Evangelicals, Abstinence, Abortion and the Mainstreaming of Sex

David Rosen

In 2010, Barbara G. Brents and Teela Sanders published a pioneering study, “Mainstreaming the Sex Industry: Economic Inclusion and Social Ambivalence,” that argued, “mainstreaming of the sex industry is invariably linked to wider patterns in leisure consumption, travel, and the hedonistic search for relaxation and pleasure.”  They announced the establishment of the sexually “new normal.”

The authors argue that, with mainstreaming, traditional legal constraints are reduced; new technologies are introduced to further extend – in every sense — the sexual marketplace. “The obscenity, sodomy, and anti-pornography laws that once constrained sexual behavior and consumption are increasingly challenged by a more general legal ethic which reflects the morality of the market, the contract, and the principle of free choice,” they note.  They add, “the new technologies, specifically the Internet, that drive the mainstreaming of sex industries have remained largely unregulated.”

Often overlooked when considering the mainstreaming of sex is the role of sex in the lives of Evangelical Christians and other more orthodox or fundamentalist religious Americans.  Unknown to many, in 1973 – the year of the Roe v. Wade decision — Marabel Morgan published The Total Woman, a self-help guide to a healthy marriage for Evangelical women.  She quotes from the Bible: “You wives must submit to your husbands’ leadership in the same way; you submit to the Lord.”  Going further, she adds: “It is only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him, and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him.” Morgan adds, “she becomes a priceless jewel, the glory of femininity, his queen!”  She proclaimed that “rapture,” “bliss,” “ecstasy” and “powerful transcendence” would infuse the joys of sex within marriage.

Morgan encouraged wives to greet their husband at the front door wearing sexy outfits, including outfits for “a cowgirl or a showgirl.”  Joyce Maynard, in a New York Times review, recounts one of Morgan’s anecdotes. A woman “welcomed her husband home in black mesh stockings, high heels and an apron and nothing else. … He took one look and shouted. ‘Praise the Lord!’” Maynard — writing in 1975 — notes “half a million women (or men who dream of cowgirls and show girls) have bought The Total Woman and paperback sales have not yet begun.”  She points out there was also a Total Woman course being taught across the country by 77 teachers trained by Morgan.  According to one report, by 2018 the book had sold more than 10 million copies.

Many Evangelical Protestants embrace what is known as the “Billy Graham Rule: Never be alone with a woman who is not your wife.”  Vice Pres. Mike Pence follows the Graham rule.  Samuel Perry, a sociologist of religion trained at an evangelical seminary, argues that Evangelicals “very much subscribe to the idea that sexual sin is the mother of all sin.” He adds, “It is the most dirty, the most damning, the most shameful.”

Jean Calterone Williams, a professor at California Polytechnic University, identifies key areas where the sexual values or beliefs — the “morality” — of Evangelicals and the general public significantly differ. Drawing from a host of scholarly third-party sources, she notes that only a third of the public (33%) believes that premarital sex is immoral while over four-fifths (81%) of Evangelicals say that premarital sex is immoral.  Similarly, while less than half (46%) of the public believe that premarital sexual activity leads to harmful psychological and emotional consequences for the unwed, nearly four-out-of-five (78%) Evangelicals believe it.  Williams reports that 82 percent of adults favor comprehensive sexuality education that encompasses abstinence, contraception and broad discussion of human sexuality and notes that two-thirds of respondents (67%) support distributing condoms in schools.

The Abstinence Clearinghouse is a South Dakota organization that promotes the gospel of abstinence-until-marriage; in Matthew 19:5, Jesus notes that in marriage the male and the female “are no longer two but one flesh.”It believes that masturbation, pornography and homosexuality are immoral and harmful practices.

Abstinence gained popular attention during the late-1990s through the Silver Ring Thing, a youth-centered movement grounded in a flashy music concert in which some participants took a virginity pledge and a silver ring was placed on their ring finger to publicly demonstrate their stand for virginity and Christian morality. The group promoting the campaign declared, “The mission is to saturate the United States with a generation of young people who have taken a vow of sexual abstinence until marriage and put on the silver ring. This mission can only be achieved by offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life.”

The General Social Survey (GSS) found that — between 2014 and 2018 — 37 percent of “fundamentalist adults said that sex outside marriage was ‘always wrong,’ while 41% said it was ‘not wrong at all.’” However, a quarter-century earlier, from 1974 to 1978, 44 percent found out-of-wedlock sex was wrong while 27 percent found it not wrong at all. This suggests that, at least in public surveys, little changed during this period and well might have gotten slightly more conservative.

More revealing, the National Survey of Family Growth paints a far different picture of Evangelical Christian sex life. Roughly two-thirds of evangelical young people have engaged in sexual intercourse; about three-quarters have engaged in at least one of three forms of sexual activity; and roughly one-in-five never-married Evangelicals 18 to 22 years of age have engaged in sexual behavior as risky as anal sex. 

Unknown to many, “passion parties” are discreet, women-only get-together, often involving strongly religious-identified Evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jewish women where sex paraphernalia, including toys, lubricants and costumes, are sold.  A local “host,” “consultant” or “sales rep” organizes the event and receives a commission (often 10%) from the night’s sales.  The host acquires products and other materials from a growing number of sex-toy providers.  The industry even has a trade association, Certified Adult Home Party Association, representing companies including Athena’s Home Novelties, Fantasia Home Parties, For Ladies Only, Party Gals and Temptations Parties.  In 2018, Pure Romance revenues hit $250 million and had 30,000 consultants.   Theseget-togethers are rationalized as a way to enhance marriage.

For many Evangelicals and other traditionalists, the legacy of the turbulent 1960s casts a long shadow. Pot, LSD, rock-&-roll, free love and radical politics were threats to the nation’s moral order.  In ’67, California’s newly elected governor Ronald Reagan denounced the hippie as someone who “dresses like Tarzan, has hair like Jane, and smells like Cheetah.”  Religious leaders were especially worried.  James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was repulsed by the ‘60s counterculture. He summarized its radical secularism in no uncertain terms:

God is dead; immorality is wonderful; nudity is noble; irresponsibility is groovy; disrespect and irreverence are fashionable; unpopular laws are to be disobeyed; violence is an acceptable vehicle for bringing change (as were childhood tantrums).

