6 Jan 2023

Washington makes Ukraine war new flashpoint in its confrontation with Iran

Jean Shaoul & Keith Jones


The Biden administration, backed to the hilt by its European imperialist allies, has opened up a new front in its campaign of aggression and intrigue against Iran, focusing on Tehran’s increasing economic and military ties with Russia.

Washington is vilifying Iran as an accomplice of Russian “aggression,” even “genocide,” so as to further isolate Iran’s beleaguered Shia clergy-led bourgeois nationalist regime, and bully the Gulf States and Israel, which have hitherto sought to balance between Ukraine and Russia, into giving their unconditional support to the US/NATO-instigated war in Ukraine.

This development underscores the degree to which US imperialism’s brutal and reckless war in Ukraine, alongside its broader preparations for war with China, are exacerbating explosive conflicts across the Middle East, even as living standards plummet.

The US has supplied Ukraine with advanced missiles and other high-tech weapons, including the High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS ) pictured above. [AP Photo/Roman Koksarov]

Washington has denounced Iran for selling Moscow hundreds of its “kamikaze” Shahid 136 self-detonating drones, also known as swarming drones, that have been used to target Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and leave millions of Ukrainians in freezing conditions without power, heat, mobile phone service and even water.

The cynicism and hypocrisy of the imperialist powers has no limits. These drones pale in comparison with the air firepower, including advanced missiles and drones, some of which have been used to strike deep inside Russia, that the US has supplied Ukraine—to say nothing of the tens of billions of dollars of other advanced weaponry it and the NATO powers have showered on Kiev.

As its $5,000-$20,000 cost indicates, the Shahed 136 has quite limited capabilities. With a maximum speed of 185 kilometres (115 miles) per hour and a range of 2,200 kilometres, it can carry a warhead of up to 40 kilograms (88 pounds). It is not very good at evading air defence systems. Hundreds have reportedly been shot down over Ukraine in recent weeks. But being cheap, they can be deployed in swarms so that even if most are intercepted, a few will reach their targets to devastating effect.

In recent weeks, numerous articles have appeared in the US, European and Israeli media citing unnamed intelligence and other government officials charging Iran with stepping up drone deliveries to Russia and planning shipments of more sophisticated weaponry. Kiev has claimed that Russia has ordered 2,600 or more Shahed 136 drones from Teheran, while the Washington Post reported in November that intelligence officials told it Iran is building a drone-manufacturing facility in Russia. Iran has also been accused of planning to provide Moscow with short-range ballistic missiles, including the Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar. They can strike at distances of 300 and 700 kilometres (186 and 435 miles), but would be significantly harder to shoot down.

In addition to these claims, US and British officials have publicly charged that military-strategic cooperation between Russia and Iran has reached an “unprecedented level.” “In return for having supplied more than 300 kamikaze drones, Russia now intends to provide Iran with advanced military components, undermining both Middle East and international security,” British Defence Minister Ben Wallace declared last month. Wallace declined to provide any details. But it has been suggested that Moscow is considering selling Tehran everything from its S-400 missile defence system to Sukhoi-35 fighter jets.

For his part, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has labelled Iran Russia’s main defence partner and accused Tehran of actively considering providing Moscow with ballistic missiles that could target West European cities.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky repeated and amplified these claims in his Dec. 21 speech, which was carefully crafted to dovetail with Washington’s line, to a joint session of the US Congress. He denounced Iran as Russia’s “ally” in its “genocidal” use of missiles to destroy Ukrainian cities: “That is how one terrorist has found the other. It is just a matter of time when they will strike against your other allies if we do not stop them now. We must do it.”

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken followed up Zelensky’s plea for a massive injection of aid and weaponry, including advanced systems capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and Russian warplanes, with an announcement that the US would send Kiev at least one battery of Patriot surface-to-air missiles.

Israel’s spy chief David Barnea simultaneously warned that Iran “intends” to 'expand and deepen its supply of advanced weaponry to Russia,' presaging “attacks on Muslim countries in the region.” 

Ties between Russia and Iran have become closer over the past year. In July, just days after Biden had visited Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of a Mideast tour focused on forging a US-led alliance against Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin travelled to Tehran for a summit meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Following that meeting, Khamenei, according to Reuters, wrote on his website that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, “the other side would have taken the initiative and caused the war.”

