Google, Facebook and Microsoft should be paying more corporation tax in developing nations, says ActionAid. The aid charity estimates that poorer countries are missing out on up to $2.8bn (£2.2bn) in tax revenue.

The aid charity said its research showed that the developing nations with the highest “tax gaps” from Google, Facebook and Microsoft are India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and Bangladesh.

 $2.8bn could pay for 729,010 nurses, 770,649 midwives or 879,899 primary school teachers annually in 20 countries across Africa, Asia and South America.

The crisis of Democratic Party liberalism also means that there will be a growing polarization, with some Democrats moving to the right, but others being pushed more left–ward. Today the conservative trend has the upper hand, and this is likely to continue. But the lies and tricks of the Democratic Party leadership are no longer convincing to a growing number of workers. Large sections of the working class no longer believe in the so-called “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

The Democratic Party promise the voters everything. The Republican Party offer a do-nothing reactionary incumbent President and a TV reality show buffoon turned politician who openly campaigns on an authoritarian neo- fascist program, a double-dealing Wall Street pawn or a narcissist aspiring monarch. no wonder that little enthusiasm is being displayed for the up-coming elections by many.

While the great mass of people may distrust and dislike the candidates, and hate and fear the government that rules over them, the fact remains that the majority of people do not know of any other way to solve their social problems other than by leaders. It is in order to educate the working class in its own strength, in the justice and decency of its struggle, in the necessity of socialism that the World Socialist Party of the United States exists.  Socialists must run for office and participate in election campaigns. It is through such efforts that the basic corruptness of capitalism is shown to the working class. Using the forum of elections and political activity provides the working class with a rallying point – the hatred for capitalism finds a voice in the revolutionary socialist party.  Every action of the ruling class must be held up for exposure.

Biden gets up and says, ’Trump is corrupt. He’s tainted with Russiagate, he doesn’t care about the people who are unemployed, he doesn’t care if people are dying from the pandemic. He’s just going to let things go that way if it’s needed to help big business.’ And Biden is right.

Trump then gets up and says, ’Joe Biden is a liar. He’s not going to create more jobs. All of his programs like the Green New Deal can’t even be paid for. Its’s fake news and he is a fraud.’ And Trump is right.

Because either one of their programs is only going to continue this system. That’s the nature of the whole set–up.

How can you represent capitalists and working-people at the same time?  How can you speak for the slave–master and the slaves at the same time?  Right there is how you know that they’re liars. Anybody that gets up and says that they represent the slave–master and the slave at the same time is deceiving us. The World Socialist Party doesn’t talk about representing the slave–owner class. We represent the slaves and that’s all there is to it. And we’re determined that we aren’t going to be slaves no more. We refuse to give our our slave–masters to the stamp of approval to keep us enslaved by voting for them. The liberal media come along and say, ’You’re going to have one of them anyway so you might as well vote for the kinder master because, even though neither one of them is any good, you’re going to have one of them anyway so pick the least awful.

What they’re really telling us is, ’You’re going to have exploitation anyway, have oppression anyway, you’re going to be robbed and attacked and cheated and see your kids go hungry, see health care cut back, you’re going to have all that anyway no matter who is elected.’

And they’re telling the truth even though they’re trying to tell a lie. We should learn from that truth. What they’re saying is that as long as we have capitalism we will have exploitation and oppression anyway so you might as well vote for it because the real candidate is not Trump or Biden, the real candidate is their actual system of wage slavery that we’re being asked to vote for.

Capitalism cannot provide the minimum needs of the people. Regardless of, whether its Biden’s New Dealism or Trumps right-wing conservatism, American capitalism presents to the working class and the people as a whole only the prospect of continual crises, precarious employment, insecurity, and declining living standards. Our fellow-workers, increasingly conscious of the depths of the crises, will strive instinctively for a way out. They have demonstrated, time and time again, their willingness to struggle, their desire for independent class action. We can say with some certainty that the working class will brush aside phoney mis–leaders and move to great independent class action. The workers are foolishly supporting the capitalist class in wielding political power against them, for the workers still follow the boss parties.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth. They are both political parties of the capitalist class, of the ruling class, of the boss class

 Data shows millionaires and billionaires own 79% of America’s wealth. Figures from the Federal Reserve show the poorest half of the country having almost no meaningful share of the national wealth.

