A series of attacks at Russian schools

Clara Weiss 

Two major attacks on high school students by fellow teenagers occurred in Russia this month. In all, within one week, three schools witnessed attacks, and another school a stabbing. Dozens of children and several teachers were wounded.

The most widely covered attack occurred on January 15, at school No. 127 in Perm, an industrial city in the Urals. Two 16-year-olds, wearing masks, burst into a fourth-grade classroom and attacked the teacher and then the children with knives. Twelve youth, including the assailants, and the teacher were wounded.

The teacher, Natalia Schegulina, who was stabbed 17 times, and two children were listed in critical condition. One of the alleged assailants attended the 11th grade (the last year in Russian high schools) at the same school. He is the son of a relatively successful local designer, and, judging by media reports, had done fairly well in school.

The other alleged attacker had been suspended from school, reportedly at the request of his parents, because of mental health issues. According to Russia Today, he is the son of a successful local businessman, who owns numerous companies in the city. A widely discussed YouTube video shows the youth, who was in psychiatric treatment, rambling in an apparently intoxicated state. On social media, he expressed support for the campaign of right-winger Alexei Navalny, arguing that it didn’t matter who would “ruin the country,” which he described as a “country of slaves.” He also participated in a closed group on Vkontakte (VK), the Russian equivalent of Facebook and one of the most popular websites in the world, which glorified the April 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado.

On January 17, a student at a school near Chelyabinsk stabbed a fellow student during a break.

Two days later, another major assault occurred at school No. 5 in the small military town of Sosnovyi Bor in Buryatia, located in the Siberian region. A 15-year-old student attacked a seventh-grade class at his school. He threw a Molotov cocktail into the classroom and then began attacking the students with an ax. Five children and the teacher were wounded.

The teacher, Irina Ramenskaya, a Russian language and literature instructor, recounted the horrific scene: “I started to take the kids out. When I came out, I saw that a person was just chopping the kids with an ax. I brought them back in the classroom, where everything was burning. I was bleeding. Before my eyes stood Anton with an ax.”

The teenager then reportedly stabbed himself in the chest and jumped out of a window in an apparent attempt to commit suicide, but survived. Earlier reports about two additional assailants have not been confirmed.

According to a report by RBC, which referred to the accounts of fellow students, the teenager had problems with alcohol and drugs and followed skinhead and pro-Nazi websites on Vkontakte. That same day, a student released teargas at his school in Vladivostok, a major city in Russia’s Far East, wounding four teenagers.

The limited discussion in the Russian media about the incidents has focused on the lack of security provisions at the schools in question, while politicians and the spokesperson of President Vladimir Putin have evaded making any clear statement on the rampages at all.

As is the case in the US whenever a new mass atrocity occurs, neither the Russian media nor the political establishment dares address the social context in which such disorientation and right-wing conceptions emerge among teenagers and take such violent forms.

Born after the restoration of capitalism in Russia, which has thrown tens of millions of Russian workers and professionals into poverty, these youth grew up in a climate of extreme social reaction and brutality. Since the destruction of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy, the country has been ruled by a criminal oligarchy that obtains its wealth at the expense of the living standards of the vast majority of the country’s population.

Under Putin, there has been a reshuffling of wealth and political control within layers of the ex-bureaucracy, the mafia and the oligarchs who have emerged as the chief beneficiaries of capitalist restoration. While some oligarchs, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who advanced positions on foreign policy that went counter to the interests of the Kremlin, were either put in prison or forced into exile, the vast majority of the oligarch-gangsters and criminal bosses of the 1990s have become the “respected businessmen” of the Putin era.

Tellingly, almost 40 percent of Russian GDP originates in the shadow economy that employs about a fifth of Russia’s workforce. The shadow economy involves business operations such as illegal financial deals, human and drug trafficking, prostitution, and the widespread practice of hiring workers in construction and other industries without formal contracts.

The working population has also largely borne the cost of the Kremlin’s stand-off with US imperialism. The Western economic sanctions and the steep decline in oil prices ushered in a deep economic crisis in 2014. While the oligarchs have feverishly shoveled their money abroad, increasing numbers of Russians suffer from extreme poverty, eking out an existence by growing their own food and renouncing essentials of civilization, including medication, running water and electricity. Wealth inequality in Russia is now the highest among the world’s major countries, with the top decile owning a stunning 89 percent of the country’s total wealth.

On television, there is a continuous promotion of nationalism and militarism. After the bloody and criminal Chechen wars of the 1990s, which killed about a tenth of the Chechen population and have led to an ongoing devastation and destabilization of the North Caucasus, Russia has directly intervened in Syria and indirectly in Ukraine in a proxy war with the US-backed Kiev regime.

Under these conditions, the interests of the working class find absolutely no expression in official politics. The current presidential campaign is dominated by the stand-off between Putin, who has been the “godfather” of the Russian oligarchy for almost two decades, and Navalny, a far-right politician who openly supports fascist forces and whose aim is to foster a regime change in Russia in the interests of US imperialism and a section of the Russian oligarchy and upper-middle class.

Politically disarmed by decades of Stalinism, which included the murder of entire generations of revolutionaries and socialist intellectuals, and endless lies about the Russian Revolution, the working class has been unable to fight successfully against this decade-long onslaught of social and political reaction.

