US Supreme Court attacks federal regulation of corporate interests

Barry Grey

In a much anticipated and deeply reactionary ruling handed down Friday, the US Supreme Court overturned a 40-year precedent so as to weaken federal regulation of corporations and banks over a broad swath of issues, including public health, worker safety, wage and hours standards, environmental policy, abortion and birth control, consumer rights, food and drug standards, and business oversight.

In deciding for the plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly wrote that “Chevron is overruled,” referring to the so-called “Chevron deference” doctrine stemming from the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ruling. That decision declared that courts were obliged to defer to federal regulatory agencies in interpreting laws that Congress had left vague, acknowledging the agencies’ scientific expertise.

Roberts wrote: “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” This is tantamount to an open invitation to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups to flood the courts with challenges to government regulations that cut across their profit interests, regardless the cost to the health and well-being of the general population. It is also intended to frustrate the implementation of new regulations by requiring that they be sanctioned by legislative and judicial review.

Roberts was joined by the rest of the six-justice right-wing supermajority on the court, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three moderates—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan—dissented, with Sotomayor and Brown Jackson joining the dissenting opinion drafted by Kagan.

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. [Photo: Fred Schilling, samling av USAs Høyesterett]

The court considered Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo together with a nearly identical case, Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.

Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, companies that owned the boats were required not only to transport the observers, but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishing companies in New Jersey and Rhode Island sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to impose the fee.

The case was backed financially and ushered through the courts by two interest groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, both of which have ties to the network of foundations and groups funded by the billionaire right-wing oil magnate Charles Koch (estimated net worth: $64.9 billion). All of the lower courts, including the D.C. Court of Appeals, basing themselves on the Chevron precedent, ruled, as expected, for the government and against the claimants. This paved the way for the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court to take the case and use it to overthrow Chevron.

According to the New York Times, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council is one of the most cited precedents in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. The Supreme Court has now overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies.

The court, unelected, with appointed justices who have life-time tenure, embodies the profoundly undemocratic character of so-called “American democracy.” Its most openly fascistic members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are both deeply implicated in Donald Trump’s attempted coup of January 6, 2021. They are also the most corrupt, having taken the first and third most bribes from right-wing corporate billionaires on a court that has, according to Fix the Court, received a combined $3 million in gifts over the past two decades. Thomas, the senior justice, himself accounts for $2.4 million of the total just on the basis of documented bribes.

The gutting of federal oversight of business and destruction of regulatory restraints on profit-making and the enrichment of the corporate elite are part of an ongoing and accelerating social counterrevolution. Essentially, the legal and governmental superstructure of capitalism, particularly in the United States, is being brought into line with the underlying oligarchic character of the economy. Past reforms, bound up with mass struggles of the working class and in themselves limited and highly inadequate, are being brushed aside in line with the increasingly parasitic character of the American capitalist economy and its domination by massive blocs of capital.

Driven by the loss of its global industrial supremacy and its massive indebtedness, the crisis-ridden American ruling class is turning ever more ruthlessly to global imperialist war and plunder abroad, and class war and dictatorship against its chief enemy, the American working class.

As the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board explained in its 2024 New Year Statement:

The United States is home to the highest concentration of billionaires in the world, whose collective wealth, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, rose to $5.2 trillion in November 2023, the highest amount ever recorded. As of the third quarter of 2023, the top 10 percent of the US population owned two-thirds of total wealth, while the bottom half owned only 2.6 percent.

Even more significant is the scale of resources controlled by giant banks and financial institutions. JPMorgan Chase, the world’s largest bank, controls $3.7 trillion in assets, more than the GDP of Britain. Private equity firms Vanguard and BlackRock control a combined $17.1 trillion in assets. Behind the crumbling façade of the two-party system, the US oligarchy exercises dictatorial rule over society.

Making no attempt to cloak its enthusiasm, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday’s high court ruling overturning Chevron in glowing terms:

The Supreme Court upended the federal regulatory framework in place for 40 years, expanding the power of federal judges to overturn agency decisions over environmental, consumer and workplace safety policy, among other areas…

Although neutral on its face, as a practical matter the decision offers another tool to business interests looking for conservative-leaning federal courts to block environmental, consumer or workplace safety regulations they consider too costly.

On the other side, the American Public Health Association and the American Cancer Society issued a joint statement Friday declaring:

We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s health care and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve.

Stephen Hall, legal director of Better Markets, which pushes for tougher regulation, said:

This decision threatens to return the United States to the 1910s, when the government had very limited ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of America.

Two other rulings handed down last week underscore the pro-corporate and anti-social agenda of the Supreme Court’s assault on government regulatory powers. On Thursday, the right-wing majority overturned the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce its rules for financial markets by means of in-house tribunals before expert administrative judges. Instead, the court ruled, the SEC had to sue accused violators in federal court before juries.