 Nations must work in a spirit of cooperation rather than selfishness in the fight against coronavirus, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stressed. 

In Steinmeier’s message against “vaccine nationalism”, he explained, “No-one is safe from COVID-19; no-one is safe until we are all safe from it. Even those who conquer the virus within their own borders remain prisoners within these borders until it is conquered everywhere.” The president continued, “If we don’t want to live in a world after the pandemic in which the principle ‘Everyone against each other and everyone for themselves’ gains even more ground then we need the enlightened reason of our societies and our governments.” 

Steinmeier said the rapid spread of the virus had resulted in an enormous worldwide mobilization of resources and a growing spirit of ingenuity. However, he said the trend of nations reserving large quantities of vaccines for their populations could prove unhelpful.

“COVID-19 challenges us all. The virus knows no borders. It is indifferent to the nationality of its victims. It will continue to overcome every barrier in the future if we do not confront it together. In the face of the virus, we are undoubtedly a global community. But the crucial question is: are we able to act as such?”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated, “Developed countries must support health systems in countries that are short of resources.”

Head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghenreyesus said the only way to recover from the pandemic was by making sure poorer countries had fair access to a vaccine. He also tweeted his support for Steinmeier’s message.

“I hope the world hears President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s call for global solidarity to end the COVID-19 pandemic,” the WHO chief wrote.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germany-warns-against-vaccine-nationalism/a-55393690

 And here’s the last batch of recordings from September –

FAQ Socialism and Morality – Paddy Shannon, 16th September 2020

Does religion matter to socialists pt.1 – Howard Moss, 18th September 2020

Does religion matter to socialists pt.2

Socialism and Art pt.1 – Carla Dee, 25th September 2020

Socialism and Art pt.2

FAQ Desert-island books for socialists – Paddy Shannon, 30th September 2020

Our revolution has not yet been made. Unfortunately, a large socialist party remains more a long range aspiration than an immediate realistic possibility. The absence of a viable socialist movement in the U.S. today is an indisputable and depressing fact. For all the weakness of the socialist movement, an administration run by the corrupt Republican Party and a White House staffed by Trump and Pence, what could be more utopian and absurd as even a beginning of a solution to America’s problems. By comparison, socialists are eminently practical and realistic men and women.

The truth is that the ailment afflicting America is not the president who leads it but is capitalism, and the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats will complain of symptoms, while the Republicans outright deny they are sick. Neither can provide the cure. Most of the major problems with America, and the world, can be traced back to capitalism, an economic system in which a society’s means of production are primarily controlled by private individuals hoping to make a profit. It is a system that has devastated our planet, created massive income inequality and left us unprepared for crises such as the coronavirus pandemic. The problem with capitalism is that it is built on the need for private enterprises to make money, no matter what. Wealthy Democrats and Republicans cross party-lines with their financing. their campaigns. It is standard practice for corporations to donate to both parties and both candidates. These corporate lobbyist funds are not really contributions. They are investments or bribes with an expected return of access to shape policy. It is a corrupt electoral system that closes down choices, obliges citizens to vote against their conscience and allows money to control people

There have been many attempts before in the United States towards a break-up of the two party system yet none have not been successful. The American presidential elections have once again rendered proof of the paradox of a politically backward working class in a highly developed industrial country. People are taught not to vote FOR what they believe but AGAINST an individual.  An unpopular policy once identified with an individual can be continued by replacing the individual, keeping the policy with modifications.

