Australian Labor Party records lowest primary vote since 1934

Martin Scott

The May 21 federal election marked a significant turning point in Australian politics. Decades of disillusionment and anger toward the official political set-up was expressed in an unprecedented collapse of support for the ruling parties.

Together, Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition won just 68.27 percent of the primary vote. Labor has formed government despite receiving the first preference of just 32.58 percent, or less than a third of the primary votes, the party’s worst result since the Great Depression.

Under Australia’s anti-democratic preferential system, voters must allocate preferences to all candidates for their House of Representatives ballot to be counted. Primary votes are those that receive a first preference. Votes for other candidates are eventually allotted, nearly always to major parties, particularly Labor or the Coalition, based on preferences, to bolster the political establishment.

The Liberal vote plummeted by 4.28 percent, with the party registering its worst result in 80 years. This was bound up with mass hostility to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who was identified above all with callous disregard for bushfire and flood victims, and the catastrophic “let it rip” COVID policies.

But Labor was not the beneficiary, with its own first preference vote declining by 0.76 percent, on top of a fall of 1.39 percent in the 2019 election. There is a growing recognition that there is no difference between Labor and the Liberal-Nationals on any of the substantive issues, from war, to the “herd immunity” coronavirus program and social austerity.

In affluent areas, the massive decline in the Coalition’s vote produced gains for the Greens, who picked up three new seats in the House of Representatives, and “Teal Independents,” who won six seats. These “independents,” with substantial financial backing and themselves closely connected to the corporate elite, promote the lie that climate change can be reversed through “green” investment, the real purpose of which is to develop new profit opportunities for big business.

All nine of the seats gained by the Greens and Teals were in the wealthiest third of electorates, reflecting their orientation to, and support from, the upper-middle class and sections of the ruling elite. While the program of the Greens and the Teals is utterly bogus, this support also reflects, in a distorted and limited form, broad-based opposition to the continued destruction of the environment in the interest of private profit.

Despite a massive advertising budget, reportedly as high as $100 million, the far-right populist United Australia Party made only small gains as voters deserted the major parties. Nationally, the party, which opposed COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures, and promoted dangerous fake treatments for the virus, gained just 0.69 percentage points in the House of Representatives and 1.10 points in the Senate, less than some minor single-issue parties.

Australia’s other major far-right party, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, gained 1.88 percentage points in the House of Representatives, primarily by standing in all electorates, and lost 1.11 points in the Senate.

This illustrates that the mass desertion by voters of Labor and the Liberal-Nationals is not the product of a shift to the right by the working class, but a loathing for the entire political establishment. Virtually all minor parties made small gains, essentially in proportion to the number of electorates in which they stood candidates. 

Labor’s declining working-class vote

One of the most significant features of the election was that it confirmed that Labor can in no way claim a mass base of support in the working class. Throughout Australia’s history, Labor has been the pre-eminent political force tying workers to the capitalist system. However, decades of pro-business policies have made it clear to an increasing number of workers that the party does not represent their interests, but those of the corporate elite, and can no longer even be considered a “lesser evil.”

The change in Labor‘s vote in each electorate, sorted from most socio-economic disadvantage (left) to least. [Photo: WSWS]

Labor’s vote declined in 85 of the 151 electoral divisions across the country. The fall was largest in working-class and impoverished regional areas. On average, the first preference vote for Labor declined by 1.7 percentage points in the 76 most disadvantaged electorates, while it dropped by just 0.07 percent in the most advantaged 75 seats.

Labor won only a single new seat in the most disadvantaged half of the country’s 151 electoral divisions, the marginal New South Wales (NSW) seat of Robertson, while five of the party’s ten seats gained were in the 23 wealthiest electorates.

In the predominantly working-class Sydney areas to the south and west of Parramatta, the city’s geographical centre, Labor’s vote fell in ten out of twelve electoral divisions. In Parramatta, 11.4 percent of 15-24 year olds and 5.9 percent of workers overall are unemployed, even on the misleadingly low official statistics.

Labor’s largest decline across the country was in the southwest Sydney electorate of Fowler, the tenth-most disadvantaged division in the country. Labor had held the seat since it was created in 1984, but this year it went to independent candidate Dai Le after Labor’s vote fell by 18.49 percent.

The immediate cause was a tone-deaf attempt to parachute the deeply unpopular former NSW Premier Kristina Keneally into a safe seat, but the result also points to a growing hostility to the political establishment, in a region where workers confront an acute social crisis.

Almost 66 percent of renters and 70 percent of mortgagees in Fowler are in housing stress, according to social housing organisation “Everybody’s Home.” Across southwest Sydney, the official unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, the highest of any urban area in the country and almost double the national figure of 3.9 percent, while youth unemployment is at 12.2 percent.

On top of a fall of 6.28 points for Labor in Fowler in the 2019 election, this year’s defeat resulted in a more than 25 percent drop over the two elections.

The change in Labor‘s vote in Sydney [Photo: WSWS]

Southwest Sydney suffered disproportionately from high levels of the COVID-19 infection, illness and death that has been allowed to run rampant as a result of the homicidal policies of all Australian governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike.

At the same time, the region was targeted with punitive and aggressively enforced partial lockdowns. This included the deployment of the military and police to demonise and harass ordinary people, while a host of pro-business exemptions meant that the measures did little to curtail the spread of the virus.

Mass infections have accelerated in these working-class areas, since even the inadequate lockdowns were ended last December. Anecdotal reports indicate that the virus continues to spread like wildfire in factories and warehouses, along with schools.