Dodson feared the “rapid reversal of social mores [that] is unparalleled in man’s history” and warned, “Never has a society abandoned its concept of morality more suddenly than … in America during the decade of the sixties.”  

A half-century later, the old is new again.  Pew Research finds that six in ten (60%) Americans favor a woman’s right to an abortion.  Yet, sadly, die-hard antiabortion traditionalists now have power, aided by a mean-spirited president and Republican legislators in the Congress and states across the country. For the foreseeable future, the bitter tension between those seeking to end a woman’s right to the privacy of an abortion and those promoting ever-greater personal freedom (including abortion) and (consensual) sexual commerce will continue.  It might well intensify, further deforming the political landscape.

Today’s antiabortionists recall the prohibitionists of a century ago.  Each share a highly motivated, moralistic agenda, one that each insists is better, morally superior to all others because it fulfills their god’s wishes.  Both share a common belief in the virtue of abstinence – and the sins of alcohol and sex.

Perry notes, evangelicals “very much subscribe to the idea that sexual sin is the mother of all sin.” He adds, “It is the most dirty, the most damning, the most shameful.”  However, as Williams and others have shown, abstinence among Evangelicals only goes so far. The wide-spread subversion of the moral dictates of sexual abstinence is not all that different than the popular rejection of temperance.

Americans have been drinking since the earliest European settlers arrived – and, among the Native peoples, long before that.  However, after three centuries of struggle over temperance, a powerful Evangelical Christian abstinence movement grew steadily in the late-19^thand early-20^thcenturies, gained enormous leverage with America’s entry into the Great War.  So powerful, it secured the adoption of the 18^thAmendment establishing Prohibition and, with working more liberal women’s groups, the 19^thAmendment guaranteeing women the vote.

Temperance forces, led by the Christian-backed Anti-Saloon League (ASL), pushed Congress to pass the Volstead Act that imposed nationwide restrictions on the manufacture, importation, transportation and sale of “intoxicating” beverages.  The Christian right captured political power and then, with the Amendment’s ratification, used the federal and state governments to impose national moral authority. Their campaign failed; the 19^th Amendment is the only one to be repealed.

Until Trump’s election in 2016, the culture wars appeared to be in a relative stalemate. While states passed numerous laws seeking to block or end a woman’s right to an abortion, court challenges prevented nearly all legislation from being enacted into law. Other than shutting down the website Backpage.com for allegedly facilitating sex trafficking and imposing restrictive SOB — sexually oriented business — laws, the sex industry has not been targeted.

The sex lives of Evangelicals are far more complex – if not contradictory – than the popular media reports.  Ideologically, Evangelicals adhering to a patriarchal credo of virginity until marriage for both females and males, monogamy in marriage and the denial of same-sex desire. However, reality is a very different story, especially among younger believers.  More so, the apparent popularity of “passion parties” — and all the pleasure that fetish play enables — bespeaks a subversion of the dominant role of the male partner who ostensibly defines sexual engagement.

James Dobson’s fundamentalist Christian organization, Focus on the Family, believes “that all human life is sacred, and that life begins with fertilization – the union of sperm and egg.”  Going further, it argues, “We don’t believe that it’s wrong to prevent fertilization, but we oppose any method of so-called ‘birth control’ that functions as an abortifacient – that is to say, any method that acts after fertilization to end a human life by preventing implantation in the womb. Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) fall into this category.”

As can be expected from an ideologically driven organization, the actual practices among Evangelical women doesn’t enter into their public statements. It is difficult to find data on the current birth control practices (e.g., IUD, the Pill) among Evangelical women, but a 2011 report from the Guttmacher Institute helps reveal some of the truth. It reports, “some 68% of Catholic women use a highly effective method, compared with 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals.”

Equally revealing, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) sheds light on a deeper issue that gives line to the dominant Evangelical fiction.  The NAF report states, “women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic, 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.”

As the sexual marketplace went mainstream during the half-century since the culture wars were launch in the 1970, the religious rights became ever-more reactionary, increasingly single-mindedly focused on ending a woman’s right to an abortion.  It’s time for Evangelicals to acknowledge the actual practices among the women and young people and accept a revised belief system.

The Rising Monopoly of Monsanto-Bayer

Valerie Reynoso

Monsanto was an agrochemical and agricultural biotech company established in the US that became a large producer of GMO crops, with their main GMO crop having been corn. Monsanto was bought by Bayer, a German multinational pharmaceutical company, in late 2016 for $63 billion dollars. This deal was approved in early 2018 by the European Union and the US. This merging of Monsanto-Bayer, along with Monsanto’s patent of their kernels, have resulted in the rise of a near monopoly of Monsanto-Bayer in the agricultural industry and the demise of smaller farmers and companies.

Prior to its merging with Bayer, Monsanto has a history of suing small farmers and enforcing usage of Roundup herbicide in the agricultural industry, tactics through which it increased its position as a mega-corporation. Towards the end of 2012, Monsanto’s profits approximately doubled to a total revenue of $2.94 billion as a result of the rising price of Roundup, market hegemony in the US, and especially expanding markets in Latin America. Moreover, Monsanto eliminated competition from smaller farmers in US industries through the exploitation of Monsanto’s patent on transgenic corn, soybean and cotton. Monsanto was under investigation by the US Department of Justice until the end of 2012 due to its violation of anti- trust laws by engaging in activities that limit competition with other biotech companies.

Likewise, Monsanto had filed 144 lawsuits against family farmers and settled 700 cases out of court between 1997 and 2010. Those subject to Monsanto’s lawsuits include farmers who used Monsanto seed and violated the licensing agreement and farmers whose seeds were contaminated with Monsanto GMOs without their knowledge. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v Monsanto was a case that dealt with the farmers who unknowingly had contaminated seeds that would then be used by Monsanto as a pretext to sue them. OSGATA et al v Monsanto represented 31 farms and farmers, 13 seed businesses and 31 agricultural organizations that represented over 300,000 people and 4,500 farms or farmers. A declaratory judgement was requested by plaintiffs in order to guarantee that Monsanto did not have the right to sue the plaintiffs for patent infringement.

