Showing posts with label Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Power. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

American Coup D'etat Parts 1 and 2 ~~ Chris Hedges and David Kucinich

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cacJawinmFU

https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/531779-dennis-kucinich-on-contact-part-two/

~~ posted for dmorista with introduction written by dmorista ~~

Dennis Kucinich is as good of an elected official as it is possible to put into any position of political power in the U.S. He did manage to protect a city owned electrical generating system from an attempted Corporate Takeover in Cleveland, Ohio, in the late 1970s. He discusses what happened as part of that struggle with Chris Hedges in this two part interview. In the last 5 minutes of Part 2, he and Hedges compare the events around that fight with the events that led to the Coup d'etat against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. There were a couple of attempts to kill Kucinich and other threats against him as a result of the attempted power company takeover that he thwarted. The video of Part 2 includes a photo of Kucinich in a bullet proof vest on the mound at Municipal Stadium ready to throw the “ceremonial first pitch” at a Cleveland Indians opening game, that is also in the last 5 minutes of Part 2. His security detail included several sharpshooters posted around the stadium to shoot any assassination operatives who tried to kill Kucinich. The corporate forces also fomented some strikes, including a police strike and a garbage collection strike, against Kucinich and drove Cleveland into a limited default of its finances. They mounted a full-press attack against Kucinich and defeated his re-election campaign. Kucinich then ran for the U.S. House of Representatives and was an 8-term Congressman from the district centered on Cleveland, from 1997 – 2013. The Democratic Party cooperated with the Republicans in Gerrymandering Kucinich's district to eliminate him, an exercise made easier by the loss of one seat in the House as a result of the 2010 Census results. He and Marcy Kaptur (who had represented the Toledo, Ohio area for years) ended up running against each other in the Democratic Party Primary for the House Seat, Kaptur won. Kucinich is once again a candidate for Mayor in Cleveland, Ohio and he is leading in the polls for that race.

Kucinich was not a perfect politician, but he stands out head and shoulders above the typical bribed and intimidated figures who make up the great majority of elected officials. The Left has a habit of severely criticizing and even sneering at even honest and sincere reformist political figures. It is easy to forget that many honest reformist politicians, along with honest grass roots leaders, have been killed by various elements of the U.S. ruling class over recent decades. The forces of darkness can discern a real difference between the sorts of politicians they like to work with and honest reformers they prefer to remove from the scene one way or another. Of course John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy come to mind here, along with senators Paul Wellstone (who was preparing to run for President), Mel Carnahan, and Hale Boggs, owner of George Magazine and son of slain President JFK, John F. Kennedy Jr., and President of the UAW Walter Reuther; all 5 of these people died in questionable “mysterious plane crashes” (the CIA's long time favorite method of eliminating opposition figures). To these we must add Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton all variants of grass-roots African-American political leaders, and ones who had moved from solely organizing African-Americans to working with working class and middle class Whites as well. All three of them were gunned down.  Maybe the cover of a private plane crash was not thought to be necessary for MLK; and probably Malcolm X and certainly Fred Hampton did not fly around in private planes.

The next layer down in intensity are the smears and threats of prosecution and imprisonment that are used against reformers. John Edwards, the Senator from North Carolina and Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate in 2004; was an extremely smart working class kid who made a small fortune successfully representing people harmed by corporate malfeasance in the courts. He urged John Kerry to fight against the blatant election fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election. Edwards was successfully smeared for marital infidelity, and removed from the primary campaign to be the Democratic Party's 2008 Presidential candidate. Of course Sarah Palin was carrying on an extra-marital affair with her campaign manager at the same time, but the corporate controlled media didn't utter a peep about it as the extremely right-wing Palin was potentially very useful to the ruling class. Elliot Spitzer, who had worked as New York State Attorney General from 1998 – 2006, became the Governor of New York in 2007. Spitzer understood the financial machinations and swindles of Wall Street better than any other elected public official. He was getting ready to expose the inner workings of the swindles and other excesses of Finance Capital that led to the 2007 – 2008 economic crisis when he was taken down by a “sex scandal” involving high dollar prostitutes. Al Franken was driven from his post as Senator from Minnesota by sexual harrasment charges for which the leading accuser was an operative closely associated with Sean Hannity at Fox News. We have to learn to discern the difference between the honest reformers and the run-of-the-mill bought (or rented) political figures that populate our government. The ruling class can figure out the difference, and they ruthlessly and constantly act on that knowledge.

Standing out from these tawdry events are Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. They are both solid people who could not be set up by “honey pot” sex scandals or financial bribery operations. The corporations and ruling class tried a great number of such operations against Ralph Nader, he was just too honest and upright of a person to fall for the various schemes. Kucinich is in a class with Nader, he cannot be corrupted by the machinations of the ruling class. And he was smart enough to avoid being shot in one of a few assassination plots. Though one time a bullet passed within inches of his head.