Labor’s vote also fell in the neighbouring electorates of Werriwa (8.03 percent in 2022, 4.38 percent in 2019) and Blaxland (2.55 percent in 2022, 5.53 percent in 2019), the most disadvantaged electorate in NSW. In Werriwa, 66.4 percent of renters and 70.7 percent of borrowers are in housing stress, as are 64.1 percent of renters in Blaxland.

While Labor’s vote increased by 2.09 percent in McMahon, to the north of Fowler, this fell far short of offsetting a 7.36 percent decline in 2019. Similarly in Greenway, which includes several working-class suburbs but is overall one of the wealthier electorates in the state, the 2.56 percentage point increase in Labor’s vote this year was less than the 3.11 drop at the last federal election.

Labor won two new seats in Sydney. One was Bennelong, a wealthy electorate dominated by the Liberal Party since it was created in 1949 and previously held by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard. The other was Reid, which was a Labor stronghold from 1922 but went to the Liberals from 2013.

The turn away from Labor in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage is not a new phenomenon. When Labor lost the “unloseable” 2019 federal election, its vote fell by 2.78 percent in the poorest half of electorates and by only 0.33 percent in the wealthiest half.

The change in Labor‘s vote in Melbourne [Photo: WSWS]

In Victoria, Labor’s primary vote this year fell in 18 of the 20 most socially disadvantaged electorates. While the party made substantial gains in the 2019 election, this year’s decline more than outweighed them. Since 2016, Labor’s vote has fallen in 26 out of 39 seats, including 16 of the 20 poorest.

There are clear links with the deindustrialisation that has taken place in the region, especially the shutdown of the car manufacturing industry. Beginning in 1984, with the “Button car plan,” the Labor Hawke-Keating government and the trade unions spearheaded the pro-business overhaul of the sector, leading to its complete closure by 2017. This resulted in the destruction of thousands of jobs, leaving a legacy of long-term unemployment.

In Calwell, a working-class electorate that includes the former automotive manufacturing hub of Broadmeadows, Labor suffered a swing of 9.57 percent, following a fall of 4.8 points in 2019. In the 2016 election, held months before Ford shut down its Broadmeadows plant, Labor received 56.81 percent of the primary vote. This year, the party received just 44.86 percent. The official unemployment rate in the region is 6.8 percent, the highest in Victoria, and youth unemployment is at 13.7 percent.

In the neighbouring electorate of Scullin, where 65.4 percent of mortgagees are in financial stress, the highest level of any seat in Melbourne, Labor’s vote declined by 13.63 percentage points.

Labor’s vote also fell in Gellibrand (6.32 points), where 14 percent of youth and 5.2 percent of all workers are unemployed, and Corio (5.47 points). These electorates contain the former automotive manufacturing hubs of Altona and Geelong.

The two new seats Labor won in Victoria were both in Melbourne’s inner east and among the state’s ten wealthiest electorates. In Chisholm, a marginal seat, Labor’s vote increased by 3.91 points, while in Higgins, Labor gained 2.58 percent this year, on top of an 8.85-point increase in 2019, to win the seat for the first time since it was created in 1949.

In South Australia, Labor’s vote fell in eight out of ten electorates. The largest decline, of 7.1 percentage points, was in Spence, the most disadvantaged area in the state. The seat includes the north Adelaide suburb of Elizabeth, home to General Motors’ Australian plant until it was closed in 2017, putting thousands out of work. The official unemployment rate in the area is 5.9 percent, the highest level in Adelaide.

While Labor’s vote increased slightly in Queensland, this paled in comparison to a massive swing away from the party in 2019, meaning that, since 2016, Labor has lost votes in 25 out of the state’s 30 electorates.

The only state in which Labor made substantial gains was Western Australia (WA), where its primary vote increased by 7.04 percentage points. Despite the pandemic being virtually unmentioned during the election, even after Labor leader Anthony Albanese was infected with COVID during the campaign, Labor’s vote reflected the support for the measures initially enacted in that state to keep it free from the virus.

The state had essentially eliminated the virus throughout most of the pandemic, until the WA Labor government acceded to growing pressure, spearheaded by Morrison and the National Cabinet, to drop its “hard border.” Four of the ten seats gained by Labor were in that state, and Labor’s vote increased in all but one electorate.

Labor’s record

The growing turn away from Labor is based on the experiences of workers over the past four decades. In that time, Labor governments, in close collaboration with the trade unions, have been at the forefront of a massive assault on the working class.

This is part of an international process. Beginning in the 1980s, all the social-democratic and trade union organisations dispensed with their previous program of seeking limited reforms for workers, by placing pressure on nationally-based governments and businesses.

The objective basis for this nationalist program, which was always aimed at propping up the capitalist wage labour and profit system, was shattered by the globalisation of production. Labor, together with the unions, became the chief advocates of ensuring that Australian industry became “globally competitive” in the new world market, through a continuous lowering of workers’ wages and conditions.

The Labor governments led by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, from 1983 to 1996, carried out a sweeping economic restructuring, slashing wages and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries no longer considered sufficiently profitable.

The Labor-union imposition of “enterprise bargaining” ensured workers’ struggles were isolated to individual workplaces, and denied workers the right to strike over pay and conditions, except during narrow bargaining windows. Union-enforced enterprise bargaining has resulted in one sell-out agreement after another, across every industry. It is responsible for the massive growth of casual labour, and the decades-long stagnation of wages.