OSGATA having stated that many small farmers have found their efforts to grow specific crops futile is indicative of the progressing monopolization caused by Monsanto’s pursuit of patent infringement lawsuits. Despite these efforts, federal courts still have a history of defending the right of Monsanto to capitalize off of a patenting system that decimates the market, resulting in further abuse of this action by the mega-corporation. An example of this is the Farmer Assurance Provision of the 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which individuals such as farmers who were sued by Monsanto call the “Monsanto Protection Act” due to the protection it provides Monsanto and its affiliates from lawsuits. Another factor that is weighed into the expanding hegemony of Monsanto is their potential development of its form of a marijuana seedstock, following the legalization of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in numerous states, since marijuana cultivation has become a significant industry. Monsanto has invested millions of dollars in RNAi technology, which would be used to manipulate characteristics such as the color of a plant or to make a plant digestible to insects, as well as to make more potent marijuana plants through this genetic modification.

The merging of Monsanto-Bayer represents the gradual development of a monopoly. A monopoly refers to a corporation or other entity that dominates a sector or industry. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a corporation has a monopoly when it significantly restricts competition through its market power and gained that position through improper conduct. In 2016, Liam Condon, the head of Bayer’s crop science division, stated that Bayer will become the sole shareholder of Monsanto. He furthered that the joint mega-corporation had to continue independent operations for a two-month period in 2016 as Bayer sold some parts of its business to the chemical company BASF. Following that time period was when Bayer was able to access more confidential information about the business operations of Monsanto, which Condon stated had to be done before changes such as dropping the Monsanto name could be made. Condon also elaborated that Bayer had estimated that it could realize $1.2 billion in “synergies” from the merger within four years, with $200 million of this quantity stemming from project sales and $1 billion linked to overlapping infrastructural costs.

The near monopoly of Monsanto-Bayer on the agriculture industry obliterates market competition and leaves farmers with virtually no other choice but to rely on GMOs, which threatens the global food supply and environmental health. Monsanto-Bayer is estimated to receive around one-quarter of global spending on seeds and pesticides, which also implies a market share of over 61 percent of global revenue and a hyper-concentration of the seed, trait and pesticide marketplace.

The merged mega-corporation is implementing two essential strategies in order to increase its economic hegemony. The first strategy is to include a central “digital agriculture” platform named FieldView in its portfolio. This software would provide commercial farmers with actualized data on climate patterns and soil and irrigation conditions monitored by Monsanto-Bayer’s in-field sensors, meters and satellites. The platform is meant to remain open at first to allow developers to create their own programs; however, it will incorporate a paid subscription once it becomes vital to farming. The second strategy details that the supply chain control would implement the new digital platform with seeds and other agricultural chemicals, which would make farmers even more reliant on Monsanto-Bayer products. Monsanto already practiced this technique before it became centralized as a Monsanto-Bayer strategy, given that the Monsanto Roundup tolerance is a seed trait that is highly sought after, so Monsanto obligated farmers to purchase Roundup Ready seeds along with premium-grade Roundup.

Monsanto-Bayer continues to expand its presence in crop cultivation and agriculture, which recent data proves. Philip Howard of Michigan State University published his first version of his notable seed industry consolidation chart in 2008, detailing that six corporations dominated most of the brand-name seed market and were beginning to form new partnerships with competitors that threatened to reduce competition. Following 2016, Howard has updated the seed chart (image below), illustrating that what was formerly regarded as the Big 6 (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer and BASF), has been reduced to a Big 4 headed by Bayer and Corteva, the merged company of Dow-DuPont, followed by ChemChina and BASF. The Big 4 now possesses over 60 percent of global proprietary seed sales, which indicates how antitrust laws and oversight by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) have failed to prevent the increased hegemony of said mega-corporations in the agricultural industry.

Howard began gathering data on seed industry ownership in 1998, which was the year when the agribusiness mega-corporations increased their hegemony by purchasing smaller firms to compile more intellectual property rights. By 2008, Monsanto’s patented seeds and crops were planted on 80 percent of US corn acres, 86 percent of cotton acres and 92 percent of soybean acres and these numbers continue to rise. According to economists, the competition of an industry is diminished when the concentration ratio of the top four firms is at least 40 percent, which the Big 4 exceeded given that before they merged from the former Big 6, they had controlled over 60 percent of the global seed market. According to Howard’s chart, the merging

of Dow and DuPont cost $130 billion and produced three companies in total, including the new agricultural firm Corteva. The merging of ChemChina and Syngenta cost $43 billion and enabled

China to add its second company. The merging of Bayer and Monsanto cost $63 billion and was the second largest merger of 2016; as of the merging, Bayer has dropped the Monsanto name. Despite the fact that Bayer sold some of its seed divisions to BASF in preparation of merging with Monsanto, the control of the market by mega-corporations has only been augmented.

Although it is argued by some that increased monopolization of industries produces more jobs and boosts innovation, this is not the case. In December 2018, Bayer stated that it would cut 12,000 jobs, which makes up approximately 10 percent of its global workforce. Seed industry corporations have a history of providing less choices and higher prices for farmers in part through the implementation of overtly protecting their IP rights, which results in less innovation and increased restrictions on how seeds are utilized and exchanged, such as seed saving and research purposes. These restrictions make a significant amount of plant genetics inaccessible to public researchers, farmers and independent breeders, which also limits seed diversity in the market. According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, near-monopolization of industries results in less innovation due to a limited amount of companies. An instance of this is a US Department of Agriculture study published in February 2004 (image on next page), which demonstrates that private research intensity on GE varieties of corn, cotton and soybeans dropped or were reduced in the late 1990s. This coincided with the time period when agribusiness giants merged with smaller firms to increase their intellectual property rights.