I wish to apologize to Leftist Politics readers for the fact that there is only a written transcript for Part 2, and none for Part 1. I learned something in recommending these two parts of the interview for posting, here at Leftist PoliticsRT provides a transcript while the video is still at their website. After they “archive it by posting a YouTube of the video the transcript is no longer available as far as I could determine. So the only way to get access to Part 1 is to watch the video.   ~~dmorista

======================

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cacJawinmFU

======================

Part 2

On the show this week, the second of a two-part interview, Chris Hedges discusses the American coup d’état with former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich served as a US representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, losing his seat after the state Democratic Party machine redrew Ohio’s 10th Congressional district, a redistricting designed expressly to oust him, although he is a Democrat, from his seat, which is what happened. He was also the 53rd mayor of Cleveland. As mayor he took on the entrenched power of the big banks and business interests, along with the mob, which controlled City Hall. His anti-corruption campaign included battling back against the efforts to privatize the city’s municipal electric utility, a scheme that would have jacked up utility rates for the city’s residents and netted millions in profits for the banks and the privately owned Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. His fearless confrontation with these entrenched centers of power, largely hidden in the shadows, swiftly saw these monied interests mount a vicious assault against him, which included a relentless smear campaign, amplified by a press that obsequiously catered to the interests of its big advertisers, and led to a recall vote, forcing the city into default and even assassination attempts. He was defeated in the next election. In December 2020, Kucinich filed paperwork to run in the 2021 Cleveland mayoral election, where he is currently leading in the polls.

Kucinich's new book, The Division of Light and Power, looks back on his tenure as mayor and his confrontation with corporate power that today holds most cities and the country hostage.

YouTube channel: On Contact

Follow us on Facebook: Facebook.com/OnContactRT

Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/on-contact-1

Chris Hedges: Welcome to On Contact, and part two of our discussion with Dennis Kucinich about the corporate coup d’etat.

CH: In the second part of our interview with Dennis Kucinich, who served as the Representative from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, losing his seat after the State Democratic Party Machine redrew Ohio’s 10th Congressional District.  And he was also the 53rd Mayor of Cleveland.  We look at how corporate power unites to destroy politicians who refuse to do its bidding.  Kucinich is at a corruption campaign which included battling back against the efforts to privatize the city’s municipal electric utility, and going after the outsized influence of organized crime, led to a vicious smear campaign, amplified by a press that obsequiously catered to the interest of its big advertisers, a recall vote, forcing the city into default, and even assassination attempts.  Kucinich in his new book, “The Division of Light and Power,” looks back on his tenure as mayor, and his confrontation with corporate power that today holds most cities and the country hostage.  So Dennis, last week, we talked--we didn’t get into the campaign, of how they went after you--and we will in this segment, and it’s interesting, when I read the book, as a former war correspondent, I would report on atrocities--I mean massacres that have been carried out by military leaders, and it didn’t--it was dangerous.  But as soon as I reported on how they were making money illicitly by--for instance, selling AID food in the market, then my life was in danger.  And that reminded me very much of your experience.  Before we get into what they did to you, the campaign against you, I want to talk about why they had to destroy the public utility because the profits that they can make by privatizing utilities and all public services are immense.  I think you talk about 45% increases, I mean--but explain why they’re going after these public utilities, and how profitable it is for them.

DK: Well, in CEI’s case, Muny Light was providing power to about a third of the city at 20% cheaper than the private utility.  Why?  It’s so simple, you know, Muny Light did not have to pay high salaries, they didn’t have to provide for dividends, and, you know, that whole system of corporate aggrandizement which is supported by ratepayers, you know.  Muny Light wasn’t involved, and it was just simply providing electricity at the lowest possible cost.  So in Muny Light’s case, if you were to privatize Muny Light, then the rates of all the Muny Light customers in this case, you know, eventually, it’s about 46,000 customers, would automatically, you know, rates are low, they automatically go up to CEI’s level.  Then since there’s no yardstick, CEI can keep raising the rates up and up and up.  Now, in Muny Light’s case, Muny Light provided electricity to 76 city facilities and provided the street lighting.  So what does that mean?  That means, you know, the street--the costs were lower, but then all of a sudden, they’re going to start to go up and up, then there’s no yardstick, and they go up for the city facilities, and for street lighting, which means higher taxes.  So the--you know, we calculated, that as a result of my refusal to sell, we stayed probably about a half a billion dollars, all told, including the value of the utility, plus the ratepayer savings, plus the taxpayer savings.  The kind of money that’s involved in privatization is extraordinary, and one must keep in mind, you know, we’re past this prologue, this book is a warning to what’s going to happen when American Rescue Plan Money runs out and cities are pressured then to privatize their municipal services, and that is coming, there’s a wave of that coming, and that’s why “The Division of Light and Power” assumes even greater importance today because it’s a warning about what can happen.  And as Tom Johnson said, you either own them or they’re going to own you.  And there’s a lot of communities that are going to be under threat.

CH: I want to talk about bond markets, because this becomes one of the cudgels they use to destroy you.  Explain.

DK: Well, you know, Cleveland had attorneys who represented them to various bond markets, and to the rating services.  And the rating services, which, you know, everyone knows that--at least at that time, you could basically--you give a rating service enough money, you’re going to get a good rating, that’s just the way it work, it’s, you know, totally pay to play.  And conversely, if a powerful financial interest makes their own unique case, a rating service can downgrade somebody.  So the city will not have access to credit, we’ll have to pay more for it.  So, you know, this is a game that was played against the interest of the city of Cleveland.  And inevitably, what was the paradox of this is that even after the default, people were buying bonds from Muny Light because they knew it was a good investment, but the city had to pay a higher interest rate.  It’s just that, you know, that was out in the open market, but in the book, I also point out how CEI lobbied to make it--to put a provision in the city’s bond offering to Muny Light to make it impossible to sell the bonds on the open market.  So, you know, this is a game that was played using the financial power of Wall Street against the city.  And the other thing is the credit racket.  You know, bond--in order to get a rating today, you have to have a certain amount of money you set aside.  But what cities are doing right now is they’re setting multiples of money aside, and rates are higher than they should be everywhere.  And so Wall Street has enormous influence on cities today.  And the bond market is structured so as to grab as much you can out of cities, and to force cities to basically be a cash cow, and in a way cities end up backing--in some way, considering that we’re talking about the fungibility of money, cities end up backing the casino on Wall Street, that the solid position of the city ends up backing the Wall Street traders.

