20 Jan 2023

China’s growth rate falls as population declines

Nick Beams


Two sets of data came out of China this week with major implications both for the social and economic relations in that country and the world economy as a whole. They point to a significant slowing of growth and make clear, as the threat of world recession grows, that China is not going to provide an economic buffer as it has in the past either in the short- or long-term.

Beijing West Railway Station, Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2023. [AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein]

Economic data revealed that Chinese growth last year had dropped to its lowest level in decades as the population fell by 850,000 in 2022—the first such decline since the so-called Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

The National Bureau of Statistics announced that growth in 2022 was 3 percent, a very marked slowdown from the 8.1 percent growth in 2021. It was also well off the government’s target of 5.5 percent, already the lowest since the beginning of the 1990s.

Apart from 2020, when the economy expanded by only 2.2 percent due to the onset of COVID, it was the lowest growth figure since 1976.

The main reason for the lower growth was the public health measures introduced in the battle against COVID. This was reflected in retail sales, which increased by only 0.2 percent as compared to a rise of 12.5 percent in 2021, and the fall of industrial production growth to 3.6 percent, compared to 9.6 percent the previous year.

The COVID restrictions, which despite the clamour in certain upper middle-class layers, accompanied by a fanfare of publicity in Western media, were broadly supported in the population which considered the government was taking the necessary action to protect public health.

However, in December, under intense pressure from the imperialist powers and from companies which threatened to move their operations out of the country, the government scrapped virtually all protective measures leading to a surge in infections and deaths.

Having dropped protective measures, the Xi Jinping regime is making a desperate attempt to convince the major capitalist powers that China is back in business.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos on Tuesday, China’s retiring vice-premier Liu He, who has functioned as the chief economic adviser to Xi, claimed the country had passed the peak of its COVID-19 infections and was returning to normal faster than had been expected.

“The majority of society has recovered to a normal state of affairs,” he said. “The speed of reaching the peak and speed of recovering normality were relatively fast in a way exceeding our expectations.”

Following the policies of governments around the world, China has not only abandoned safety measures but has virtually shut down data on deaths and infections, amid concerns there could be surge because of widespread travel during lunar New Year celebrations.

With the economy already on a path to lower growth even before the pandemic struck, Liu made an appeal to the financial oligarchs and investors at Davos, assuring them China was committed to a market economy.

“Some people say that China is pursuing a planned economy, but this is fundamentally impossible: Chinese people will not walk this path,” he said.

The Xi regime has cracked down on some technology giants in the name of a “common prosperity” program. Reflecting the balancing act of the regime, acting in the interests of the Chinese oligarchy which dominates the Chinese Communist Party, Liu said this was to prevent economic polarisation and was aimed at trying to keep inequality in check.

“We are absolutely not about egalitarianism and welfarism,” he reassured his Davos audience.

He also addressed some of the major issues confronting China arising from the high interest rate regime initiated by the US Federal Reserve and other central banks as they seek to suppress the global upsurge of the working class in response to the highest inflation in 40 years.

Liu said Chinese growth would most likely return to its normal trend and the risks in the property sector had been stabilised by what he called a “blood transfusion”—the injection of liquidity into the market.

But, he added, any Chinese recovery would be “export challenged” and trade would “not be as strong a driver for China’s own domestic growth performance as perhaps some Chinese economic planners would want.”

Liu then made an indirect reference to the policies of global central banks, which are not being followed in China, saying “some countries have chosen the policy that will result in a hike-recession-recovery loop.”

He called for “more attention to the negative spillover effect of major countries rate hikes on the emerging markets and developing countries, so as not to add more debt or financial risks.”

Liu noted that inflation was being boosted by a more complex set of factors than simply demand, which central banks were attempting to dampen with interest rate rises. Supply-side measures were needed to repair supply chains, which would require global coordination. He warned against adopting a “Cold War mentality,” referring to the increased economic and military pressure being exerted against China, spearheaded by the US.

As the Chinese government tries to navigate the present, increasingly complex international economic environment, there are also long-term factors at work. These militate against any return to the high growth levels of the past, which have played a central role in the maintenance of global expansion over the past three decades.

These factors were highlighted by the news that the population of the country had declined last year for the first time in six decades.

In comments reported by the Financial Times, Wang Feng, an expert on Chinese demography at the University of California, said: “This is a truly historic turning point, an onset of a long-term and irreversible population decline.”

COVID is being blamed for a decline in birth rates last year, but the origins of the population decline go back to the one-child policy imposed by the regime in the 1980s with major economic implications.

