26 Jan 2021

The rise of financial parasitism and the emergence of fascism

Nick Beams


In his report “The Trump coup and the rise of fascism: Where is America going?” David North traced out the historical processes that led to the events in Washington on January 6.

He explained that while extreme right-wing and fascistic movements had always been present within the American body politic, these malignant political and social forces had been able to be contained so long as the US was a rising economic power.

The present situation is fundamentally different. America is no longer a rising power. For the past 50 years it has been in an inexorable historic decline that has seen two existential financial crises in the space of 12 years—the 2008 meltdown of the banking system and the potentially even bigger disaster of mid-March 2020, when the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a freeze-up of all financial markets in the US and globally.

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

In his report, North insisted that the crisis and its significance could be grasped only when placed within its historical and international context. Accordingly, he located its economic origins in the decision of President Nixon on August 15, 1971 to remove the gold backing from the US dollar, effectively destroying at one stroke the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 that had formed the basis of post-war global capitalist economy.

The pillar of that agreement, which provided a key foundation for the restabilisation of world capitalism after the 30 years of carnage beginning with the outbreak of World War I in 1914, was the establishment of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, redeemable for gold at the rate of $35 per ounce.

Barely a quarter of a century after that commitment had been given, it was scrapped because of the decline in the position of the United States within the world economy. The build-up of the US balance of trade and balance of payments deficits meant that to honour the pledge to redeem dollars with gold would bring national bankruptcy.

“In historical retrospect,” North wrote, “this action marked a turning point not only in the global economic position of the United States, but also in the fate of American democracy.”

This vital point in locating the economic origins of the present political crisis can be established through an examination of the trajectory of American capitalism over the past 50 years, and particularly the developments in the monetary and financial system.

That history could be summed up as the unending rise of finance capital, the most rapacious and predatory form of capital as a whole, and its domination over the entire economy.

This process, as we shall trace out, forms the underpinning and has now provided the economic impulse for changes in the political superstructure that have seen the emergence of the real and present danger of fascist forms of rule.

It has not been confined to the US. The developments within the United States are only the most violent expression, at least so far, of what has been a global process manifested in every country. But as the saying goes, the fish begins to rot from the head.

The shock of August 1971 was the initial expression of a major turn in the development of the global capitalist economy—the ending of the post-war economic boom.

In 1974–75, following a significant downturn in the rate of profit in the US and across the world from the end of the 1960s onward, world capitalism entered the deepest recession to that point since the 1930s.

It was quite unlike the recessions of the1950s and 1960s. After their passing, they had given way to a new upswing in the business cycle and greater economic growth than previously.

The recession of 1974–75 passed, but it was not replaced by anything resembling the upturns of the past. Rather, under conditions of reduced growth, it ushered in what became known as “stagflation”—the combination of rising prices and high unemployment. The so-called Keynesian measures, based on government stimulus, not only proved to be ineffective in bringing a revival, they only made the situation worse.

Key sections of the ruling class in the US and internationally understood, at least at some level, there was no way out of the morass with half-measures based on the industrial framework of the post-war boom. They had tried to increase the level of exploitation within the old order to boost profits, but this only provoked a series of militant struggles by powerful sections of the working class—the miners’ strike in Britain of 1973–74, which brought down the Heath Tory government, being one of the more graphic examples.

Based on this experience, they recognised that nothing less than the restructuring of the capitalist economy was necessary and a new regime of production had to be developed if the decline in the rate of profit was to be arrested.

This involved the closure of less profitable sections of industry, coupled with the elimination of the major concentration of workers they employed; the introduction of new job-cutting technologies in those that remained; and the outsourcing of production internationally to take advantage of much cheaper sources of labour.

This program was spearheaded internationally by the Thatcher and Reagan governments. The chief economic weapon used to impose the restructuring agenda was wielded by the US Federal Reserve under the chairmanship of Paul Volcker. Appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979, he raised interest rates to historically unprecedented levels, hitting 20 percent at one point.

Conducted under the banner of the fight against inflation, the central target of these measures was the working class. A major turn in the class struggle came in 1981, when Reagan carried out the mass sacking of air traffic controllers and jailed the leaders of their union, PATCO.

Volcker was later to praise Reagan for his strikebreaking, declaring that the defeat of the PATCO workers was the most important factor in bringing inflation under control. The PATCO outcome, he said, was decisive in its “psychological effect on the strength of the union bargaining position on other issues—whatever the issues were.”

A member of the Fed’s interest rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee put the issue even more directly, saying at a meeting in February 1981 that “inflation would not be securely defeated… until all those workers and their unions agreed to accept less. If they were not impressed by words, perhaps the liquidation of several million more jobs would convince them.”

But these measures could go forward only with the direct collaboration of the trade union bureaucracy, which refused to lift a finger in defence of the PATCO workers, setting the pattern for the betrayal of a host of major industrial battles that were to follow in the rest of the decade.

The destruction of vast sections of US industry and the consequent war against the working class was a component of a vast reorganisation of the American economy—its transformation into the centre of parasitic profit accumulation via financial manipulation and speculation.

It began with the buying up of companies in hostile takeovers, financed by junk bonds, and then hollowing them out and selling off the component parts. The accumulation of profit was carried out not through production, but through parasitic activity financed by debt—the start of a process that has now reached stratospheric heights.

In his report, North referred to the growth of outright criminal activity in the political sphere, exemplified by Reagan’s laying of a wreath at a cemetery in the German town of Bitburg in 1985, where members of the Waffen SS were buried, followed by the Iran-Contra scandal a year later.

This involved the Reagan administration, in violation of a law passed by Congress, funding death squads in Nicaragua seeking the overthrow of the left-wing Sandinista government. Congressional hearings revealed that Colonel Oliver North, while directing the murderous operations in Nicaragua, was also involved in plans for the detention of 100,000 Americans in the event of a national emergency.

There were parallel developments in the underlying financial structure of American capitalism, as methods that had been regarded as illegal in the past became the norm. In 1982, Congress passed legislation allowing companies to buy back their own shares in order to boost their price—a practice that has now become a major component of Wall Street’s operations. Previously, this activity had been outlawed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as market manipulation.

A new breed of financial operators emerged to organise financial speculation, particularly through the issuing of less than investment grade, or junk, bonds for the financing of hostile takeovers.

One of the most significant of these, Michael Milken, was eventually jailed. But the methods he developed rapidly became standard operating procedure on Wall Street—a fact recognised by President Trump in February 2020, when he granted Milken a pardon to the applause of finance capital. In praise of the decision, the Wall Street Journal declared: “Mr. Milken was one of the great financial innovators of the 20th century. In the 1980s he invented the high-yield bond market that is now a financial staple.”

However, the orgy of speculation unleashed in the 1980s, made possible by successive waves of deregulation that widened the scope for the activities of finance capital, did not proceed smoothly. It erupted in a major crisis that exposed the growing rot and decay at the very centre of US capitalism.

In October 1987, Wall Street experienced its largest one-day fall in history—eclipsing the October 1929 crash—as the Dow plunged by more than 22 percent. It was brought back from this near-death experience, which lasted for some weeks, only by the intervention of the US Federal Reserve. Its actions were not one-off, but signified a qualitative transformation in its role in US financial system.