CH: Well, and if you don’t play the game, in your case, you didn’t even ask for more money, they just wouldn’t roll over your bond.  I mean, that--roll over your debt.

DK: Well, here’s the thing.  We were trying to get not more--you know, not more credit, we’re trying to just get an extension of existing debt on loans that I hadn’t even taken out.  And keep in mind, the city was said to have had a very high credit rating under the previous administration when all these loans were going out, that they really didn’t know if they could be paid back if they were called.  Well, for those viewers who are out there, imagine, you know, you’re making your house payments, and suddenly you’re told you have to pay the entire balance, they called the note.  The city basically had their notes called?  How did that happen?  Because on December 12th, 1978, the largest bank on the State of Ohio told me that if you sell the electric system to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, which it turns out it was a business partner of the bank, or we, the bank, will not renew the city’s credit on loans that I hadn’t taken out.  So they threaten us with defraud if I didn’t sell Muny Light.  I refuse to sell Muny Light, they put us into default and kept us in default, even though the people of Cleveland passed a tax--the tax themselves to get us out of default, the bank’s committed to being able to--the bank’s committed to removing us from default if the tax passed.  Tax passed, they reneged on their promise, kept us in default until I left office.  This was an example of the weaponizing of credit, and it was, you know, like, being in a banana republic.  They were--they were exercising this power, simply because they could.  And they have no objective reason to.  We had income tax revenue to get us out.  We had property we could sell.  There were so many different areas that we had resources, they wouldn’t take it.  Nothing else was acceptable except the sale of our municipal electric system.  During my term, I operated the city on a cash basis.  We’re the only city in America that was able to do that.  Didn’t borrow a dime, cut city spending 18% without reducing services because of the waste fraud and abuse that existed at city hall.  So, you know, it doesn’t--you could play [INDISTINCT] it doesn’t matter.  These financial concerns will try to strangle a city if you don’t march to their tune.  Well, I didn’t march to their tune, but we still have public power today.

CH: Let’s talk about the school system, because this has real consequences for the children of Cleveland and for children in cities across the United States.

DK: Well, in Cleveland at that time, the city would grant tax abatements and the money would also come from the schools.  And schools, check this out, the schools were on the verge of an insolvency, at the same time, the city council is giving away tax abatements.  And then the banks were threatening the schools while the banks are getting money that should be going to the schools.  This is horrific.  In addition to that, state law was changed in Ohio to tax commercial properties at the same rate as residential, and it’s called the park investment case.  A park investment case enabled commercial and industrial interests to have lower taxes, and residential had to pay more.  So that’s one of the reasons why when school [INDISTINCT] would come forward, they’d be voted down because the property tax burden on homeowners was exceptional.  And so, you know, this whole system has been set up against the interest of the average Clevelander.

CH: Great.  When we come back, we’ll continue our conversation about the corporate assault on public assets and our democracy with Dennis Kucinich.  Welcome back to On Contact, we continue our conversation about the corporate assault on public assets and ultimately, our democracy with Dennis Kucinich.  So just in the last part of this show, Dennis, I want to talk about what they did to you.  We’re--and we’re talking about very serious assassination attempts, firing a high-powered rifle fired into your home, someone throws a Molotov cocktail towards your home, the police and the FBI uncover a plot to assassinate you while you’re in kind of a local parade.  And you’re saved only because you have a bleeding ulcer and have to go to the hospital.  I mean, this--they don’t play games.  When they realize they could not buy you off than they did an--and we’re talking about the mob, certainly, because you went after the gambling and the--all the kind of vices, you have a great line that city fathers hypocritically went on crusades against some types of crime while enabling vice to profit which you didn’t allow to happen.  So, you had the banks, destroying the fiscal solvency.  You had a recall campaign, they orchestrated an election to try and recall you and then it failed.  I mean, it just talked about when they realized they couldn’t buy you off what they did?

DK: Well, you know, I led a campaign as I went from City Council where I discovered what’s going on to Clerk of Courts, which is the second highest elected office.  And when I was clerk, that’s when the city made a move to sell the municipal electric system, even though they knew all of the corruption and--that was being committed against it.  So, they tried to sell it at a cut rate.  I intervened with the campaign.  The minute I started that campaign, high-powered rifle shot, misses my head by a fraction.  And then I found out--I mean, that was before I became mayor.  I was elected mayor on a promise to save the municipal electric system.  And it wasn’t too long into that that I was apprised of the fact that there was a plot against me.  Now, I never said anything about that publicly, Chris during that time.  It was only years afterwards it came out.  A US Senate subcommittee investigation on organized crime in the Midwest determined that there was this mob plot and what was going on, the chief investigator for the city, the head of the intelligence Lieutenant Karasik.  And I write about this in the book.  I asked him, I said, “Why is this happening?”  And he said, “Well, you know, I’m not in politics.  But let me tell you something.  This is about Muny Light.  You’re stopping a lot of people from making some money or you’re stopping people from making a lot of money.  And, you know, so my--our job is to protect you.  I can’t give you political advice.”  So, you know, this.  Yeah, it was about Muny Light, no question about it.  And, yeah, they, you know, these people play for keeps, and it was only through, in my estimation, act of God that I was still alive, because had I been in that parade in October of 1978, according, you know, to the Senate report, you know, there would have been an attempt made and keep in mind, Cleveland, during that period, was considered the bombing capital of America.  The mob was very active, there were competing interests, there was a war going on for control the rackets.  And, you know, we were under pressure at city hall to look the other way.  I wouldn’t do that.  So, you know, this could--we weren’t talking about being back here.  This is a serious business that was going on.  And--so but what the first time the connection is made between a corporate objective and an assassination attempt.

