to provide railroad workers paid sick leave,” Ballew told the Associated Press.

Rail worker unions agreed not to call a strike until workers from across the industry, represented by 12 unions, have voted on the tentative deal reached last month. A work stoppage could begin as early as November 19.

The CEO of the National Association of Chemical Distributors criticized rail companies for refusing to bend regarding the demand for paid sick leave. Eric R. Byer wrote, “Now is not the time to deny reasonable benefits for a labor community that has been decimated by losses in recent years… It’s time for the freight rail industry to right this wrong and get rail back on track.”

Labor Notes reporter Jonah Furman pointed out in a tweet, ” the capitalist class splitting in real time. the rail monopolists have gone so far in destroying the industry for destructive profit-seeking that their customers, big chemical distributors, are siding with the workers in reforming the freight railroad labor system.”

Rail Cos. Reject Union’s Demand for Paid Sick Leave (consortiumnews.com)

The Danger of Work

 The International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization got together jointly to estimate the number of deaths caused by occupational diseases and injuries at world level for 2016. 

The two international agencies found that as many as 1.90 million people died from occupational diseases and injuries this year. 

Out of this 360,000 deaths were caused by occupational injuries. This implies that the remaining 1.54 million were caused by occupational disease.

Occupational accidents generally become news while occupational diseases seldom do so, in fact among all deaths caused by occupational diseases and injuries, occupational diseases cause as many as 82% of total deaths (1.54 million out of 1.90 million) while occupational accidents cause 18% deaths. 

 The ILO/WHO estimate attributes the highest number—750,000—to long working hours. This is a very significant number for all those struggling against imposition of unduly long working hours, particularly in situations of working conditions which even otherwise are unhealthy and/or stressful. 

Workplace air pollution, in the form of exposure to particulate matter, gases and fumes, has been estimated by the ILO/WHO study to be responsible for 450,000 deaths in 2016.

Occupational deaths can be called a silent killer. Due to poverty, economic compulsions and lack of compensatory payments, most of them have to continue working in these conditions, increasing their distress and health risks. When they cannot work any more, many of them are discarded all too easily by non-caring employers, forced to live out the rest of their life in extremely difficult conditions, as can be seen in the context of many victims of occupational diseases.

A review of the existing data on occupational diseases by the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention appears to be marked more by what is missing than by what is available. Thus this review states that 66,000 cases of occupational skin diseases were reported in a year, then hastens to add that this is a case of severe under-reporting. Why severe under-reporting should persist on such an important issue is not stated.

In the context of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it is stated that 20 million workers in the USA are potentially exposed. But what is more important is to find out how many actually suffer. 

n the case of occupational threat in the form of hearing loss to various extents this review is more firm in stating that this is the most widespread occupational health problem in the USA , with more than 30 million exposed to hazardous noise, 

And an additional 9 million at risk from other orthopaedic -traumatic agents.

Also, 30% of American workers are employed in jobs that routinely require them to perform activities that may increase risk of developing lower back disorders. In a single year 332,000 musculoskeletal injuries were reported in US workplaces.

In his book, The Picture of Health, Erik Eckholm stated that as many as 100,000 people die from occupational diseases while 390,000 new cases of occupational disease appear in a year in the USA. Nearly 10 million workers are estimated to be exposed in this country to 11 high-volume carcinogens. Big increase in cancer rates have been reported in some lines of work. In fact occupational risks are increasing the most in those lines of work in which new and serious hazards are appearing but in most cases the seriousness of these hazards is sought to be denied or underplayed by very powerful industrial interests, delaying remedial action, if not altogether denying it.

Another disturbing trend is that with changes in farm technology, very serious hazards in the form of poisonous chemicals and other inputs are appearing in farm work too.

Occupational Diseases Pose Very Serious Threat To Health And Welfare Of Workers| Countercurrents

Covid Vaccine Greed

 



As Biden is preparing to end the nation’s free coronavirus vaccine program  Pfizer announced that it will soon raise the price of its Covid-19 shot to between $110 and $130 per dose in the U.S.

The People’s Vaccine Alliance said in a statement Friday that Pfizer’s planned price hike would amount to a 10,000% markup above the cost of producing the vaccine, which is estimated to be as low as $1.18 per dose. The U.S. currently pays around $30 per dose for Pfizer’s shot.

“While health workers and the vulnerable continue to go unvaccinated in developing countries, Pfizer is shamelessly fleecing the public for ever-greater sums of money,” said Julia Kosgei, policy adviser to the People’s Vaccine Alliance. “This latest obscene price hike is truly a mask-off moment for one of the great profiteers of this pandemic.” Kosgei added, “This is daylight robbery.”