However, the partnership between the Islamic Republic and the Putin regime is purely one of convenience, with each pursuing its own interests and ambitions.

Whatever the truth in the claims Iran continues to supply Russia with drones or plans to build a drone factory there—claims both have denied—there is no evidence that either country is providing or plans to provide advanced weaponry to the other. Such cooperation would threaten key tenets of current Russian policy in the Middle East.     

In Syria, where both countries have intervened to prop up President Bashar al-Assad’s regime against the Islamist proxies backed by the CIA, the Gulf petro-states and Turkey, Moscow has allowed Israel—whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has close relations with Putin—to launch hundreds if not thousands of aerial strikes on facilities and personnel belonging to Iran, Hezbollah and other allies, as well as on Syria’s civilian airports. Similarly, supplying Tehran, which is desperate to replace its aging air fleet, with advanced weaponry would jeopardise Putin’s burgeoning relations with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel, all of which are virulently hostile to Iran.

None of this excludes the possibility that as the US-NATO war on Russia escalates during 2023 and Washington intensifies pressure on Iran, Moscow and Tehran will be forced into a tighter embrace, adding a further explosive dimension to their respective conflicts with the Western imperialist powers.

Indeed, there is a growing danger that the US-NATO drive to militarily defeat and subjugate Russia will, whether directly or indirectly, help trigger a major Mideast war, or the expansion of the current war, as it assumes the form of an ever more direct confrontation between Russia and US imperialism, to the Middle East. 

The US counter-offensive against Iran’s drones

In an article co-written by the veteran CIA conduit David Sanger and published by the New York Times on Dec. 28, Washington announced it has launched a major campaign to thwart Iran’s ability to manufacture drones and deliver them to Russia. According to the Times, this is “an endeavor that has echoes of its years-long program to cut off Tehran’s access to nuclear technology.”

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson described the wide-ranging actions the US has initiated, saying, “We are looking at ways to target Iranian U.A.V. (unmanned aerial vehicle) production through sanctions, export controls, and talking to private companies whose parts have been used in the production.” The US, the article explained, will also step up its efforts to provide Ukraine with the ability to shoot down Iranian “kamikaze” drones.

However, the article also cited warnings from officials and analysts that such approaches are likely to have a limited impact. Without stating it explicitly, the article hinted that the US, in conjunction with its attack dog in Tel Aviv, will undertake a new campaign of sabotage against Iran, paralleling the cyberattacks, assassinations of key personnel, and other covert actions it has used to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

Washington’s targeting of Tehran’s supplying of drones to Russia marks an escalation and new front in its confrontation with Iran. Through crippling economic sanctions, military provocations and threats of war, successive US administrations, under Republican and Democrats alike, have sought to engineer a pro-US political realignment in Tehran, if not full-scale regime change.

In August of last year, it appeared that the Biden administration was on the brink of signing off on an agreement with Tehran to revive the 2015 nuclear accord, having extracted further concessions from Iran by continuing the campaign of “maximum pressure” aimed at crashing Iran’s economy that the Trump administration had launched when it unilaterally withdrew the US from the accord in 2018.

However, Washington suddenly changed course and, backed by its European allies, has now indicated that reviving the nuclear accord is no longer a “priority.” The intensification of the Ukraine war is the principal cause of this shift. It came after Ukrainian military forces, armed with ever more powerful and expensive US weapons systems and assisted by American intelligence and logistical support, began to inflict a series of humiliating defeats on Russian forces. In response, Moscow has attacked Ukrainian infrastructure—attacks that have become more frequent in recent months and in which Iranian-made drones have apparently come to play a major role.

Washington and its allies are clearly determined to make Iran pay for interfering, however modestly, in their plans to subjugate Russia and plunder its resources. Tehran continues to insist it is ready to make a deal with Washington and that back-channel talks continue. Insofar as the latter is true, it can be certain Washington, London, Paris and Berlin are demanding iron-clad guarantees from the Iranian regime that any and all military aid for Moscow will cease.