This agenda was further stepped up by the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard from 2007 to 2013 with the introduction of the “Fair Work Act.” The legislation introduced further restrictions on the right of workers to strike, while handing the anti-worker Fair Work Commission expanded powers to shut down industrial action.

Between 1937 and 1983, Labor’s first preference vote averaged 45.8 percent. Since the 1983 election of the Hawke Labor government with 49.48 percent of the primary vote, the party has scored an average of 39.1 percent. Since 2000, Labor has recorded an average of just 36.36 percent of first preferences, with the exception of the 2007 when Kevin Rudd won with over 40 percent of the vote.

Events since the election have underscored Labor’s character as a pro-war party of the banks and big business.

After taking office, Prime Minister Albanese jettisoned Labor’s election slogan of a “better future,” instead insisting that workers must accept “sacrifies” through continued wage suppression, amid soaring inflation. Labor has also signalled sweeping cuts to social spending, to force the working class to pay for the deepening crisis of capitalism and the hundreds of millions of dollars handed to big business during the pandemic.

Internationally, Labor is functioning as an attack dog of the US confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific, a program which threatens nuclear war. Albanese’s government has continued the bipartisan persecution of refugees and rejected calls to free Julian Assange, the Australian citizen and journalist being persecuted for exposing US-led war crimes.

Learn Africa Canary Islands Scholarship Program 2022

Application Deadline: 5th July 2022

Type: Postgraduate degree & Short course

Eligibility:

• Be a woman and have the nationality of an African country.
• Be enrolled in an African university or have a university degree issued in an African country. The degree required may vary depending on the scholarship requested (see detailed information of each scholarship)
• Have a stable internet connection and the appropriate technical equipment (computer, laptop, tablet …). All courses are online.
• Fulfill the specific requirements and have the technical/technological material required for each scholarship
• Up to three scholarship applications per person are accepted, but you only have to fulfill and submit one application form. On this form you can mark up a maximum of three courses, selected in order of preference.

Selection Criteria: A committee of experts from the “Women for Africa Foundation” and Canarias Islands Government will make a first evaluation of all the candidatures on the basis of all the documents received.

In particular, the following documents will be taken into account:

• CV
• Languages

The final selection will be agreed with each of the participating universities and the results will be personally communicated to each of the selected candidates.

The decision will not be personally communicated to unsuccessful candidates.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Universities):

• ULPGC – Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canarias
• ULL – Universidad de La Laguna
• ESSSCAN – Escuela de Servicios Sanitarios y Sociales de Canarias
• FGULL – Fundación General de La Laguna
• FULP – Fundación Universidad de las Palmas
• ITC – Instituto Tecnológico Canario

Number of Awards: 66

• 2 Postgraduate courses
• 45 language courses
• 19 specialised short courses

Value of Award: These scholarships of online modality cover registration, tuition fees and issuance of the degree obtained.

How to Apply: To apply for Learn Africa Canarias scholarships you do not have to register on the platform.

You only have to consult the available scholarships and click on the button “Apply”. A form will be opened and you will have to fill in all your details and attach the requested documents. We suggest you read the form in detail and have all the information requested prepared before completing it. All available courses are listed in the form and you can mark up to a maximum of three options, selected in order of preference.

Important: before submitting the application form, please check all the information, because once the application has been sent it cannot be changed.

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

The Ukraine War’s Role in Exacerbating Global Food Insecurity

John P. Ruehl

Farmland in Ukraine. Photograph Source: Dobrych – CC BY-SA 2.0

With some of the world’s most fertile land, Ukraine’s nickname as the breadbasket of Europe is an understatement of its agricultural potential. Together with Russia, the two countries account for roughly 14 percent of global corn exports, 22 percent of rapeseed/canola exports, 27 percent of wheat exports, and 30 percent of barley exports, as well as almost 70 percent of the world’s sunflower oil exports. Russia is also the world’s top exporter of fertilizer, and so the global food system faces the simultaneous challenges of Western sanctions on Russia and steeper costs of both growing and importing food.

Since February, Russia has seized some of Ukraine’s most vital agricultural regions in the eastern and southeastern parts of the country. The Russian military has also prevented Ukraine from accessing its ports on the Black Sea recently, leaving Ukraine essentially landlocked, and unable to export its food products to the international markets.

But though the war has certainly exacerbated the global food crisis, it was preceded by the food price hikes of 2007 and 2011, in addition to the hike witnessed due to COVID-19, after decades of falling costs in real prices of food items. In 2021, data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) showed more massive increases in meat, dairy, cereals, vegetable oils, and sugar prices that exceeded the previous spike witnessed in 2007 and 2011.

Since the beginning of the Ukrainian war, prices of food items have skyrocketed further. The situation has highlighted the decreasing levels of food self-sufficiency around the world, which the FAO defines as “the extent to which a country can satisfy its food needs from its own domestic production.” Food self-sufficiency has declined globally since the 1960s, particularly in Africa, but also in countries like Japan.

Based on current trends, only 14 percent of countries are projected to be food self-sufficient by the end of the century, according to an article in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Imports will therefore become steadily more vital for the growing number of countries unable to meet their food needs through domestic production. But the rising volatility in food prices since 2007 has tested the affordability and competency of this system.

Food security, the ability to meet food demand through domestic production and imports, has also fallen around the world in recent years. While richer countries that have grown less self-sufficient in food production have been able to shoulder the increasing costs of imports before, food shortages are now also affecting them as well.