In the post-war period, the role of the Fed was summed up in 1955 by its chairman, William McChesney Martin: “In the field of monetary and credit policy, precautionary action to prevent inflationary excesses is bound to have some onerous effects… Those who have the task of making such policy don’t expect you to applaud. The Federal Reserve… is in the position of the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed just when the party was really warming up.”

In the fall of 1987, the newly appointed chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, issued a one-sentence statement on the share market crash. “The Federal Reserve,” he said, “consistent with its responsibilities as the nation’s central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.”

This meant opening the money spigots of the Fed to the finance houses. The scale of its actions, though dwarfed by subsequent interventions, was extensive for the time. Altogether, the central bank supplied $17 billion to the banking system, an amount equal to more than 25 percent of bank reserves and equivalent to seven percent of the national money supply.

It was the start of a new program, as Greenspan was to make clear. The task of the Fed was not to act against inflationary asset bubbles and deflate them before they became dangerous, but to allow them to develop, and when they burst, to pump out money to clean up the mess and prevent the bankruptcy of the banks and finance houses that had engaged in the speculation that had produced the bubbles.

This was based on the understanding that such methods were now becoming central to the functioning of the American economy. Instead of taking away the punchbowl, Greenspan made clear that the role of the Fed was to add more alcohol to it.

The decade of the 1990s was marked by a series of crises: the Mexican peso crisis, the Asian crisis of 1997–98, the collapse of the Russian rouble. These developments led to the collapse of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, which was bailed out by the New York Federal Reserve to prevent the hedge fund’s demise from sparking a crisis throughout the financial system.

The development of the internet was accompanied by the growth and collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000–2001. In 2001, the energy company Enron, whose reported profits were the result of “creative accounting” signed off by a major accounting firm, collapsed when its profits were revealed to be completely fictitious.

These crises were not a series of accidents, but the expression of a deepening malaise flowing from the relentless accumulation of profit through financial activities completely divorced from the underlying real economy and the production of real value.

At every point, the reaction of the Fed was the same. It lowered interest rates and created the conditions for the next bubble. Throughout the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, the last vestiges of the regulatory mechanisms that had previously been put in place were removed, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of the 1930s, which separated the banking and investment activities of the major banks.

In 1999, when financial derivatives began to assume greater importance as a means of speculation, Clinton’s treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, strenuously opposed making them subject to regulation.

The crisis of 2008 marked a qualitative turning point in the historic crisis of American and global capitalism, Here it was a question of not just the activities of an individual firm such as Enron or a hedge fund, as in the case of Long Term Capital Management, that had collapsed.

The crisis that began in the $50 billion sub-prime mortgage market, a relatively small part of the financial market, became all-embracing because the methods employed there were rife throughout the system as a whole. After the bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, the government and the Fed had to rescue the insurance giant AIG to prevent a collapse of the entire financial system.

The massive intervention by the Bush and the Obama administrations, involving corporate bailouts and the pouring of trillions of dollars into the financial system by the Fed. The US central bank’s balance sheet expanded from around $800 billion to more than $4 trillion as a result of the continuous purchase of financial assets under its quantitative easing program. This signified that the so-called “free market” could not survive for a single day without the support of the state.

These interventions, coupled with the further restructuring of the labour market under Obama, including the expansion of the two-tier wage system and the scrapping of regular labour contracts, accelerated a process that had begun decades before—the siphoning of the wealth of society up the income scale, creating the greatest levels of social inequality ever seen in history.

The intervention of the Fed through the purchase of government bonds and the reduction of interest rates to historic lows, essentially providing free money to the financial oligarchs, were declared to be temporary measures, to be withdrawn once conditions returned to normal.

That day never came. The new normal was that continuous Fed support was essential for the day-to-day operations of the financial markets. Any effort by the central bank to wind back its measures was met with a violent reaction on Wall Street, bringing an immediate back-down. Such was the case in 2018, when the Fed carried out four interest rate rises, each of 0.25 percentage points, and indicated it would wind down its holdings of financial assets at the rate of $50 billion a month. The markets tanked and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell announced that he was halting further rate hikes.

The 2008 crisis was the outcome of the rise and rise of financial parasitism over the previous three decades and more. This did not arise from a change in the mindset of the ruling classes that could somehow be reversed if only another policy were adopted. Rather, it arose from deep-seated objective contradictions within the capitalist profit system that had come to the surface with the ending of the post-war boom.

Through all the ups and downs of the business cycle following the end of the boom, profit rates in the spheres of industrial production never returned to the levels they had enjoyed in the 1950s and 1960s. This was the driving force behind the ever-increasing turn to financial methods of profit accumulation.

Therefore, the response to the 2008 crisis was to lift parasitic profit accumulation to ever greater heights through the provision of essentially free money to the financial oligarchy, while launching austerity programs against the working class on the basis that there was “no money.”

When the pandemic struck, it exposed the devastating social consequences of the institutionalisation of the accumulation of wealth at the heights of society at the expense of the mass of the population. No effective measures based on science, which would have involved the lockdown of non-essential workplaces and the payment of compensation to the workers affected, could be implemented to combat the pandemic because this would have set off a crisis on Wall Street.

The reason is to be found in the nature of the financial assets that have now assumed such gargantuan proportions. Finance capital is essentially fictitious. That is, it does not embody value in and of itself, but, in the final analysis, is a claim on the surplus value extracted from the working class in the process of capitalist production.

When an industrial concern makes a profit from its activity, real value has been created and surplus value has been generated from the exploitation of the working class in the process of production. However, when shares are traded on Wall Street at a profit, when profits are made on currency transactions, such the $2 billion raked in by George Soros by betting against the pound sterling in 1992, or a financial killing is made from derivative trades, to name just a few examples, not an atom of new value has been created.

These fundamental economic relationships are the basis and driving force of some of the most significant changes in the physiognomy of US capitalism over the past 40 years.

The continuous driving down of real wages, despite vast increases in the productivity of labour, coupled with the intensification of exploitation, has become an indispensable feature of the capitalist economy, as the vampire of fictitious capital demands the ever greater extraction of surplus value to sustain it.

Likewise, the destruction of social services—the attacks on education and the nightmare that is the US health care system—serves the same end, because, in the final analysis, all social spending represents a deduction from the mass of surplus value available to Wall Street.

The rise of fictitious capital and the consequent development of parasitism as the dominant mode of profit accumulation point to another significant development. The past 30 years have seen the launching of continuous wars by US imperialism—wars of plunder aimed at trying to enhance the flow of wealth to Wall Street and counter America’s economic decline by military means.

At the same time, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has increasingly pursued economic warfare against its rivals—not only against China, but also increasingly against Europe—to achieve the same objective. It has now reached the point where the dollar, the world’s major reserve currency, has become “weaponised.” Corporations and states deemed to be acting at variance with US objectives—trading with Iran, for example—can be excluded from key financial markets.

The onset of the pandemic not only exposed the devastating social consequences of financial parasitism, it made clear how the conditions for a new financial crash, going even beyond the scale of 2008, had been created in the ensuing 12 years.

This is the significance of the mid-March 2020 crisis on Wall Street, extending into the entire global financial system, when markets froze across the board.

The extent and intensity of this financial heart attack was revealed in the fact that it was centred in the $20 trillion US Treasury bond market—the bedrock of the American and global financial system. In periods of significant market turbulence, the Treasury bond market acts as a kind of financial safe haven, with money flowing into the purchase of US government bonds. On this occasion, however, there was a bond market sell-off in what has been described as a “dash for cash” that threatened to bring down the entire financial system.