CH: They’re quite successful because the media serves as their echo chamber.  You go out to throw out the first ball and your--you have to wear a bulletproof vest.  Upon the mention of my name, tens of thousands of fans rose as one producing a hearty standing boo.  It rocketed around the stadium, a homerun cheer in reverse.  What did you feel inside at that moment?

DK: I just wanted to throw a strike.  You know, that’s all--I mean really, it’s, like, as I white in the book, focus, focus.  This was a dream for me when I was elected.  I--I’m a kid from the neighborhood of the city.  I’m gonna get to throw out the first pitch at a Cleveland-Indians baseball game.  So, you know, and I mean, and I had the general manager of the Indians, Gabe Paul.  He used to be the head of the Yankees.  He came to me and he said, “You know, I don’t think you should do this.  Not a good idea.”  And I’m thinking, “Well, you know, if you get every time American [00:05:05] political trouble you can throw out the first pitch, you just you know, what do you do?”  Anyhow, I--yeah, walked to the mound--I walked to the mound with a bulletproof vest on.  And I was looking up at the rim of the stadium.  There weren’t--there weren’t pennants there, there were sentinels with sharpshooters, just, you know, readying their aim to protect me.  You know, that was kind of surreal.  But as I’ll let the reader determine how that pitch came out.

CH: So, at the--they’re determined to remove you from office.  The police go on strike, there’s a garbage strike.  The city’s in default.  They control the press.  What’s the difference between what they did to you?  And in a more extreme form, what they did to Allende and Chile.

DK: Oh, well, look.  Yeah, I have people call Allende’s plight to my attention while it was going on.  People were involved in the documentary about it.  You know, he did not get out alive.  You know, I will tell you that.  No question it was a coup attempt in Cleveland.  You know, when you think about destabilizing a government, you know, don’t pay, you know, create police strikes, create garbage strikes.  And all of this was aimed to try and to force me to sell the electric system, there’s just no question about it.  And each time was like a new test.  You know, are you going to sell?  Are you going to sell?  Are you going to sell?  And, no, I--you know, there’s a point in life where you have to figure out who you are and what you stand for.  And if you’re, you know, there--it’s easy to stand for someone [00:07:09] when there’s no consequences.  I knew full well what the consequences would be.  I knew I was looking into an abyss, that my political career was going to be over.  I had no idea I’d ever be able to have another one again.  And you have to remember, I was only 31 years old when I took office as mayor.  I was a youngest mayor in the country.  And, you know, like, there was another 31-year-old officeholder at the time, who was governor of Arkansas.  You know, the point is that not many young people get into positions of power like that, and I was fully aware of what the opportunities were.  But in order to advance, I was basically told the price of my advancement was selling out to people elected me.  And I also thought about--

CH: I was pushed out of the New York Times for denouncing the call to invade Iraq.  It ended my career in mainstream journalism and you say, looking into the abyss, but really, what you were looking into was salvation, wasn’t it?

DK: Well, yeah, I mean, the--as I--when I spoke on a night of default in city council, I used the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and how King Nebuchadnezzar said they had to worship an idol of gold.  And they refused to do it.  And he threw them into the furnace, but they came out whole.  You know, I was not going to worship this idol of gold that have been constructed in the form of an electric system of bank, the city’s establishment you know, I believe there is such a thing as a soul.  And I--to me, when it--the way I grew up, what profit a person if they gain the whole world but lose their soul, I believe that so I can’t be bought, can’t be bossed.  To me, you know, there are some things that are worth fighting for.  And that’s what I did.  And the city has its electric system today.

CH: Towards the end of the book, you quote, Weir, I don’t have his first name.  But he writes…

DK: Brock Weir.

CH: Yeah.  And he says, “This is a war.  They are on one side, you are on the other.”  We’re not talking about recovering $5,000,000.  We’re talking about recovering a city.  When he says we, you have to understand that Cleveland trust not only owns a big share of CEI, they own substantial portions of nearly every major business and Cleveland, corporate Cleveland finance the recall, Cleveland Trust is corporate Cleveland.  It is a war.  And it’s a war we’re losing.  And it’s not just in Cleveland.  Although you did manage heroically to save the public utility just in the last two minutes and you mentioned it earlier with--now, the results of the pandemic and this push by corporations to privatize everything.  Talk about the war we’re facing.

DK: We have to work to maintain democratic governance.  I mean, democracy is an idea, the expression of it and the activation of it is up to those who are elected.  What happens is that when corporations own a public official, the corporations will see government working in our interest.  I point out in the--at the beginning of the book government works.  Question is who is it working for?  And with Citizens United and other impairments of campaign financing, there’s more and more influence that corporations have.  So, what happens?  It’s up to the individuals to take a stand again, you know, and challenge the system.  And I think there will be change coming.  I do think there are more enlightened people who are going into court, you know, into various businesses, who understand that, “Hey, they better pay attention to their own businesses and not think they can run the government at the same time.”  I mean, let’s face it.  Some of these corporate leaders who got involved in Cleveland, their businesses eventually went like this because they lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing.  Now, you know, I’m--I feel that there can be in this room, certainly for working together with business.  But if public officials do not function in the interest of the general public as opposed to function in the interest of major contributors or big corporation, if you can’t do that, you’re going to lose you’re--not just your community, we’ll lose our democracy.  And, you know, there were kind of there have been some ways already.  How do we retrieve it?  Informed citizenry, don’t be afraid to take a stand if you’re running for office.  And if you’re in office, remember who put you there, if it was for the people.