The same day, the court in a 5-4 vote put on hold an initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce smog-forming pollution from power plants and factories that blows across state lines. The court sided with states, trade associations and companies that asked for a pause on the agency’s “good neighbor” plan while they challenge it in a lower court.

Kenyan President Ruto imposes savage austerity as High Court upholds military deployment

Kipchumba Ochieng

Kenyan President William Ruto has unveiled savage austerity measures amounting to billions of shillings, as the High Court upheld the deployment of the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) to patrol Nairobi and other urban centers to suppress mass social opposition. More nationwide protests are expected this week.

On Friday, Ruto signed into law Appropriations Bill 2024 and instructed the Treasury to “immediately prepare supplementary estimates to reduce expenditure by the amount of revenue that was expected to be generated by the rejected Finance bill.” The Finance Bill 2024, which Ruto withdrew last week, was meant to raise $2.7 billion through hikes in regressive taxes, including the sales tax (VAT).

Ruto plans to offset the now abandoned tax hikes with massive cuts to social expenditure, affecting education, healthcare, social welfare, housing, infrastructure, and county funding. The counties oversee devolved functions such as primary healthcare, pre-primary education, county roads, public works, and other vital services essential for local development. Forty six thousand intern teachers promised permanent positions after a three-week strike last month will be affected.

These actions show that Ruto’s decision to withdraw the Finance Bill 2024 was a tactical pullback aimed to stem mass opposition sparked after the events of Bloody Tuesday (June 25) when police gunned down dozens of austerity protestors on the streets of Nairobi and across the country. Millions had joined protests across the country that day, cutting across tribal divisions long stoked by the ruling class.

Kenya army soldiers patrol around Nairobi, Kenya Thursday, June 27, 2024. [AP Photo/Brian Inganga]

At least 30 were killed according to Human Rights Watch, and hundreds left injured, as Ruto unleashed live bullets and tear gas on mostly peaceful protestors. The exact number of dead remains unknown as the government covers up the extent of the bloodbath, with families still searching for their missing children in city mortuaries.

The Kenyan political establishment is determined to impose the diktats of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Kenya’s workers and toilers by any means necessary. The goal of the IMF is to place the full burden of Kenya’s unprecedented debt crisis onto the masses. This includes further tax and levy hikes, social expenditure cuts, and privatizations—and all with the aim of repaying outstanding foreign debts and boosting corporate profits.

Ruto, supported by the bourgeois media, is attempting to portray the austerity measures as popular. The Standard stated on Sunday, “The President still faces a significant challenge in winning the support of citizens. They expect him to implement further austerity measures, which may include halting planned renovations of State House, State lodges, and the deputy president’s residence and office, all of which are projected to cost billions.”

Indeed, the lavish expenses of the political class, including luxury travels, $60,000 SUVs, generous per diems, and Ruto’s many chartered flights to meet and curry favor with imperialist leaders, are deeply resented. However, any cuts to these will represent only a tiny fraction of what the IMF demands and serve merely to provide political cover for the savage austerity measures to be imposed on workers and the rural masses.

With these measures, Ruto is trying to buy time, as he builds up the military-police state machine to suppress mass opposition. On Friday, the High Court upheld the KDF’s deployment on the streets against protestors. Ruto deployed the military soon after a call with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and days after the European Union announced it was providing €20million ($21.4 million) in military supplies and other support to the KDF.

Following the High Court order, Defence Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale expanded the KDF deployment, announced that troops will be deployed in all 47 counties until “normality is restored” and army personnel empowered to arrest protestors.

Kenya is rapidly returning to its post-independence police state roots under the regimes of Jomo Kenyatta (1964-1978) and Daniel arap Moi (1978-2002). Even those regimes never deployed troops against unarmed civilian protests. Recent weeks have seen abductions of activists, use of live ammunition, rooftop snipers, internet slowdowns, social media shutdowns, and state-sanctioned armed goons intimidating protestors.

Ruto’s so-called “dialogue” initiative, announced last Wednesday and which involves the formation of a 100-member National Multi-Sectoral Forum to discuss unemployment, debt, and corruption, is a mockery. This “dialogue” was exposed as a cover for state repression and austerity the following day, when police gunned down 3 protestors in Rongai, including a child, and heavily armed KDF soldiers patrolled the streets of Nairobi in armoured vehicles, Humvees and military land cruisers. Anti-Finance Bill activists Alvina Wangui and Kevin Kori were abducted on Friday; their whereabouts remain unknown. On Sunday, former Nandi Hills MP Alfred Keter was abducted after Church in broad daylight.

Behind the scenes, the opposition Azimio la Umoja coalition led by millionaire Raila Odinga is colluding with Ruto on how best to suppress opposition, while publicly professing token support for the protests.

On Saturday, Odinga covered for Ruto with whom he has long worked in previous Kenyan governments, claiming he had bad advisors. Odinga described Ruto’s Tuesday night speech—in which he justified the massacre of unarmed protesters, denouncing them as “treasonous” and “dangerous criminals” who constituted “an existential threat to our republic”—as a “bad one, full of chest-thumping and written by bad advisors.”