It is hardly surprising that such a climate would produce serious disorientation among sections of young people. The reactionary conceptions and utter contempt for the lives of other human beings, including children, expressed by these teenagers are ultimately a reflection of the attitude of the ruling elite toward the general population that these youth have witnessed their entire lives. Their rampages point to the urgent need to provide a progressive, socialist way forward out of the blind alley into which Stalinism and capitalism have led.

Currency conflicts deepen between US and Europe

Nick Beams

Deepening tensions between the Trump administration and the European Central Bank, which surfaced last week over the level of the US dollar in international currency markets, reflects the growing tensions over the administration’s “America First” agenda and the danger this could lead to trade and currency wars.

The war of words was sparked by comments by US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last Wednesday at the Davos summit of the global elites in which he remarked that “a weaker dollar is good for us as it relates to trade and opportunities.” Mnuchin later tried to soften his remarks saying he was only noting the short-term “factual” benefit of a lower dollar for US exporters.

But they sparked controversy because of concerns that the US is shifting from the position of previous administrations in favour of a strong dollar in line with the increasingly aggressive trade policies of the US which has imposed a series of new tariffs on solar cells and washing machines and is considering sweeping measures against Chinese and other imports.

At his press conference last Thursday following a meeting of the ECB’s governing council, the bank’s President Mario Draghi directly addressed the issue of the falling value of the US dollar which is pushing up the euro-dollar exchange rate.

In his prepared remarks, Draghi noted that the “recent volatility in the exchange rate” represented a “source of uncertainty” and downside risks to growth “continue to relate primarily to global factors, including developments in foreign exchange markets.”

Further elaboration followed in response to a series of questions from journalists about US exchange rate policy.

In a clear shot at Mnuchin and the Trump administration, Draghi referred to the “use of language … in exchange rate developments that doesn’t reflect the terms of reference that have been agreed lastly on October 14th, 2017” at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington.

Draghi was then asked whether comments from “certain members of the US administration” on the benefits of a lower dollar could lead to a “currency war scenario”. He insisted that governments and ministers had agreed that “excess volatility or disorderly movements” in exchange rates could have “adverse implications for economic and financial stability” and that “we will refrain from competitive devaluations and will not target our exchange rate for competitive purchases.”

While Draghi did not directly name Mnuchin or cite the Trump administration, his remarks were, in terms of the language used in international financial discussions, the equivalent of “gloves off”.

They were sparked, at least in part, because of the pressures he is under on the governing council of the ECB. The policies of ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing—the purchases of billions of dollars of government and corporate bonds by the central bank—initiated under his leadership have been opposed by Germany and its supporters on the governing council. In seeking to push back against this pressure Draghi has insisted that the ECB will move to “normalise” monetary policy but only when the European inflation rate moves back to a sustained level of close to 2 percent.

However, it remains at around 1.5 percent and the effect of a lower US dollar and a higher euro is to lower import prices into Europe, thereby working against a rise in inflation and a return to a “normal” monetary regime.

Under other circumstances, Mnuchin’s remarks may have been dismissed as the slip of a tongue and of no great concern. But they attracted wide international attention because they are seen as another manifestation of the breakdown of the international trading and financial order for which the US provided the central pillar of support.

In a comment reported in the Financial Times, Matthew Goodman, a former US treasury official, now at the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies, commented: “There has been a lot of thunder, and now a storm is coming. Maybe the world economy can absorb all of this, but these actions on trade and currency have ripple effects around the world and I don’t take them lightly.”

Stephen Moore, a former economic adviser to the Trump campaign, said there was an “obsession” among some White House advisers about the US trade deficit that could lead to counter-productive measures on currency and trade and disrupt the present increase in economic growth.

“When you look at the kind of things that could disrupt this burst of growth, the movement against international trade would be one of them,” he said, adding that it was “fool’s gold” to think that a weaker dollar could improve the situation.

However, the view of key figures in the Trump administration is not that its actions will lead to a trade war but that it has been going on for some time and the US has been losing because other countries are using international regulations and agreements to disadvantage it. The difference today is that, according to remarks delivered by US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to the Davos gathering: “US troops are now coming to the ramparts.”

The issue of the fall in the dollar’s value goes beyond the issue of Mnuchin’s remarks. Since the start of 2017 it has fallen against a basket of currencies by about 9 percent, the major portion that decline coming against the euro which has risen from around $1.07 to as high as $1.25. This decline has come in the face of higher US economic growth and increases in US interest rates by the Fed, which would normally bring a rise in the dollar’s value.

One interpretation of this apparently anomalous situation is that it reflects a longer term decline in the economic position of the US and its role as the linchpin of the international trading order and a monetary system.

In a note to clients this week, reflecting the rise of global economic tensions, Deutsche Bank wrote: “You can only be entrusted with the management of the reserve currency of the world if you care about the world. The US has unilaterally declared that it doesn’t and that comes at a price.”

Concern about the global position of the US also appears to be at the centre of criticism by the Wall Street Journal of the US administration.

An article on Mnuchin’s comments noted that while it might be too much to say a currency war had started, “a skirmish has definitely broken out.”

In an editorial it said Mnuchin’s comments were “baffling” because with the effect of the corporate tax cuts the administration should be “riding high” adding, in reference to the call for a lower currency value: “Why mess it up by imitating the economic policy of Argentina?”

It returned to the issue following Draghi’s criticisms in another editorial in which it said Mnuchin should be assisting the ECB chief in trying to return stability in the world’s most important exchange rate.