The imperialist attempt to leverage the mass anti-government protests in Iran

The imperialist powers have also sought to intensify pressure on the Iranian regime by intervening in the mass anti-government protests that erupted last September against the political privileges, social control and endemic corruption of the Islamic Republic’s Shia clerical elite, as well as soaring prices and mass joblessness. The protests were triggered by the September police detention death of Mahsa Amini, who had been arrested for wearing her hijab improperly.

The likes of Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron have publicly called for the regime’s overthrow, and the Western media and political establishment are relentlessly promoting a plethora of pro-imperialist émigré leaders and groups, from Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s son and would-be successor to the Peacock Throne, to US-allied Kurdish nationalist militia.

Shedding crocodile tears, the Western powers have seized on the regime’s bloody suppression of the anti-government protests to rail against the “mullahs’ regime,” announce new rounds of sanctions and engineer a vote at the UN’s Human Rights Council to mount an investigation into human rights abuses in Iran.

Now the US, along with Britain and France, are mendaciously trying to argue that Iran’s export of drones to Russia is in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 2231—the resolution endorsing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, under which Tehran accepted unprecedented limits on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for the promised withdrawal of punishing economic sanctions.

They were furious when UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres, at a meeting of the Security Council on December 19, rejected their proposal to send officials to Kiev to investigate this supposed violation of Resolution 2231. US Deputy UN Ambassador Robert Wood accused Guterres of “apparently yielding to Russian threats.”

Iran’s UN ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani reiterated Iran’s claim that the drones were supplied before the war started in February, saying they “have not been transferred for use in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.” He likewise rejected the argument that the Council had banned the export of Iranian drones, pointing out that all restrictions on Iran’s arms trade under resolution 2231 ended in 2020, paving the way for Iran to resume arms exports. Thus, the Western claim that Tehran needed prior approval “has no legal merit”

Guterres said UN officials were examining “if and when” to send officials to Kiev “in the broader picture of everything we are doing in the context of the war.” His top priority, his aides said, was to ensure that a deal with Russia allowing the export of Ukrainian grain to alleviate worldwide grain shortages is not jeopardized.

The New York Times has also reported that the Biden administration is working closely with Israel on the drone issue, drawing attention to a recent video meeting that Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor, held with Israel’s senior security, military and intelligence officials. At this quarterly meeting, normally devoted to discussing plans to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities, they “discussed Iran’s growing military relationship with Russia, including the transfer of weapons the Kremlin is deploying against Ukraine, targeting its civilian infrastructure and Russia’s provision of military technology to Iran in return.”  

Tel Aviv has long worked as Washington’s subcontractor, carrying out its dirty work in the region—including cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and infrastructure, assassinations, and attacks by land, sea and air on Iran’s facilities and allies in the region—while giving its paymaster deniability.

The meeting took place as Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long sought to incite war against Iran, was in the process of forming a coalition government with far right and fascistic forces.  On formally taking office, Netanyahu declared that his top priorities were “Stopping Iran” and “Dramatically expanding the circle of peace,” by which he meant Israel’s “normalization” deals with Arab countries aimed at forging an anti-Iran alliance, crucially with Saudi Arabia. Riyadh still has no overt diplomatic relations with Israel but was believed to be moving closer to normalisation, at least until Jewish Power leader Itamar ben-Gvir’s provocation at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City earlier this week.

NATO powers send tanks to Ukraine

Andre Damon


The United States, France and Germany have announced that they will send over a hundred tanks and other armored, tracked vehicles to Ukraine, massively escalating NATO’s proxy war with Russia.

French President Macron declared Wednesday, “Until victory, until peace returns to Europe, our support for Ukraine will not weaken. I confirmed it to President Zelensky: France will provide light combat tanks.”

FILE - American soldiers drive a Bradley fighting vehicle during a joint exercise with Syrian Democratic Forces at the countryside of Deir Ezzor in northeastern Syria, Dec. 8, 2021. (AP Photo/Baderkhan Ahmad, File)

Macron announced the deployment of the AMX-10 RC tank, in what an aide to the president told France 24 was “the first time that Western-designed tanks are supplied to the Ukrainian armed forces.”