“I told him,” Odinga continued, “the protests will not stop if you do not come out and talk strongly about it. We are at a delicate place as a country and anybody who is not aware is foolish.”

Standing next to Odinga on Saturday, the minority leader in the National Assembly Opiyo Wandayi echoed his comments, urging Ruto to implement the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) report before any new supposed popular consultation. At the end of last year, Odinga joined with Ruto to bring an end to a wave of anti-austerity protests triggered by last year’s budget (Finance Bill 2023), which introduced a battery of tax hikes, subsidy cuts, and other austerity measures.

For five months last year, Odinga intermittently mobilised protests with the aim of keeping the swelling mass anger under the control of the bourgeois opposition forces he leads. The Ruto government, for its part, responded with mounting repression. Protesters were shot and teargassed, resulting in some 75 deaths. Ultimately Odinga called off last year’s anti-austerity protests when they threatened to intersect with strikes by civil servants, doctors, and teachers, stating that issues would be resolved through NADCO, which has since predictably become a dead letter.

Unsurprisingly, Azimio has said nothing about the new IMF-dictated austerity measures. In the past, the opposition has agitated against the Ruto government’s “misplaced allocations,” a reference to lavish expenses by top officials.

The opposition coalition have also withdrawn its brief, short-lived calls for Ruto to resign, which proved widely popular among workers and youth. Last Tuesday, after Ruto’s bloodbath on the streets of Nairobi, leading opposition figure Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna, demanded Ruto’s resignation: “The entire country has risen up to say Ruto must go. At this moment in time even withdrawal of that Bill will not be enough. William Ruto resign as President of the Republic of Kenya.”

Sifuna has not repeated this demand, hoping that Ruto’s dropping of the tax hikes can be used to defuse the protests and restabilize bourgeois rule.

The Azimio la Umoja coalition has no fundamental differences with the Ruto government’s economic programme and defends the same reactionary class interests. Odinga, like Ruto, is a millionaire, living streets away from each other in the affluent neighborhood of Karen in Nairobi. They are part of the 0.1 percent of the Kenyan population (8,300 people) which, according to Oxfam, owns more wealth than the bottom 99.9 percent (more than 48 million people).

The silence of the trade unions indicates that they are willing to allow Ruto to impose austerity and troops to crush protestors. The Central Organization of Trade Unions (COTU), representing 1.5 million workers, has said nothing. Its secretary general Francis Atwoli infamously defended the Finance Bill, before the massacre on Tuesday forced him to reverse and appeal to Ruto to withdraw the bill.

He did so in the name of defending Kenyan capitalism. “Kenya is a hub of economic activities in this region, and we must protect it at all costs,” declared Atwoli. “We must support the President and the government to ensure that this country remains peaceful.”

More protests are expected this week. Middle class activists are now circulating an anonymous list of demands titled “Our non-negotiable demands to dictator Ruto and his greedy government.” It combines popular working class demands with middle class anti-corruption issues and calls for minor government reforms.

Poster widely circulated on social media. [Photo: WhatsApp]

Among other demands, it calls for abolishing the publicly funded offices of the 1st Lady and 2nd Lady and the redirecting of funds to employ teachers and staff; the scrapping of the housing levy; the sacking of corrupt officials; the recall of “rogue” (corrupt) MPs; the reduction of MP’s wages to those of a doctor; the employment of more teachers and doctors; the reinstatement of the school-feeding programme; and Ruto’s immediate resignation for “selling the country to the IMF and the West.”

Notably, it calls for the recall of the Kenyan “anti-terrorist” police deployed to Haiti, where they have been sent as a mercenary, US-funded force to terrorise the Haitian population, so as to prevent migration to the US and prevent the crisis in Haiti from destabilising the broader Caribbean region, which Washington considers its backyard.

It also calls for “a proper audit on the national debt.” Workers and youth must be warned: there is nothing to be audited. Workers and youth should not sacrifice their jobs, wages and social conditions so imperialism and finance capital can keep plundering the country.

Events have proved that Ruto is imposing the dictates of imperialism and the IMF, and that the opposition is conspiring to work with him to suppress the mass opposition. The Kenyan capitalist class and its political representatives are completely incapable of addressing any of the pressing social needs of the workers and poor. No amount of pleading or pressure will cause them to give up their role as clients for the US and EU imperialist powers, to whom they look to defend their privileges, or to cede to the masses any of the profits and vast tracts of land and wealth they have looted.

The events in Kenya point to the urgency of workers and youth basing their struggle on Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution, which explains that in the former colonial and oppressed countries only the fight for power by the working class can advance the struggle against imperialism and ensure genuine national liberation and democratic and social rights for the workers and toilers. It means uniting the working class across tribal lines and across national borders in a fight for socialism.