The circumstances of this crisis reveal the significance of the class struggle for the operation of the financial system and why all stops are pulled by the political establishment and its servants in the trade union bureaucracy to suppress it.

In March, as the effects of the pandemic and the enormous dangers it posed became apparent, there were walkouts and strikes by significant sections of workers, particularly in the auto industry, demanding that effective measures be taken to combat it. This sent a shiver of fear through the financial oligarchy, petrified at the prospect that this movement would grow and develop.

The initial movement was blocked, above all by the actions of the trade unions. But the fear has not gone, as exemplified by the worried response to the strike by Hunts Point Produce Market workers in New York City, driven by concern that the strike could be the catalyst for an explosion of pent-up social anger in wider sections of the working class.

The scale of the Fed’s intervention in mid-March revealed the extent and depth of the financial crisis. Virtually overnight, it stepped in to act as the guarantor of all areas of the financial system, committing to increase its bond purchases, guaranteeing the commercial paper market, the market for municipal bonds, student loan and credit card debt and, for the first time in history, purchasing corporate debt.

This intervention, which took place in combination with the provision of hundreds of billions of dollars to major corporations under the CARES Act, has seen the Fed’s balance sheet expand from around $4 trillion to more than $7 trillion. The Fed has pledged to keep interest rates at virtually zero for the indefinite future, and is buying Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities at the rate of $120 billion a month—that is, more than $1.4 trillion a year.

These measures, going far beyond what was undertaken after 2008, mean that the capitalist state has become the guarantor of the financial oligarchy.

Fed and government action has driven a 75 percent rise on Wall Street since its mid-March nadir, resulting in the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to the coffers of the financial oligarchy.

The financial house of cards is being lifted to ever greater heights even as its foundations become increasingly shaky, amid warnings from within Wall Street itself that the situation is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

It is from these processes that the objective economic impulses for vast changes in the political superstructure, including the emergence of fascism as a significant and highly dangerous force, emanate.

In their pronouncements on the events of January 6, the various pseudo-left tendencies in the US and around the world have sought to chloroform the working class as to their meaning. Their universal response, flying in the face of a growing mountain of evidence, is that the storming of the US Capitol was not a fascist coup attempt. Bourgeois democracy still enjoys support in key sections of the state and the invasion of the Capitol was nothing but a piece of theatre, motivated by a deranged president, but without backing in decisive sections of the bourgeoisie and its state apparatus, they declare.

Above all, they maintain that there are no fundamental economic processes that would necessitate the development of a fascist movement to enforce the dictates of the bourgeoisie. The ruling classes are continuing to make money hand over fist and there is no significant social opposition that the ruling classes need to counter with fascist forces.

These dangerous political fictions, which so clearly reveal the class basis of the pseudo-left tendencies as agencies of the bourgeoisie, are exposed through an examination of the origins of the fascist forces that gathered in Washington.

They grew and developed in a campaign against lockdowns to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The fascist plot to capture Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, put her on trial for treason and execute her, was motivated by the limited lockdowns she had imposed in the state.

When these forces held demonstrations, involving the display of arms, to demand the opening of the economy, they were given significant coverage in the media. This was because their demands were in line with those of powerful sections of the ruling class. They were summed up in the pronouncement of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the “cure cannot be worse than the disease,” which became the banner under which Trump, supported in large measure by the Democrats, pursued the homicidal policy of “herd immunity.”

Nothing could be allowed to stop the flow of surplus value. Wall Street quite literally began to feed on death.

This policy, spearheaded by fascist forces, was the direct and immediate expression of the most basic interests of the financial oligarchy. They may not have liked the fascists’ methods, but they agreed with their objectives.

Once their own position was secured by the actions of the Trump administration and the Fed, all of which were supported by the Democrats, the financial elites demanded a return to work, recognising that any effective measures to deal with the pandemic would bring a crisis on Wall Street, as the near-death experience in mid-March had revealed.

Any assertion that the ruling classes as a whole and the dominant financial oligarchy have no need for fascist bands, let alone a coup, because they are continuing to make money ignores both the lessons of history and the explosive contradictions within the very heart of American capitalism and its financial system.

The fundamental issue is that the accumulation of vast wealth at the top and the rise of social inequality to historically unprecedented levels portend the eruption of massive social and class struggles, which, by their very nature, will very rapidly assume a political form. One of their immediate effects will be to produce a crisis in the financial markets, whose rise has been made possible not least by the suppression of the class struggle by the trade union apparatuses over the past three decades.

In this context, the pronouncements of Trump against the dangers of Marxism and his continuous denunciations of socialism as he has sought to build his fascistic movement should not be dismissed as the deranged outpourings of an individual.

They are the recognition by a section of the financial elites, out of which Trump emerged, of the dangers they confront—that under conditions of worsening economic conditions for the mass of the population and vast problems confronting young people, there is an enormous build-up of social anger and a shift to the left.

It is not necessary to point to Trump, who has sought to steer this anger in a rightward direction, to identify this phenomenon. Every serious study of the current economic situation in the US and worldwide points to the acceleration of social inequality and the dangers it poses for the capitalist ruling class.

For example, the latest edition of the Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum, the organiser of the annual Davos gathering of the international elites, warns that many young people “are now entering the workforce in an employment ice age.” Youth disillusionment will become a “critical threat to the world in the short term,” as the current generation “loses faith in today’s economic and political institutions.”

In examining the connection between the rise of financial parasitism to truly stratospheric heights and the emergence of fascist forces, it is necessary to distinguish between fascism and other forms of authoritarian of rule. The bourgeoisie much prefers to use the existing forms of capitalist rule to enforce its demands and dictates. But under certain conditions it has the need for other mechanisms.

As Leon Trotsky noted, the bourgeoisie is by no means enamoured of fascism. It regards the fascist method “much as a man with a swollen jaw dislikes having his teeth pulled.” But under certain conditions, of the kind now unfolding in the US and internationally, the big bourgeoisie has need of the fascist dentist.

A fascist movement, developing under conditions of economic and social breakdown, seeks to mobilise dispossessed sections of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, individual traders and sections of workers, impoverished and disoriented because of the decades-long betrayals of the trade union bureaucracy, into a political force.

Because of its social base, its ideology generally has a superficial “left” colouration. It claims to be fighting the deep state, the corrupt corporate media, the political establishment, even at times the giant monopolies that oppress the little man and woman. It doing so, it trades on real social grievances.

But everywhere and always it seeks to turn them in a reactionary direction, serving the interests of the ruling class against the working class. This connection is exemplified by Trump, who, while railing against the establishment and the elites and claiming to be fighting for the “forgotten people,” continually hailed the rise of Wall Street and demanded it be boosted even further.

Fascism feeds on the social distress and despair produced by capitalism and the operations of its financial system, under conditions where there is no basis for any meaningful reform within the existing economic order. Therefore, the ground can be cut from under it only when the working class advances and fights for its own independent program for the re-organisation of the economy and society.

Fascism cannot be undermined by appeals to disoriented layers of the population to respect the existing order, for that very order is responsible for their plight and has sent them in search of desperate means to overcome it.

Let us draw a balance sheet of the present situation. The attempted fascist coup by Trump enjoyed deep support within considerable sections of the Republican Party, with whom Biden now calls for unity.