CH: Great.  That was Dennis Kucinich on his new book, the division of light and power.


Saturday, May 15, 2021

How Corporations Pumped Up CEO Pay While Their Low-Wage Workers Suffered in the Pandemic ~~ SARAH ANDERSON

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/05/14/how-corporations-pumped-up-ceo-pay-while-their-low-wage-workers-suffered-in-the-pandemic/

~~ posted for collectivist ~~

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Sunday, January 3, 2021

More Important than Gold, Water Should Not Be Traded on Wall Street ~~Avexnim Cojti


Two articles on the trading of water...

 https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/more-important-gold-water-should-not-be-traded-wall-street




On December 8, 2020, several media sources reported that fresh water started to be traded on Wall Street as a commodity such as gold and wheat. This comes as water scarcity is increasing in California and many parts of the world and as we near a global water crisis. A water crisis is worrisome enough, yet more alarming is the fact that our Mother Water will be controlled by a privileged group of people who will determine its value to the world.  


As Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala (the Americas), we have seen how our territories were turned into private property for the benefit of settlers and their governments. Although we might have lost our livelihoods in certain cases, we are resilient and we continue asserting our rights to collective lands and land protection. This time, we cannot stand by as Mother Water becomes one more commodity on the capitalist market. It is not right. New ZealandEcuador, and Bolivia in recent years have passed groundbreaking legislation giving personhood status to bodies of water as well as securing additional protection for nature. In India, there have been legal attempts to consider the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers as legal persons in an effort to combat pollution. In 2016, the Colombia Constitutional Court found that the Atrato River basin possesses rights to "protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration." 
 

We refer to water as our Mother Water in the same way we refer to Mother Earth. They are both mothers who nurture us and all living beings at no cost. We honor water in our ceremonies and practices as it is a sacred element of our livelihoods. In the community of the Maya of Chuwila in Guatemala, people greet the water spirit and we thank it for being with us at the first touch of water in the morning every day. Offerings of flowers are done to water when it is the first time it comes to households. Mother Water needs to be protected and cared for not only by Indigenous people but by all people. We are called to protect all life in regions where water is most scarce. 
 

With climate change, overpopulation, dysfunctional consumerism, unsustainable agriculture, and multiple types of land extractivisms around the world, the scarcity of freshwater is escalating, as is the number of deaths due to illnesses caused by contaminated water sources and lack of access to water. Conflicts within and between communities are arising because of water scarcity and unequal access. One example is the depletion of lake Chad in Nigeria due to climate change that has led to conflict, violence, and the displacement and forced migration of local people. The global community cannot avert our eyes to these facts.
 

Water on the Wall Street market will benefit only those with large capital who can afford to pay the price of water. It will push people and families to pay for it or die. This will be seen especially in regions where water is already in crisis like those communities around lake Chad.  Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, Special Rapporteur on human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation rightly said, “In this context, the risk is that the large agricultural and industrial players and large-scale utilities are the ones who can buy, marginalizing and impacting the vulnerable sector of the economy such as small-scale farmers.” By affecting the price and availability of water, we are also affecting the food security of the world and the displacement of millions of people in the short future.
 

Water as a commodity on the market can also lead to its privatization and price gouging that would benefit only the most economically strong. As a consequence, people desperate to survive will fight for water rights. One outstanding example in our recent history was the water war in Bolivia in 2000. A private consortium, dominated by the Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, took over Cochabamba's water system and raised water rates after the government of Bolivia sold this public service to them. After massive protests, injuries, and deaths, the people of Cochabamba recovered water as a public good and Bechtel Corporation sued the government of Bolivia for damages. 
 

Other examples in the struggle for water rights and water defense are the cases of the Maya Q’eqchi’ Peoples in Guatemala and Sunuwar communities in Nepal. The Maya Q’eqchi’ have fought for the protection and collective use of the Cahabón and Oxec Rivers in the northwest part of the country. They opposed private hydroelectric Oxec projects that were established without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities. As a result of the conflict, Bernardo Caal Xol has been a prisoner of conscience since 2018. Xol is one of many land and water defenders who has spoken out on behalf of Indigenous communities and opposed the projects. He was criminalized by Energy Resources Capital Corporation who acted with the support of the Guatemalan government. On the other side of the globe, in Nepal, Sunuwar communities are actively fighting hydro dams which are being built without their consent on the Likhu and Khimti Rivers. These struggles demonstrate the will of the people to fight for water rights and to protect sacred waters from development and pollution that are not unique are present in most countries. 
 

In July of 2010, the General Assembly of the United Nations, in Resolution 64/292, explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights. Access to fresh water and sanitation as a human right should not be linked to market prices. Access to fresh water and sanitation is to be respected, protected, and fulfilled as a human right by all levels of government, businesses, and civil society. Water conservation needs to be emphasized now in the agroindustry more than ever before. We can live with less meat, less soy, less almonds, less wine but we cannot live with less water.  
 