The eruption of class struggle in Kenya is being fueled by a global capitalist crisis and part of a growing counter-offensive of the international working class. This crisis has been accelerated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the US-led NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, and Washington’s trade war and military-strategic offensive against China, which are rapidly escalating towards a global conflict between nuclear-armed states. These conditions are fueling a powerful revolutionary movement of the working class, not only in Kenya but across Africa and the entire world.

In neighboring Tanzania, Kiswahili-speaking like Kenya, traders at Dar es Salaam’s Kariako district, a popular market area in the country and one of the busiest in the whole region, went on strike against increased taxes last week. On the other side of the continent, in Nigeria, oil workers are threatening an indefinite strike over wages and the privatisation plans of the country’s largest oil refinery; construction workers are threatening to strike due to the layoff of 30,000 workers; and health workers are embarking on a seven-day strike.

Social media reactions from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, and South Sudan are expressing admiration for the mass upheaval in Kenya and drawing parallels to their governments’ similar IMF-austerity measures, attacks on democratic rights, and use of state repression.

Iran’s presidential elections head to a run-off amid escalating Mideast war

Keith Jones

Iran’s presidential election will be decided in a run-off next Friday between a so-called “reform” candidate, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, and Saeed Jalili, a leader of the Principalist or “conservative” faction of the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical political elite.

Pezeshkian favours renewed efforts to seek a rapprochement with Washington and the European imperialist powers, as was attempted under the administration of Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president from 2013 to 2021. He combines calls for a relaxing of clerical control over aspects of daily life and denunciations of widespread government corruption with the promotion of a neo-liberal, pro-market agenda aimed at boosting profits and investment at the expense of working people.

Candidate for the presidential election Saeed Jalili, third left, a former Iranian top nuclear negotiator, sits in a meeting with a group of his supporters during his campaign at a sports hall in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, June 30, 2024. [AP Photo/Vahid Salemi]

Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2007 and 2013, was among the most outspoken opponents of the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, which US President Donald Trump repudiated in 2018 so as to initiate a new US drive to subjugate Iran through military pressure and by wrecking its economy. He is an advocate of the “economic resistance” policy currently favoured by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khamenei. Among the Principalists, who are divided into multiple, competing factions, Jalili is considered among the most strident in his promotion of reactionary Islamic mores and the dominant role of the Shia clergy in political life.

In the first round of the presidential election held last Friday, Pezeshkian narrowly bested Jalili, winning 10.41 million votes (42.5% of votes cast) to the latter’s 9.47 million (38.6%)

Bagher Ghalibaf, a former Tehran mayor and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air force commander, and the current speaker of the Majlis (Iranian parliament), polled 3.38 million votes (13.5 %).

Once the results were known, Ghalibaf immediately declared his support for Jalili in the run-off—constitutionally necessary as none of the candidates won a majority of the votes. The three other candidates authorized to stand in the election under a highly anti-democratic vetting process overseen by the Guardians’ Council have also thrown their support behind Jalili. Two of them withdrew last Thursday before any votes had been cast. The third, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, won just 206,397 votes.

In a striking and highly significant indication of the narrowing popular support for Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime, overall voter turnout fell sharply despite a very public government campaign to encourage people to do their “civic duty” by voting. The Supreme Leader himself actively participated in this campaign.

Of the more than 61 million Iranians eligible to vote, less than 40 percent chose to cast a ballot on Friday, down 9 percentage points from the 2021 presidential election. That election was won by the Principalist cleric Ebrahim Raisi whose death with other leading officials in a May 19 helicopter crash triggered the current election.

Prior to the 2021 election, turnout in an Iranian presidential election had never fallen below 50 percent, and in the three preceding elections in 2009, 2013 and 2017, it always exceeded 70 percent.

The sharp drop in turnout is an indication of mass disaffection with all factions of the political establishment—conservative and “reform”—and mounting social anger. Since the beginning of 2018, Iran has thrice been convulsed by mass nationwide protest movements fueled by anger over social inequality, spiraling inflation, deepening poverty and the corrupt and repressive rule of the capitalist Islamic Republic.

All of these movements have been socially and politically heterogeneous, involving Iran’s workers and toilers, but also more privileged middle-class layers, backed by sections of the bourgeoisie, who resent the crony capitalism of the Islamic Republic and the political privileges of the Shia clergy only because they represent obstacles to their own enrichment.

Under Raisi as under Rouhani, the rulers of the Islamic Republic used bloody repression to suppress the anti-government protests. Hundreds, including scores of minors, were reportedly killed during the three months of large-scale nationwide protests triggered by the September 16, 2022 death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman arrested for not properly wearing the hijab.

The bourgeois clerical regime consolidated its rule by hijacking the mass revolutionary upsurge that overthrew the brutal monarchical dictatorship of the US-backed Shah in 1979 and savagely repressed the left and all independent organizations of the working class. For decades it has sought to balance between Iran’s oppressed masses and the imperialist powers.