Ultimately, the merging of Monsanto-Bayer has resulted in the rise of one of the four largest global mega-mergers of the decade and the formation of a near-monopoly in the agricultural industry. This was developed through the subordination of small farms, elimination of market competition, patenting of GMO kernels, and the filing of lawsuits against farmers who unknowingly used GMO seeds. Furthermore, the Principles of Analytic Design were employed to make this case, seeing that the text and visual displays made comparisons among mega- corporations and their hegemony and related seed data; causality was employed because the motives as to why and how Monsanto-Bayer rose to power was explained and analyzed; multivariate analysis was displayed since several variables were incorporated in determining how Monsanto-Bayer incremented its power; evidence was integrated and documentation was consistent; the content was of quality and relied on credible sources and primary documents and statistics.

Unipolar Governance of the Multipolar World

Ismael Hossein-zadeh

The emergence in recent years of the economic and military powers in countries like China, Russia and India has given rise to theories and hopes of a multipolar world that could temper the heavy-handed unilateral/unipolar policies of the United States on a global level. Such hopes are further buoyed by the fact that these rising poles of economic development have instituted a number of regional international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the China-sponsored Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the Eurasian Economic Union that incorporates Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

Despite these propitious developments, however, the ruling elites of these rising powers tend to flinch from more vigorously countering or standing up to the unilateral economic and other imperialistic interferences of the U.S. in their domestic and international affairs. Thus, while many of the world economies are developing in a multipolar direction, the governing mechanism of the global economy remains heavily under the unilateral influence of the United States.

How do we explain these paradoxical developments: an evolving multipolar world side-by-side with an insufficient challenge to the unilateral/unipolar policies of the Unites States, especially in major economic areas such as trade, investment and finance; as well as in critical areas such as unilateral economic sanctions and imperialistic schemes of regime change?

The existence of the expanding multipolar world side-by-side with the enduring or resistant unipolar world is only superficially paradoxical. In reality it is entirely in accordance with the logic of socio-economic developments of the global capitalist system of our time: Whereas the rising poles of economic development are largely geography- or nation-based, the persisting unilateral governance of this evolving global economic landscape tends to be mainly class-based, which remains largely in the hands of the plutocratic rulers of the United States in collaboration with their class allies worldwide, including allies in the emerging economic and military powers.

Indigenous oligarchic circles of the rising economic and military powers (that are sometimes called comprador bourgeoisie) are connected to their class allies in the core capitalist countries both informally and formally, through global economic/financial institutions and organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, G7, G20, and the like. Wealthy elites of these emerging powers have more in common with their elite counterparts in the U.S. and other core capitalist countries than their fellow citizens at home. “Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves,” points out Chrystia Freeland, Global Editor of Reuters, who travels with the elites to many parts of the world.

This helps explains social polarization and/or national disunity in countries like China, Russia and Iran: The outward-looking, West-oriented plutocratic forces on the one hand, and the inward-looking, populist/nationalist/anti-imperialist forces that demand national or local solutions to socio-economic problems on the other. By the same token, it also explains why anti-imperialist forces in these countries are often stymied in their resistance to the heavy-handed economic sanctions and other financial pressures by the Unites States and its allies.

It further helps explain why despite the fact that worldwide technological and industrial developments have created poles of economic power in various parts of the world, global economic governing mechanism remain largely in the hands of the “global nation of the super-rich.” This global governing system is put in place and made operational through such powerful financial institutions as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), which is owned and controlled by the central banks of major economic powers, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), which consists of a network of major global financial institutions that monitor and control information about financial transactions worldwide.

Neoliberal version of capitalism is the shared economic philosophy of the ruling elites worldwide. This economic outlook, which is increasingly being adopted by many governments around the world, has played havoc on the living conditions of the overwhelming majority of world citizens. It maintains that economic safety-net programs in favor of the needy, environmental and market regulations, work place or labor standards, and the like are sources of inefficiency and economic decline. It also views public spending on health, education, housing, transportation, and infrastructural projects not as investments in the long-term development and prosperity of society but as pure costs that must be cut or minimized.

This economic doctrine has in recent years been so effectively disseminated or transmitted around the world that its theoretical principles have come to constitute the core of most economic text books, of teaching materials of most economic departments, and of policy prescriptions of most economic advisors to policy makers around the world.

Sadly, the religious-like faith in the neoliberal doctrine has also been embraced by economic advisors to sovereignty-aspiring nationalist/populist leaders in countries such as Russia, China and Iran. While these nationalist leaders seek to resist (albeit, in an ambivalent and half-hearted manner) economic sanctions and other imperialistic interferences in the affairs of their countries, their neoliberal economic advisors tend to make such resistance ineffectual by issuing dependency-prone or sovereignty-defying economic prescriptions. Trained (or brainwashed) in the neoliberal school of economic thought, these economists insist that there are no alternative development models to neoliberal economics; and that the way forward for the emerging and/or belatedly developing countries is to follow the pattern of neoliberal development.

In a real sense, neoliberal prescriptions of these economic “experts” are more potent in undermining national sovereignty of the rising poles of economic development than the ominous power of the imperial military forces. Instead of trying to fashion substitute currency reserves to the U.S. dollar, for example, or establish alternatives the currently dominant (and domineering) SWIFT system of international financial transactions, these economists argue that economic development and social progress of their countries lie solely in their integration into the neoliberal system of global capitalism. Policy and/or political implications of these economic prescriptions are unmistakable: it is futile to try to chart alternative development paths to the current global economic-financial system of neoliberalism—hence, the persistent or continuing unipolar global governing system, or guiding economic strategy, of the multipolar economic landscape of our world.

Black Economy in India: The Path to Growing Inequality

Arun Kumar

The single most important aspect of the Indian economy is its very large black economy. In fact, it impacts not just the economic aspect of society but also its social and political facets. All the macroeconomic variables like, growth rate of the economy, inflation and fiscal policies are affected by the black economy. The microeconomic variables like education, health, drinking water and other services received by the citizens are also adversely impacted by it. Elections, quality of leadership, governance, criminalization and governance are also adversely impacted by the black economy. Unfortunately, most policy makers and analysts ignore the black economy. As such, their analysis is partial and often incorrect.

India is characterized by large and growing inequality as various recent reports indicate. At a low level of per capita income India has one of the highest number of billionaires in the world. But these reports are based on the data from the white economy alone. If the black economy is included in the analysis, inequality would turn out to be much higher since black incomes are concentrated in the hands of the high income earners. Some of the key aspects of the black economy that lead to increase in inequality are presented below.