“Mercantilists in the White House” may think eurozone monetary policy is not their problem, it stated, but if their “greenback gimmicks” pushed the ECB too far away from following the Fed’s “modest attempts” at normalisation there could be “unpredictable consequences for exchange rates and the world economy.”

Puerto Rican Governor calls for the closing of a quarter of the island’s public schools

Rafael Azul

Last Wednesday, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló presented his government’s fiscal spending plan for 2018, which calls for $1.5 billion in cuts, including more than $300 million to education. These cuts will require the closure of 300 of the 1,100 K-12 schools on the island and could lead to a decrease of 27,500 students and 7,300 teachers by 2022.

This attack on education and other social services comes four months after Hurricane Maria devastated the island. Students at every level have lost at least a semester of their education since the storm hit. Due to the completely inept “recovery” aid provided by the local and federal governments, 30 percent of residents are still struggling without running water or electricity—including about 30 percent of public school buildings, which are still operating on half-day schedules.

In addition to the physical damage to school buildings and the resulting loss of school days, students have lost their clothing, schoolwork, books, and notes. Many educators have left the island permanently, exacerbating an already severe teacher shortage. One school just outside of the capital city of San Juan, the Rio Grande High School, is reporting classes of 90 students, with only one teacher responsible.

In addition to the closures, most schools are now operating without enrichment programs, such as physical education, and with shorter hours. In many cases, the teachers themselves have had to purchase food, clear away debris, repair broken walls and roofs, and buy teaching supplies to get the schools up and running.

The devastating effect of the hurricane on education stretches far deeper than just physical damage and the lack of resources. The immense poverty that existed on the island before the hurricane has been greatly exacerbated, causing further strain on students, teachers and their families. Before Hurricane Maria, 80 percent of public school students in Puerto Rico came from households below the poverty line.

The public school system had some 350,000 children enrolled, and almost all of them qualified for free meals. Many of these families have since lost their jobs, their homes, and even their loved ones in the storm and its aftermath. The effect that these conditions have had on students and their ability to learn is unimaginable.

Instead of dedicating the resources necessary to repair the schools, aid the students, pay the remaining teachers, and train and hire more, the local and federal governments are using the crisis to push through long-standing plans to privatize education on the island.

The governor has used the damage caused by the hurricane to justify his proposal. One major element is the ongoing population exodus to the mainland United States (the Rosselló administration anticipates a 7.7 percent population drain for this year). However, Rosselló’s proposal is not a response to population decline. It is only the latest political maneuver by the ruling class in a long battle with the Puerto Rican working class over the right to public education.

The public school crisis set off by Hurricane Maria represents the culmination of more than a decade of economic depression in the territory. Between 2008 and 2012, Puerto Rican K-12 schools lost 45,000 students and 5,000 teachers. The dropout rate exploded, with 60 percent of 10th graders failing to graduate high school. Between 2010 and 2015, 100 public schools were shut down.

The attack on education is not limited to the K-12 system. Last April and May, six months before Maria, university students at 8 of the system’s 11 campuses went on strike against proposed budget cuts of nearly $500 million, fully half of the system’s budget, demanded by the unelected Fiscal Oversight Board. In addition to striking against the budget cuts, the strikers demanded a moratorium on the entire $74 billion debt.

Two months later, Governor Rosselló announced the planned closure of 179 public schools. Had the plans not been foiled by Hurricane Maria, the closure would have forced the transfer of 27,000 students and some 3,000 teachers.

Since Maria struck on September 20, the local government has managed to close about 222 public schools, claiming they were too damaged.

In an attempt to pit teachers against each other, and against the wellbeing of their students, the government has offered a paltry wage increase to those teachers that will not be sacked: a yearly increase of $1,500 ($125 per month). The raise will come out of the savings generated by the school closures. Elementary school teachers earn a median salary of just $36,750 per year in Puerto Rico. Starting salaries can be as low as $19,230.

While rank-and-file teachers in Puerto Rico have bravely shown the way forward by fighting to reopen schools in the face of inaction by Rosselló and Education Secretary Julia Kehler (who favors the privatization of the school system), the same cannot be said for union officials. Neither the head of the Puerto Rican Teachers Association, Aida Díaz, nor anyone in the Teachers Association has proposed organized opposition to defend Puerto Rican schools, teachers and students.

In response to the governor’s proposal for the closure of 300 additional schools, Díaz has done nothing more than state that the measures are “not acceptable” and should “raise alarms.”

The proposal from Governor Rosselló and his administration should do much more than “raise alarms.” It is a full-scale attack on the working class of Puerto Rico and will have serious consequences for the lives and futures of hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and their families.

The experience of the working class in New Orleans is an instructive lesson for how these “natural disasters” are utilized by the ruling class. Two years after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration and local officials had overhauled the city’s schools and instituted a system dominated by charter schools—publicly funded schools run by for-profit or non-profit groups. Seventy percent of the city’s schools have now become charter schools.

The cuts to education proposed in Roselló’s fiscal plan have not yet been finalized, as all financial decisions must be approved by the dictatorial Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB). This board was appointed by former President Barack Obama to control the island’s budget and spending on behalf of Wall Street. The FOMB has played a central role in the attack on education since its formation and will undoubtedly support these early steps in the effort to dismantle the public education system.

Harley-Davidson to close Kansas City plant, lay off 800

Marcus Day 

Harley-Davidson, the world’s largest maker of heavyweight motorcycles, announced plans Tuesday to close its Kansas City, Missouri assembly plant by the summer of 2019 and lay off 800 workers.