It was actively supported by sections of the state apparatus, some openly, but many more covertly, which continue to serve under the Biden administration.

The social and economic base of the Trump fascistic movement in dispossessed layers of the population, many of them in rural areas, is not going to disappear with the change in the presidency. It will continue to grow as the crisis of American capitalism deepens. There is no New Deal to be implemented and Biden serves the rapacious oligarchs of Wall Street just as Trump did.

The real and present danger of fascism, whether under the leadership of Trump or someone else, will remain until the working class advances and fights for its own independent program for the reconstruction of society. Such a program must begin by tackling head on the source of the financial parasitism that has played such a crucial role in creating the social breeding grounds for fascism.

This means that at the very centre of the program advanced by the working class must be the fight for the expropriation of the entire financial system—the Fed, the private banks, the investment houses—bringing them into public ownership under democratic control, in order to begin the construction of a socialist society, in which human need, not private profit, is the guiding force and principle.

The fight for this program has a burning immediacy. The events of January 6 have revealed that as a result of a gathering crisis rooted in the very heart of American capitalism, democracy, in its bourgeois form, is on its death bed. It can be revived and developed only on new, socialist foundations.

Human rights study exposes brutal conditions in Sri Lankan prisons

N. Rangesh


The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has published an extensive report detailing the overcrowded and torturous conditions inside the country’s prison system. It is based on investigations conducted between April and September 2018 at 20 of the island’s 23 prisons—two years before COVID-19 began infecting prisoners.

The 850-page study was released in late December. A few weeks earlier on November 29, 11 inmates were shot dead and dozens of others injured at Mahara prison when guards and police brutally suppressed a protest at the facility.

Prison study by Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

The prisoners were demanding protection from COVID-19, improved living conditions and the release of all bailed inmates. Those who ordered the shootings are scot-free. Sixty of the protesting inmates, however, have been charged with creating unrest.

While the HRCSL report has been compiled to appeal for prison reform, the study is a damning indictment of successive Sri Lankan governments. The HRCSL, however, is a toothless entity with no real power. None of its recommendations are binding on the government.

Sri Lanka’s prison capacity is supposed to be 11,762 but last month the country had almost triple that number, with over 33,470 people incarcerated.

The HRCSL observed that most of the prisoners are from the country’s poorest layers. “Poverty was a factor that intersected across all age, ethnic and religious groups of prisoners,” it stated. “Prisoners often cited their lack of financial stability and poverty as reasons they initially became involved in criminal activities.”

Male prisoners, most of whom are their family’s primary income earner, told the HRCSL that their families faced “multiple hardships.”

Many inmates were in remand prison because they could not afford to pay for legal services. Others remained in the overcrowded jails because they were unable to raise bail or pay their fines.

The study revealed how social inequality is played out inside the jails. “Prisoners of a higher social standing, however, are treated with respect and are even able to access special facilities and privileges not available to other inmates,” the report said. They could get privileged accommodation, food and medical facilities. The rich would bribe prison officers and get what they want.

Relatives of Mahara prison victims demanding information about their family members from STF soldiers (Credit: Shehan Gunasekara)

Although not mentioned by the HRCSL, there are numerous reports about wealthy inmates and some jailed politicians even having air-conditioners and televisions in their rooms. The same individuals can secure admission to the prison hospital or to paying wards at major hospitals.

Angrily commenting on the hell-hole accommodation, one remand prisoner said: “We need to change this place that smells like death, that smells like a graveyard. We must change this.”

Cells are small and overcrowded, with inadequate ventilation, lighting and extreme temperatures and “often amounted to inhumane living conditions,” the report added. Many older prisons are in such a dilapidated state, with crumbling roofs and walls, that they pose a life-threatening real danger in the event of a natural disaster or calamity. Bed bugs, cockroaches and mosquitoes are rampant.

The facilities are so overcrowded, the reports noted, that “many new remanded prisoners stand all night-long because they do not have space to sleep, or are forced to sleep near or inside the toilet.” These conditions, the report added, are “conducive to the spread of illnesses among prisoners.”

The report noted that that food situation is dangerously substandard and unhealthy. One convicted prisoner said: “They don’t give us proper food here. The rice is not cooked properly and they cook rotten vegetables. They are trying to kill us by making us sick. They are treating us like this because we are prisoners but we have already been punished by the courts, and these officers are here for our protection.

“I don’t think even cats and dogs would eat the food they give us. It’s like water; there is no taste in that food. Even if they gave a small quantity, if it was a bit tasty, we could eat it… These people treat us like slaves.”

Many inmates said they were afraid to complain because they feared being transferred to even worse facilities.

Sanitary conditions are inhumane with inadequate and inconsistent access to water and cleaning facilities. There are no flushing toilets, the report stated, and prisoners complained that they have to “use their limited water supply to sluice away excrement after using the toilets.”

Prisons in rural areas had no piped water supplies, with some facilities getting water directly from natural sources that “would become muddy or contaminated, or taste briny or brackish.”

Inmates are provided with buckets for usage of water. In some instances, they use the same bucket to collect water, food and for urinating.

An inmate at Welikada prison said: “If we want to pass faecal matter at night, we do it into a shopping bag and tie it. Then, we keep it in a corner of the room. In the morning, we throw it into the toilet. We wash the urine bucket. We have to bear the bad smell overnight. In the early days, when I came here, there were eleven people in my room.”

Prison hospitals lack a proper medical infrastructure, and specialised medical facilities have few nurses, thereby limiting the options for treatment. Doctors are only available at certain times of the day and generally not at night, which means “multiple prisoners have succumbed to their illnesses,” the report stated.

While there are lower numbers of female prisoners, they face many problems, including lack of access to sanitary napkins. Remanded women inmates rely on family members to bring these and other necessities. Convicted women and foreign nationals are only able to obtain these basic requirements by doing washing or other work inside the prison.

Women are allowed to keep their children under five inside prison. But as the report stated, these children “do not receive the facilities they require for healthy growth and development, such as access to suitable and nutritious food, to preschool books.”

Foreign nationals incarcerated in the prison system generally experience even worse conditions than their local counterparts because of language and cultural barriers. They have no access to basic provisions and toiletries, and are reliant on local inmates to obtain these and other necessities.

Many prisoners said they suffered racial and religious discrimination. The report noted that prisoners jailed under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) are usually called LTTE prisoners, a reference to the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

These inmates have no constitutional rights or legal entitlements guaranteed under international human rights laws. These prisoners, the report stated, suffer discrimination and “feel they are at a continued risk of harassment or abuse by fellow prisoners, and even prisoners officers.”

There are still almost 200 Tamil prisoners having been arrested as “LTTE suspects.” Only a few have been convicted. Others have been in remand for up to 20 years without ever having been served indictments.

Although the report does not mention it, police can legally use confessions, even obtained from torture, as evidence against prisoners. Their families have protested to demand release of these “suspects,” but in vain.

Some prison officers told the HRCSL they have called on the government for funds to improve the prison infrastructure but any amounts provided were completely inadequate.

Following last year’s Mahara prison protest, around 12,000 inmates on minor charges were released. President Gotabhaya Rajapakse, however, appointed a task force to recommend an expansion of the prison system, including larger numbers of high security cells.

The president also directed the Commissioner General of Prisons to recruit 500 former military personnel who had completed 12-years’ service to a special prison unit. Its task will be “the protection of high-profile prisoners and to combat riots inside prisons.” It will be linked to Sri Lanka’s intelligence service.