Aside from the war in Ukraine and disruption to global supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic, other factors have also exacerbated these stresses. In 2000, the global population stood at around 6.1 billion, whereas today it is 7.9 billion. Global food habits have also changed, with meat consumption per capita having increased substantially over the last 20 years. High obesity rates, formerly limited to Europe and North America, are now prevalent around the world.

With more mouths to feed, global food security has also been threatened by the loss of arable land due to erosion, pollution, climate change, and increasing water shortages over the last few decades. These issues were partially offset by increased efficiencies in food production and globalization, which allowed countries to sell excess food products in a competitive market.

The war in Ukraine, however, has sent these problems into overdrive. In addition to stifling Ukraine’s ability to export, Russia has significantly reduced food and agricultural exports to “unfriendly countries” in the wake of sanctions, cutting off the supply of most of the food products it exported to the Western world, as well as to Japan and South Korea.

But even net exporters like Russia are in trouble, with the Kremlin announcing in March that it would “suspend exports of wheat, meslin, rye, barley, and corn to the Eurasian Economic Union” (EAEU)—the economic bloc led by Russia—until August 31 in order to secure its own domestic food supply.

The food crisis has instigated other countries to make greater efforts to shore up their positions to secure the food supply systems. The U.S. imported more than $1 billion worth of fertilizer from Russia in 2021. In an effort to offset U.S. agriculture’s dependence on Russia, President Joe Biden committed $2.1 billion on June 1 to strengthen the nation’s food system.

In March, the European Union committed up to €1.5 billion to help support the bloc’s farming sectors, and also loosened regulations on the European Green Deal, including restrictions on the land available for farming. Introduced in 2019 to curb and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, the sidelining of the Green Deal has underscored the severity of the situation.

As food prices began to rise quickly in 2021, China was accused of hoarding grain supplies. By December, the country was in possession of more than half the global grain supply, and according to data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, during the first half of 2022, China was predicted to have half of global wheat supplies, 60 percent of rice supplies, and roughly 70 percent of maize supplies.

More than a dozen countries have banned certain or all food exports until the end of this year or into next year, and these measures are unlikely to be the last. The most recent jump in wheat prices, which have gone up by more than 40 percent since January, followed India’s announcement that it would ban exports following a heat wave that destroyed crops in the country. As the second-largest wheat producer in the world, India’s decision added another blow to the insecurity surrounding global food markets.

More drastic effects are being felt in Sri Lanka. In 2021, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa enacted a ban on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and weedkillers to turn the country’s agricultural sector completely organic by 2030. Amid claims that the ban was merely an attempt to reduce imports and maintain Sri Lanka’s foreign currency reserves, this move eventually decimated domestic food production.

Having endured an economic crisis in 2019, the pandemic, and rising food and energy costs as a result of the war in Ukraine, Sri Lanka defaulted on its debt for the first time in history in May. Other economically unstable countries risk meeting a similar fate, with Sri Lanka also experiencing violent protests.

The chaotic consequences of the rising cost of food were already visible more than a decade ago. Affordability of food was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2010, which saw protests, toppled governments, and led to civil wars. The Arab region typically receives between 40 percent and 50 percent of its food imports from Ukraine and Russia, indicating that the region is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.

Even before the invasion of Ukraine, a growing number of people around the world were undernourished. Last year marked a record high of almost 193 million people facing acute food insecurity across 53 countries and territories, according to the Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC).

Alongside the millions of Ukrainians who will require food aid this year, underwhelming harvests and conflicts in other parts of the world have meant countries such as Yemen, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nigeria, Niger, Somalia, and South Sudan are also high-risk countries, in addition to countries harder hit by increasing food costs.

Though the food crisis has instigated governments to adopt nationalist policies to protect themselves, there have been some examples of international cooperation. India has provided Sri Lanka with billions of dollars in loans since its economic crisis began, as well as emergency food deliveries.

European states are, meanwhile, attempting to develop alternative transit routes for Ukrainian food products away from Russia-controlled Black Sea ports, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Turkey on June 8 for discussions that included creating a Black Sea corridor to allow Ukrainian grain to reach the world markets.

But like energy, food has also served as a weapon of foreign policy. Faced with the fact that food insecurity is one of the major sources of leverage for Russian President Vladimir Putin against the West, he can be expected to double down on ensuring that the current food crisis continues. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated on April 1 that food exports were a “quiet but ominous” weapon that Russia intended to use.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also warned against increasing cyberattacks and potential sabotage of agricultural and food plants in the United States. With the global food crisis approaching a new phase, increasing Ukrainian exports, encouraging international cooperation, and developing additional agricultural initiatives will be vital to overcoming it.

BRICS, Putin, Xi, and challenge to the Empire

Farooque Chowdhury

brics

BRICS is taking initiatives that stand as a challenge to the Empire-led world arrangement. The arrangement – Empire’s sole authority – in the world capitalist order will face stiff competition and resistance if BRICS initiatives move on steadily.

The on-going Ukraine War has appeared as a significant lesson to all concerned standing on both sides of the war-line. The war alliance NATO, on one side, is fighting Russia in a war that has never happened since the closure of the WWII.

Not only in terms of warring countries and the war’s spread, but also in terms of weapons, this Ukraine War stands as an example of imperial capital’s power, manipulation capacity, and incapacity. The arena of war has already spread over countries, as a few countries are acting as training camps while a few have turned them as stockpiling and staging ground, and a high-pitched propaganda including psyop center. The most significant part is one of the weapons being used in the war – sanctions. Its use tells the Empire-led system’s extent of capacity, which ultimately shows the sanction-weapon’s incapacity.