However, the crisis of world capitalism and the attempts of the imperialist powers, led by the United States, to reassert their global dominance through a violent re-division of the world and the seizure of resources, strategic territories, and pools of labour to exploit, make this balancing act ever more precarious.

On the eve of the election, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken imposed new sanctions on Iran in response, or so he claimed, to Iran’s plans to augment its civilian nuclear program. Under conditions where the US and European powers are waging economic war on Iran and backing Israel to the hilt as it wages a genocidal assault on the Palestinians, Tehran has sought to pressure them to return to the 2015 agreement by increasing its enrichment of uranium and breaching other conditions of the accord.

Blinken punctuated his sanctions announcement with a threat of war, even a nuclear strike on Iran, declaring that US imperialism is “prepared to use all elements” of its “national power to ensure” Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

The next day, Iran’s UN mission issued a statement on X/Twitter warning that should Israel carry through on its threats to invade Lebanon, it would face an “obliterating war” and suggested Iranian-backed militias across the region would come to Hezbollah’s defence.

The reality is that none of the factions of the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois elite and clerical-political establishment have any progressive answer to the US imperialist war drive and the rampage of its Israeli Zionist attack dog.

While bitterly divided among themselves, their uniform response to mounting imperialist aggression is to intensify the exploitation and repression of the working class. Successive administrations, “conservative” and “reform” alike, have systematically gutted the little that remains of the social concessions granted to the working class in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 Revolution, implementing wholesale privatization and massive subsidy and social spending cuts.

Under Rouhani, with Khamenei’s approval, the Islamic Republic agreed beginning in January 2016 to dramatically curtail its civilian nuclear programme, with the aim of opening Iran’s abundant energy resources and working class to European and American imperialist exploitation. But the “investment boom” proved to be little more than a mirage. On assuming office at the beginning of 2017, Trump quickly served notice that he intended to sabotage the Iran nuclear accord as part of a still more aggressive America First global strategy.

In response, Rouhani aggressively wooed Berlin, London and Paris. But once Trump pulled the plug on the Iran accord, initiated his campaign of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, and threatened to use Washington’s control of the global financial system to sanction any foreign companies that traded with Iran, the European powers quickly fell into line.

Rouhani’s successor Raisi was ready to explore the possibility of reviving the nuclear accord, something Biden claimed to favour during the 2020 US election campaign. But to offset the ongoing brutal US-European economic sanctions, which among other things greatly exacerbated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Tehran continued at the same time to expand economic and strategic ties with both Russia and China.

Washington responded with increasing intransigence and in August 2022, some six months after the outbreak of the US-NATO-instigated Ukraine war, the on-again off-again nuclear negotiations started to completely unravel.

The US has welcomed the now eight-month-old Israeli war on Gaza as a means to pursue long-developed plans to reorder the Middle East under unbridled US domination by incrementally degrading the position of Iran and its allies and ultimately waging all-out war against them. Blinken and Biden have themselves repeatedly tied the expanding war in the Middle East and US imperialism’s need to roll back Iranian influence to the NATO war against Russia and America’s all-sided economic and military-strategic offensive against China, admitting, in effect, that the US and its allies are engaged in a global war for imperialist hegemony.

When Israel, as part of an escalating series of provocations, killed leading Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel by striking Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria, Tehran felt compelled to respond. But it signaled its first-ever direct military attack on Israel on April 13 well in advance and carefully calibrated it in the hopes of avoiding a wider war.

In the five televised debates held in the run-up to the first round of the presidential election, the “reform” candidate Pezeshkian repeatedly claimed he could resolve Iran’s acute economic crisis by pursuing friendly relations with “our neighbours” and reviving the nuclear accord. His Principalist opponents, he claimed, “didn’t let the JCPOA [the official name for the accord] succeed,” preferring like Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “to set it on fire.”  Needless to say, he offered no explanation as to how Iran could achieve such a rapprochement when the US and its European allies have made clear that their aim is to subjugate Iran and re-impose the type of neo-colonial regime that existed under the Shah.

While advocating conciliation with the imperialist powers, Pezeshkian advanced himself as the representative of “owners” and “company managers ... thirsty for the stability of a proper business environment” free “from government interference,” and “stock market investors” angered by the depreciation of their shares.

Meanwhile, Jalili, who enjoys the not so subtle backing of Supreme Leader Khamenei, claimed he would put Iran on the path of 8 percent annual growth, but again without offering any viable path as to how this could be achieved.

IMF says growing US debt must be “urgently” dealt with

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund has warned that the rapidly growing US public debt must be “urgently” addressed lest it cause major problems for the global economy and its financial system.

IMF Headquarters, Washington, DC. [Photo by IMF / CC BY 4.0]

The warning is the centre piece of the annual Article IV review of the US issued last week which estimated that the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise steadily and reach 140 percent by 2032. This would mean debt and deficits exceeding the previous highs they reached in the wake of World War 2 and there was a “pressing need to reverse the ongoing increase to public-debt GDP ratio.”