The period of high Chinese growth—sometimes reaching levels approaching 10 percent per annum—was based on the continued inflow of workers from the countryside into the cities. The regime itself recognised more than a decade ago this policy could not continue and has sought to increasingly base Chinese growth on the development of more advanced technologies to increase productivity.

However, this strategy has now hit a major obstacle in the form of the US drive to cripple Chinese technological advance with a series of widening restrictions because it fears China’s advance will further undermine its own global economic position.

The Chinese regime rests on the capitalist oligarchy which started to emerge as “market economy” was increasingly installed in the 1980s. It then developed in leaps and bound as China was increasingly integrated in the global economy following the crushing of the working class during and after the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989.

But it must now contend with a massive social force—the population of 1.4 billion people and a vastly expanded and urbanised working class.

It seeks to maintain itself by invoking the legacy 1949 revolution, while claiming it is possible to provide a prosperous future by integrating the country into the framework of world capitalism under the fraudulent banner of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

This perspective has increasingly run up against “capitalism with imperialistic characteristics” in the form of the US drive to reduce China to a semi-colonial status, if necessary through war.

The regime has long ago abandoned any notion of social equality, as Lui’s remarks at Davos again made clear. Insofar as it retains political support among the population and in the working class, it is because it was seen as engineering the economic growth that lifted living standards.

The measures against COVID were instituted because of the widespread expectation in the population that action should be taken by the government in defence of public health.

These pillars of support may not have yet entirely collapsed but they are in an advanced state of disintegration. While it is impossible to predict the exact course of events, rising social tensions point to the development of class struggle against the regime whose central strategy is increasingly exposed.

Zero-COVID in China ultimately collapsed because it was a national policy trying to deal with a global problem. The perspective of a national economic rise of China is equally constrained by global forces.

Pregnant women with COVID-19 face 7 times higher risk of dying, new study finds

Kate Randall


More than 400 million babies were born worldwide during the first three years of the pandemic. Although there are no reliable figures on how many women have been infected during pregnancy with the virus that causes COVID-19, a new study finds that those who do face a seven times increased risk of dying.

Registered nurses are suited up with protective gear before entering a patient's room at the COVID-19 ICU at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, in Lebanon, New Hampshire, Monday, Jan. 3, 2022. [AP Photo/Steven Senne]

The analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of “maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity.”  

Research published this week in BMJ Global Health finds that pregnant women who contract COVID-19 are also at three times greater risk of being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). The study also suggests that COVID-19 during pregnancy increases the risk that the baby will need intensive care. People who need intensive care are also more likely to die.

Emily R. Smith, assistant professor of global health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in a statement, “This study provides the most comprehensive evidence to date suggesting that COVID-19 is a threat during pregnancy.” She added, “Our findings underscore the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for all women of childbearing age.”

Hundreds of millions of women of childbearing age remain unvaccinated. In the industrialized world, pregnant women are not being vaccinated due to a combination of government “let it rip” policies and the promotion of anti-scientific theories that vaccines will harm the mother or unborn fetus. In poorer countries, vaccines are not available largely due to logistics and the unprofitability of providing them. 

Smith and her colleagues brought together individual patient data from 12 studies involving more than 13,000 pregnant women (1,942 COVID-19 positive, 11,194 COVID-19 negative). The studies involved data from China-Hong Kong, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United States, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Republic of Congo, Ghana and Nigeria. Prior analyses based on published data have included limited data from low-income countries.

Researchers’ key findings of meta-analysis of this patient data shows that, in addition to an elevated risk of death and being admitted to an ICU, compared to uninfected pregnant women, pregnant women with COVID-19 infection were at:

  • About 15 times higher risk of needing ventilator treatment, due to COVID-19’s effect on the ability to breathe

  • About 23 times higher risk of developing pneumonia, a potentially life-threatening complication of COVID-19

  • More than 5 times higher risk of thromboembolic disease, or blood clots, which can cause pain, swelling and other life-threatening complications.

Additional heightened risks to pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 include hemorrhage, placental abruption, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pre-term labor and caesarean section.

Babies born to women with COVID-19 also face significant health risks when compared to the newborns of women not infected with the coronavirus, including:

  • Almost twice the risk of being admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) after birth

  • Higher risk of being born prematurely. Babies born pre-term are at high risk of suffering from lifelong health problems, including delayed cognitive development.

Implications for the US

The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated the already scandalous state of maternal health in the United States. Data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), analyzed by the Commonwealth Fund in 2022, exposed the widening gap in maternal mortality between the US and other leading industrialized nations.