Euphemistically referring to the closure as part of a “multi-year manufacturing optimization initiative,” the Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company attributed the move to a sharp fall in demand for its iconic bikes, particularly among young people. Harley’s US retail sales fell 8.5 percent in 2017—the fourth straight year of decline—and its global sales are projected to fall a further 4.9 percent in 2018.

The job cuts are part of a growing wave of mass layoffs, contradicting President Donald Trump’s boasts of US economic strength and the miraculous benefits supposed to accrue from the corporate handouts contained in the 2017 “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” In the past month alone, telecom giant AT&T, retailers Sams’ Club and Toys “R” Us, and paper products manufacturer Kimberly-Clark have revealed plans to slash thousands of jobs.

Harley-Davidson’s plant in Kansas City

The layoffs at Harley-Davidson, announced the morning of Trump’s first State of the Union address, come as a further blow to the president’s reactionary “America First” economic program, and are particularly embarrassing as Trump has lauded the company, inviting company executives and union officials to the White House in early 2017.

In a press release, Matt Levatich, Harley Davidson’s president and chief executive officer, laid out the cold-blooded financial calculations behind the plant shutdown, saying, “Our actions to address the current environment through disciplined supply and cost management, position us well as we drive to achieve our long-term objectives to build the next generation of Harley-Davidson riders globally.”

In what will be little comfort to the workers who will imminently be deprived of their livelihood, Levatich added that in 2017, “[W]e delivered another year of strong cash generation and cash returns to our shareholders.”

As part of Harley’s reorganization plans, production of the vehicles previously made in Kansas City will be moved to its York, Pennsylvania, plant, which the company claims will add 450 jobs. However, the 450—if they in fact all appear—will reportedly include part-time and contract positions.

Along with the shutdown of the Kansas City factory, Harley announced the planned closure of a wheel plant in Adelaide, Australia, with a loss of a further 100 jobs.

The company made the announcement at the Kansas City plant at a 6 a.m. “town hall” meeting, after which it sent workers home for the day, no doubt fearing an outbreak of anger.

Dominique Alstrok, a worker at the plant, told a local Fox News affiliate, “Where is my next job? What am I going to do benefits wise? I have three kids and a single mom.”

The closure of the Kansas City plant is the culmination of a long series of betrayals by the trade unions, principally the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and the United Steelworkers (USW), which both bargain on behalf of workers at Harley-Davidson.

In 2010, the USW and IAM signed a deal at Harley-Davidson’s plants in Menomonee Falls, near Milwaukee, and Tomahawk, Wisconsin, that included a seven-year wage freeze and strike ban, sharp increases in workers’ contributions to their health care coverage, and the creation of a “sub-tier” of seasonal or casual workers who will receive no benefits whatsoever and earn starting pay of $16.80, about half what current workers make.

The concessions contract, backed by the unions under the pretext that it was necessary to “save jobs,” in fact paved the way for hundreds of layoffs in subsequent years. The York, Pennsylvania plant saw its employment plummet from nearly 2,000 in 2009 to roughly 800 in 2017, while the plants in Wisconsin also lost hundreds of jobs.

Union officials feigned surprise and outrage at the current layoffs, while offering no plans to oppose the company’s decision. Kevin Amos, president of IAM Local 176 in Kansas City, demonstrated the utter spinelessness of the union and its groveling efforts to please the company, telling FOX4 News, “We have a good workforce, and we did as we were told. We were living in a seven-year concession contract. Workers were hurting, and yet we did everything we were supposed to do.”

Bob Martinez, national president of the IAM, predictably sought to deflect blame onto foreign workers and incite reactionary nationalism, saying, “Hundreds of working families are now wondering what their future holds because of this self-proclaimed American icon’s insistence on shipping our jobs to Asia and South America. I’m sick of seeing our jobs disappear or turn into part-time work...This company’s executive leadership team is letting Harley-Davidson’s foundation crumble.”

Instead of appealing to workers to mobilize against the plant closure, Martinez directed his pleas to the union’s real constituency, namely Wall Street and the political establishment: “We hope investors and policy-makers join our call to finally bring our jobs home.”

Harley-Davidson workers must draw the necessary conclusions from the decades of wage cuts, job losses, and attacks on health care and pensions they have suffered under the IAM and USW, who seek to divide workers from their brothers and sisters in other countries in order to defend the profit interests of the corporations.

In order to conduct a real fight against plant closures and for good-paying jobs and all the other gains bargained away by the unions, it is necessary to break with these pro-company organizations and form independent rank-and-file committees, democratically elected and controlled by workers themselves. Such committees must appeal to the millions of workers facing similar attacks in the US, Mexico, Asia and internationally for a joint struggle for the social rights of the working class as a whole.

Corporate giants announce partnership to cut employer health care costs

Barry Grey

Three of the biggest corporations in the world—Amazon, Berksire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase—sent shockwaves through the US health care industry Tuesday with a joint announcement of plans to form a company dedicated to cutting employer health care costs.

The press release issued by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Berkshire head Warren Buffet and JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon provided few details beyond a general goal of utilizing advanced technology to slash the cost of providing health care for the firms’ combined US work force of over 1 million. However, Dimon, who heads America’s biggest bank, hinted that their ambitions went beyond their own employees when he said, “Our goal is to create solutions that benefit our US employees, their families and, potentially, all Americans.”