“Such high deficits and debt create a growing risk to the US and global economy, potentially feeding into higher fiscal financing costs and a growing risk to the smooth rollover of maturing obligations,” the IMF said.

“These chronic fiscal deficits represent a significant and persistent policy misalignment that needs to be urgently addressed.”

The prescriptions advanced by the IMF amount to nothing less than what would be called a “structural adjustment program” like those imposed on less developed countries. These have led to the eruption of mass social and class struggles as took place in Sri Lanka in 2022 and have now exploded in Kenya.

The IMF said that to put the debt-GDP on a “clear downward path, a frontloaded fiscal adjustment will be needed that shifts to a general government primary surplus of around 1 percent of GDP (an adjustment of around 4 percent of GDP relative to the current baseline.)”

With the US GDP currently at $27.6 trillion, this means an “adjustment” of more than $1.1 trillion.

Under conditions where military spending will continue to be increased as the US expands its global war front, this means years of an austerity program directed against social spending hitting the working class.

This is spelled out is clear terms by the IMF.

“There are various tax and spending options to achieve this adjustment over the medium-term. However, policies will need to go beyond finding efficiencies in discretionary non-defence spending. Policymakers will need to carefully consider raising indirect taxes, progressively increasing income taxes (including for those earning less than $400,000 per year), eliminating a range of tax expenditures, and reforming entitlement programs. Putting these measures in place will necessitate taking difficult political decisions over the course of multiple years.”

The sting here is in the tail. Under conditions where any tax increases on the wealthy and corporations will be only marginal at most or successfully evaded as has been the case in the past, the chief burden of the shift in resources would be borne by an attack on social services, to which the IMF points with the euphemistic phrase “reforming entitlement programs.”

The IMF report card on the US economy claimed that it has turned in a “remarkable performance over the past few years” but then detailed major problems building up not far below the surface.

Besides the explosion of public debt, it pointed to major issues in the financial system. It warned that there was “insufficient progress in addressing the vulnerabilities” highlighted by the 2023 bank failures, when three major banks failed as a result of the interest rate hikes initiated by the US Federal Reserve in March 2022.

Fed policy could also lead to financial turbulence. It is seeking to reduce its holdings of debt built up because of the quantitative easing program introduced after the crisis of 2008 and expanded further in response to the crisis in the market for US government debt in March 2020 at the start of the pandemic.

This process, known as quantitative tightening, is now being eased somewhat because of the possibility of liquidity problems in the $26 trillion Treasury market and the short-term, sometimes overnight, repurchase (repo) market where interest rates jumped from their normal level of a fraction of a percentage point to as much as 10 percent in September 2019.

“The decision on when to stop the shrinking of the balance sheet will need to be handled carefully so as to prevent inducing volatility on short term funding markets,” the IMF said.

The IMF took aim at the increase in tariffs and other restrictive policies being rapidly introduced the US, supported by both sides of the political aisle. It stated that their ongoing intensification and “the increased use of preferences in the treatment of domestic versus foreign commercial interests represents a growing downside risk for both the US and the global economy.”

It said the US should address the core issues with its trading partners that risk undermining the global trade and investment system.

“Tariffs, nontariff barriers, and domestic content provisions are not the right solutions since they distort trade and investment flows and risk creating a slippery slope that undermines the multilateral trading system, fragments global supply chains, and spurs retaliatory action by trading partners.”

The US, it said, should unwind obstacles to free trade and instead seek to bolster its competitiveness.

There is no chance of this happening because the dominant view in Washington is that the system of free trade, which the US once promoted, has worked against its national interests, undermining its global economic dominance which must now be rectified by a combination of economic and military warfare.

Speaking to a press conference on Thursday on the IMF report, managing director Kristalina Georgieva said the fund did not support the Biden administration’s tariffs on Chinese green technology goods nor the plans of Trump to introduce a 10 percent tariff on all imports.

But she then effectively endorsed the measures saying there was a “political case” for such actions.

On the issue of fiscal debt, she said the US had the space to deal with its fiscal problems but there was always the temptation to postpone decisions related to debt and deficits to the future. The role of the IMF, she added, was to be the “voice of reason.”

The voice of IMF “reason” has thundered out on the streets of Nairobi, Kenya, where the government has shot down protestors demonstrating against the imposition of its austerity program.

Conditions in the US have not yet reached the stage of those in Kenya, but the same underlying financial processes are at work. The US has been deeply involved in the attacks of the Ruto government on the working class.

Right-wing Supreme Court majority approves making homelessness a crime

John Burton

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday along its now familiar ideological divide that local governments can penalize and arrest unhoused people for sleeping in public, including in their own cars, even where there are no public shelters available and nowhere else to go.