The US stands at 55th in maternal mortality rates, just behind Russia and ahead of Ukraine, according to the World Health Organization. In 2020, the latest year complete data are available from the CDC, the US maternal mortality rate (MMR) was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to the Netherlands, where it stood at 1.2 deaths.

The CDC concluded that 84 percent of pregnancy-related deaths, or 17 in 20, are preventable. Provisional CDC data from 2021 show that of 1,178 maternal deaths reported, 401, or more than a third, were COVID-19-related. Also contributing to these deaths is the fact that nearly 7 million women of childbearing age and 500,000 babies in the US live in counties that are “maternity care deserts,” meaning they have no obstetric hospitals or providers.

Parallel to the US increase in maternal mortality has been an overall decrease in life expectancy. According to mortality data released by the CDC, life expectancy in the US decreased for the second year in a row in 2021. The death rate increased by 5.3 percent over 2020 figures, leading to a decline in life expectancy from 77 years to 76.4 years, the lowest level since 1996. Globally, life expectancy has declined for the first time since World War II.

CDC statistics show that COVID-19 accounted for nearly 60 percent of the life expectancy decline in the US in 2021. The alarming maternal mortality rate in the US, aggravated by the deaths of mothers and newborns from COVID-19, is undoubtedly a contributing factor to this decline.

Mass protests against Israel’s far-right government: a harbinger of revolutionary struggle

Chris Marsden


Saturday’s mass protest in Tel Aviv marks a significant shift in the political life of Israel, the Middle East and the world.

Just two weeks after the election of the most far-right coalition government in the nation’s history, one riddled with racists and outright fascists, around 100,000 gathered in Habima Square protesting plans by the new regime to assert direct political control over the judiciary. Thousands more protested in Jerusalem outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s home, and in Haifa and Rosh Pina.

Legislation announced by Justice Minister Yariv Levin is set to curtail the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and allow parliament to override any such rulings. The government would also take control over the appointment of judges and do away with the post of Attorney General. This would allow Netanyahu to appoint his own state prosecutor, helping avoid his own prosecution on corruption charges. More importantly, it would facilitate plans for stepped up settlement construction in preparation for annexing much of the West Bank.

Israelis protest against the government's plans to overhaul the country's legal system, in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 14, 2023. [AP Photo/Oded Balilty]

However, opposition to the new government stretches far beyond this question. Netanyahu’s coalition includes his own Likud party, the fascistic and racist parties Religious Zionism, Jewish Power and Noam, and the right-wing religious parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism. It stands for Jewish supremacy and apartheid rule; the permanent seizure of the Palestinian territories; Jewish prayer at the al-Aqsa Mosque; the rollback of anti-discrimination measures through sweeping changes to Israel’s legal system; and stepped-up police and military repression against the Palestinians and workers, Jewish and Palestinian, in Israel itself.

New Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich of Religious Zionism was recorded declaring, “I’m a fascist homophobe.” One of his first acts was to seize $40 million in tax revenues Israel had collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf. New National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, of Jewish Power, meanwhile immediately made a deliberately provocative visit to Jerusalem’s most sensitive religious site, the Al Aqsa compound.

The coming to power of such political criminals and provocateurs has aroused mass anger. Homemade placards on the protest warned against “fascism,” a “coup d’état,” a “criminal government,” and “the end of democracy.” Jewish people joined Israeli Arabs in carrying Palestinian flags, in defiance of Ben-Gvir’s call for the police to crack down.

This points to the possible emergence of a new axis of struggle, cutting across the carefully cultivated divisions between Arab and Jewish workers.

Media reports sought a measure of comfort in identifying the protest as largely mobilising the secular Israeli middle class and being led by the tame opposition parties. But this tells only half the story.

The new government is dragging Israel into the blackest forms of political reaction, including war against the Palestinians. It does so under conditions where Israel is a social and political powder keg and the entire Middle East has been destabilised by the deepening global economic crisis, the pandemic and US-led plans to widen the war against Russia in Ukraine into open hostilities against Russia’s regional ally, Iran, with Israel as its chief attack dog.

The Tel Aviv rally was addressed by figures such as former Defence Minister Benny Ganz, retired Supreme Court President Ayala Procaccia, former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Labor Party chairwoman Merav Michaeli, and the leader of the Arab Ra'am Party Mansour Abbas. But these figures, associated with the previous “government of change,” are all massively discredited by its implementation of a right-wing agenda of austerity and war. This led Haaretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer to caution that “this protest still has no leader… The anger against the new government still has to grow, but there was plenty of rancor to be heard around the square from the leaders and activists of left-wing groups…”

Yaakov Katz, writing in the Jerusalem Post, warned the opposition against the dangers of provoking a civil war. He writes, “Talk of a civil war is dangerous. Israel is on the eve of its 75th anniversary and the thought that this latest experiment in Jewish sovereignty in thousands of years will be in jeopardy because of internal discord should shake us all at our core.”