The initiative heralds a further monopolization of health care by a handful of billionaire-run corporations and a further subordination of social needs to Wall Street. Health care in the US is a $3.3 trillion industry that accounts for 18 percent of the American economy. Whoever controls it stands to pocket untold billions in personal wealth.

Despite the companies’ talk of improving the availability and quality of health care for workers, the initiative announced Tuesday signals a further rationing of care for the working class. Its overriding purpose is to cut business costs and increase profitability, and that means restricting further the access of workers to quality care.

Even before Tuesday’s announcement, the monopolization of health care in the US was accelerating, encouraged by the market-based “reform” enacted by the Obama administration in the form of “Obamacare.” According to the Healthcare Financial Management Association, the pace of consolidation doubled between 2011 and 2015.

Last year saw a wave of hospital mergers, the largest of which combined Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, uniting their 139 hospitals and 700 care sites across 28 states. A number of major mergers of health insurers and pharmacy companies were announced, topped off by the $69 billion purchase of insurance giant Aetna by the CVS drug store chain.

But the sheer wealth, power and weight of the three firms involved in Tuesday’s announcement constitute a threat to the industry’s middlemen, from insurers and pharmacies to benefits managers. The new entity could eventually negotiate directly with drug makers, hospitals and doctors, undercutting the more traditional industry behemoths.

As a result, the announcement triggered panic selling of shares of major health insurance and pharmacy firms, which in turn sparked a broader selloff on US markets on Tuesday. At the close of trading, CVS was down 4.11 percent, Walgreens had lost 5.16 percent and UnitedHealth Group suffered a drop of 4.35 percent.

The Dow fell 362.6 points, or 1.4 percent, after falling 177.2 points on Monday, bringing its two-day loss to 540 points. This was the biggest two-day loss for the Dow since June 2016. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq indexes also declined sharply.

The executives chosen by Bezos, Buffett and Dimon to head up the new venture underscore the dominant role of financial capital in the further private carve-up of the health care system. Amazon named Beth Gialetti, a senior vice president who had served as FedEx’s vice president for planning. Berkshire named investment banker Todd Combs, who was a hedge fund manager before joining Buffett’s firm. JPMorgan chose Marvelle Sullivan Berchtold, the global head of mergers and acquisitions at drug maker Novartis before joining JPMorgan last year.

The sheer size of the three firms points to the increasing stranglehold of oligopolistic entities over society. Amazon has 542,000 employees around the world. Berkshire Hathaway employs 367,000 and JPMorgan Chase has more than 240,000 employees.

These are corporations that have overseen massive attacks on working class living standards. Dimon was fully implicated in the criminal machinations on Wall Street that led to the financial crash of 2008 and has been named in a series of financial swindles since then. Bezos has made his fortune by running the world’s biggest sweatshop operation, subjecting workers in his distribution centers to backbreaking labor at poverty wages.

The combined market capitalization of the three companies is $1.61 trillion, a sum larger than the gross domestic product of Spain ($1.2 trillion). Bezos, with a net worth of $115.6 billion, is the world’s richest person. Buffett, with $93.2 billion, ranks second. Dimon, despite an annual salary of $28 million, is a piker compared to his new partners, with net holdings of “only” $1.26 billion.

The combined wealth of Bezos and Buffett alone ($210 billion) is almost twice the combined fiscal year 2018 budget levels proposed by the Trump administration for the departments of education, housing and labor.

While the three CEOs in their joint press release said they had as yet no concrete policy proposals for their new company, some business commentators speculated as to the likely approach that would be taken. The New York Times spoke of a “wider use of telemedicine and virtual doctor visits,” and telemedicine companies saw a rise in their stock price.

Bloomberg posted an opinion piece stating: “The one thing we can say, however, is that if it succeeds, its success may help usher in an era of even tighter employer control over employees’ lives… There are probably considerable savings to be had if employers use their power to guide employees toward better decisions about everything from ER use to smoking.

“But one big reason that our health care system is such an expensive mess is that Americans hate being told what to do. They demand maximal, expensive freedom of choice about their health care. They rebel if they can’t get it. Worse still, if they are denied it, they call their legislators, who do things like telling insurers to stop denying so many claims for experimental treatments of dubious worth.”

Another Bloomberg piece declared bluntly, “The most effective way to reduce health care costs is to restrict choice.”

Trump economic adviser and former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn, who played a central role in drawing up Trump’s multi-trillion-dollar tax cut for the rich, endorsed the Amazon, Berkshire, JPMorgan plan on Tuesday. “We’re doing the same thing here at the White House,” he said.

In his statement to the press, Buffett declared that growing health care costs “act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.” This is a completely false and self-serving presentation of the situation. The tapeworm is not an excess of money spent to provide health care for the population—although the existing corporate-dominated system is rife with corruption and profit-gouging. Rather, it is the financial oligarchy that rules over economic and political life under capitalism, of which the three CEOs are a part.

The diversion of ever more obscene amounts of money and resources into the bank accounts of a parasitic elite, made possible by private ownership of the health care industry and all of the economic levers of society, makes any rational and humane approach to social needs, including health care, impossible.

The first step in solving the health care crisis and providing quality care for all is the expropriation of the fortunes of oligarchs like Bezos, Buffett and Dimon and the transformation of the banks and large corporations into publicly owned and democratically controlled utilities—that is, a struggle by the working class to put an end to capitalism and establish socialism.