In the second quarter of this year, Pfizer reported a 78% increase in overall profit compared to the same period in 2021 and said its coronavirus vaccine revenue was $32 billion. 

At present, just 23.3% of people in low-income countries have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose.

World Health Organization Director of Health Emergencies Mike Ryan said the failure to ensure global vaccine equity and prevent millions of deaths was “because of the greed of the north” and “the greed of the pharmaceutical industry.

“We failed because of the self-interest of certain member states that were not prepared to share,” Ryan pointed out.

‘Daylight Robbery’: Pfizer Condemned for Hiking US Covid Vaccine Price by 10,000% Above Cost (commondreams.org)

Mounting Debt Looms Ahead

 



Almost eight million people are struggling to pay their household bills.  

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) estimated that 7.8 million people in the UK currently find bills a “heavy burden”, up from 5.3 million in 2020. Energy, food and fuel prices have risen sharply in the last six months.



Inflation – the rate at which prices rise – increased to 10.1% last month, returning to a 40-year high. UK food prices jumped 14.6% in the year to September – the biggest annual rise since 1980 – with the cost of key goods like fruit, milk, cereal and sugar all climbing.



The FCA surveye found:

One in four adults described themselves as being financially vulnerable, meaning they would quickly find themselves in difficultly if they suffered a financial shockSome 4.2 million people had missed bills or loan repayments in at least three of the six months before the survey took place27% of black respondents said they found it a heavy burden to keep up with bills, compared with around 15% of UK adults generally.


The Population Implosion

 The global population is now expected to peak in the 2080s and start declining by end of the century. The world’s population quadrupled in the 20th century due to high fertility rates and increasing life spans which created the fear of overpopulation explosion. But that upward trend is predicted to go into reverse by the start of the next century.

 Evidence of this has already been seen in several countries. The US has seen birth rates decline 20% between 2007 and 2020. In China, the fertility rate now stands at 1.16, barely half the average of 2.1 births required to maintain its population level. In 2020 the UK’s rate fell to 1.58 children per woman The average age a British woman has her first child has risen from 26.5 years old in 2000 to 29.1 in 2020. 

Falling birth rates have now become the “population problem”.

An ageing population results in fewer workers and an increased number of dependents. This could mean a “drain on resources”.  With a shortage of younger people there will be less funds for pensions and, in addition, an ageing population will cause further strain on the welfare and social services. However, projections on the impact of declining birth rates are often unreliable. Estimates are poorly equipped to account for technological and environmental shocks that could cause demographic swings such as the growing impact of climate change.

Alarmed by falling birth rates, the Chinese government has released guidelines to encourage fertility and reduce the nation’s abortions. Singapore has also attempted direct action, employing a range of measures from a service offering advice about married life to a “baby bonus scheme”, whereby couples are offered cash to have second and third children. In Poland, efforts are also being made to lower the financial burden for young parents. Since 2016, parents have been offered 500 zloty (£89) per child per month as part of the government’s family programme. However, after an initial boost, the birth rate is roughly back to where it was.

What declining birth rates mean for our future | The Week UK

Truss and the golden handshake

  Liz Truss will be entitled to an annual office allowance of up to £115,000 after serving as prime minister for a matter of weeks. Truss can claim the funding under the public duty costs allowance (PDCA).

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said: “At a time when one in five civil servants are using food banks and 35% have skipped meals because they have no food, it’s grotesque that Liz Truss can walk away with what is effectively a £115,000 bonus.”

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the University and College Union said: “Millions of public sector workers, including those who transform lives in education, are in the grips of a devastating cost of living crisis. Low pay leaves thousands upon thousands skipping meals and restricting energy use. They will be appalled to see the soon-to-be former prime minister rewarded for such catastrophic failings. She should do the right thing and give up the money.”

Steven Littlewood, the assistant general secretary of the FDA, which represents senior civil servants, said: “The hypocrisy is astounding. This year the government has offered a real-terms pay cut and once again tried to attack the redundancy terms of the civil servants who are keeping this country running while we move from one prime minister to another. After all of that, it beggars belief that the prime minister would accept £115k a year for just six weeks in the job.”

Liz Truss’s entitlement to ex-PMs’ £115,000 annual grant sparks anger | Liz Truss | The Guardian

Daniel De Leon by Stephen Coleman (1990)

 


The following is the preface by the author to his biography of Daniel De Leon, which was part of Manchester University Press’ Lives of the Left series. Thanks go to La Bataille socialiste  blog for originally putting this on the net.