Definitionally it has been shown that in India, black incomes are property incomes, that is, profit, interest, rent and dividend. They are typically not wages since these are costs to businesses and they are usually inflated to show higher costs and lower incomes. Further, in India because the income taxation starts at about 400% of the per capita incomes and with deductions and concessions at an even higher multiple, most wage earners fall below the taxable limit. Thus, whether declared or not they are not black incomes. Thus, the black economy skews the distribution of income in favour of the profit earners and aggravates disparities.

It can also be shown that the black incomes are concentrated in the hands of 3% of the population, those with high incomes. The rest, 97% suffer adverse consequences of the black economy and have to bear higher costs. This author has shown that black incomes had become 62% of GDP in 2012-13. If this per cent remains unchanged, the implication is that the top 3% have this much of extra incomes over and above their white incomes while the bottom 97% do not  have any extra incomes from the black economy but only additional costs. This then aggravates the disparities in incomes.

Black economy leads to policy failure and unproductive investment which lowers the economy’s rate of growth. It may be characterized as `digging holes and filling holes’. This causes activity without productivity.The result is social waste. Investment does not yield the productivity that should follow. For instance, police is busy collecting hafta rather than maintaining law and order. In another instance, consider a road constructed with inadequate tar put in it. When the rains come it gets washed away so that it has to be repeatedly repaired. So, the investment in roads and police do not yield the productivity that the economy should benefit from. These examples may be multiplied. This leads to a shortage of investment in the economy.

When the rate of growth is less than the potential rate of growth of the economy, development slows down and employment generation is below the potential. Both these impact the poor more. Further, as delivery of public services, like, education and health, to the common people falters, the burden on the poorer sections increases and they can ill afford private services.

The shortage of investment in the country is further aggravated by black income generators resorting to flight of capital. To overcome the shortage of capital in the country, the nation has been offering a variety of concessions to foreign capital. For instance, labour rights in IT industry have been restricted. Further, the courts have truncated some of the rights that labour had been obtained till the 1980s. This has weakened labour and its capacity to bargain for higher incomes.

The black economy severely limits fiscal policies and the benefit that it can provide to the economy as a whole and to the poor specifically. If the black economy is 62% of GDP, it implies that this income is not in the tax net. Given that these are the incomes of high income earners, if this could be taxed, it would have paid about 40% as taxes. Thus, the economy could get an additional 24% tax GDP ratio while it is currently about 17%. The shortage of resources for development in the budget would be over. The fiscal deficit of about 6% would have become a surplus of 18% which could be plowed into development.

With these additional resources, the country could have spent 6% of GDP on public education while it has never exceeded 4%. Similarly, public health could get at least 3% while it has never exceeded 1.3%. Roads, ports, railways, power, etc., could be further developed.

An even bigger advantage would be that today, much of the expenditure does not yield the result it should since the money spent of development is wasted. So, `expenditures do not lead to outcomes’. As Rajiv Gandhi popularized in 1988, out of a rupee spent, only 15 paisa reaches the ground. Thus, the black economy leads to both a shortage of resources for development and reduces the effectiveness of what is spent. This hurts the poor the most who depend on government programmes to mitigate their poverty.

Black economy also leads to poor governance. As mentioned above, the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy falter in delivery. Rules are systematically violated by the powerful. For instance, the environment protection rules are given a go by, whether it be deforestation, mining, coastal zone protection, river and air pollution, etc. In urban areas, the zoning and building bye-laws are systematically violated. The damage to the environment impacts the poor disproportionately more which damages their health and adds to their cost of living.

Due to the impact of the black economy, real estate has become highly speculative leading to expensive real estate which prices the majority out of housing in urban areas and they have to live in slum like conditions. They also encroach on public land which results in insecure living conditions and criminalization. They also fall prey to land mafia and political manipulation. This often results in families getting involved in illegal activities. All this adds to the growing inequality in society.

In conclusion, there are several paths to the black economy resulting in growing inequalities that are not measured in the white economy data. Thus, the inequalities are larger than indicated by the white economy data. Further, this suggests that the policy makers work with incorrect data since they ignore the substantial black economy. The implication is that their analysis is faulty and their policies faulty.

As government polices fail, the demand for the retreat of the state becomes stronger. Since 1991, with the New Economic Policies, society has turned to markets but they do not offer a solution for the problems of the poor. The state is further weakened as rising inequality undermines the sense of social justice in society. In turn that undermines democracy. The growing black economy undermines accountability all around – in the social and the political spheres also – and further weakens democracy. All this results in the disenfranchisement of the poor – money power rules and marginalizes the poor – and this opens the doors for further increase in inequality.

Rotten in Tunisia: The Corrupt Rule of Ben Ali

Binoy Kampmark

He was the prototypical strong man softened by tactical reforms, blissfully ignorant before the fall, blown off in the violent winds of the Arab Spring.  Having come to power in 1987 on the back of a coup against the 84-year-old Habib Bourguiba, whom he accused of senility, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was the face of Tunisia till 2011, when he exited his country’s politics in a swift repairing move to Saudi Arabia.  Previous whiffs of revolution – for instance, in 2008 in Gafsa – had been contained and quelled by what was a distinct mukharabat-intelligence security state.

Ben Ali had the unwitting humour of generally humourless authoritarian rulers, mirthlessly characterising his reign as one of le changement and “democratic transition”.  “I needed to re-establish the rule of law,” he explained to French television after seizing power.  “The president was ill, and his inner circle was harmful.”

The military-security apparatus he presided over burgeoned despite his own efforts at reforming social security, education and women’s rights.  The Presidential Guard was bloated to some 8,000 members; the National Guard, with its headquarters near Tunis-Carthage International Airport, numbered 20,000.  A multiple set of police outfits were also created, including those specifically dealing with universities, tourism and politics.

The sense of non-change marked by extensive surveillance was characterised by indulgent portraits, often enormous, featuring a certain agelessness, a cultish obsession with found on billboard and buildings.  Ben Ali could still claim that he was, relative to his despotic peers, more benevolent.  Economic stability, in a fashion, was brought for a time, though this had the unfortunate effect of encouraging a needy cronyism.  A bigger pie meant greedier hands.