Hundreds of thousands of industrial workers strike in Germany

Peter Schwarz

As Germany’s ruling elite conspires to form a new government to slash workers’ wages, attack democratic rights and remilitarize the country, the working class is giving its response in the form of the country’s biggest strike movement in 15 years.

On Wednesday, more than 65,000 workers in Germany’s metal and electrical industries will strike for 24 hours. On Thursday and Friday, hundreds of thousands more will follow. The IG Metall union has called 24-hour warning strikes nationwide in 250 companies, including Daimler, BMW and Volkswagen.

The extension of industrial action is taking place despite the efforts of the IG Metall leadership to contain the current contract struggle and reach a rotten compromise that betrays the workers’ demands. It is an expression of the growing anger and militancy of the workers after decades of social attacks by the government and employers.

The significance of this struggle goes far beyond the borders of Germany. Throughout Europe and around the world the ruling elites are engaged in a drive to dismantle labor protections and destroy workers’ wages and benefits in order to fund new and bigger wars and line their own pockets.

The strike wave in Germany is a confirmation of the World Socialist Web Site ’s prognosis at the New Year that “The year 2018--the bicentenary of Marx’s birth—will be characterized, above all, by an immense intensification of social tensions and an escalation of class conflict around the world.”

The names of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the country’s former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, have for years been synonymous with brutal attacks on the European working class. The austerity diktats that upended the lives of millions of working-class families in Greece, Spain and Portugal were above all the work of the last grand coalition government in Berlin. The transformation of Eastern Europe into a vast pool of cheap labour for international corporations, which pay workers in the formerly Stalinist-run countries a fraction of Western European wages, is also the result of German ruling-class policy.

The German government could not have played this role if it had not simultaneously attacked the German working class and kept it under control, with the help of subservient unions. The Hartz Laws introducing labour and welfare “reforms,” passed in 2003 by a Social Democratic-Green Party government, created a huge low-wage sector. At the same time, an army of well-paid works council representatives and union officials ensured that wages stagnated and workers’ conditions steadily deteriorated.

The working class has gained nothing from Germany’s economic “success,” which was achieved on its back. A small layer at the top of society has enriched itself without restraint, leaving Germany one of the most unequal countries in Europe, with 40 percent of all employees earning less than they did two decades ago.

The strike wave in the automative, metal and electrical industries is a rebellion against these conditions. The IG Metall union has been forced to call the 24-hour strikes because it confronts a mood of anger and mistrust that goes far beyond the affected industries.

Militancy is growing in other European countries. In Serbia and Romania there have been spontaneous strikes against starvation wages in the auto industry. In Greece, the working class has struck and protested against the austerity diktats of the European Union and the Syriza government. In France, resistance to the labour market “reforms” of President Macron is growing. The UK has seen a series of rail strikes. The strike movement in Germany will embolden workers across Europe in their struggles.

The challenges facing the striking workers are above all political. While they are fighting for higher wages and shorter working hours, the Social Democratic Party and the conservative union parties (Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union), with full support from the unions, are getting ready to form a third edition of the grand coalition. Such a government will not only intensify the attacks on the working class in Germany and across Europe, it will expand the powers of the state and accelerate the program of military rearmament and war.

Such a government has no democratic legitimacy. The grand coalition was voted out of office four months ago. The votes for the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union fell by 14 percent in the general election. The attempt to bring back the same parties in the form of a new grand coalition is a political conspiracy whose real goals are being concealed from the people.

While those favouring the coalition bluster about “the unity of Europe” and “friendship with France,” their real goal, along with French President Macron, is to deepen the social counterrevolution and turn the European Union from an economic to a military alliance that enforces German and French imperialist interests against Russia, China and the United States.

The German ruling elite is plotting to increase military spending not only to the NATO-mandated target of two percent of GDP, which means doubling it to 60 billion euros, but even higher. This is possible only through massive cuts in social spending, which will rapidly wipe out any gains the metal workers might achieve through strike action.

The industrial action in the metal and electrical industries must be linked to the fight for new elections. Workers must not allow a cabal of conspirators to install the most right-wing government since the end of World War II.

New elections must be called to mobilize behind a socialist programme that combines the fight against social cuts, dictatorship and war with the overthrow of capitalism. The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) is the only party that puts forward such a programme. It rejects the European Union and advances the struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.

This week marks 85 years since a clique around President Paul von Hindenburg, who had been elected with the support of the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor, initiating the greatest human catastrophe in world history.

Contrary to the official narrative, Hitler was not brought to power by a wave of public support. The Nazis were in a deep crisis. In the Reichstag (parliamentary) elections of November 1932, they lost nearly two million votes. With 33 percent of the vote, they trailed the two major workers’ parties, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communist Party (KPD), which had a combined total of more than 37 percent. But the German ruling elite needed Hitler to crush the workers’ movement and prepare for the next war.

Nobody should imagine that such a catastrophe cannot be repeated. The world is moving rapidly toward a Third World War. This week’s edition of the British Economist magazine is headlined “The Next War.” Its lead editorial declares,“Conflict on a scale and intensity not seen since the Second World War is once again plausible.”

German ruling circles are preparing more and more openly for war and dictatorship. For the first time, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right party, is sitting in the Bundestag (parliament) and will be entrusted with the chairmanship of the Budget Committee. A Humboldt University professor, Jörg Baberowski, announces, “Hitler was not vicious,” and is defended by the university administration and the media against criticism from students. In its latest editorial, the weekly Der Spiegel, which published Baberowski’s apologia for Hitler, boasts that windowpanes “in Manchester and Rome, in Warsaw and Lyon” are shaking as Germany, the “800 pound gorilla,” rearms.