Loading Tweet ...
Tweet not loading? See it directly on Twitter

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky praised France’s “decision to transfer light tanks and Bastion APCs to Ukraine.”

Loading Tweet ...
Tweet not loading? See it directly on Twitter

The next day, US President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that they would send the Bradley armored vehicle and the Marder armored vehicle, alongside a second Patriot missile battery. The announcement by Biden was part of a $3 billion arms shipment, one of the largest to date in the war.

Politico commented, “At last, Ukraine gets Western tanks.”

The announcements by the NATO allies make clear that Zelensky’s trip to Washington last month was the prelude to a massive escalation of the war. Coinciding with Zelensky’s trip, the White House announced that the US would send the Patriot missile system to Ukraine, in what was up to that point the most advanced system made available for the war with Russia.

Over the following days, Ukraine carried out a series of strikes inside Russian territory, capped a New Year’s Day strike by US-provided HIMARS missiles that Ukraine said killed hundreds of Russian soldiers.

In a backhanded admission of the massively provocative consequences of the decision to supply tanks and Patriot missiles, Ben Hodges, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, declared, “This is the next step by the administration to provide something that they have been reluctant to do in the past.”

In March Biden declared, “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews—just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III.”

In June, Macron echoed these sentiments, declaring, “we are not entering the war… Thus, it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons—including attack aircraft or tanks—and President Zelensky is aware of this agreement.”

Commenting on the announcement, the Economist wrote, “The French announcement also underscores how far Western red lines, including Mr. Macron’s, have shifted since last spring: from warning against offensive weaponry to providing a capability that will aid Ukrainian counter-offensives.”

The Washington Post, citing a White House official, concluded:

The United States assesses that “there will be continued fighting along that line … for the foreseeable future,” a senior administration official said, with little expectation that combat will slow during the winter months. In a shift from training only small units to operate specific weapons systems, the allies are now pulling thousands of Ukrainian soldiers off the front lines for combined maneuver training in Europe.

Last month, the Pentagon announced that it would expand its program to train Ukrainian forces at a US base in Germany, drilling an entire battalion of 500 soldiers at a time. Critically, the soldiers will be trained in so-called “combined arms operations”—involving the simultaneous maneuvering of tanks, troops, airpower and artillery.

Hodges, speaking to Politico, continued on this theme:

“A big part of combined arms warfare is that you have protected infantry that can move alongside tanks, keep up with them, and that’s part of what combined arms is all about: infantry, armor, artillery… By having your infantry moving along with them, that makes it that much more lethal.”

Critically, it is likely that the dispatch of light tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine will only be the prelude to the sending of main battle tanks to Ukraine. Politico, citing “two U.S. officials,” reported that the United States is considering sending Ukraine main battle tanks such as the M1 Abrams.

Hodges demanded, “Let Ukraine pick 100 tankers that are experienced tank mechanics and send them to wherever the U.S. has Abrams tanks in Poland or send them back to Fort Benning, Ga., where the armor school is, and let them start learning now.”

These remarks make clear the basic meaning of NATO’s announcements this week. The United States is building its mercenary proxy force into Ukraine into a full-scale land army, funded, armed, led and trained by the NATO alliance, and bringing to bear the most advanced weapons systems available anywhere in the world.

The aim of this massive military buildup will be not only the reconquest of the territory lost by Ukraine in the current war, but the recapture of the entire Donbas and Crimea.

The document concluded: “Among the most reactionary consequences of the proxy war has been the normalization of nuclear weapons as a legitimate instrument of geopolitical conflict. The repeated claim that the NATO powers will not be “deterred” by the possible use of nuclear weapons can only mean that they are determined to pursue their war to complete victory over Russia and, when the time comes, over China, even if that means risking the lives of billions of people.”

5 Jan 2023

The Cartel Economy & the Telecom Cartel

David Rosen



Photograph Source: Mike Mozart – CC BY 2.0

The U.S. economy is consolidating with ever-larger conglomerates gaining ever-more power.  In July 2021, the White House issued “Fact Sheet: “Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy” that stated:

For decades, corporate consolidation has been accelerating. In over 75% of U.S. industries, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did twenty years ago. This is true across healthcare, financial services, agriculture and more.