This biography is a study of uncompromised revolutionary hope and dismal political failure. The story of Daniel De Leon is not that of a populist leader or a radical legislator, but of a militant and unswerving Marxist and irrepressible socialist activist who could see what was wrong and what must be changed in the mean and sordid atmosphere of turn-of-the-century American capitalism. The wrongs which he exposed and the change which he sought concerned not only the nature of the capitalism itself, but also the ways in which that system tends to dominate and misdirect efforts to resist it. The wrongs were to outlive De Leon; the change has yet to come. Still people of reason argue with passion, and sometimes despair, about why socialist ideas have never taken root in the USA; why the American working class has been so successfully accommodated within the capitalist system; why the message of De Leon has been utterly unheeded. It is to be hoped that this biographical study of the pioneer of American Marxism will contribute to an explanation of the hopes and failures which characterised the early socialist tradition in the USA.


Writers of history have not been kind to Daniel De Leon. Apart from the generally uncritical hagiographical accounts of his life written by De Leonists in defence of their tradition, most historians have mentioned De Leon only in passing, usually disparagingly and often inaccurately. When I first came to study the history of socialist thought in the USA, I was surprised (and irritated) to discover that no serious scholarly work dealing exclusively with De Leon’s ideas has been published. It reminded me of the absence of serious scholarly works on the great English Marxist, William Morris, which had at one time been a feature of British socialist historiography. It was clear to me from the outset that De Leon was a figure of major intellectual importance in the history of American socialist thought, and it was just no good for his life and ideas to be left to the realm of superficial caricature. As I embarked upon a study of De Leon’s writings and speeches it became obvious that I was considering a substantial political theorist, an evaluation of whom should not be clouded by tedious psychological investigations or other long-obsolete sectarian squabbles. In the time that I have written this book I have come to conclude that most of the original attacks upon De Leon were motivated by the fact that he would not abandon his principles in order to court the kind of popularity socialist often attract when they stop being socialists. The secondary critics of De Leon have too often been inclined simply to regurgitate the prejudices of those who wrote before them without comprehending the political context of such prejudices. I must plead guilty to an absence of biographical interest in the deeper qualities or defects of De Leon’s personality, nor would I  expect others to evaluate the political ideas of a Marx, a Mill or a Morris on the basis of criteria which are best left to computer dating agencies. In so far as De Leon’s character influenced his effect as a political thinker and activist such matters are considered in the following pages. It is my hope that readers will be motivated by this account of De Leon’s life to turn next to his many very readable and easily available writings, in which are to be found some of the soundest and most straightforward Marxist thinking between the years 1890 and 1914. The account which follows is intended to clarify the context and meaning of such writings as well as to raise a number of criticisms which the openminded reader will want to consider.


I acknowledge with gratitude the contributions to the production of this book of several people. Melvin Harris, whose profound intellectual generosity has been an inspiration to me, allowed me free access to his unique collection of material by and on De Leon; furthermore, the discussions I had with him and the suggestions I received helped me immensely to understand some of the important themes examined in this book. Frank Girard entertained me while I was researching in the USA, offered me the benefit of his years of scholarly and committed reflection upon De Leon’s contribution to the socialist movement, and (together with Ben Perry, with whom he is writing what promises to be an excellent history of the Socialist Labor Party) gave me insights into the De Leonist tradition which I could not have obtained otherwise. Adam Buick has encouraged and, sometimes, directed my research, especially into De Leon’s conception of socialism. Clifford Slapper’s very useful comments on the text and consistently intelligent suggestions of ways to improve both the stylistic and political quality of this book are much appreciated. I have received useful information from Edmund Grant, Ronald A. Sims, John O’Neil, Louis Lazarus and a number of others in the USA who did not know me personally but who heard that I was writing about De Leon and were kind enough to send me literature by, or about, him. In expressing my sincere thanks to these people, I must make clear that I take responsibility for any errors of fact or fault of interpretation which may have found their way into the text. I would also like to thanks Sally McCann for her diligent and very helpful work in copy-editing this book. Above all, I dedicate this book to my father, who first taught me about the importance of history and the vision of socialism, which, when combined, can change the world; without his support over many years this book could never have been written


Stephen Coleman


An American Marxist (1990)



Book Review from the May 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard



The contribution to socialist thought of Daniel De Leon has been neglected over the years. Most labour historians have mentioned him only in passing, usually in scorn and often inaccurately. Stephen Coleman’s book, in Manchester University Press’s “Lives of the Left” series, rectifies the situation. But who was De Leon?