“Yes, the issues that are being brought up are significant, and the consequences are potentially dire. But we must not take this state for granted. We must protect it, and yes, we must also fight for it.”

Given the gravity of the situation, pro-imperialist commentators have appealed for some form of intervention from the US and European powers to curb Netanyahu. Thomas L. Friedman in the January 17 New York Times, pleads to President Biden, “You may be the only one able to stop Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition from turning Israel into an illiberal bastion of zealotry,” adding that, “I fear that Israel is approaching some serious internal civil strife.”

This, he says, “has direct implications for U.S. national security interests. I have no illusions that Biden can reverse the most extreme trends emerging in Israel today, but he can nudge things onto a healthier path, and maybe prevent the worst, with some tough love in a way that no other outsider can.”

Simon Tisdall, writing for similar purposes in the Guardian, warns, “By endangering western public support for the state of Israel, undermining its democracy and confounding its alliances, Netanyahu and his hate-mongering cronies show themselves to be their country’s own worst enemies.” But he is forced to acknowledge the reality that Netanyahu can only proceed with his offensive because “the response to this alarming, destabilising development from Israel’s western allies has been strangely muted…”

He notes that “so far, the US has eschewed overt criticism,” a “shamefully supine approach” also being pursued by the European Union and Britain. Added to this is the shift by the region’s authoritarian Arab regimes towards openly friendly relations with Israel.

The imperialists and the Middle East’s regional powers are united against any challenge to the Israeli government because of their own crisis. They all need to suppress rising social and political opposition to their shared agenda of ever more grotesque enrichment of the financial oligarchy at the direct expense of the workers and oppressed masses, and the drive to imperialist wars of conquest and global hegemony against Russia, China and smaller regimes including Iran and Syria.

The eruption of mass opposition in Israel, for example, coincides with the el-Sisi regime in Egypt passing 38 life sentences against those involved in the 2019 anti-government protests, under conditions of a near meltdown of the economy and rising social discontent. It follows the months-long anti-government protests in Iran.

The mass protests in Israel will change the political climate the world over—just as did the abortive Arab Spring uprisings in 2011.

The denunciations of Netanyahu and his fascist allies by tens of thousands of Israeli demonstrators has given the lie to the global campaign slandering and witch-hunting opponents of Israel’s repression of the Palestinians as anti-Semites—a filthy lie that has seen thousands driven out of Britain’s Labour Party, and numerous academics, artists and political activists victimised in the US and Europe. If they are “anti-Semites,” then so too are hundreds of thousands of Israel’s own citizens!

Conversely, the protests are a powerful refutation of the central tenet of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign, which treats all Israelis as if they share responsibility for the crimes of their government.

The Zionist project of establishing a Jewish state through the violent dispossession of the Arab population has led inexorably to the creation of an apartheid-style regime built on mass repression.

US unions suffer further decline in membership rate

Shannon Jones


The US unionization rate declined again in 2022 to 10.1 percent, the lowest rate since records have been kept, according to numbers released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unionization rate fell from 10.3 percent in 2021 and is down from 20.1 percent in 1983, when the figure was first compiled in the wake of the President Reagan’s smashing of 1981’s PATCO air traffic controllers strike.

The decline took place despite a shortage of workers that has increased workers’ bargaining power and an uptick in unionization attempts by the major unions. It occurs two years into the term of the administration of President Joe Biden, who describes himself as the most “pro-union” president in US history.

The number of union members rose by 273,000 in 2022, but this was eclipsed by the nearly 4 percent growth in overall employment, or 5.3 million more workers. The rate of private sector unionization is just 6 percent or 7.2 million workers out of 120.36 million private sector workers. The public sector unionization rate was 33.1 percent, 7.1 million workers. The unionization rate for young workers aged 16 to 24 was less than half that of workers aged 45 to 54.

Nurses strike outside Mount Sinai Hospital on January 10, 2023, in New York City. [AP Photo/Andres Kudacki]

The numbers for 2022 continued a decline in the percentage of union membership that has proceeded steadily for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It follows an absolute decline in union membership in 2021 of 246,000 members.

The sharp fall came despite an uptick in union organizing efforts. According to the National Labor Relations Board there were 1,363 union elections held in fiscal 2022, the most since 2015. The unions won 1,041 of those elections, mostly in relatively small bargaining units such as coffee chain Starbucks.