25 Jan 2021

Agroecology and Post-COVID Plunder

Colin Todhunter


Contingent on World Bank aid to be given to poorer countries in the wake of coronavirus lockdowns, agrifood conglomerates will aim to further expand their influence. These firms have been integral to the consolidation of a global food regime that has emerged in recent decades based on chemical- and proprietary-input-dependent agriculture which incurs massive externalised social, environmental and health costs.

Reliance on commodity monocropping for global markets, long supply chains and dependency on external inputs for cultivation make the food system vulnerable to shocks, whether resulting from public health scares, oil price spikes (the global food system is fossil-fuel dependent) or conflict and war. An increasing number of countries are recognising the need to respond by becoming more food self-sufficient, preferably by securing control over their own food and reducing supply chain lengths.

The various coronavirus lockdowns have disrupted many transport and production activities, exposing the weaknesses of the food system. If the current situation tells us anything, it is that structural solutions are needed to transform food production, not further strengthen the status quo.

Agroecology

In 2014, UN special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter’s report concluded that by applying agroecological principles to democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and poverty challenges. He argued that agroecological approaches could tackle food needs in critical regions and could double food production in 10 years.

The 2009 IAASTD peer-reviewed report, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. And the recent UN FAO High Level Panel of Experts concluded that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.

Agroecology is based on traditional knowledge and modern agricultural research, utilising elements of contemporary ecology, soil biology and the biological control of pests. This system employs sound ecological management by using on-farm solutions to manage pests and disease without the use of agrochemicals and corporate seeds. It outperforms the prevailing industrial food system in terms of diversity of food output, nutrition per acre, soil health, water table stability and climate resilience.

Academic Raj Patel outlines some of the basic practices of agroecology by saying that nitrogen-fixing beans are grown instead of using inorganic fertilizer, flowers are used to attract beneficial insects to manage pests and weeds are crowded out with more intensive planting. The result is a sophisticated polyculture: many crops are produced simultaneously, instead of just one.

Much has been written about agroecology, its successes and the challenges it faces, not least in the 2017 book Fertile Ground: Scaling agroecology from the ground up, published by Food First. Agroecology can offer concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems. It challenges – and offers alternatives to – the prevailing moribund doctrinaire economics of a neoliberalism that drives a failing system of industrial agriculture.

By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work in both richer and poorer countries, it can address the interrelated links between labour offshoring by rich countries and the removal of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out offshored jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal, globalised capitalism that has hollowed out the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India.

Agroecology is based on the principle of food sovereignty, which encompasses the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems. ‘Culturally appropriate’ is a nod to the foods people have traditionally produced and eaten as well as the associated socially embedded practices which underpin community and a sense of communality. But it goes beyond that.

Modern food system

People have a deep microbiological connection to soils, food processing practices and fermentation processes which affect the gut microbiome – up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.

Capitalism colonises (and degrades) all aspects of life but is colonising the very essence of our being – even on a physiological level. With their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the human body. As soon as agri-food corporations undermined the capacity for eating locally grown, traditionally processed food, cultivated in healthy soils and began imposing long-line supply chains and food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we not only lost our cultural connections to food production and the seasons, but we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. Corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill took over.

Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, neurotransmitters in the gut affect our moods and thinking. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s Disease. In addition, increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes.

To ensure genuine food security and good health, humanity must transition to a notion of food sovereignty based on optimal self-sufficiency, agroecological principles and local ownership and stewardship of common resources – land, water, soil, seeds, etc.

However, what we are seeing is a trend towards genetically engineered and biosynthetic lab-based food controlled by corporations. The billionaire class who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all humans and can control both. As part of an economic, cultural and social ‘great reset’, they seek to impose their cold dystopian vision that wants to eradicate thousands of years of culture, tradition and farming practices virtually overnight.

Consider that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most basic issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs. Freyfaxi marks the beginning of the harvest in Norse paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lughnasadh is the celebration of the first harvest/grain harvest in Paganism.

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. In addition to our physiological connection, our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.

We need look no further than India to appreciate the important relationship between culture, agriculture and ecology, not least the vital importance of the monsoon and seasonal planting and harvesting. Rural-based beliefs and rituals steeped in nature persist, even among urban Indians. These are bound to traditional knowledge systems where livelihoods, the seasons, food, cooking, processing, seed exchange, healthcare and the passing on of knowledge are all inter-related and form the essence of cultural diversity within India itself.

Although the industrial age resulted in a diminution of the connection between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional ‘food cultures’ – the practices, attitudes and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution and consumption of food – still thrive and highlight our ongoing connection to agriculture and nature.

If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note Union Carbide’s corporate narrative based on a series of images that depicted the company as a ‘hand of god’ coming out of the sky to ‘solve’ some of the issues facing humanity. One of the most famous images is of the hand pouring the firm’s agrochemicals on Indian soils as if traditional farming practices were somehow ‘backward’.

Despite well-publicised claims to the contrary, this chemical-driven approach did not lead to higher food production according to the paper New Histories of the Green Revolution written by Prof Glenn Stone. However, it has had long-term devastating ecological, social and economic consequences as we saw in Vandana Shiva’s book ‘The Violence of the Green Revolution’ and Bhaskar Save’s now famous and highly insightful open letter to Indian officials.

In the book Food and Cultural Studies’ (Bob Ashley et al), we see how, some years ago, a Coca Cola TV ad campaign sold its product to an audience which associated modernity with a sugary drink and depicted ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant and outdated. Coke and not rain became the giver of life to the parched. This type of ideology forms part of a wider strategy to discredit traditional cultures and portray them as being deficient and in need of assistance from ‘god-like’ corporations.

Post-COVID plunder

What we are seeing in 2020, is an acceleration of such processes. In terms of food and agriculture, traditional farming in places like India will be under increasing pressure from the big-tech giants and agribusiness to open up to lab-grown food, GMOs, genetically engineered soil microbes, data harvesting tools and drones and other ‘disruptive’ technologies.

This vision includes farmerless farms being manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. What will happen to the farmers?

Post-COVID, the World Bank talks about helping countries get back on track in return for structural reforms. Are tens of millions of smallholder farmers to be enticed from their land in return for individual debt relief and universal basic income? The displacement of these farmers and the subsequent destruction of rural communities and their cultures was something the Gates Foundation once called for and cynically termed “land mobility”.

Cut through the euphemisms and it is clear that Bill Gates – and the other incredibly rich individuals behind the great reset with their ‘white saviour’ mindset – is an old-fashioned colonialist who supports the time-honoured dispossessive strategies of imperialism, whether this involves mining, appropriating and commodifying farmer knowledge, accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations or facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.

In India – still an agrarian-based society – will the land of these already (prior to COVID) heavily indebted farmers then be handed over to the tech giants, the financial institutions and global agribusiness to churn out their high-tech industrial sludge?

With the link completely severed between food production, nature and culturally embedded beliefs that give meaning and expression to life, we will be left with the individual human who exists on lab-based food, who is reliant on income from the state and who is stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment.

Technocratic meddling has already destroyed or undermined cultural diversity, meaningful social connections and agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security, as outlined for example in the 2017 article Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India in the Journal of South Asian Studies.