Water is essential for life, access to fresh water is a human right, and most importantly, water is sacred. Water is life.

================

Another article on trading of water in the futures market:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-06/water-futures-to-start-trading-amid-growing-fears-of-scarcity

California Water Futures Begin Trading Amid Fear of Scarcity

Friday, October 16, 2020

A Fair Day's Wages for a Fair Day's Work ~~F. Engels


A fair day's wages for a fair day's work? But what is a fair day's wages, and what is a fair day's work? 

How are they determined by the laws under which modern society exists and develops itself? For an answer to this we must not apply to the science of morals or of law and equity, nor to any sentimental feeling of humanity, justice, or even charity. What is morally fair, what is even fair in law, may be far from being socially fair. Social fairness or unfairness is decided by one science alone — the science which deals with the material facts of production and exchange, the science of political economy.

Now what does political economy call a fair day's wages and a fair day's work? Simply the rate of wages and the length and intensity of a day's work which are determined by competition of employer and employed in the open market. And what are they, when thus determined?

A fair day's wages, under normal conditions, is the sum required to procure to the labourer the means of existence necessary, according to the standard of life of his station and country' to keep himself in working order and to propagate his race. The actual rate of wages, with the fluctuations of trade, may be sometimes above, sometimes below this rate; but, under fair conditions, that rate ought to be the average of all oscillations.

A fair day's work is that length of working day and that intensity of actual work which expends one day's full working power of the workman without encroaching upon his capacity for the same amount of work for the next and following days.

The transaction, then, may be thus described — the workman gives to the Capitalist his full day's working power; that is, so much of it as he can give without rendering impossible the continuous repetition of the transaction. In exchange he receives just as much, and no more, of the necessaries of life as is required to keep up the repetition of the same bargain every day. The workman gives as much, the Capitalist gives as little, as the nature of the bargain will admit. This is a very peculiar sort of fairness.

But let us look a little deeper into the matter. As, according to political economists, wages and working days are fixed by competition, fairness seems to require that both sides should have the same fair start on equal terms. But that is not the case. The Capitalist, if he cannot agree with the Labourer, can afford to wait, and live upon his capital. The workman cannot. He has but wages to live upon, and must therefore take work when, where, and at what terms he can get it. The workman has no fair start. He is fearfully handicapped by hunger. Yet, according to the political economy of the Capitalist class, that is the very pink of fairness.

But this is a mere trifle. The application of mechanical power and machinery to new trades, and the extension and improvements of machinery in trades already subjected to it, keep turning out of work more and more "hands"; and they do so at a far quicker rate than that at which these superseded "hands" can be absorbed by, and find employment in, the manufactures of the country. These superseded "hands" form a real industrial army of reserve for the use of Capital. If trade is bad they may starve, beg, steal, or go to the workhouse [2]; if trade is good they are ready at hand to expand production; and until the very last man, woman, or child of this army of reserve shall have found work — which happens in times of frantic over-production alone — until then will its competition keep down wages, and by its existence alone strengthen the power of Capital in its struggle with Labour. In the race with Capital, Labour is not only handicapped, it has to drag a cannon-ball riveted to its foot. Yet that is fair according to Capitalist political economy.

But let us inquire out of what fund does Capital pay these very fair wages? Out of capital, of course. But capital produces no' value. Labour is, besides the earth, the only source of wealth; capital itself is nothing but the stored-up produce of labour. So that the wages of Labour are paid out of labour, and the working man is paid out of his own produce. According to what we may call common fairness, the wages of the labourer ought to consist in the produce of his labour. But that would not be fair according to political economy. On the contrary, the produce of the workman's labour goes to the Capitalist, and the workman gets out of it no more than the bare necessaries of life. And thus the end of this uncommonly "fair" race of competition is that the produce of the labour of those who do work, gets unavoidably accumulated in the hands of those that do not work, and becomes in their hands the most powerful means to enslave the very men who produced it.

A fair day's wages for a fair day's work! A good deal might be said about the fair day's work too, the fairness of which is perfectly on a par with that of the wages. But that we must leave for another occasion. From what has been stated it is pretty clear that the old watchword has lived its day, and will hardly hold water nowadays. The fairness of political economy, such as it truly lays down the laws which rule actual society, that fairness is all on one side — on that of Capital. Let, then, the old motto be buried for ever and replaced by another:


Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Capital and COVID: Why the Left needs disability liberation ~~ M.K. Anderson

https://mronline.org/2020/10/03/capital-and-covid-why-the-left-needs-disability-liberation/

~~ Posted for Collectivist ~~

This all could’ve gone differently. Bob Woodward revealed that Donald Trump knew in February that COVID was airborne, information both men declined to share with the rest of the us until just now. Congress was also briefed. Their only response was to adjust their investment portfolios. The rich have been given a head start to prepare, to plan for millions of deaths, and to prevent their own. In the meantime, the rest of us must work— if work is even available.

I was laid off on the first day of the Texas lockdown. I’d been on FMLA for an illness related to a disability. As Marx said in Capital, Volume I:

Suppose you were in want of an additional workman, and two were to apply, both equally well qualified in other respects, but one had lost a thumb or a forefinger, which would you engage?

The same logic applies to who gets fired first. The cripple, of course.

Marx stays relevant because little has changed. I have tentatively accepted a lower-paying job starting in November, but unlike the last one, I won’t be able to work remotely. I must accept more dangerous work precisely because of disabilities (including asthma) that make me higher risk. This might kill me. That’s surreal. I can feel a close, parallel timeline, where the evidence that COVID was deadly and airborne prompted basic public health interventions that saved two hundred thousand lives, and perhaps millions to come. The membrane separating this world and a better one is paper thin.