Nevertheless it would be incorrect to conclude that there are not any tendencies of a left–wing drift of the American workers. No one could fail to notice the enormous discontentment as revealed by the elections, and revealed clearly also in the recent protest movement and demonstrations. Yet they are still harnessed within the usual traditional channels, flowing from one capitalist party to another. There will be a few workers who are urging their fellow-workers to abstain from voting for any candidates whatsoever. Their slogan is the slogan of the World Socialist Party of the United States (WSPUS) in this campaign: BOYCOTT THE ELECTIONS! A party that promises you that a new president or a new term will bring solutions to your problems is deceiving you. The World Socialist Party must push aside all secondary and reformist distinctions, and pose directly the central issue: the class struggle for for socialism. Our success in an election campaign is not to be measured in votes or offices won, but in the extent and the depth to which they have succeeded in bringing the central issue before the attention of our fellow-workers.

Unlike  the platforms, programs, and agitation of the other political parties the WSPUS remain consistent in our case for socialism. Demagogy means the adaptation of policy and propaganda to the prejudices of the audience to which it is hoped to appeal, without regard to the truth or correctness or workability of the given policy and propaganda. Demagogy is thus the exploitation of ignorance. It is in direct contrast to principled politics, which always tells the truth both about what is at present, what will probably be, and about what it proposes as solution. Principled politics, thus, instead of exploiting, combats ignorance; instead of pandering to prejudices and building on them, is the practice of the WSPUS. The demagogy of the other parties is not accidental. All their promises of betterment, of peace, prosperity and security, are necessarily demagogic since none of these is  possible under capitalism. That is why only a program of revolutionary struggle AGAINST capitalism can be anything other than demagogy. Each party in its different way presents a program which revolves within the orbit of capitalism, which presupposes the continued existence of capitalism. It follows there from that each of these parties is basically dedicated, however indirectly, to the maintenance and defense of capitalism. They differ profoundly, it is true, in the ways and means they propose; in their social composition; in the manner and direction of the “appeal” which they make. But these differences drop to insignificance before this basic similarity.

The Republican Party appears, on the whole, in this campaign as the party of open, traditional reaction. Its leaders make clear that what the Republicans propose is a return to the good old Reagan days. The future of capitalism and profits, they would like to believe, lies in real Americanism, in rugged individualism, competition, no government “interference” in business, no compromise with labor. They want to pursue increased profits in their own unhampered way.

The Democratic party differs – in words at any rate. Equally devoted to the preservation of capitalism and the fullest possible capitalist prosperity (i.e., profits), the Democratic politicians believe that the methods of reaction is no longer appropriate to protect profits or to keep the people in order. They advocate an “enlightened” capitalism, tempering harsh exploitation with fine phrases about human rights and public duty, with the aim to pacify people with promises, while oiling the wheels of capitalism. Through such means the Democrats have indeed won the temporary allegiance of a substantial majority of working people. 

“Progressive Biden or reaction Trump” chorus the liberal media. The difference between Trump and Biden is not between what is reactionary and progressive: they BOTH are unequivocal representatives of the reactionary capitalist class, both sworn to uphold the present social order; they differ only in their versions of the most effective means for guaranteeing success. For the worker, the choice between them is, at the most, no more important than the choice between the assembly line at Ford’s or at Chrysler’s.

All the specious talk that the “main issue” in the campaign is the “judicial tyranny” of the Supreme Court or the “encroachments of the Federal government” or any of a thousand others are entirely subordinate to the basic CLASS issue, to the issue of capitalism versus socialism. It is not the Federal government or the Supreme Court which are the particular enemies, but capitalism as a whole and its entire state apparatus.

  As of October 1, about 7000 protests had occurred this year (roughly 25 a day), according to the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflicts.

Unlike before, these protests have by and large not taken place in right-wing opposition strongholds nor necessarily demanded the removal of President Nicolas Maduro.

Instead, they have focused on demands around access to basic services — electricity, domestic gas, water — and occurred in areas that traditionally voted for former socialist president Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s predecessor. Differing from the “protests of the rich” of past years, Unitary Chavista Socialist League (LUCHAS) spokesperson Stalin Pérez Borges told Green Left Venezuela is witnessing a rise in “protests of the poor, driven by the difficult situation people face.” Their targets, in most cases, have been officials aligned with Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

United Left general coordinator Feliz Velasquez agrees. These protests were “very different from the protests we had in Venezuela in 2014 or 2017, which were violent protests seeking to bring down the government.