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has recently told of a few BRICS initiatives. These include development of a BRICS global reserve currency – a currency basket of BRICS countries. The Russian leader was talking recently at the BRICS Business Forum.

The countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – together represent more than 40% of the global population with their more than 16% share in world trade. The block’s share of global economy is 23% while share of global investment is 25%. In 2021, BRICS recorded more than $8.5 trillion in merchandise trade. These all will, hopefully, increase in the coming years as the countries in the block are intensifying their cooperation, and a few more countries are going to join BRICS.

In view of the use of sanction-weapon by the Empire-led military alliance in the Ukraine War, and the BRICS countries’ increasing trade and investment, development of a BRICS global reserve currency, as Russian president Putin has told, is not only significant, but a necessity, and a challenge to the Empire-led system.

The Empire-led system has proved unreliable and undependable. Venezuela has already experienced this undependable character of the Empire-led pole. The Latin American country’s gold, a huge quantity, is in the UK, a major pillar of the Empire-led system. Venezuela has yet failed to bring in that gold from London. Venezuela’s money is in the US. Iran has the same experience. Russia is now experiencing the same – a huge amount of its reserve, more than $300 billion, is now in the Empire-led system’s pocket. It’s outright theft.

Who knows that some other country trying not to be swallowed by the Empire-led system shall not have similar experience? Who’s safe and secure in this imperial reality? Who can keep trust on the Empire-led system?

None is safe in the system, and none can keep trust on the system. One is safe from the bite of the system as long as it obliges the Empire.

The Empire’s economy itself is not in a powerful position. That’s another factor behind dwindling trust on the Empire.

Even, the capital that exploits its land of origin shall aspire to be safe and secure if its interest comes into competition/conflict with the imperial interest; and there’s that possibility of competition/conflict, and that’s because of nature of capital.

With this perspective, the development regarding the BRICS reserve currency Putin mentioned is a source of hope for countries aspiring to go away from the imperial orbit.

The BRICS-states, according to Putin, are also developing an alternative mechanism for international payment. The countries have already initiated the process of using local currencies in trade among them. The states are also developing a joint payment network.

The Ukraine War has created this urgency – an alternative joint payment network. The imperial order planned to subdue Russia at the onset of the Ukraine War, and the payment network the imperial system dominates – SWIFT – was one of the tools in that subdue onslaught. The alternate joint payment network will take away reliance on the imperial system. That’ll be a blow to the imperial system.

Russia has already developed a payment system alternate to the great SWIFT. It’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages, according to Russian acronym, it’s SPFS. Putin has offered the BRICS states to freely connect to the SPFS. Fifty-two organizations from 12 countries, and most of the Russian lenders are connected to the system.

China has a similar system: the Cross-border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). The CIPS last year processed about $12 trillion.

Along this, the yuan, according to the SWIFT, was the 5th most active currency for global payments by value in April.

India, media reports said, was considering the possibility of using yuan as a reference currency in India-Russia payment settlement mechanism.

The BRICS states can make choice between the Russian and the Chinese systems, or develop a third alternative. Whatever is chosen, the SWIFT-alternative carries powerful possibilities beyond the imperial system.

So the message Putin conveyed at the BRICS Business Forum, at the beginning of the BRICS Summit that has formally opened on June 23, 2022 in Beijing, is meaningful, and is having a far-reaching implication.

Alberto Fernandez, the president of Argentina, has already expressed support to such system. To Fernandez, it’s a way to get out of dollar’s dominance. Possibly, more countries will follow.

The 14th BRICS Summit, possibly, is going to take further steps to get rid of the Empire’s hegemony. For countries subdued by the Empire, it’s a positive development, as countries are experiencing the way the Empire weaponizes dollar. The Empire uses dollar as a financial weapon, and the weapon is used to further its interests – economic, financial, political; and political interest ultimately grows out of economic interests.

Countries are to get away from this weaponization-system owned by the Empire, as the system is anti-self-reliance, pro-subjection, subjection to the empire, its interest of exploitation of countries and peoples. It’s part of the world order the Empire leads. Putin has already said the old world is over. The utterance was in St. Petersburg Economic Forum, which concluded days back.

Xi Jinping, the president of China, in his speech at the forum, called for increased cooperation on e-commerce, logistics and local currencies. It’s an important proposal with wide possibilities.

Russia and China conduct a part of their trade in respective currencies. Hopefully, this part will expand. The two countries have similar arrangement with a number of countries. The Chinese leader called for increased utilization of national currencies. Xi said: Utilization of national currencies “would mean that we would not need to use the banking system of either the US or the EU.”

These, Putin’s and Xi’s proposals/approaches, are direct challenge to the Empire-led system, the Empire’s leadership. The Empire can’t tolerate this, as these will hurt the Empire’s interest.

The Empire needs, and demands, its dollar’s domination on all. The Empire need, and demands, expansion of its capital. This capital can’t survive without exploiting all. If examples of Asia-Africa-Latin America are ignored, today’s, during the on-going Ukraine War, Europe is the latest example. Moreover, shall this capital give others scope/space to expand? How much that space will be?

On the contrary, BRICS, and especially China, the biggest economy in the BRICS, provides a wider possibility. After the use of the sanction-weapon by the imperialist pole, Russia provides opportunities.