Much has been said about “Big Tech” companies – i.e., Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook) and Microsoft.  And there is also Big Phama (i.e., Johnson & Johnson, Roche Holding, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly), Big Oil (Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) and Big Tobacco (i.e., Altria, Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco).

Often forgotten are other sectors of the economy dominated by a shrinking number of giant corporations. These sectors include:

Domestic airlines – i.e., American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines that collect 65 percent of revenues.

+ Poultry industry – i.e., Tyson’s, Pilgrim’s Pride and Perdue.

+ Drug store chains – i.e., Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid.

Infant formula – i.e., Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Nestle USA and Perrio Company control about 90 percent industry.

Music industry – i.e., Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group control 69 percent of industry.

In addition, as reported by The Guardian, four firms or fewer control at least half of the groceries market and three companies control of soft-drink soda as well as breakfast cereals. In addition, four slaughtering companies control “about 85% of U.S. grain-fattened cattle that are made into steaks, beef roasts and other cuts of meat.”

These businesses form a cartel or trust.  A cartel is defined as “a collection of independent businesses or organizations that collude in order to manipulate the price of a product or service.”  They are “competitors in the same industry and seek to reduce that competition by controlling the price in agreement with one another.”

“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.

***

When considering the ever-increasing consolidation of critical sectors of American economy, little consideration has focused on the telecom industry.  The July 2021 White House “Fact Sheet” noted that “More than 200 million U.S. residents live in an area with only one or two reliable high-speed internet providers, leading to prices as much as five times higher in these markets than in markets with more options.” This is known as the “digital divide” or “digital inequality.”

Few Americans are aware that the U.S. is a second-tier telecom country.  In is estimated that, in 2021, only 43 percent of American homes had access to fiber broadband services compared to Norway and South Korea with over 80 percent access, and Spain, Portugal and Japan that are above 90 percent. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 18th of the 38 OECD countries in terms of broadband usage.

In terms of fixed broadband service, the U.S. ranked 11th at 191.97 Mbps [Megabits per second] — Singapore ranked first at 245.5 Mbps; in terms of mobile service, it ranked 18th at 82.04 Mbps – compared to South Korea at 186.06 Mbps.

Making matters worse, Americans pay more for their inferior telecom services. Fees for a gigabyte of data range from $0.26 in India and $0.27 in Kyrgyzstan to $6.66 in the United Kingdom and $6.96 in Germany.  Costs in North America were the highest, averaging $12.02 in Canada and $12.37 in the U.S.

The U.S. telecom industry was remade over the last four decades.  In 1984, Judge Harold H. Greene issued the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) that broke-up the old AT&T or “Ma Bell” monopoly.  As he wrote, “What the Bell System did was illegal. It abused its monopoly in local telephone service, also known as the Last Mile, to keep out competitors in other areas. Competition will give this country the most advanced, best, cheapest telephone network.”  AT&T’s 23 subsidiaries consolidated into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs or “Baby Bells”).

In 1996, Pres. Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, arguing that it “promotes competition as the key to opening new markets and new opportunities.”  He sought to deregulate the information communications sector, insisting, “it will protect consumers by regulating the remaining monopolies for a time and by providing a roadmap for deregulation in the future.”

“The 1996 Act was designed to usher in competition to telephony and cable by breaking down the cross-entry barriers that were put in place by the Communication Act of 1984,” University of Connecticut scholars argue.  They note, “yet immediately after the passage of the 1996 Act, telecommunication industries witnessed a deluge of mega mergers and acquisitions [M&As]. This unprecedented merger wave resulted in a handful of conglomerates dominating industries that were previously separated by telecommunications regulations.”

The wave of M&As led to telecom market consolidation. The first wave of M&As included:

+ Southern Bell Company (SBC) acquires Pacific Telesis (aka Pacific Bell) for $16.7 billion in 1997.

+ SBC acquires Ameritech for $81 billion in 1999.

+ Bell Atlantic merges with NYNEX in a $20 billion deal in 1997 forming Verizon in 2000.

+ Qwest acquires US West for $35 billion 2000.

+ Bell Atlantic Corp. acquires GTE Corp in 2000 for $53 billion.

+ Cingular acquires AT&T Wireless for $41 billion in 2004.