As in the first half of the twentieth century, the working class faces the alternative of socialism or barbarism. To prevent the ruling class from imposing its programme of social counterrevolution and plunging the world into a catastrophic war, the working class must seize the initiative and unite internationally to overthrow capitalism.

The strikes in the metal and electrical industries must be expanded. This requires a break with the IG Metall union, which is doing everything it can to stifle the strike. The union works closely with the employers’ associations, and most of its officials are members of the SPD and supporters of a new edition of the grand coalition.

In order to expand the strike, rank-and-file workers’ committees must be set up to take control of the dispute and establish contact with workers across Europe and around the world. This is inseparably bound up with the fight for fresh elections to prevent the installation of a new grand coalition and advance a socialist alternative.

Newton International Fellowships for Early-Career Scientists 2018

Application Deadline: 27th March 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey.

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The scheme provides the opportunity for the best early stage post-doctoral researchers from all over the world to work at UK research institutions for a period of two years.

The scheme covers the broad range of the natural and social sciences and the humanities. It also covers clinical and patient orientated research for applicants from Newton Fund partner countries.

The scheme is jointly run by the British Academy, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society. Currently there is one round per year which opens in January.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply you must:

• have a PhD, or will have a PhD by the time the funding starts
• have no more than 7 years of active full time postdoctoral experience at the time of application (discounting career breaks, but including teaching experience and/or time spent in industry)
• be working outside the UK
• not hold UK citizenship
• be competent in oral and written English
• have a clearly defined and mutually-beneficial research proposal agreed with a UK host scientist

Before applying, please ensure that you meet all the eligibility requirements, which are explained in the scheme notes.

Number of Awardees:  Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 

• Newton Fellowships last for two years. Funding consists of £24,000 per annum for subsistence costs, and up to £8,000 per annum research expenses, as well as a one-off payment of up to £2,000 for relocation expenses.
• Awards include a contribution to the overheads incurred, at a rate of 50% of the total award to the visiting researcher.
• Applicants may also be eligible to receive up to £6,000 annually following the tenure of their Fellowship to support networking activities with UK-based researchers.

Duration of Fellowship: 2 years

How to Apply: Applications should be submitted through the Royal Society’s electronic grant application system (e-GAP). Applications are initially reviewed by two members of the Newton International Fellowships panel and then shortlisted. The applications are then reviewed again by the panel and the final decision is made.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: British Academy, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society.

China: Xiamen University Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: Application starts from 1st February to April 30, 2018 (annually)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Xiamen University, China

Accepted Subject Areas: Most undergraduate, master’s and doctoral programmes are taught in Chinese. However these courses are offered in English language and are eligible for the scholarship among other Chinese taught courses.

Undergraduate programme: Economics

Masters Programme: Chinese Philosophy, Civil and Commercial Law, International Relations, International Business, Marine Affairs, Chemical Engineering, Physical Chemistry (Electrochemistry), Finance (Applied Finance), Financial Engineering, Western Economics

Doctoral Programme:Archaeology & Museology, History of Specialized Field, Chinese Modern and Contemporary History, World History, Anthropology, Statistics, World Economy, International Trade, Energy Economics, Western Economics, Finance, Quantitative Economics, Statistics, Labor Economics, Regional Economics, International Law, Intellectual Property Law, English Language and Literature, Electromechanical Engineering, Condensed Matter Physics, Radio Physics, Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Technology, Basic Mathematics, Computational Mathematics, Probability & Mathematical Statistics, Analytical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Chemistry and Physics of Polymers, Materials Physics and Chemistry, Physical Oceanography, Marine Biology, Marine Chemistry, Marine Physics, Marine Geology, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Marine Biotechnology, Environmental Science, Environmental Management, World Economy, Theory of Political Science, History of Specialized Field

About Scholarship

The Xiamen University in China offers scholarships for doctoral, master’s and undergraduate candidates. The first-class scholarship for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes, 2-3 years for master’s programmes). Meanwhile, the University provides monthly living allowance for outstanding doctoral and master’s candidates in accordance with the Chinese Government Scholarships (RMB 2,000 /month /person for doctoral students; RMB 1,700/month/person for master’s students). Bachelor’s candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.

The second-class scholarship will have the awardees’ tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes , 2-3 years for master’s programmes ; 4-5 years for bachelor’s programmes).

By what Criteria is Selection Made?

Scholarship assessment will be on the basis of application documents, applicant’s academic performance and overall quality, and their supervisor’s opinions. The recipients’ academic performance will be assessed each year and only those achieving the required standard will have their scholarship renewed for the following year.

Who is qualified to apply?

• Applicants must be non-Chinese citizens and in good health.
• Applicants for undergraduate studies must hold a high school diploma and be under the age of 25.
• Applicants for master’s studies must hold a bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 40.
• Applicants for doctoral studies must hold a master’s degree and be under the age of 45.

Number of Scholarships: 24 (including 8 for doctoral candidates, 11 for master’s candidates and 5 for undergraduate candidates)

Value of Scholarships: Scholarship awardees will have their tuitions covered. Two kinds of scholarships exist:

The first-class scholarships for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes) and offer monthly living allowance (RMB 3,500 for each doctoral student; RMB 3,000 for each master’s student). Undergraduate candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.