With sanction-weapon, the imperialist pole has burned its vehicles it touts: Free Market, Free Competition, Free Flow of Capital, and the confusingly-named Globalization. A number of capitals, other than the capitals in war industry and its associates, originating in European countries are experiencing the way the “brilliantly” planned sanction-weapon is burying those capitals’ in the soil of Ukraine. Along with hurting Russia the sanction-weapons is hurting capitals in Russia’s opposite camp. An estimate tells the direct loss by sanctioning economies due to sanctions imposed on Russia is a few hundred billion dollars. This amount of loss is bigger if indirect loss is calculated. This loss will rise further along with the passage of time. A real “brilliance” of minds designing the sanction-weapon!

Xi, on the opposite, has called for increased representation and voice of the emerging economies and developing countries. On sanctions, he said, it’s a boomerang and a double-edged sword, which “only end up hurting one’s own interests as well as those of others, and inflict suffering on everyone.”

The difference is clear. The imperialist camp is still, already self-suffering, planning with sanctions. In Xi’s words, it’s a “blind faith in the so-called ‘position of strength’, and attempts to expand military alliances, and seek one’s own security at the expense of others”. It’s, Xi says, a security dilemma of one, the party with sanction-weapon.

Putin said sanctions are “mechanism of exerting pressure on competitors”, “intentional destruction of cooperation”, destruction of transport and logistics chains, undermining of business interests on a global scale, negatively affecting people and countries.

Xi encouraged businesses to invest and develop in China, enhance trade and economic cooperation, share development opportunities.

China and Russia’s position is opposite to the Empire. Capitals in these countries need space, opportunities, not confrontation. A part of capitals in the imperial camp is looking for confrontation for own expansion.

The Empire and its camp followers are still, already suffering from its own weapon – sanction, planning to impose further sanctions on Russia. It may happen that the gold market will be hit with sanction. It may happen secondary sanctions will be imposed. This depends of play of groups and sub-groups within the imperial camp.

Objective and approach of these groups and sub-groups are not yet the same and uniform. So, yet there’re weeks and months, if not years, to end this Ukraine War. This means, havoc created by imperialism is still there to play on in the world. In this situation, the BRICS stand as a counterweight, a possibility, and as a challenge to the Empire.

Pseudo-left president-elect Gustavo Petro: “We will develop capitalism in Colombia”

Tomas Castanheira

Gustavo Petro, candidate of the pseudo-left coalition Pacto Histórico (Historic Pact), was elected president of Colombia last Sunday. With 50.44 percent of the vote, he defeated the fascistic candidate Rodolfo Hernandéz, nicknamed the “Colombian Trump,” who received 47.04 percent. The result was heralded as the first victory of a “left-wing government” in Colombia’s history.

Gustavo Petro, presidential candidate with the Historical Pact coalition, waves upon his arrival to vote in the presidential runoff in Bogota, Colombia, Sunday, June 19, 2022. [AP Photo/Fernando Vergara]

Petro’s and his vice president Francia Márquez’ election has been heralded as the newest achievement of a new wave of the so-called “Pink Tide” in Latin America. All of those identified with this tendency celebrated the event, among them Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Argentina’s Alberto Fernández, Bolivia’s Luis Arce, Peru’s Pedro Castillo and Chile’s Gabriel Boric. Former Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who intends to retake the presidency in Brazil’s October elections, declared that “[Petro’s] victory strengthens democracy and progressive forces in Latin America.”

Petro will take over a country going through the deepest economic, social and political crisis. The current far-right president, Iván Duque, leaves his seat as one of the most hated leaders in Colombian history, with a disapproval rate that exceeded 70 percent. His government was marked by successive national strikes and massive demonstrations that challenged the terrible levels of social inequality and the murderous violence of the Colombian state.

The COVID-19 pandemic represented a drastic worsening of social conditions in Colombia. The country had one of the highest COVID mortality rates in the region, with 140,000 deaths, according to official data. In the same period, 3.6 million Colombians were thrown into poverty, with unemployment reaching an all-time high in 2021.

The social opposition in the streets, driven by these conditions, was brutally repressed by the Duque government. More than 80 people were murdered during the Paro Nacional [protests]of 2021, according to a survey by the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ). The deaths were directly perpetrated by police and military officers, who also collaborated with and assisted civilian elements in committing murders and other acts of violence against demonstrators.

The Colombian state apparatus of violence, funded by US imperialism under the guise of the war on drugs, was exposed before the eyes of millions as a class war machine directed against the struggling youth and working class.

Petro’s election is a distorted reflection of this mass experience and rejection of the Colombian bourgeois regime. The national strikes were diverted by the National Committee at its leadership from a direct clash with the Duque government and the capitalist system. Instead, the union federations, student and farmers’ organizations at the head of the Committee promised an electoral solution through the candidacy of the Historic Pact.

At the same time that the campaign of Petro, an ex-member of the 1980’s M-19 guerrilla group, sought to channel the sentiments of the masses behind abstract slogans like “defense of life” and “politics of love,” it moved ever further to the right in search of a “national agreement” to save Colombia’s crisis-ridden capitalist system.

In his last week of campaigning, Petro published an open letter to the “soldiers and police of Colombia.” He proclaimed that one of the central points of his government program is “the strengthening of the public force and the welfare of its members ... to achieve total peace in the national territory.”

This nod to the repressive forces was interpreted in the media as a response to opposition and public attacks by military personnel against Petro, which were never challenged by the candidate. The most notable of these came from the Army’s command, Eduardo Zapateiro, who tweeted threats and accused Petro of being corrupt, and demanding his respect for the military.