“Today, what we have are largely peaceful protests by popular sectors, organised sectors, including in some cases entire small communities, that, faced with the crisis affecting basic services, have decided to protest.”

Neglected for decades by traditional parties, Venezuela’s countryside became — alongside the barrios — Chávez’s strongest base of support. Life there was radically transformed under Chávez pro-poor Bolivarian revolution through the rapid expansion of education, healthcare and basic services. Important initiatives in promoting cooperatives, communes and community-owned productive enterprises also took root. However, eight years after his death, it is here where the reversals of the revolution have been felt the most.  In regional towns, residents can often go days without basic services. Fed up with this situation, popular movements are taking to the streets.

Along with basic services, there is also the issue of workers’ wages. September registered a daily average of nine protests or strikes demanding better wages. Hyperinflation, another weapon alongside sanctions in the economic war against Venezuela, has meant workers’ wages have plummeted, leaving most essential goods out of reach for the majority.

“Right now, Venezuela has the lowest wages in the world,” Velasquez said. “A teacher, a professional, a university academic does not earn more than $2-3 a month, which of course creates a lot of hardship when a kilo of rice can cost $1.”

Velazquez — whose organisation is part of an alliance of left parties and movements running candidates against the PSUV in the coming election — believes there has been a shift in the government’s approach between Chávez and Maduro. “Chávez always sought consultation, debate. He always asked people to present proposals for overcoming problems and was willing to correct mistakes, learn together with the people.

“The style of government we have now is very different”, he said. The Maduro government has an “aristocratic vision of doing politics, where the government thinks they are the owners of the truth, that they are a government of the best, for the rest.”

“This vision of politics has led them to discredit the views and opinions of other political movements, to ignore peoples’ needs and demands.”

From

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-could-rebellion-ranks-signal-end-maduro

Purdue Pharma, the company that makes OxyContin and other potentially addictive prescription opioids, has agreed to plead guilty to three felony counts and reached a settlement potentially worth at least $8.3 billion with the Justice Department. The deal could clear the way for Purdue to transform from a profit-seeking privately held company into a public trust that serves the public good.

Rather than attempting to get profit-making companies to do the right thing, or hoping that a single ethically marketed drug could win out,  the proposed transformation of Purdue would legally require a major pharmaceutical manufacturer to make public health a higher priority than shareholder profits.

This would, at least in theory, serve two important goals.

First, by legally defining the company’s obligations to public health rather than to shareholders, it would eliminate the kinds of abuses that can result from the pursuit of profit such as marketing that encourages unnecessary or improper use.

Second, by providing addiction treatment at no cost, it would increase access to health care to the sorts of patients – addicted, poor and lacking adequate health insurance – typically ill served or even ignored in today’s system.

But by all accounts, the new trust would still be a for-profit entity. 

Indeed, profits from continued sales of pain medicines like OxyContin and addiction treatment medications like buprenorphine and naloxone – estimated by Purdue to be up to $8 billion per year – are crucial as the “payment” Purdue is offering to compensate the public for the company’s share of the costs of the opioid crisis.

 In the Purdue settlement, it would have to pursue profits just like the old Purdue. And since all pharmaceutical companies officially declare themselves to be dedicated to serving the public good, how different would it really be? The new trust would still be Purdue Pharma, a company with a well-entrenched culture of maximizing sales and profits.

History does not offer much assurance that isolated public-sector and nonprofit drug-makers can make a big difference in a pharmaceutical system designed for and powered by profit.

https://theconversation.com/oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-may-settle-legal-claims-with-a-new-public-trust-that-would-still-be-dedicated-to-profit-148604

 Marginalised ethnic minority groups in conflict-plagued regions of Myanmar, will be excluded in their homelands from the vote in next month’s national elections.

 Nearly two million people will now be disenfranchised by the election commission which has announced a long list of constituencies where voting will not take place. 

More than a million voters will be disenfranchised in Rakhine alone as well as hundreds of thousands in other states across the country — notably in Shan, Kachin and Karen.