+ SBC acquires AT&T for $16 billion in 2005 and kept the AT&T name.

+ SBC/AT&T acquires BellSouth for $86 billion.

These initial mergers were followed by a series of additional M&As that helped forge the telecom cartel:

+ Comcast acquired a controlling stake (51%) in NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of General Electric, and French media conglomerate Vivendi Universal Entertainment for $6.2 billion in 2011.

+ Charter Communications acquired Spectrum (aka Time Warner Cable) for $55 billion and Bright House Networks for $10.4 billion in 2016.

+ AT&T acquired DirecTV for $67.1 billion in 2015; it bought Time Warner for $85 billion in 2018; and acquired AppNexus, a digital ad exchange that competes with Google and Facebook, for between $1.6 and $2 billion in 2018.

+ Verizon acquires AOL in 2015 for $4.4 billion and Yahoo! in 2017 for $4.8 billion; it sold AOL and Yahoo in 2021.

+ Mobileand Sprint, valued at $26.5 billion, merged in 2020.

FCC Commissioner (and now chair) Jessica Rosenworcel opposed the Mobile-Sprint merger, noting, “Our economy thrives on competition. …” And added:

The proposed tie-up of T-Mobile and Sprint will reduce competition. This merger will combine two of the four nationwide competitors in the wireless industry in the United States. As a result, three companies will control 99 percent of the wireless market. By any metric, this transaction will raise prices, lower quality, and slow innovation, just as we start to deploy the next-generation of wireless technology.

Rosenworcel warned, “Shrinking the number of national providers from four to three will hurt consumers, harm competition, and eliminate thousands of jobs. …”

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast form Big Telecom, a cartel that really don’t compete with one another, but are partners in a scheme to control all your communications.  Today, AT&T and Verizon no longer upgrade their “advanced” TV services, U-Verse and Fios, but promote the wildly overhyped “5G” (Fifth Generation) fixed and mobile wireless services.  They have sought to combine their core business of content distribution with content ownership. Except for Comcast, the efforts of AT&T and Verizon have failed.

AT&T acquires DirecTV for $67.1 billion in 2015; it bought Time Warner for $85 billion in 2018; and acquired AppNexus, a digital ad exchange that competes with Google and Facebook, for between $1.6 and $2 billion in 2018. Verizon acquired AOL in 2015 for $4.4 billion and Yahoo! in 2017 for $4.8 billion; in May 2021, Verizon sold its media assets.

Comcast succeeded in building a diverse combination of media holdings that include AT&T Broadband; Sky Broadcasting; NBCUniversal (Telemundo, TeleXitos, and Cozi TV), cable services (MSNBC, CNBC, Oxygen, Bravo, G4 and E!); Universal Pictures; Peacock; animation studios (DreamWorks, Illumination and Universal Animation); and XUMO.  It also controls Universal Parks and Resorts.

+++

American capitalism has come full cycle from the legendary battles waged by Teddy Roosevelt and other Progressives a century ago.  Then, they battled the shameless practices of industrial cartels or trusts like John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and the many other Robber Barons.  Today, Rockefeller’s corporate descendants – e.g., Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk – continue to dominate the American economy and as a result the Big Cartel model has reemerged, accompanied by rising inequality.

Instead, Democrats and Republicans, along with a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, front groups, grateful nonprofits and astroturf shills shamelessly serve the interests of not only big tech, big finance, but big healthcare, big energy, big online and big telecom.  Political support for consolidation is rationalized as necessary to combat the challenge of globalization and to ensure American competitiveness, fictions waved before voters every election cycle to inflame patriotic zeal.

Today’s telecom conglomerates control not only the “pipes” — the wireline and the wireless networks – that link the nation’s homes, businesses, schools and people, but are moving to control media “content” as well.  The traditional telecom duopoly of “phone” and “cable” companies has been superseded by integrated voice, video, internet and media content, delivered via a wireline or wireless service.