His report card as minister for national security showed that, when needed, he would summon the security forces to do his bidding, crushing the Bread Riots between 1983 and 1984, a protest against the rise in bread prices occasioned by the introduction of an austerity program imposed by the International Monetary Fund.

The sequence of events that saw Ben Ali undone would come to be known as the Jasmine Revolution.  There were the spectacular displays of self-inflicted suffering, including the immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, Tunisia’s very own indigenous Jan Palach, who had set himself alight before the tanks of the Warsaw Pact in January 1969.  On December 17, 2010, the 26-year-old fruit vendor’s act directed against institutional harassment inflamed protests in Sidi Bouzid.

A country with a national unemployment of 14 percent, numbering as high as 30 percent in the 15 to 24 years age group, was throbbing with revolutionary dissent.  Remittances from Tunisians working abroad had fallen; the global financial crisis from 2008 had bitten savagely.  Policing, hypersensitive to any Islamist upsurge, had become more aggressive.  But looming across the country were the predations of Ben Ali’s kleptomanic family of 140 persons, known colloquially as “The Family”, and a distinctly unholy one at that.  Perhaps with a certain tired inevitability, a femme fatale figure was identified: the first lady and Ben Ali’s second wife Leila Trabelsi.  The Trabelsi name became shorthand for habitual state corruption.

Something rotten in the state of Tunisia was also discernible to a highly literate populace now able to access diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks, which came to be regarded as something of a golden boy for the revolution.  One US government cable from June 23, 2008 stands out: “Whether it’s cash services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President Ben Ali’s family is rumoured to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants.”  Investment levels had declined; bribery levels had increased.

US ambassador Robert F. Godec also noted the exploits of the First Lady’s brother, Belhassen Trabelsi, whose rapacity included the illegal acquisition of “an airline, several hotels, one of Tunisia’s two private radio stations, car assembly plants, Ford distribution, a real estate development company, and the list goes on.”  For all that, he remained merely “one of Leila’s ten known siblings, each with their own children.  Among this large extended family, Leila’s brother Moncef and nephew Imed are also particularly important actors.”

The twenty-eight days of protest also saw the extensive, coordinated use of social media, another technological manifestation that continues to terrify states of different ideological shades. In a dry article on the subject – again, another piece that reads oddly given the current rage against social media as a corrupting, conniving incubator of “fake news” – Anita Breuer, Todd Landman and Dorothea Farquhar suggested that, “Social network platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook have multiplied the possibilities for retrieval and dissemination of political information and thus afford the Internet user a variety of supplemental and relatively low cost access points to political information and engagement.”

Other factors also came together.  For one thing, the Tunisian army and senior officials refused to turn the guns on protesters with quite the same interest as other regimes might have done.  What transpired was certainly a set of circumstances more profound in change than other states swept up in Arab spring time.  For one, the ruling Rassemblement constitutionnel démocratique (RCD) was given the heave-ho, remarkable for the fact that it had been the party of independence.

As the books, and political system, were being reordered and rescripted, a Tunisian court sentenced Ben Ali and Leila Trabelsi in absentia to 35 years in prison, topped by a $66 million fine for corruption and embezzlement.  The highlights of the trial suggest those of a gangster keen on guns, drugs and archaeological treasures.

The Arab Spring seems, to a large extent, a flutter of history and packed with a good deal of wishful thinking; but for a time, it seemed that lasting change might take place, staged as grand theatrical acts of protest against military thuggery.  The stable of Egyptian politics was turned out; there were protests across North Africa stretching to Iran.  But the strong men returned, and authoritarianism reasserted itself.  We bear witness to a flirt of history rather than any lasting consummation of change.  Tunisia, however, proved the holdout exception.  Ben Ali might well have counted himself unlucky, a victim of posterity’s considerable, mocking condescension.

What Is Energy Denial?

Don Fitz

The fiftieth anniversary of the first Earth Day of 1970 will be in 2020.  As environmentalism has gone mainstream during that half a century, it has forgotten its early focus and shifted toward green capitalism.  Nowhere is this more apparent than abandonment of the slogan popular during the early Earth Days: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.”

The unspoken phrase of today’s Earth Day is “Recycle, Occasionally Reuse, and Never Utter the Word ‘Reduce.’”  A quasi taboo on saying “reduce” permeates the lexicon of twenty-first century environmentalism.  Confronting the planned obsolescence of everyday products rarely, if ever, appears as an ecological goal.  The concept of possessing fewer objects and smaller homes has surrendered to the worship of ecogadgets.  The idea of redesigning communities to make them compact so individual cars would not be necessary has been replaced by visions of universal electric cars.  The saying “Live simply so that others can simply live” now draws empty stares.  Long forgotten are the modest lifestyles of Buddha, Jesus and Thoreau.

When the word “conservation” is used, it is almost always applied to preserving plants or animals and rarely to conserving energy.  The very idea of re-imagining society so that people can have good lives as they use less energy has been consumed by visions of the infinite expansion of solar/wind power and the oxymoron, “100% clean energy.”

But… wait – aren’t solar and wind power inherently clean?  No, and that is the crux of the problem.  Many have become so distraught with looming climate catastrophe that they turn a blind eye to other threats to the existence of life.  Shortsightedness by some who rightfully denounce “climate change denial” has led to a parallel unwillingness to recognize dangers built into other forms of energy production, a problem which can be called “clean energy danger denial.”

Obviously, fossil fuels must be replaced by other forms of energy. But those energy sources have such negative properties that using less energy should be the beginning point, the ending point and occupy every in-between point on the path to sane energy use.  What follows are “The 15 Unstated Myths of Clean, Renewable Energy.”  Many are so absurd that no one would utter them, yet they are ensconced within the assumption that massive production of solar and wind energy can be “clean.”