The president-elect’s speech at the Movistar Arena in Bogotá, only confirmed that Colombia’s “first left-wing government” will actually have quite a right-wing character. At the climax of his speech, Petro answered the “campaign of lies” that claimed his government would “destroy private property,” by announcing: “We are going to develop capitalism in Colombia. Not because we love it, but because we first have to overcome pre-modernity in Colombia.”

Petro’s reactionary speech reinforces what had already been demonstrated by his peers in the region, from Fernández in Argentina to the newly elected Boric in Chile. in a period of crisis for Latin America’s commodity-based economies, their new “leftist” leaders openly assume the task of deepening capitalist adjustment policies and escalating repression against an increasingly explosive social opposition.

In his assurances to preserve private property and stay within the framework of capitalism, Petro is openly seeking to dissociate himself from figures as Hugo Chávez, who haunted him throughout the campaign. The late Venezuelan president, the most emblematic leader of the original Latin American “Pink Tide,” sought to cover up the bourgeois nationalist character of his government with limited policies of expropriation and the promise of “21st century socialism.”

At the same time, in his claim that Colombia needs to overcome “pre-modern,” “feudal,” and “slave-owning” remnants, Petro seeks to revive the bankrupt justifications used by Stalinism for its support for bourgeois regimes in Latin America and other economically backward countries. The Stalinist two-stage theory of revolution (preaching that a bourgeois-capitalist stage should precede socialist revolution in backward countries) served to disarm the Latin American proletariat in successive pre-revolutionary situations throughout the 20th century, paving the way to bloody military dictatorships.

This argument by Petro is a nefarious attempt to disorient the Colombian working class and youth. The social inequality, bloody state repression, homicidal herd-immunity policy in response to the pandemic, and the environmental crisis confronting the Colombian masses are not expressions of “pre-capitalist” remnants. Rather, they are the direct products of the domination of society by the capitalist profit system, which proves that it urgently needs to be abolished.

It is still unclear how the new Colombian government will develop its relations with the United States, which has in Colombia its main strategic base in Latin America. Shortly after his victory speech, Petro spoke on the phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Blinken later tweeted, “We discussed the longstanding U.S.-Colombia partnership and how we can work together to enhance inclusive economic prosperity, combat climate change & further deepen our relationship.”

Harassed by the explosive crisis of world capitalism, the constant threat of intervention by US imperialism, and in its quest to maintain a “grand agreement” with the national bourgeoisie, the Petro government is on a collision course with the Colombian working masses. Not only will he and his Historic Pact be rapidly exposed, but also the corporatist trade unions and pseudo-left middle-class organizations that promoted them.

Among the latter are the Colombian Morenoites of the Socialist Workers Party (PST), a member of IWL-FI. Hypocritically declaring that its vote for Petro was “critical,” the PST has for years fostered illusions in the progressive character of a Historic Pact government. This time, they have fervently promoted Francia Márquez since she ran in the Pact’s primaries. Based on the fact that she is a black woman and social activist, the PST declared, “We recognize in Francia the personification of the need for change felt by millions of Colombians who have protested against the Duque government and Uribism since November 2019.”

This opinion about Márquez is shared by broad sections of the Latin American and world pseudo-left. An article published in the Latin American edition of Jacobin claimed that “Márquez, besides embodying the qualities of the women of the Colombian people, as well as the resistance to the different racist, classist and misogynist oppressions suffered by the vast majority, has managed to articulate an emancipating discourse that embraces all the popular struggles, all the excluded and oppressed people of our people, achieving that, in her face, we can see ourselves reflected, the ‘nobodies.’”

Despite the pseudo-radical slogans against structural racism and machismo, the vice president’s “emancipating discourse” does not propose any confrontation with capitalism and imperialism. On the contrary, as she claims on her website, Márquez has worked since 2020 to implement programs in Colombia funded by the USAID, a CIA-linked agency of the US government.

50,000 Chilean copper miners launch strike against Boric government

Eric London

On Wednesday morning at midnight, 50,000 copper miners launched a strike at mines and refining facilities across Chile, in the country’s first national miners’ strike in 20 years.

Chile produces 10 percent of the world’s copper—a critical metal required for industrial production— and its miners represent a powerful and historically militant section of the international working class. The indefinite strike is wind in the sails of a growing global movement against inequality and rising living costs, which have been exacerbated by the US/NATO war against Russia.

The strike was triggered by the unexpected announcement last Friday by the government of President Gabriel Boric that one of the country’s main copper refineries, Fundición Ventanas, near Valparaiso, would be permanently closed and all its employees fired. The decision provoked mass outrage among miners and forced the Copper Workers Federation (FTC) to call a strike.

The Boric government’s decision to shutter Fundición Ventanas was presented as an environmental measure on the grounds that the facility is one of the biggest air polluters in the country. In early June, emissions from the facility sickened dozens of schoolchildren near the plant. But officials at Codelco, the state-owned copper firm, said that the company could install mechanisms to block 99 percent of emissions with an investment of just $53 million.

While the Boric government has attempted to present the workers as hostile to protecting the environment, the workers themselves live near the facilities and made clear their demand is for the government to invest sufficient resources to protect jobs and lower pollution. Striking miners carried signs that read, “Environment and work” and “No to the closure, yes to investment.”