This time, unfortunately, there is no TR to do battle for the public good.  Instead, many Democrat and Republican officials, along with a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, lawyers, front groups, nonprofits grateful to their telecom benefactors, phony grassroots groups, shills and corporate media outlets that shamelessly serve the interests of the large corporate sectors on whom they depend for advertising revenues, and themselves are owned by telecom and cable interests.  Industry consolidation is rationalized as necessary to combat the challenge of globalization and to ensure America’s competitiveness.  Both have proven to be big lies.

However, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) warned:

Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.”

And Warren added: “To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies.”

Britain’s National Health Service faced with deliberate collapse

Thomas Scripps


Professional body Doctors Association UK has demanded parliament is recalled “immediately” to address the crisis in the National Health Service (NHS).

Its letter warns, “The NHS is broken. Patients are dying and staff are suffering moral injury from the appalling conditions… Contrary to reports from number 10, the NHS does NOT have enough money. People are dying because of an abject refusal to invest the sums needed to pay staff and provide social care.”

Ambulances wait outside the Royal London Hospital in east London, January 4, 2023. Ambulance staff are set to strike again on January 11 and 23, while nurses will do the same January 18-19. [AP Photo/Alastair Grant]

This follows Sunday’s statement by President of the Society for Acute Medicine (SAM) Dr. Tim Cooksley that the UK government must “declare a national NHS major incident.” He described the situation in urgent and emergency care as “shocking”, adding, “This is a time of crisis and there are fears this will worsen further over the coming months.”

The consequences are indeed fatal for hundreds of people every week. President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine Dr. Adrian Boyle told Times Radio the same day, “We think somewhere between 300 and 500 people are dying as a consequence of delays and problems with urgent and emergency care each week… We cannot continue like this.”

At time of writing, seven different hospital trusts have critical incidents in place, meaning priority services are under threat. Over 50 have said they are struggling to cope with demand.

Recent figures are not available, but close to 40,000 patients in England waited over 12 hours in Accident and Emergency (A&E) units to be admitted to hospital last November—up 355 percent on a year before. A third wait more than four hours. After that, 40 percent wait more than four hours on a trolley in hospital corridors before getting a bed. One person in Swindon waited 99 hours.

In the week ending December 18, one in five ambulance patients had to wait for more than an hour in the back of the vehicle outside the hospital before being handed over to A&E—the worst week on record. Two in five had to wait more than 30 minutes. This normally follows hours more waiting for the ambulance to arrive in the first place. Over 80 percent of ambulance service areas in the country cannot meet the response time target for the most serious Category 1 calls; 99 percent cannot meet the target for Category 2 calls, including suspected strokes and heart attacks.

These intolerable conditions and years of pay freezes/cuts have led to thousands of ambulance workers and tens of thousands of nurses joining the ongoing strike wave throughout the UK.

National Health Service nurses picket line in Bath during the national strike on December 15, 2022 [Photo: WSWS]

Despite all promises to the contrary by politicians, COVID, now combined with a resurgent flu, is still playing a debilitating and deadly role. In the week to December 18—the last available data—over 1,000 people were being admitted for COVID each day on average. The next week, over 3,700 people were admitted to hospital with flu every day, up 80 percent on the week before.

Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the NHS national medical director, told the Guardian, “Sadly, these latest flu numbers show our fears of a twindemic have been realised, with cases up sevenfold in just a month and the continued impact of Covid hitting staff hard, with related absences up almost 50 percent on the end of November [to over 8,000 a day on average].”

Ambulance services have reported shortages of oxygen cylinders due to the large number of patients suffering respiratory distress.

Of the roughly 94,000 occupied beds on average across December—the highest figure in seven winters—13 percent were taken by someone with COVID or the flu.

Decades of underfunding have broken the system

The scale of the crisis points to the more protracted issues. Ian Higginson, vice president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, told BBC Radio 4, “What we’ve been hearing over the last few days is that the current problems are all due to Covid or they’re all due to flu… This isn’t a short-term thing. The sort of things we’re seeing happen every winter… It gets worse every winter.”

The NHS is critically understaffed. By last September, there were over 133,000 vacancies across the service—a rate of nearly 10 percent. This has been exacerbated by increased rates of sickness absence since the onset of the pandemic and the effects of fatigue and burnout on those at work.

The combined impact of COVID together with inadequate hospital and social care infrastructure is crippling, meaning what over-burdened staff there are accomplish less than in previous years.