I’m not the only disabled American who’s struggling. Currently, about one in four Americans have a disability, and they are far more likely to be poor; half of people in poverty have a disability. The pandemic won’t improve matters. Research from past pandemics shows that while everyone’s general health declines, people with disabilities struggle more with stress, with feelings of isolation, and with getting adequate medical attention—they feel deprioritized compared to able-bodied patients. They aren’t wrong.

For example, people with intellectual disabilities, who most frequently live in institutionalized or group settings, have higher infection and death rates than the general population. They’re four times more likely to catch it and twice as likely to die if they do catch it. New York State’s ventilator allocation policies even permit hospitals to remove people who have been on ventilators long-term from the machines (i.e., killed) if an able-bodied person is judged more likely to survive. As of June, 41% of Americans had delayed seeking medical care (including emergency care) as a result of COVID-related anxieties. Disabled people were one of the demographics most likely to delay treatment.

Of course, disabled people aren’t the only group avoiding going to the hospital. Refusing necessary medical treatment is at this point an American pastime. That is a universal phenomenon, regardless of race, sex, and disability status—regardless of everything except class. But describing it as “avoiding” is almost inaccurate—these are people making assessments of risks they didn’t choose and can’t mitigate. They might be risking death and disability by not getting treatment—but they’re also risking it by going to an E.R. or a doctor’s office and potentially exposing themselves to the virus. At least if they stay home, they’re not out a copay.

Remote Control

There’s emerging evidence that COVID is a vascular disease. Even mild cases have a high incidence of long-term disabling complications, including stroke, organ damage, and loss of limbs. Among everyone, treated or not, it’s becoming clear that there will also be a heavy psychiatric toll—an increase in mental illness overall, and in the severity of mental illnesses that are exacerbated by stress and isolation (so, all of them). Evidence already suggests that’s happening. A CDC survey suggests the incidence of suicidal ideation has nearly tripled, from 4% to 11%. This crisis isn’t just hitting disabled people especially hard. It is also creating disabled people. And remember: the crisis isn’t COVID, because COVID could have been contained. Our leaders had the information and the resources to stop it, and they chose this instead.

Almost all of this could have been avoided.

But never mind. Here we are, adapting to a new reality. Many of us must still work or go to school in person. For others, our work, school, and social lives (for people who are taking this seriously) have moved to online spaces. This migration has an incidental benefit for disabled people: accessibility. I was forced to drop out of college twice because of illness, both times for the stated reason that I needed to be physically in a chair. Attendance was not optional. I couldn’t get additional days off, or attend remotely, or get notes from the professor. Ass in seat only.

Later, in my career, remote work would have also reduced the number of sick days I needed. I could do the work, and the work could be done remotely, but I couldn’t necessarily drive a car that day. Again, physical presence was required. Remote work was a reward for people who didn’t need it. Well, the pandemic hit, and wouldn’t you know it, suddenly warming a seat just isn’t that important. Fancy that! I am far from the first disabled person to observe this. Online, disabled workers and former students have been muttering darkly about how remote work was completely “impossible” until a literal plague hit and all the able-bodied people needed it.

You might think some of this would be a source of an incredibly twisted optimism—maybe all these deaths in our community will make systemic ableism more than a punchline on the left. Maybe liberals will remember we exist and mention us once in a while! Wouldn’t that be a treat? Of course we don’t rejoice in anyone’s pain, but, thanks to the ravages of COVID, disabled people will soon represent a larger share of the electorate. Perhaps we could finally get some legislation passed. There’d also be no reason to roll back work and school accessibility gains if so many more people are disabled… right? Some disability groups are already trying to draw attention to how essential these accommodations are to employing disabled professionals, and how much better our lives would be if we kept them around after the crisis passed.

I fear that’s not how any of this works. All of it rests on a very individualistic, liberal conception of power. If we have more numbers, why, we’ll be a voting bloc! But we’re already a quarter of the population. We could swing entire elections, but most years, we don’t make either party’s platform. We just aren’t a priority. Aside from last decade’s Affordable Care Act (and a few other laws passed around that time), which made it mandatory to cover preexisting conditions, our last major policy win was in the ‘90s: the Americans with Disabilities Act, which mandates protections for disabled workers and has provisions to ensure disabled people have access to public spaces. Disabled organizers had to crawl up the steps of Congress to shame the legislature into passing it.

We’re also, if I had to guess, pretty unlikely to hold onto the gains in accessibility conferred by the increasing ubiquity of remote work. Workplaces were already capable of allowing this much of the workforce to work remotely, as evidenced by the fact that so many jobs switched over instantly. That means the infrastructure was in place. Disabled workers aren’t unaware of this; we aren’t bad at advocating for what we need. We’ve been asking for years, and we’ve been told “no.” The status quo, as it existed, was optional, and it was changed easily.

An Artificial Crisis

All of this is optional, even the aspects that don’t seem to be on their face. I’ve been using the word “disability” without defining it, but it feels pretty inert, doesn’t it? Nothing optional about it. Someone can see, or not. They can walk or not. They can work or not. Simple. Obviously, “disabled” doesn’t just mean someone who is unable to work because of a physical impairment. Plenty of people with disabilities do work. But I think it’s pretty clear from how it’s discussed generally, from its place in the culture, and from the correlation between disability, poverty, and unemployment—disability has something to do with labor.