The second-class scholarships will have the awardees’ tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes,  4 or 5 years for undergraduate programmes).

How long will sponsorship last?

• Bachelor’s degree students         4-5 years
• Master’s degree students            2-3 years
• Doctoral degree students            4 years

How to Apply: Applicants will be eligible for scholarship assessment only after they are admitted to the undergraduate, masters or doctoral programme of Xiamen University.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Xiamen University, China Government

Important Notes: The result is expected to be out in early June and will be published on the website of the Admissions Office. Awardees will be notified via email and their certificate of award will be sent out as soon as possible.

WIN a 14-day Fully-funded Writing Scholarship to Argentina! Enter for the World Nomads Writing Contest 2018

Application Deadline: 28th February, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Buenos Aires, Argentina

Type: Contest

Selection Criteria: To be chosen for this scholarship you’ll need to convince our judging panel through your writing that you have the spirit of adventure and passion for travel writing. You writing should showcase:

• Great descriptive ability (without getting flowery)
• A well structured narrative and a strong eye for detail
• Ability to uncover a great travel story and tell it in a compelling way
• Excellent spelling and grammar and a knack for avoiding clichés

The 3 recipients of the Scholarship, along with the shortlist of best travel stories will be published on the World Nomads website on April 4th, 2018.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Scholarship: The winners will hone their skills in Buenos Aires during an intense 4-day workshop with professional travel writer and contributor to The New York Times Tim Neville. They’ll then spend 10 days exploring specific regions with the local masters of adventure at Say Hueque.

How to apply:

1. Write your story: Compose a 2500 character travel story around one of the following themes:

   • ‘Making a local connection’
   • ‘The last thing I expected’
   • ‘A decision that pushed me to the edge’
2. Complete the application form: In 1500 characters or less tell us why you should be the scholarship recipient and what winning this opportunity would mean to you. Your answer will hold considerable weight in the judging process.

   Strictly one application per person. The application must be submitted in English.

APPLY NOW

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Nomads, Say Hueque.

Important Notes: Once you apply, you will not be able to go back and edit your application, so please make sure you are completely satisfied with your application before you hit the submit button.

University of Sussex Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 9th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: To be eligible to be considered for this scholarship, if you are not entitled to receive the award automatically, you must:

• be taking up your place as an undergraduate student in September 2018
• submit a scholarship application before the deadline
• receive very high grades (approximately top 10%)

You are not eligible for this scholarship if you:

• are going to study a Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS) degree
• if you are repeating your first year at Sussex
• do not accept the University of Sussex as your firm choice
• do not meet the specified minimum requirement
• defer your place to 2019, as you would need to be considered again in 2019

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value and Duration of Scholarship: 

• £3,000 cash award in year one of a three or four year undergraduate degree.
• You receive the cash award during your first year, awarded as separate payments of £1,500 in November 2018 and March 2019.

How to Apply: 

• If you are applying with any of the qualifications listed in the eligibility criteria section, then you are automatically awarded the scholarship if you meet the required grade. There is no application form.
• If your qualification is not listed in the eligibility criteria section, you are required to complete the Sussex Excellence Scholarship application form to be considered for one of the 10 additional awards available.
• You must submit this form after you have applied for your course and before the 9 April 2018 deadline. All applications are considered by the scholarships panel in April 2018.
• The outcome of the scholarship panel will be communicated in May 2018.
• Automatic recipients will receive confirmation of the award at registration in September.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Sussex

Trump’s Tariff-ic Attack

Cesar Chelala

On January 22, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer fired the first shots of the Trump administration’s 2018 trade agenda: Tariffs of 30% on imported solar panels, and tariffs starting at 20% on imported residential washing machines. In the name of “protecting” jobs — “America First!” — the administration is dead-set on making you poorer.

Yes, the tariffs may benefit a few people (stockholders and employees of American solar panel and washing machine makers), if foreign governments don’t retaliate in kind and then some with their own tariff schemes. That’s a big if.

For everyone else, the effect is very simple: It will now cost you more to do your laundry, or to abandon expensive electricity for cheap electricity than it otherwise would have. And since you’ll be spending more money on those things, you’ll have less left over to spend on other things, including American goods and services.

Writers on economics, from Frederic Bastiat to Henry Hazlitt, have emphasized looking at policies not just for their intended effects but for unintended ones. That is, not just for the “seen,” but also “the unseen.”

In this case, the “seen” is that workers at a few American companies may remain working and even get raises instead of being laid off; and that stockholders in those companies may see the value of their shares rise, and perhaps collect dividends, instead of taking losses when they sell their shares.

The “unseen?”

The restaurant staff who lose hours, or even their jobs, because you aren’t eating out as much.

The makers of manufactured goods that you didn’t buy because that washing machine or solar panel cost more than you counted on.

The mechanic who missed out on overtime because you put off that brake job (hopefully you won’t have an accident!) … oh, and that meant he had to cancel a planned vacation. Sorry about those empty rooms and your lost hours, hotel workers.

Tariffs help a few people visibly and in a big way while harming a lot of people far less visibly and far less noticeably. Politicians typically love policies like that because such policies allow them to rack up votes and campaign contributions from some constituencies without enraging others. Donald Trump wasn’t supposed to be a typical politician, though.

David Hannum was right: There’s a sucker born every minute. On tariffs, is Donald Trump the sucker, or is it his supporters who are getting conned? My guess: Both.