The struggle is an industrial rebellion against Boric and the Apruebo Dignidad (Approve Dignity) coalition, which is based on Boric’s Frente Amplio (Broad Front), the Stalinist Communist Party of Chile, and several smaller parties. Workers on the picket line in front of the Fundición Ventanas facility hanged Boric in effigy with a sign reading, “Boric: The Maximum Traitor.” Across the country, miners carried signs and hung banners over overpasses near factory gates denouncing Boric as a traitor.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric arrives to La Moneda presidential palace in Santiago, Chile, Monday, May 2, 2022. [AP Photo/Esteban Felix]

Boric was elected in November 2021 on a wave of social opposition to the right-wing policies of conservative Sebastian Piñera and social-democrat Michelle Bachelet, who alternated as president from 2006 until 2022 and oversaw endless privatization schemes that helped make Chile the most unequal country in South America. Beginning in October 2019, mass protests rocked the country, in what has become known as the Estallido Social (social outburst), and Boric’s candidacy marked an attempt by the Chilean ruling class to suppress social opposition with “left” demagoguery.

Boric’s attack on miners’ jobs has generated profound anger among copper miners against the union, the FTC, which endorsed Boric in the 2021 elections and urged miners to support his government. In a July 2021 meeting with the FTC leadership, Boric declared: “There is space in Chile for a greater distribution of wealth and the proposals of the FTC point in this direction.” In the weeks before the general election, the head of the FTC told union members: “Either we compromise with him [Boric], or we go home as cowards and traitors.”

The FTC bureaucrats actually managed to do both. Now, after winning the FTC’s endorsement, Boric has deployed the police to arrest striking miners. A union press release Wednesday announced that several miners were arrested at their workplaces, by police acting on the orders of Codelco and the national government.

Despite this, FTC leaders announced Thursday that they were prepared to meet with the government to discuss bringing the strike to a close.

This is not the first time the Boric government has violently assaulted striking workers. In May, Boric deployed police to attack striking oil refinery workers at the Hualpén refinery 500 kilometers south of Santiago, using water cannon, pepper spray and tear gas to beat and arrest workers. The hated carabineros also brutally assaulted impoverished youth who engaged in food riots in Santiago earlier this year due to the rising cost of living.

After Boric deployed police against workers, his spokesperson and Communist Party leader Camila Vallejo declared that the government would continue with its plans to shutter the plant. At a press conference Wednesday she said, “I call for tranquility. Effectively, there are mobilizations, but I think this is not good, and I have said as much to the minister of the interior, to raise the alarm about this mobilization.”

Vallejo was a spokesperson for the Chilean student protests of 2011 after being installed by the Communist Party, to which her parents also belonged. Vallejo and Boric were both leading figures in the University of Chile Student Federation, where they served to divert demonstrations against school privatization and fee hikes away from a struggle against the Chilean state and the capitalist system.

After years of generalized social protest, the upsurge against the Chilean ruling class has now reached the heart of the Chilean working class, the copper miners. Rapid inflation is making conditions exceedingly difficult for Chilean workers. Inflation hit 11.5 percent last month, the highest in 28 years. The price of diesel has increased 51 percent year-to-year, vegetable oil has increased 32 percent, chicken by 28 percent, meat by 26 percent and home energy by 20 percent.

A June study by Chile’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL) noted that the US/NATO war against Russia in Ukraine is greatly exacerbating poverty and inequality across Latin America. Citing the study, El Pais wrote, “the consequences of the war in Ukraine, especially the increase in the cost of energy and food, will elevate poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean to 33.7 percent and extreme poverty to 14.9 percent this year,” both substantial increases from 2021.

At the behest of US imperialism, Boric’s government has supported sanctions against Russia. Boric traveled to Los Angeles for the Summit of the Americas earlier this month despite the Biden administration’s decision to ban Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from attending. The presidents of Mexico and Uruguay refused to attend the summit as a result of Biden’s ban.

During the summit, Boric denounced Venezuela and Cuba and attacked Venezuelan immigrants in Chile. In an interview with Univisión he said, “I believe that no country has the capacity to absorb by itself a migratory flow as large as the one that has been from Venezuela,” echoing the xenophobic attacks of the Chilean fascist right.

At the time of Boric’s trip to Los Angeles, he earned high praise in the US corporate media as an example of a “responsible” Latin American leader. The Bezos-owned Washington Post assessed the fist months of Boric’s presidency as follows: “While Boric vowed to make Chile the grave of the Pinochet era’s free-market economic model, he has so far shunned radical moves, appointing the current Central Bank head as his finance minister.” The Post also noted that Boric has deployed the Chilean military to confront indigenous communities’ demands for land reform, “reversing a campaign pledge” in order to “ensure basic security.”

Boric’s popularity has been plummeting since the spring, with opinion polls showing approval ratings sank from 50 percent in early March to 30 percent or lower in June. After 100 days in office, Boric’s disapproval rating is nearly double that of his two predecessors, Piñera and Bachelet, during their second terms.

The international pseudo-left bears responsibility for Boric’s election and his attacks on the Chilean working class. In particular, the Democratic Socialists of America promoted Boric as a leading light of socialism in the 21st century and sent delegations to campaign on his behalf during last year’s election.

A December 16, 2021 statement by the DSA’s “International Committee” declared that the DSA “now more than ever expresses its unconditional support for the left coalition Apruebo Dignidad, just days away from the historic second round of the 2021 Presidential elections. We hope the Chilean people select democratic socialist and former student movement leader Gabriel Boric as their next president.”

The DSA praised Boric as “committed to ending the deep political and economic inequalities that mark Chilean society” and said a Boric victory would be a loss “for the entire neoliberal and neofascist model.”