Such a pity that prominent commentators like George Monbiot, who writes for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, seems fully on board with this ‘great reset’. In his 2020 article ‘Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet’, he sees farmerless farms and ‘fake’ food produced in giant industrial factories from microbes as a good thing.

But Vandana Shiva says:

“The notion that high-tech ‘farm free’ lab food will save the planet is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today – the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature… it is the basis of industrial agriculture which has destroyed the planet, farmers livelihoods and our health.”

She adds:

“Turning ‘water into food’ is an echo from the times of the second world war, when it was claimed that fossil-fuel-based chemical fertilisers would produce ‘Bread from Air’. Instead we have dead zones in the ocean, greenhouse gases – including nitrous oxide which is 300 times more damaging to the environment than CO2 – and desertified soils and land. We are part of nature, not separate from and outside of nature. Food is what connects us to the earth, its diverse beings, including the forests around us — through the trillions of microorganisms that are in our gut microbiome and which keep our bodies healthy, both inside and out.”

As an environmentalist, Monbiot supports lab-based food because he only sees a distorted method of industrial farming; he is blind to agroecological methods which do not have the disastrous environmental consequences of chemical-dependent industrial agriculture. Monbiot’s ‘solution’ is to replace one model of corporate controlled farming with another, thereby robbing us of our connection to the land, to each other and making us wholly dependent on profiteering, unscrupulous interests that have no time for concepts like food democracy or food sovereignty.

Moreover, certain lab-engineered ‘food’ will require biomatter in the form of commodity crops. This in itself raises issues related to the colonisation of land in faraway countries and the implications for food security there. We may look no further to see the adverse health, social and environmental impacts of pesticide-dependent GMO seed monocropping in Argentina as it produces soy for the global market, not least for animal feed in Europe.

Instead of pandering to the needs of corporations, prominent commentators would do better by getting behind initiatives like the anti-imperialist Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology, produced by Nyeleni in 2015. It argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on genuine agroecological food production. It adds that agroecology requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.

It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests driven by patents, control and commercial gain and the compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions to their global supply chains and questionable products (whether unhealthy food or proprietary pesticides and seeds). For consumers, the public good includes more diverse diets leading to better nutrition and enhanced immunity when faced with any future pandemic.

Across the world, decentralised, regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) food supply chains that can cope with future shocks are now needed more than ever. But there are major obstacles given the power of agrifood concerns whose business models are based on industrial farming and global chains with all the devastating consequences this entails.

Following the devastation caused by coronavirus-related lockdowns, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet – on the condition that further neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

He says that countries will need to implement structural reforms to help shorten the time to recovery and create confidence that the recovery can be strong:

“For those countries that have excessive regulations, subsidies, licensing regimes, trade protection or litigiousness as obstacles, we will work with them to foster markets, choice and faster growth prospects during the recovery.”

For agriculture, this means the further opening of markets to benefit the richer nations. What journalists like George Monbiot fail to acknowledge is that emerging technology in agriculture (AI drones, gene-edited crops, synthetic food, etc) is first and foremost an instrument of corporate power. Indeed, agriculture has for a long time been central to US foreign policy to boost the bottom line of its agribusiness interests and their control over the global food chain.

In the words of economics professor Michael Hudson:

“It is by agriculture and control of the food supply that American diplomacy has been able to control most of the Third World. The World Bank’s geopolitical lending strategy has been to turn countries into food deficit areas by convincing them to grow cash crops – plantation export crops – not to feed themselves with their own food crops.”

It is naïve to suggest that in the brave new world of farmerless farms and lab-based food, things would be different. In the face of economic crisis and stagnation at home, exacerbated by COVID lockdowns and restrictions, whether through new technologies or older Green Revolution methods, Western agricapital will seek to further entrench its position across the globe.

The Great Reset Initiative or The Great Neoliberal Capitalist Lie

Bhabani Shankar Nayak


As the mutilating power of Coronavirus strikes on lives and livelihoods and create havocs across the globe, the Davos priests of the World Economic Forum have started ‘the Great Reset Initiative’ to manage the consequences of the pandemic. It rightly recognises the urgent need for global cooperation to end the uncertainties and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 crisis. There is absolutely no doubt that the current social, economic, political and cultural crises in 2021 are worse than the great depression of 1930s.  Therefore, the core objective of the Great Reset Initiative is ‘to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being’. The objectives of ‘the Great Reset Initiative’ sounds reasonable and holistic. But the strategy of the Great Reset Initiative is to ‘reorganise business models, societies, global relations and national economies’ in a direction which can reset the dominance of market and mobility of corporations to reverse the downturn. Prof Klaus Schwab (the Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum) calls openly for a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

The ‘Great Reset Initiative’ is old neoliberal capitalist wine packaged in a new bottle that intends to reverse the economic downturn by using the same capitalist system that caused the economic downturn at the first place. The pandemic has only accelerated the economic downturn that started well before the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. The priests of Davos focus on building a new social contract without understanding addressing the structural conditions and causes for the failures of existing social and political contract. Why did the current social and political contracts collapse? What are the factors that led to the destruction of dignity of human beings? Who is responsible for dismantling human dignity? The answers to these questions are central to develop new social and political contracts to re-establish the dignity of every human being.

The role of states and governments were minimised for the greater freedom of market as a distribution mechanism. The public healthcare systems were dismantled and privatised in the name of greater efficiency and accessibility under the neoliberal regime of the markets. But in reality, the privatisation of healthcare led to the growth of profit driven market forces within the health sectors. The pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers are looking at illness and health crisis as an opportunity to make profit at the cost of human lives and health. In 2020, there were 8.3% of adults aged 18 and over have failed to access medical care in US due to the cost of privatised healthcare. The privatised healthcare system has failed in US as a result of which 400,000 Americans are dead due to COVID-19 and expected number of deaths are going to be well over 600,000 soon as per conservative estimates. The market command capitalist economic system in US has put nearly 11 million American children in poverty in 2021. It has failed to provide food security, economic and employment security to American masses. The American capitalist system and its neoliberal economic policies have accelerated the persistent social and economic inequalities, wage stagnancy, racial and gender gap in American society.

Similarly, neoliberal economic policies have created social, economic and political havocs in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and Oceania. The market driven capitalist systems have failed to provide peace, prosperity and pleasure. It has pushed societies, countries and communities into despair. The neoliberal business models driven by market forces have ruined people’s lives and planet. The capitalist economic systems are unsustainable as it destroys employment, ecology and human dignity. It has increased the gap between north and south, poor and rich, urban and rural areas. It only promotes mass alienation in world scale. The capitalist conditions of alienation, growing inequalities, exploitations, displacements, despairs and destitutions have led to the collapse of social, political and economic contracts in the society. The commodification, dehumanisation and exploitation of labour have laid the foundation of capitalist system, which is fundamentally unfair, inherently undemocratic and structurally authoritarian. Such a system has destroyed the dignity of human beings. The ‘Great Reset Initiative’ to reset capitalism can never re-establish the new social, political and economic contracts to ensure dignity of human beings. The ‘Great Reset Initiative’ is an ideologically driven project which lacks new vision, mission, approach and abilities to move beyond capitalist market mechanisms. The internal contradictions of capitalism has produced social, economic and political conflicts to divert and recover from its own crisis. A simple reimagination of capitalism is not possible. A contradictory system can never offer any alternatives in the name of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation.