A Purple Patrol security guard checks the wellbeing of a homeless man in downtown Los Angeles Thursday, July 27, 2023. [AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes]

There are more than 650,000 unhoused people in the United States, according to a 2023 count by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson will vacate multiple injunctions presently in effect within the jurisdiction of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses the nine western states and two Pacific territories, embracing a population of 65 million, almost double that of the next largest circuit.

Friday’s ruling overturned a 2018 Ninth Circuit ruling, Martin v. City of Boise, which was itself grounded in the Supreme Court’s own 1962 decision in Robinson v. California that the constitutional prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” found in the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights prevents criminalizing someone’s “status”—in that case drug addiction—rather than conduct. The Ninth Circuit ruled that this same principle applies equally to people compelled by circumstances beyond their control to sleep in public.

Prior to the decision Friday, courts in the Ninth Circuit interpreted Robinson and Martin to mean that the unhoused could not be arrested, their encampments cleared nor their meager possessions confiscated unless the local government could demonstrate the availability of public shelters or other realistic options.

Several federal judges, notably David O. Carter of Orange County, California, became deeply involved in working out complex and practical logistical arrangements between public officials and the unhoused by issuing and then modifying detailed injunctions. Over the last year, following Judge Carter’s intervention, the City of Los Angeles registered a more than two percent drop in its homeless population, the first decline since 2018.

Grants Pass, with a population around 40,000, has an estimated 600 unhoused, many of whom are long-time residents unable to find or afford a place to live, but who do not want to leave their family, work or friends. To force them out of the city limits and into nearby federal lands, in 2013 the City Council criminalized sleeping in public with any form of “bedding … for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” Penalties escalated from a $300 fine and keep-out orders to 30 days in jail.

The only alternative to sleeping in public or leaving Grants Pass was 138 beds at Gospel Rescue Mission, where stays were limited and residents were required to attend religious services.

Two residents of Grants Pass who slept in their cars sued in federal district court, which enjoined enforcement based on testimony that Grants Pass police officers rousted unhoused residents repeatedly and cited them for sleeping unless they could show they had a “place to live,” thus subjecting them to fines, arrests, and criminal prosecutions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the court’s fascist wing. He began with sickening crocodile tears over “those experiencing homelessness,” who are, supposedly, “as diverse as the Nation itself—they are young and old and belong to all races and creeds,” and “become homeless for a variety of reasons, too, many beyond their control.”

Of course, homelessness does not affect all equally. Gorsuch ignores the class divide in US society. What the homeless share in common is extreme impoverishment in a society dominated by oligarchs with no interest whatsoever in homelessness, as long as encampments do not interfere with their privileged and sheltered life.

Writing that the Eighth Amendment was enacted to prohibit “barbaric” punishments such as “disemboweling, quartering, public dissection, and burning alive,” Gorsuch called that constitutional provision “a poor foundation” for the Ninth Circuit rulings protecting the unhoused. He attacked as well the Supreme Court of 60 years ago, criticizing it for “reading the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to impose a limit not just on what punishments may follow a criminal conviction but what a State may criminalize to begin with.”

“Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson,” Gorsuch wrote, disingenuously adding:

“It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.”

Setting aside Gorsuch’s ominous reference to college encampments, such as the recent mass protests against the Zionist genocide in Gaza, one cannot but help but hear the echoes of poet Anatole France’s famous aphorism:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.

Gorsuch attacked the lower court judges such as Carter who sought to balance local efforts to address homelessness with the constitutional rights of those affected, claiming without evidence that judicial efforts “to alleviate the homelessness crisis” may have “inadvertently contributed to it.”

“A handful of federal judges” cannot match “the collective wisdom the American people” when responding to “a pressing social question like homelessness,” Gorsuch concluded.

The last point is particularly rich, as the same six-justice right-wing bloc on the same day overruled the Chevron doctrine, thus effectively transferring control over the regulation of United States industry and finance from agencies established by the executive branch to unelected federal judges, who, as this decision illustrates, cannot act without the approval of the right-wing Supreme Court.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the other two moderate justices, wrote that “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” and for “some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”

Making it criminal for people to “sleep anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow” punishes people for being homeless, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor concluded.

French snap elections: Macron’s party collapses as New Popular Front, neo-fascists rise

Alex Lantier

President Emmanuel Macron suffered another humiliating setback yesterday in the first round of the snap elections he called after his party’s defeat in the European elections. Both the neo-fascist National Rally (RN) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s New Popular Front (NFP) surged in the vote, to 29 and 28 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, Macron’s Ensemble coalition fell to 20 percent.

French President Emmanuel Macron casts his ballot, Sunday, June 30, 2024 [AP Photo/Yara Nardi]

Projections of who will win seats in the July 7 second round are uncertain, with most showing the RN falling short of the 289 seats needed for an absolute majority in the 577-seat Assembly. It is expected to win between 230 and 280 seats. The NFP is expected to have between 125 and 165 seats, while Ensemble will likely fall to a rump of between 70 and 100 seats. The right-wing The Republicans (LR) party, which took 9 percent of the vote, will have 40 to 60 seats.