The election commission is wholly appointed by the government.

The commission is “blatantly denying minorities representation”, said Kyaw Win of Burma Human Rights Network.

 Following the abolition of slavery in 1888, Brazilian authorities refused to implement any kind of public policy to integrate Black people into society. Instead, over the course of the 20th century, they carefully constructed a narrative in which Brazil is cast as a rare haven where people of all races are able to live in harmony. 

As a result, despite Black and mixed-race Brazilians suffering the worst of police violence, having limited access to education, making up some 64 percent of the unemployed, having limited representation in prominent decision-making bodies, and being almost three times as likely to be victims of homicide, most of the Brazilian population remained convinced there is effectively no racism in their country.

 That there is now a higher number of Black candidates contesting the elections and that the political parties are obligated to spend some money on their campaigns does not necessarily mean the upcoming municipal elections are going to lead to more diversity, let alone racial justice.

While the total number of Black and mixed-race candidates is now higher than the total number of white candidates when it comes to mayoral elections – the position that holds the most power – white people still dominate the lists. Indeed, of the 19,100 people who registered to run for mayor in the upcoming election, only 35 percent are Black – this in a country where 56.2 percent of the general population identify as Black.

The high number of Black city council candidates do not guarantee more racially diverse city councils either. In the Brazilian electoral system, not only the votes received by an individual candidate but also the total number of votes received by all of a political party’s registered candidates influence the outcome of an election. So it is possible for a popular candidate to fail to be elected solely due to the overall poor performance of his or her party. Knowing this, Brazilian parties often register a high number of candidates for each contested seat, just to gain a few more votes that can prove decisive in a tight election. Because of this, many fear that Black candidates running for a position in the municipal elections will only help their party’s strongest candidates (many of whom are white) to get elected, but fail to gain a seat themselves.

A Supreme Court’s decision in August obliges political parties to spend a proportional percentage of the public money they receive on the campaigns of their Black candidates, it does not instruct them to divide that money equally between these candidates. This means a party with 30 percent Black candidates can lawfully spend 30 percent of the public funds it receives on a single Black candidate’s campaign, and completely ignore the rest. This would result in a few strong Black candidates gaining office, with the overall racial makeup of councils across the country not changing significantly.

 There is one issue that categorically demonstrates that racial justice is not yet within the grasp of Brazilians. A significant percentage of the “Black” candidates running for a seat in the municipal elections, many of whom are already holding office or well-known public figures, only publicly acknowledged their Blackness in the run-up to this election. According to a survey of the 107 “Black” candidates running for the mayorship of a Brazilian state capital in the 2020 elections, 23 had claimed to be white in a previous election. If the candidates who changed their race in the run-up to the election were to be counted as white, the percentage of Black Brazilians running for a mayorship this year would decline to 26.4 percent. The percentage of white mayoral candidates, meanwhile, would jump to 73 percent.

 The introduction of women’s quotas failed to significantly increase the number of women in elected office in Brazil. There is little reason to believe the cosmetic increase in the number of Black candidates in this year’s municipal election or the Supreme Court’s recent decision to force political parties to give some Black candidates more public funds would yield more successful results.

There is no guarantee candidates who declared themselves to be Black in the run-up to the election would be willing to contribute to the fight against racism, sexism and other injustices once they are in office. In the far-right government of Jair Bolsonaro, for example, the Minister of Human Rights, Damares Alves, is a woman, but she does not consider herself a feminist and opposes women’s right to abortion. Sergio Camargo, the Black president of the Palmares Foundation, a government-funded institute tasked with promoting and protecting Afro-Brazilian culture, meanwhile, denies the existence of racism in Brazil and has described Black rights activists as “damned scum”.

 The Brazilian far right has learned how to use the diversity discourse of the left to its electoral advantage. Being forced to acknowledge the issue of race that it for decades chose to completely ignore, it is now finding ways to manipulate the public thirst for racial justice to further its own conservative and destructive agendas.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/10/22/diversity-in-brazil-is-still-just-an-illusion/