Prof Klaus Schwab has outlined three main components of the ‘Great Reset Initiative’ i.e., i) steer market towards fairer outcomes, ii) ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability, and iii) harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good. Prof Klaus Schwab’s ideals are myopic under capitalism. The market seeks vulgar profit and never promote fairness. The neoliberal capitalist market is neither free nor open. It is a tool of exploitation of human beings and nature. The market and its forces can never promote fairness. The ideals of equality and sustainability are not compatible with capitalism. The capitalist system has accelerated inequalities in world scale and destroyed nature for profit. It has produced paradise of plenty for few and miseries for the masses. The digital divide in the early days of the Fourth Industrial Revolution shows that technology cannot establish equality, justice and sustainability by itself.  Therefore, it is time to move away from capitalist market and re-establish social foundations of market where consumers and producer can interact with each other directly with the help of technology driven Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The post pandemic world needs a new social, political and economic contract based on human needs and desires that value environment for a sustainable present and future. This is only possible by bringing back collective foundations of economic systems, democratic politics and liberal society. It is important to re-engineer market as a social institution and process, where people interact with each other as social beings and not as merely customers. The world needs states led by collectives and governments led by people. There is only one name for it. It is called “A Great Socialist Reset”. It can only ensure freedom, democracy, peace, prosperity, equality and justice. It can be only possible through global solidarity for human dignity and environmental sustainability. The world needs a ‘Socialist Reset’ for the people and planet.

Oxfam Report Makes Strong Case For Economic Recovery To Be Led By Reduction of Inequalities

Bharat Dogra & Kumar Gautam


An important report prepared by Oxfam titled ‘The Inequality Vitus’ ( as also its India supplement), released on January 25, has made a strong case for the economic recovery path to be led by reduction of inequalities. Similarly it argues that for strengthening the crucial health and education sectors inequalities in these sectors need to be decreased using policy measures, paving the way for more benefits to reach the genuinely needy people.

In addition this report presents a strong critique of the prevailing inequalities in economy and society, as well as the accentuation of these inequalities in Covid times. The report presents compelling statistics regarding the extent of these inequalities. To give an example it says that it would take an unskilled worker 10,000 years to make what Mukesh Ambani made in an hour during the pandemic and 3 years to make what he made in a second.

The new global survey of 295 economists from 79 countries, commissioned by Oxfam, reveals that 87 percent of respondents, including Jeffrey Sachs, Jayati Ghosh and Gabriel Zucman, expect an ‘increase’ or a ‘major increase’ in income inequality in their country as a result of the pandemic.

“The report shows how the rigged economic system is enabling a super-rich elite to amass wealth in the middle of the worst recession and the biggest economic crisis in the history of independent India, while tens of millions of people are struggling to make ends meet. It reveals how the pandemic is deepening long-standing economic, caste, ethnic, and gender divides,” Oxfam India CEO Amitabh Behar said.

“While the Coronavirus was being touted as a great equaliser in the beginning, it laid bare the stark inequalities inherent in the society soon after the lockdown was imposed,” Behar added.

This report argues that India introduced one of the earliest and most stringent lockdowns in the face of the pandemic; the enforcement of the lockdown brought the economy to a standstill triggering unemployment, hunger, distress migration and untold hardship in its wake. The rich were able to escape the pandemic’s worst impact; and while the white-collar workers isolated themselves and worked from home, a majority of the not-so-fortunate Indians lost their livelihood.

The report notes that many leading billionaires  increased their wealth exponentially since March 2020 when India announced world’s biggest COVID-19 lockdown and economy came to standstill. On the other hand, data has shown that 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in the month of April 2020.

Findings of the report’s India Supplement show:

Rich got richer: Data shows what Ambani earned during the pandemic would keep the 40 crore informal workers that are at risk of falling into poverty due to COVID-19 above the poverty line for at least 5 months.

The wealth of Indian billionaires increased by 35 percent during the lockdown and by 90 percent since 2009 to USD 422.9 billion ranking India, sixth in the world after US, China, Germany, Russia and France. In fact, the increase in wealth of the top 11 billionaires of India during the pandemic could sustain the NREGS scheme for 10 years or the health ministry for 10 years.

Informal workers worst hit: Out of a total 122 million who lost their jobs 75 percent, which accounts for 92 million jobs, were lost in the informal sector.

This report says that the mass exodus on foot triggered by the sudden lockdown & the inhuman conditions the informal workers were subjected to turned a health emergency into a humanitarian crisis. Many informal workers died due to the lockdown, with reasons ranging from starvation, suicides, exhaustion, road and rail accidents, police brutality and denial of timely medical care. The National Human Rights Commission recorded over 2582 cases of human rights violation as early as in the month of April 2020.

Education on hold: The long disruption of schooling risked doubling the rate of out of school, especially among the poor. Only 4 percent of rural households had a computer and less than 15 percent rural households had an internet connection.

The Oxfam Report argues strongly that the digital mode of delivering education has proven exclusionary. Out of the poorest 20 percent households in India, only 2.7 percent have access to a computer and 8.9 percent to internet facilities. Girls are most likely to bear the brunt as only 15.5% rural females could either use a computer or the internet. This period saw an exponential growth of private providers such as BYJU’s (currently valued at USD 10.8 billion) and Unacademy (valued at USD 1.45 billion).

Health Inequalities: Only 6 percent of the poorest 20 percent has access to non-shared sources of improved sanitation. 59.6 percent of Indias population lives in a room or less.

This meant that facilities to wash hands and maintaining distance, essential to prevent the spread of Coronavirus, was impossible for a majority of the population.

The Oxfam report says that pregnant women belonging to poor families were often left unassisted as most public health care institutions were turned into COVID-19 testing facilities and hospitals. The urgent need for healthcare resulted in massive profiteering from many private health establishments and while the government did take steps to make COVID-19 services affordable by including them under Ayushman Bharat-PMJAY, the scheme only covered BPL population leaving out the uninsured poor and the Middle Class.

Women bear the burden: 17 million women lost their job in April 2020; Unemployment for women rose by 15 percent from a pre-lockdown level of 18 percent.

This increase in unemployment of women can result in a loss to India’s GDP of about 8% or USD 218 billion. In addition, the total time spent in both paid and unpaid activities by women has risen.

Economic hardships and growing anxiety during emergencies often fuel violent and abusive relationships directed towards women and the pandemic has been no exception. This has unfortunately led to an increase in cases of domestic violence. Locked in their homes with their abuser, the numbers saw a spike in cases. As of November 30, 2020, cases of domestic violence stand at 4687 in 2020 compared to 2960 in 2019—a 58% rise. The highest number of cases were from Uttar Pradesh (1576), followed by Delhi (906) and Bihar (265).

“The pandemic has shaken the world to its very core. It has exposed the fault lines in our societies and economies but has also paved a way for transformative policies for a just and equal world. Newer and creative ways of catering to the needs of the masses is possible if governments are committed to the needs of its people. It is time for Government of India to take specific and concrete actions that will build a better future. We can build a future that is led by citizens’ voices who seek a more equal and just future,” Amitabh Behar said.

The COVID-19 crisis must be a turning point in the taxation of the richest individuals and big corporations. Progressive taxation of the richest members of the society must be the cornerstone of any equitable recovery from the crisis,” Behar added.

“There is an urgent need to enhance Health’s budgetary allocation to the tune of 2.5 percent of GDP to reinvigorate the public health system, reduce out of pocket expenditure and strengthen health prevention and promotion.”