Myth 1.  “Clean energy” is carbon neutral.  The fallacious belief that “clean” energy does not emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) is best exemplified by nuclear power, which is often included in the list of alternative energy sources.  It is, of course, true that very little GHGs are released during the operation of nukes.  But it is wrong to ignore the use of fossil fuels in the construction (and ultimate decommissioning) of the power plant as well as the mining, milling, transport and eternal storage of nuclear material.  To this must be added the fossil fuels used in the building of the array of machinery to make nukes possible and the disruption of aquatic ecosystems from the emptying of hot water.

Similarly, examination of the life cycle of producing other “carbon neutral” energy reveals that they all require machinery which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels.  Steel, cement and plastics are central to “renewable” energy and have heavy carbon footprints.  One small example: The mass of an industrial wind turbine is 90% steel.

Wind turbine blades at a Wyoming landfill

Myth 2. “Clean energy” is inexhaustible because the sun will always shine and the wind will always blow.  This statement assumes that all that is needed for energy is sunshine and wind, which is not the case.  Sunshine and wind do not equal solar power and wind power.  The transformation into “renewable” energy requires minerals which are non-renewable and difficult to access.

Myth 3. “Clean energy” does not produce toxins.  Knowledge that the production of fossil fuels is associated with a high level of poisons should not lead us to ignore the level of toxins involved in the extraction and processing of lithium, cobalt, copper, silver, aluminum, cadmium, indium, gallium, selenium, tellurium, neodymium, and dysprosium.  Would a comparison of toxins associated with the production of clean energy to fossil fuels be an open admission of the dirtiness of what is supposed to be “clean?”

Another example: “Processing one ton of rare earths necessary for alternative energy produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste.”  Similar to what happens with Myth 2, toxins may not be produced during the operation of solar and wind power but permeate other stages of their existence.

Myth 4. “Clean energy” does not deplete or contaminate drinkable water.  Though water is usually thought of for agriculture and cooling in nuclear power plants, it is used in massive amounts for manufacturing and mining.  The manufacture of a single auto requires 350,000 liters of water.

In 2015, the US used 4 billion gallons of water for mining and 70% of that comes from groundwater.  Water is used for separating minerals from rocks, cooling machinery and dust control.  Even industry apologists admit that “Increased reliance on low ore grades means that it is becoming necessary to extract a higher volume of ore to generate the same amount of refined product, which consumes more water.”  Julia Adeney Thomas points out that “producing one ton of rare earth ore (in terms of rare earth oxides) produces 200 cubic meters of acidic wastewater.”

Myth 5. “Clean energy” does not require very much land usage.  In fact, “clean” energy could well have more effect on land use than fossil fuels.  According to Jasper Bernes, “To replace current US energy consumption with renewables, you’d need to devote at least 25-50 % of the US landmass to solar, wind, and biofuels.”

Something else is often omitted from contrasts between energy harvesting.  Fossil fuel has a huge effect on land where it is extracted but relatively little land is used at the plants where the fuel is burned for energy.  In contrast, solar/wind power requires both land where raw materials are mined plus the vast amount of land used for solar panels or wind “farms.”

Myth 6. “Clean energy” has no effect on plant and animal life.  Contrary to the belief that there is no life in a desert, the Mojave is teeming with plant and animal life whose habitat will be increasingly undermined as it is covered with solar collectors.  It is unfortunate that so many who express concern for the destruction of coral reefs seem blissfully unaware of the annihilation of aquatic life wrought by deep sea mining of minerals for renewable energy components.

Wind harvesting can be a doomsday machine for forests.  As Ozzie Zehner warns: “Many of the planet’s strongest winds rip across forested ridges.  In order to transport 50-ton generator modules and 160-foot blades to these sites, wind developers cut new roads.  They also clear strips of land … for power lines and transformers.  These provide easy access to poachers as well as loggers, legal and illegal alike.”

As the most productive land for solar/wind extraction is used first, that requires the continuous expansion of the amount of land (or sea bed) taken as energy use increases.  The estimate that 1 million species could be made extinct in upcoming decades will have to be up-counted to the extent that “clean” energy is mixed in with fossil fuels.

Myth 7. “Clean energy” production has no effect on human health.  Throughout the centuries of capitalist expansion workers have struggled to protect their health and families have opposed the poisoning of their communities.  This is not likely to change with an increase in “clean” energy.  What will change is the particular toxins which compromise health.

Creating silicon wafers for solar cells “releases large amounts of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide.  Crystalline-silicon solar cell processing involves the use or release of chemicals such as phosphine, arsenic, arsine, trichloroethane, phosphorous oxycholoride, ethyl vinyl acetate, silicon trioxide, stannic chloride, tantalum pentoxide, lead, hexavalent chromium, and numerous other chemical compounds.”  The explosive gas silane is also used and more recent thin-film technologies employ toxic substances such as cadmium.

Wind technology is associate with its own problems.  Caitlin Manning reports on windmill farms in the Trans Isthmus Corridor of Mexico: “which is majority Indigenous and dependent on agriculture and fishing. The concrete bases of the more than 1,600 wind turbines have severely disrupted the underground water flows … Despite promises that they could continue to farm their lands, fences and security guards protecting the turbines prevent farmers from moving freely. The turbines leak oil into the soil and sometimes ignite … many people have suffered mental problems from the incessant noise.”

Though the number of health problems documented for fossil fuels is vastly more than those for solar/wind, the latter have been used on an industrial scale for a much shorter time, making it harder for links to show up.  The Precautionary Principle states that a dangerous process should be proven safe before use rather than waiting until after damage has been done.  Will those who have correctly insisted that the Precautionary Principle be employed for fracking and other fossil fuel processes demand an equivalent level of investigation for “clean” energy or give it the same wink and nod that petrochemical magnates have enjoyed?

Myth 8. People are happy to have “clean energy” harvested or its components mined where they live.  Swooping windmill blades can produce constant car-alarm-level noise of about 100 decibels, and, if they ice up, they can fling it off at 200 miles per hour.  It is not surprising that indigenous people of Mexico are not alone in being less than thrilled about having them next door.  Since solar panels and windmills can only be built where there is lots of sun or wind, their neighbors are often high-pressured into accepting them unwillingly.