By 1886 Venezuelan-born Daniel De Leon was 34 and living in the Hispanic quarter of New York. An ordinary family man, his main concern was to achieve secure employment as a university law lecturer. However, he was soon to come into conflict with the status quo and leave university life for good. He immersed himself in the radical movements of his day, finally emerging as a Marxian socialist in 1890. He joined the American Socialist Labour Party (SLP) which he was to dominate, transform and remain in for the rest of his life. He stood for socialism and nothing but, and his distinct brand of Marxism and party organisation is still extant today.


De Leon’s major concern, states Coleman, was “to apply the orthodox position of Marx to the industrial conditions of his own time, and to simplify its reasoning and conclusions”. He goes so far as to include him in the tradition of popularising socialist ideas of William Morris and Robert Tressell and to write that it would be hard to name any other source of Marxian education in the USA. De Leonist bodies also emerged in Canada and Australia.


In Britain De Leon’s works were a major influence on the revolutionary minority which left the Social Democratic Federation in 1903-4. This minority formed the British Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Coleman quotes Jack Fitzgerald, a founder member of the SPGB, who thought the American SLP’s journal The People “the best socialist journal published in English”.


De Leon’s standards were rigorous, and Coleman makes it clear that he imposed them on the SLP. For a start, membership of the party was not automatic. Applicants had to demonstrate an understanding of SLP principles before joining. Neither were waverers tolerated for long. That unity was not to be had at any price is demonstrated by the party split of 1899, when a halving of the membership was regarded by the remaining members as a gain in the party’s strength. James Connolly was one of the more notable waverers to be ousted. Now more famed for his Irish nationalism than his socialism, he left the SLP fold with De Leon accusing him of introducing racial (national) and religious questions into party tactics and organisation.


De Leon’s influence was such that principles would not be exchanged for a “broad-church” numbers-game. It was this principled stand for socialism and nothing but that influenced those who found the Socialist Party of Great Britain. But this is as far as it goes. There is another aspect of De Leonism that Coleman could have more clearly distinguished from this political influence: socialist industrial unionism.


“Socialists tend to die frustrated or deluded: frustrated that human emancipation has not been achieved, or deluded that it has”. Such is the socialist’s lot according to Coleman. But perhaps De Leon’s life shows that frustration and delusion need not be mutually exclusive. There is no doubt that De Leon’s political life was a model of socialist commitment and principle. The frustrating fact was that workers continued to be, in Coleman’s words, “a recalcitrant force”, persistently denying ballot success to the SLP. And though Coleman emphasises that De Leon was never deluded into thinking that socialism had been achieved, it could be argued that he held illusions about how it could be achieved – illusions born of frustration.


By 1905 De Leon was rejecting the notion of a solely political transformation of society. He asserted the need for an economic wing to the socialist movement and put forward a three-stage theory of revolution: socialists winning the battle of ideas, victory at the ballot-box, and socialist industrial unions supplying the economic might to enforce electoral victory and workers’ power. He also ventured a view of future socialist society that would be an industrial unionist administration. To this end he was a major influence on the formation of two industrial unions: the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance and then the Industrial Workers of the World – both ultimately to fail.


Socialist unions were never to be the short-cut to a mass class-conscious movement that De Leon might have hoped for. How could they be when, unlike the political wing, an understanding of basic socialist principles was not a condition of membership? Coleman argues that De Leon was not wrong to condemn “pure and simple” trade unions. “His mistake was to attach too much importance to leadership, assuming that dishonest leaders imposed themselves on unwilling union memberships”. The fact is that these leaders had the support of the workers “and this would not be changed by retreat into socialist-run unions, but by hard and sustained persuasion of those who accepted the union status-quo”. In Britain industrial unionism was taken up with enthusiasm by the SLP and even by a short-lived minority in the early SPGB.


Coleman is quick to point out that De Leon’s post-revolutionary plan, to replace a political state that would “wither away” with a work-based industrial administration, had its unsolved problems. What about those who do not work? For example, the retired, disabled and those in full-time education. Neither, Coleman states, were De Leon’s views on socialism in one country nor his plans for a post-revolution labour-voucher system what one might expect from a consistent socialist. What about free access?