The Oxfam report has pointed out that India has the world’s fourth lowest health budget in terms of its share of government expenditure. If India’s top 11 billionaires are taxed at just 1% on the increase in their wealth during the pandemic, it will be enough to increase the allocation of Jan Aushadi Scheme by 140 times, which provides affordable medicines to the poor and marginalized.

Another fact emphasized in this report is that the COVID-19 pandemic induced crisis has put the future of young people at risk, as too many are foregoing or losing access to education, especially girls and other economically and socially excluded groups. There is an urgent need to increase–or at least maintain–public education expenditure, in line with its commitments made as part of the 2020 Global Education Meeting declaration.

Johnson government warns UK COVID-19 strain more deadly as hospitals buckle under pressure

Robert Stevens


Deaths are mounting in Britain amid evidence that the mutation of COVID-19 first detected last September may be more deadly than the original strain.

This weekend saw just short of 2,000 deaths (1,958) and over 63,000 new infections. There are over 4,000 COVID patients in hospital on ventilators, more than in the first wave of the pandemic which saw a high of 3,301 on April 12.

Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a Downing Street briefing Saturday, “In addition to spreading more quickly, it also now appears that there is some evidence that the new variant—the variant that was first identified in London and the south east—may be associated with a higher degree of mortality.”

A security guard holds a sign at Blackburn Cathedral, which is being used as a mass vaccination center during the coronavirus outbreak in Blackburn, England, Monday Jan. 18, 2021. (AP Photo Jon Super)

Johnson spoke after the government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) announced that the B.1.1.7 variant may increase the death rate by 30 to 40 percent. Nervtag evaluated surveys by three university teams and Public Health England.

The increase in mortality could be much larger than suggested by Nervtag. The Financial Times reported, “Most scientists who have commented on Nervtag’s assessment believe that the evidence justifies the overall conclusion of higher mortality, though the size of the effect needs to be pinned down. Estimates of the additional risk from B.1.1.7 in the studies considered by Nervtag ranged from 7 per cent to 271 percent.”

Rowland Kao, professor of epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, observed, “The increase in deaths is a result of more individuals becoming severely infected and hospitalised, rather than more hospitalisations resulting in death.

“As such, it would appear that the new variant is also responsible for the increased, unexpectedly high burdens in hospitals seen especially around London.”

The UK mutation has been detected in 60 countries worldwide and it is just one of several spreading globally. On Sunday, it was confirmed that the South African mutation of the virus, which has so far been detected in 20 countries, has been identified in 77 cases in Britain.

Scientists remain cautious about how infectious and deadly the new strains are, but there is also uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the new vaccines on the transmission of the disease. Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that scientists “do not yet know the impact of the vaccine on transmission”.

Johnson is making warnings about the B.1.1.7 mutation now because he knows the death toll is going to climb and wants to identify the new variant as the sole cause. His aim is to excuse the government’s inaction over the last year, as he and his cabinet focused on reopening the economy and maintaining profits at the expense of lives.

In an article published Saturday, the BBC’s Health and Science correspondent James Gallagher substantiated a basic point made by the World Socialist Web Site that the more contagious a virus is the more people it can kill: “While people debate the uncertainties though, we already know this variant has the ability to kill more people than the old ones. A virus that spreads faster (this one is 30-70% faster) will infect more people, more quickly, putting a greater strain on hospitals and leading to a sharper spike in deaths. It is why viruses becoming more transmissible can be a bigger problem than ones becoming more deadly.”

To underscore the dangers of the government’s refusal to implement a full lockdown and any serious measures to prevent the spread of the virus, research by the University of Leicester found that 30 percent of coronavirus patients discharged from hospitals in England were readmitted within five months. Of these, almost one in eight die.

This could be confirmation of the severity of what is termed “Long Covid”, or that the same vulnerable people are being re-infected—refuting all the tenets of the “herd immunity” policy of the Johnson government.

Shocking accounts of in-work transmission of the disease have surfaced in recent days, including the infection of 172 ScotRail staff. The most devastating is at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) headquarters/call centre in Swansea, Wales, where at least 535 workers have been infected. Many workplaces have been hit by outbreaks, particularly in the meat and food processing industry. But the outbreak at the DVLA is the largest involving a single employer in a localised area.

The DVLA is by far the largest employer in the area. Evidence is emerging that DVLA management implemented policies that have led to uncontrollable spread of the disease among a 6,000 strong workforce.

The Guardian reported, “A complaint received by Public Health Wales’s outbreak control team claims DVLA workers were asked to turn off their test-and-trace apps ‘so that their phones do not ping.’ It also says absences relating to Covid have been counted against workers’ sick leave, with anything over 10 days triggering a warning.”

BBC Wales News were told by a worker, speaking anonymously, “that close contacts of people testing positive are not always sent home to self-isolate, social-distancing is not being followed and homeworking is not possible because of ‘archaic’ systems.”

Transmission of the virus within the DVLA has significantly contributed to a surge in cases in the Swansea Bay area. The newspaper noted, “The scale of the outbreak has made people wary of DVLA staff, who sometimes have to catch three or four buses to get into work from across south Wales.”

During the pandemic, more than 26,000 COVID cases and 828 deaths have been recorded in the Swansea Bay area.

The reckless endangering of workers lives, with business, schools, colleges and universities kept open since the end of the spring lockdown, has led to the UK recording the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world in recent weeks.

According to official government figures, which downplay the death toll in every country, the UK has recorded 97,939 deaths. The next highest death toll in continental Europe is Italy with 85,461 deaths. France, whose 65 million population is almost the same as Britain’s, has 73,049 deaths and Spain has 55,441. Germany, whose population is around 17 million larger than the UK’s, has 52,628 deaths.

The death toll in Britain, when including fatalities with COVID-19 noted on the death certificate, stands at more than 114,000. In the last seven days 8,678 have died from COVID, an increase of nearly 11 percent on the previous week.

The Johnson government has been able to oversee such death and destruction only because they are governing in a de facto coalition with the Labour Party and the trade unions. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer immediately offered the government his backing on taking over the leadership from Jeremy Corbyn in April last year. He declared as the crisis worsened last September, supporting Johnson’s opening of schools, colleges and universities, that he would endorse “whatever measure the government takes” on the pandemic.

What remains of the Labour “left” has collapsed into an irrelevance. This weekend, Corbyn and his allies John McDonnell and Richard Burgon, of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs that counts just 34 members, signed a letter to Conservative Chancellor Rishi Sunak asking him to “take bold measures needed to tackle the tougher strain of the virus. That should mean that all non-essential workers who can’t work from home should be furloughed on full pay.” Burgon declared that what is required is a “proper lockdown” with “proper financial support.”

This plea is directed to a government responsible for the deaths of more than 114,000 people which their own party does nothing to oppose. The Corbynites have not lifted a finger to challenge the Labour right, with Corbyn not even a Labour MP anymore, having had the whip removed by Starmer months ago as part of the anti-Semitism witch-hunt.

As long as the response to the pandemic is dictated by the Downing Street Malthusians and “herd immunity” advocates, many thousands more lives will be lost. To halt the spread of the virus, the working class must intervene, independently of the Labour Party and trade unions, to enforce emergency action. This includes the immediate shutdown of all nonessential production, along with schools and universities, with full income to all workers. This is the programme advanced only by the Socialist Equality Party.