This is a resounding disavowal of Macron. He campaigned as a defender of French democracy against the “extremes” of the NFP and the RN, and advocated a deployment of ground troops to Ukraine for war with Russia. Neither of these arguments won him support.

It is well known among workers that Macron rules against the people, slashing pensions and other social programs in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, and that the war plans he and NATO are supporting pose the risk of catastrophic escalation.

Instead, on voter turnout of 66 percent—the highest in 30 years for a legislative election—voters reduced Macron’s party to a rump in the National Assembly. All projections show his party being a junior partner in whatever governmental coalition is assembled in parliament after the second round on Sunday.

Macron issued a statement last night indicating that he would likely seek a government alliance with the NFP and LR against the RN. He said:

The high voter turnout in the first round of these legislative elections shows the importance of this vote for our compatriots and their desire to clarify the political situation.

Calling for an all-party anti-RN alliance, Macron advocated “against the National Rally, a broad, clearly democratic and republican coalition for the second round.”

Outgoing Prime Minister Gabriel Attal called for coalitions to be formed that are “capable of defeating the National Rally and with whom [Ensemble] shares the most important thing: the values of the Republic.” Attal also announced he was suspending his widely unpopular plans for cuts to unemployment insurance after Ensemble’s defeat.

RN party leader Marine Le Pen and prime ministerial candidate Jordan Bardella both appealed to voters to give the RN an absolute majority in the second round, so it could form a government.

Le Pen said:

The French have shown their desire to turn the page after seven years of a government that was contemptuous and corrosive. We need an absolute majority. I invite you to renew your vote if you voted for us … If you made another choice, I invite you to come join the coalition of security, liberty and unity.

“The presidential camp … is no longer in a position to win,” Bardella said, calling his party “a patriotic rampart that can make France win” against the far-left threat. He said that, if elected, he would be “respectful of the Constitution and the office of the President of the Republic, but intransigent on the policy we want to put into action.”

For his part, NFP leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon framed the second round of the snap elections as a choice between his party coalition and neo-fascism.

He said:

We are going towards a second round of exceptional intensity. The country must choose. Will it aggravate the worst of its divisions, those of social inequalities, religion, skin color, of social or geographic origin, or will it come together to form just one people without any preconditions? That is the choice in the second round. … In these conditions, we can have no other propositions or reasonable demands beyond this: the New Popular Front needs an absolute majority.

As of last night, Mélenchon’s position within the NFP was somewhat strengthened by the election debacles facing two of his rivals inside the NFP.

Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF) leader Fabien Roussel, who made virulent law-and-order criticisms of Mélenchon, was eliminated outright in the first round in his Nord district.

François Ruffin, an aggressive promoter of the Ukraine war within LFI, was trounced and took second place to RN candidate Nathalie Ribeiro-Billet in the Somme district and is now fighting to keep his parliamentary seat.

Mélenchon, who has repeatedly offered to serve as prime minister under Macron, also signaled that the NFP will support Macron’s candidates against the RN. If the NFP could take away votes from an Ensemble candidate and thus allow the RN to win, he said, “we will withdraw our candidates, wherever it is, in all circumstances … Not a single vote, not a single seat more for the RN. Our policy is clear, our policy is simple.”

In reality, the only clear and simple element of the situation is the massive rejection by workers and youth of Macron’s policies of war, austerity and police state dictatorship. The vote in France is simply one expression of the far broader rejection in the working class internationally of military escalation in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza and austerity policies that are being imposed by capitalist police states around the world.

But the French political establishment does not give expression to these sentiments of workers and youth, and the outcome of the elections still is impossible to foretell. The balance of forces in the Assembly remains unclear, as is the position that LR would take were Macron to ask it to support a coalition government between the NFP and Ensemble.

Eric Ciotti, the leading partisan inside LR of unity with the RN, issued a statement last night calling for the formation of a RN-LR government alliance.

Ciotti said:

Tonight, it is no longer possible to refuse to choose between our responsible, patriotic and Republican union and the terrifying far left danger. I call upon all The Republicans to follow the path to unity that I have opened up.

Above all, a coalition government formed between Mélenchon’s NFP, Macron’s Ensemble and possibly a faction of LR offers nothing to the working class. It would be a capitalist government based on coalitions with explicitly right-wing forces. Moreover, the NFP’s program commits it to troop deployments and arms deliveries to Ukraine and a build-up of French military police and intelligence services that would make it compatible with Macron’s aggressive anti-worker agenda.

Were such a coalition government to be formed, it would amount to an attempt by French finance capital to integrate the NFP and Mélenchon more directly into the halls of power as instruments to pursue its imperialist interests. This government would, sooner rather than later, find itself in overt conflict with the working class.