There are multiple models of disability, but the one I favor is the social model. The social model says that the distinction between a person and their environment is artificial—a person is disabled in an environment, not just inherently disabled. I want to emphasize that this model does not deny that disabled people have impairments—a man who is paraplegic has impaired movement. That’s not “society,” that is a physical limitation. But what makes him disabled is not that his movement is impaired, it’s that he is impaired and we design cars and sidewalks and buildings with the assumption that everyone who uses them has the full use of both their legs. Because of those assumptions, work may be difficult or impossible because he needs transportation to get there, and he needs to be able to navigate the hallways when he does. If he doesn’t have access to transportation or his building isn’t ADA compliant, he’s disabled. He can’t work.

Going one step further, he is disabled because we have decided he must work, or must be taken care of by someone who can. Otherwise, he can’t have food or housing. If he can’t work (again, because we have made choices that prevent him from working, and because we predicate survival on the ability to work) that same man has to rely on programs with strict poverty requirements so he doesn’t starve. For example, Social Security Insurance has a strict asset limit of $2,000 per person and $3,000 per married couple—in some cities, barely enough to cover rent and food for the month. Food stamps and Medicaid have similar requirements. I’m friends with more than one couple who simply can’t afford to get married because the assets represented by the able-bodied partner’s car would push the disabled partner off of Social Security and Medicaid.

Those programs aren’t easy to get into, either. If benefits are lost, it can take years to get them reinstated—and again, there’s no reason a disability application must be a years-long process. Disability causes none of this. Impairment is a fact of life, and all of us who live long enough eventually experience it. But disability doesn’t need to exist. We could end it. That is what disability liberation means—not an end to impairment, but an end to oppression.

The social model of disability invites us to see all of these are choices—not choices on our part, of course, but the result of policies imposed on us by a Congress consisting of and beholden to the capitalist class. This is wholly compatible with Marx, who wrote extensively about capitalist exploitation’s toll on workers’ bodies. Per Bengtsson:

New technology also demanded faster movements, as when Marx used a factory inspection report that stated that ‘fingers must be quicker and defter in their movements to take up the broken thread, for, if placed with hesitation or carelessness, they are sacrificed’, which underlines how man’s value was based on how well the body could adapt to the system it was supposed to serve.

COVID-19 is, of course, not a new technology. It is simply yet another artificial crisis, yet another unnecessarily hazardous working condition imposed upon us by our government and the capitalist class it serves.

Institutional Servitude

It goes almost without saying Republicans take a perverse glee in the brutality of capitalism, seeing it as people “getting what they deserve.” Democrats take pleasure in feeling superior to that sadism and stop there, without bothering to do any actual good. I’ve had conversations with Democrats where they (rightly) point out the party defends against cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But Democrats also oppose Medicare for All (or any other single-payer system) and an end to the means testing that forces disabled people into poverty. Imposing means-testing limitations on previously generous programs is a hallmark of modern Democratic centrism, in fact. What is required is not the benevolent maintenance of the disabled underclass, but liberation. The Democrats are in no way offering that liberation. In fact, they stridently oppose it.

Far be it from me to critique liberals without noting the left could stand to improve. The majority of the time I hear ableism talked about, it’s as a laugh line in a podcast. No joke necessary; just say “ableism” and everyone brays like an ass. Where it is discussed seriously, I think there is a temptation among Marxists to dismiss disabled people as lumpenproletariat (the segment of the proletariat lacking class consciousness; too disempowered to revolt), and to exclude them from their conceptions of the working class. I would reply that the social model of disability comes from disabled thinkers, is widely discussed, and is fundamentally class conscious. The Capitol Crawl, while it did rely on the benevolence of elected officials, is an absolutely masterful instance of direct action. As Marxists, we could stand to learn from disability activism and thought.

Second, many disabled people do work, not just in conventional jobs, but within institutions, like prisons and group homes. Prisoners are three to four times more likely to have a disability than the general population—and are paid either vastly reduced wages or nothing at all. Many developmentally disabled people who live in other institutional settings do piecework—stuffing envelopes for pennies a day, things of that nature. This is legal because disabled people are exempt from the minimum wage.

But even disabled people who don’t work, who are on programs like Medicaid and housing assistance, are still exploited by capital. Landlords profit off their housing, and insurance companies and hospitals still profit from their care. That is exploitation. The poverty that makes those programs necessary is, again, imposed on them. We could, instead, remove that requirement and let disabled people use those programs to escape poverty and live a good life. Or we could simply guarantee healthcare, housing, and food for every person, regardless of ability.

We are facing a future with millions dead, and where a huge proportion of the survivors are newly disabled. We can’t afford to limit our political imagination to hoping that employers will let disabled accountants use Zoom a little more often after the COVID crisis is over. Capital has already developed sophisticated systems for exploiting disabled people, and having more of us around won’t really force any change. If anything, it will further weaken worker power by mandating abject poverty for an even larger proportion of the populace.

Why would capitalists prevent that? It benefits them. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, or even any malice. Nobody is stroking a cat and twisting a mustache and plotting to cripple us all. A series of dispassionate decisions have been made as part of a process bereft of humanity—a series of spreadsheets were inspected, and the most profitable choices were made. The sum of all those choices has led to the United States dooming large swaths of its population to death and disability for a marginal increase in quarterly profits. All of this was optional. It could have been different. And we can know that and despair, or we can remember that someonebenefits from these choices. Those someones could have chosen differently for us, but they didn’t. And if that’s true, why keep them around? That’s optional, too.