These were certainly lapses. But De Leon was a product of his times. Coleman claims that his industrial administration theory was borrowed from Edward Bellamy’s utopian work Looking Backward and of course even Marx came up with a labour-voucher scheme in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. In final mitigation, Coleman points out that De Leon was unable to spend time working out an entirely coherent conception of socialism because he was too busy recruiting socialists.


Although Coleman can hardly suppress a glowing respect for this giant amongst pioneer socialists, his is not an uncritical account of De Leon’s life and ideas. De Leon’s failings as a revolutionary socialist are openly and clearly brought out and, in many respects, account for the greater part of Coleman’s work.


Indeed this book, apart from its biographical content, should achieve the status of a handbook to the do’s and don’ts of socialist strategy. As well as being a well-researched scholarly work, it is accessible and eminently readable. It only remains to add that a cheaper, paper-back version will be published later.





Refugees are welcome

  



The population of USA
 grew at the slowest rate in the U.S. in 2021 since the country’s founding. 

Reduced refugee and immigration intake have much to do with it. We need more refugees, not less. 

The Biden administration set the limit to 125,000 refugees a year, the actual intake was fewer than 26,000 refugees. 

Although refugees contribute a range of skills and diverse experiences to their host countries there are many misperceptions and a lack of understanding about the refugees. 

Refugees go through more scrutiny, contribute substantially to the U.S. economy. There seems to be a lack of awareness and education in the U.S. about the level of scrutiny refugees go through compared to other immigrants.  Refugees must go through a rigorous background and medical checkup as well as obtain security clearance. The U.S. security process involves several agencies including the State Department and Homeland Security. The entire process can take upwards of two years.  and are more committed than any other immigrants to make America their home. 

A common misbelief is that Western countries host the majority of refugees. This is not surprising, given that much of the news and media coverage focuses on refugees flooding into Europe and the perceived ongoing immigration crisis at the US southern border. It is a lesser-known fact that approximately 83 percent of refugees are hosted by low and middle-income countries and 72 percent live in neighboring countries. Currently, Turkey hosts the highest number of refugees. 

In the USA support is only provided for a three-month period, after which refugees have to navigate the system on their own. Comparatively, the US spends less time and money on refugee resettlement than other countries like Canada (where refugees receive a full year of support).

While they do receive initial financial assistance, in subsequent years, refugees contribute $20.9 billion in taxes in 2015 alone and display more entrepreneurship than any other immigrant group. A recent study found that a 10% reduction in refugee intake relative to 2019 cost the US economy upwards of 1.4 billion dollars.

Opinion | Common Misperceptions About Refugees | Dr. Jyotika Saksena (commondreams.org)

Shortage of Cholera Vaccine

Various politicians are still busy promoting themselves with praise for the speed of the Covid-19 vaccine development and distribution, despite the failure to supply low-income nations with vaccines.

There is, however, silence as another health crisis arises. 

A “dire shortage” of cholera vaccines now exists in the middle of an unprecedented rise in global cases. Twenty-nine countries have reported cholera cases this year – including Haiti, Malawi and Syria, which are facing large-scale outbreaks. Lebanon has warned that a deadly cholera outbreak is “spreading rapidly”. 

Worldwide, the disease affects between 1.3 million and four million people each year, killing between 21,000 and 143,000.

Health officials believe the true number to be higher given some countries’ reluctance to be associated with the heavily stigmatised “disease of the poor”. The WHO also said it is particularly concerned about the fatality rate, which this year was almost three times the rate of the past five years.

 It has forced health officials to halve the number of doses given to people in outbreak hotspots, the World Health Organization has said. The “exceptional decision” to reduce the number of doses from two to one would allow for the vaccines to be eked out until the end of the year and given to more people in more countries. The International Coordinating Group (ICG), the body that manages emergency stocks of vaccines, had taken the decision because of the “extremely limited” supply, the WHO said in a statement, reiterating previous calls for “urgent action” to boost global vaccine production.

Mike Ryan, the executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme, said the decision marked “a sad day”.

“We shouldn’t have to do it,” Ryan said. “And it is purely based on the availability globally of vaccines.”

“As vaccine manufacturers are producing at their maximum current capacity, there is no short-term solution to increase production,” the WHO said. “The temporary suspension of the two-dose strategy will allow the remaining doses to be redirected for any needs for the rest of the year.”

The director general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said, “Rationing must only be a temporary solution. In the long term, we need a plan to scale up vaccine production as part of a holistic strategy to prevent and stop cholera outbreaks.”

WHO forced to ration vaccine as cholera cases surge worldwide | Global development | The Guardian