Obviously, components can be mined only where they exist, leading to a non-ending list of opponents.  Naveena Sadasivam gives a few examples from the very long list of communities confronting extraction for “clean” energy components: “Indigenous communities in Alaska have been fighting to prevent the mining of copper and gold at Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery and a crucial source of sustenance. The proposed mine … has been billed by proponents as necessary to meet the growing demand for copper, which is used in wind turbines, batteries, and solar panels. Similar stories are playing out in Norway, where the Sámi community is fighting a copper mine, and in Papua New Guinea, where a company is proposing mining the seabed for gold and copper.”

Myth 9. No one is ever killed due to disputes over energy extraction or harvesting.  When Asad Rehman wrote in May 2019 that environmental conflicts are responsible for “the murder of two environmental defenders each and every week,” his data was out of date within two months.  By July 2019 Global Witness (GW) had tabulated that “More than three people were murdered each week in 2018 for defending their land and our environment.”  Their report found that mining was the deadliest economic sector, followed by agriculture, with water resources such as dams in third place.  Commenting on the GW findings, Justine Calma wrote “Although hydropower has been billed as ‘renewable energy,’ many activists have taken issue with the fact large dams and reservoirs have displaced indigenous peoples and disrupted local wildlife.”

GW recorded one murder sparked by wind power. Murders traceable to “clean” energy will certainly increase if it out-produces energy from fossil fuels.  The largest mass murder of earth defenders that GW found in 2018 was in India “over the damaging impacts of a copper mine in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.”  Copper is a key element for “clean” energy.

Myth 10. One watt of “clean energy” will replace one watt from use of fossil fuels.  Perhaps the only virtue that fossil fuels have is that their energy is easier to store than solar/wind power.  Solar and wind power are intermittent, which means they can be collected only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.  Storing and retrieving their energy requires complex processes that result in substantial loss of energy.  Additionally, the characteristics of solar panels means that tiny fragments such as dust or leaves can block the surface.

Therefore, their efficiency will be much less under actual operating conditions than they are under ideal lab conditions.  A test described by Ozzie Zehner found that solar arrays rated at 1000 watts actually produced 200-400 watts in the field.  Similarly, Pat Murphy notes that while a coal plant operates at 80-90% of capacity, wind turbines do so at 20-30% of capacity.  Since they perform at low efficiencies, both solar and wind energy require considerably more land than misleading forecasts predict.  This, in turn, increases all of the problems with habitat loss, toxic emissions, human health and land conflicts.

Myth 11.  “Clean energy” is as efficient as fossil fuels in resource use.  Processes needed for storing and retrieving energy from intermittent sources renders them extremely complex.  Solar/wind energy can be stored for night use by using it to pump water uphill and, when energy is needed, letting it flow downhill to turn turbines for electricity.  Or, it can be stored in expensive, large and heavy batteries.  Wind turbines “can pressurize air into hermetically sealed underground caverns to be tapped later for power, but the conversion is inefficient and suitable geological sites are rare.”  Daniel Tanuro estimates that “Renewable energies are enough to satisfy human needs, but the technologies needed for their conversion are more resource-intensive than fossil technologies: it takes at least ten times more metal to make a machine capable of producing a renewable kWh than to manufacture a machine able to produce a fossil kWh.”

Myth 12.  Improved efficiency can resolve problems of “clean energy.”  This is perhaps the most often-stated illusion of green energy.  Energy efficiency (EE) is the same as putting energy on sale.  Shoppers do not buy less of something on sale – they buy more.  Stan Cox describes research showing that at the same time air conditioners became 28% more efficient, they accounted for 37% more energy use.  Findings such as this are due both to users keeping their houses cooler and more people buying air conditioners.  Similarly, at the same time as automobiles showed more EE, energy use for transportation went up.  This is because more drivers switched from sedans to SUVs or small trucks and there were many more drivers and cars on the road.

EE parallels increased energy consumption not just because of increased use of one specific commodity, but also because it allows people to buy other commodities which are also energy-intensive.  It spurs corporations to produce more energy-guzzling objects to dump on the market.  Those people who do not want this additional stuff are likely to put more money in the bank and the bank lends out that money to multiple borrowers, many of whom are businesses which use the loans to increase their production.

Myth 13.  Recycling “clean energy” machine components can resolve its problems.  This myth vastly overestimates the proportion of materials that can actually be recycled and understates the massive amount of “clean” energy being advocated.  Kris De Decker point out that “… a 5 MW wind turbine produces more than 50 tonnes of plastic composite waste from the blades alone.”  If a solar/wind infrastructure could actually be constructed to replace all energy from fossil fuel, it would be the most enormous build-up in human history.  Many components could be recycled, but it is not possible to recycle more than 100% of components and the build-up would require an industrial growth rate of 200%, 300% or maybe much more.

Myth 14.  Whatever problems there are with “clean energy” will work themselves out.  Exactly the opposite is true.  Problems of “clean” energy will become worse as resources are used up, the best land for harvesting solar and wind power is taken, and the rate of industrial expansion increases.  Obtaining power will become much more difficult as there are diminishing returns on new locations for mining and placing solar collectors and wind mills.

Myth 15.  There Is No Alternative.  This repeats Margaret Thatcher’s right-wing perspective which is reflected in the claim that “We have to do something because moving a little bit in the right direction is better than doing nothing at all.”  The problem is that expanding energy production is a step in the wrong direction, not the right direction.

The alternative to overgrowing “clean” energy is remembering what was outlined before.  The concept of conserving energy is an age-old philosophy embodied in use of the word “reduce.”  Those who only see the horrible potential of climate change have an unfortunate tendency to mimic the behavior of climate change deniers as they themselves deny the dangers of alternative energy.

Kris De Decker traces the roots of toxic wind power not to wind power itself but to arrogant faith in unlimited energy growth: “For more than two thousand years, windmills were built from recyclable or reusable materials: wood, stone, brick, canvas, metal.  If we would reduce energy demand, smaller and less efficient wind turbines would not be a problem.”

Every form of energy production has difficulties.  “Clean, renewable energy” is neither clean nor renewable.  There can be good lives for all people if we abandon the goal of infinite energy growth.  Our guiding principle needs to be that the only form of truly clean energy is less energy.