Clinical staff care for a patient with coronavirus in the intensive care unit at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, May 5, 2020 [AP Photo/Neil Hall Pool via AP]

The major bottleneck is available beds, which increased by just 1 percent between 2019 and today. But when the number of beds now routinely occupied by patients being treated primarily for COVID is subtracted, these years have seen a 1 percent fall in the number of available beds.

Roughly 13,000 on any given day, 13 percent, are occupied by people medically fit to be discharged—primarily due to a lack of social care, where 165,000 posts are unfilled, a vacancy rate of 11 percent. Last year saw a further 52 percent increase in the number of vacancies as the workforce shrank for the first time in nine years.

The catastrophic situation is the product of decades of underfunding. In the last decade the UK has spent £400 billion (20 percent) less on healthcare than the average of the major European (EU14) economies, £730 billion less than Germany. The Financial Times explains the UK has been left with fewer beds per thousand people and MRI and CT scanners per million people than peer countries Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded:

“It could be that in a post-pandemic world, the NHS is able to treat fewer patients with a given level of resources than it could in the past. At the same time, the UK has suffered an adverse economic shock that makes us poorer as a country. A weaker outlook for the economy, combined with higher levels of debt interest spending, means that providing a given level of public service funding will require higher taxes. In other words, any given increase in NHS funding is now more difficult to achieve—and lasting COVID-19 impacts mean that we might have to expect to get less healthcare from that funding. This would raise extremely difficult fiscal questions.”

Reducing healthcare spending through privatisation

The ruling class has already given its answer to such “difficult fiscal questions”. COVID policies backed by all the major parties of allowing tens of thousands of people to die unnecessary deaths and countless more to suffer prolonged ill health—rather than taking measures impacting on profits—were only the sharpest expression of a growing hostility to health spending seen as an intolerable drain on British capitalism, to be reduced as quickly as possible.

A spur has been given by the launch on NATO’s war against Russia in Ukraine, with invocations of “the end of the peace dividend” routinely comparing growing health spending to falling military budgets and demanding a reversal.

Labour and the Tories are committed to reducing the standard of health of the population by shifting the burden of healthcare costs away from the state and onto individuals through privatisation. Labour’s ghoulish Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting has been the most bullish, telling newspapers, “We cannot continue pouring money into a 20th-century model of care”, pledging greater use of private sector capacity, and denouncing healthcare staff for being “hostile” to policies he proposes.

Streeting’s full-page interview in the pro-Tory Sunday Telegraph. He told the newspaper, “We are not going to have a something-for-nothing culture in the NHS with Labour [in government].” [Photo: screenshot of Sunday Telegraph print edition, December 11, 2022]

Letting shareholders leech off the NHS by having it spend public money on private services has been going on for years but will be rapidly accelerated. Moreover, people will increasingly be forced to spend money at the point of use. In a January 3 lead editorial, the Daily Telegraph salivated that the NHS “is clearly not going to last in its current form,” denouncing “The adamantine antipathy to charging to see a GP, to the use of private medicine, to top-ups and co-payments”.

This process is already underway, as working people are forced fork out huge sums for procedures with months-long waiting lists, or that are simply unavailable from the NHS. Britons now spend almost as much (as a percentage of GDP) in out-of-pocket healthcare costs as people in the United States, with American non-reimbursable spending at 1.9 percent GDP and UK at 1.8 percent, according to analysis by the FT’s John Burn-Murdoch. The UK figure has doubled in the last 30 years.

For the working class, this means going without or incurring crippling costs—not just for medicines, medical equipment like slings and wheelchairs, dental and optical care but increasingly for hospital treatment.

Burn-Murdoch notes that overall household spending on hospital costs has increased 60 percent in the last 10 years, but more than doubled among the poorest fifth. The poorest 20 percent of households now spend roughly the same proportion of their income on out-of-pocket hospital treatment as the richest fifth.

Around one in 14 of these poorer households incur “catastrophic healthcare costs” every year—40 percent or more above ability to pay—up from one in 30 a decade ago. The number reporting health needs that are going unmet is five times higher, one in 20. Crowdfunding for medical treatment is 20 times more common than it was just five years ago.