Responding to the latest numbers on unionization, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler decried the decline the result of “illegal opposition from companies that would rather pay union-busting firms millions than give workers a seat at the table.” However, this ignores the fact that the industrial unions were built in the teeth of the ferocious and violent opposition of the employers. Nor does Shuler explain why the unions have failed to advance despite the overt support of the Biden administration.

The continuing fall in union membership takes place in the context of an unbroken series of betrayals carried out by the American trade union bureaucracy, which has held wage increases well below the rate of inflation and even below the overall percentage rate increases for nonunion workers. While there was an increase in the number of strikes in 2022, there were 25 involving 1,000 workers or more, these did not result in real wage gains for workers. A whole series of strikes by health care workers and educators, including 48,000 academic workers at the University of California who are members of the United Auto Workers, were shut down on the basis of wage-cutting agreements that imposed below-inflation pay rises.

This culminated in the collusion of the railroad unions with the Biden administration in December to legislatively impose a pro-employer deal on 120,000 railroad workers, which stripped them of their right to strike and overrode their votes to reject the terms. The contract imposed below-inflation rate pay increases and maintained a hated attendance policy, which keeps the workers on call virtually 24/7.

While masses of workers sense the need to collectively organize and fight back against the impact of raging inflation, overwork and deteriorating health and safety on the job, compounded by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, more and more are coming to see the union bureaucracy as an obstacle to their fight.

This has been reflected in the large number of contract rejection votes by margins of 90 percent or more and the increasing turn by rail, education, health care, auto and other workers towards the building of rank-and-file committees to transfer power from the union bureaucracy into the hands of workers on the shop floor.

At the same time, the pro-company record of the unions has led to several defeats of high-profile organizing campaigns, notably at the Amazon BHM1 facility in Bessemer, Alabama. There, workers twice decisively rejected the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) despite—or perhaps because of—the support from top Democratic and Republican officeholders, including Biden himself.

Significantly, union density is the highest in those workplaces, usually public sector, where they enjoy some degree of sanction by the state. In fact the highest levels of unionization (34.6 percent) are to found in “protective services,” including police and prison guards. The high unionization rate among police officers says much about the character of the unions, given the role of police as enforcers of strikebreaking injunctions and protectors of scabs.

The continuing collapse of union membership under conditions of the highest levels of inflation in decades and an increase in the number of strikes and militancy, reflected in contract rejections and strike votes, underscores the assessment of the unions made by the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party. Under the impact of capitalist globalization and the unions’ nationalist and pro-capitalist program, these organizations have been transformed from defensive organizations of the working class into appendages of the corporations and the government.

This fact is further confirmed by statistics compiled by independent researcher Chris Bohner from an examination of annual union financial filings.

In 2021, net assets of unions filing financial reports with the US Labor Department grew $3.5 billion from 2020 from $28.1 billion to $31.6 billion. The net assets of unions more than doubled in the period 2010–2021 even though total union membership fell by 700,000 during that same time frame.

Bohner also notes that the amount spent by the national AFL-CIO in 2021 on political action, that is campaigning for the Democrats, dwarfed the $10.8 million spent on organizing by a factor of two to one ($23 million in fiscal 2022 and $37 million in fiscal 2021). Meanwhile, unions overall have spent an average of just of $78 million a year on strike benefits since 2010, less than 0.5 percent of their net assets.

The decline in the unions is not confined to the US, but is a global phenomenon. Everywhere, the unions have embraced corporatism, the unrestrained collaboration of unions with management to lower labor costs to help “their” corporate owners better compete on the world market. The logic of this is on crude display in Germany where the IG Metall trade union has proposed that Ford workers take an 18 percent pay cut in order to underbid brother workers in Spain.

Australian Labor government’s plan to address school staffing crisis set to further undermine public education system

Karen Maxwell


The federal Labor government recently issued an “action plan,” outlining 27 policy measures that will supposedly address the teacher shortage crisis wracking the public education system across Australia. In reality, the measures will do nothing to address staffing shortages and will only serve to undermine the teaching profession and the public education system.

A section of the striking New South Wales teachers’ rally in Macquarie Street, Sydney on June 30, 2022. [Photo: WSWS]

Schools across the country are grappling with serious difficulties flowing from the inability to appoint the required number of teachers. Previous government forecasts anticipated a shortage of more than 4,000 teachers across Australia by 2025. However, the situation is already worse than that.

In New South Wales, latest available figures show 3,300 vacant positions, and in Victoria, there are 1,100 teaching positions still vacant for 2023. Some schools are desperately offering sign-on bonuses of $10,000, with this spending offset by cuts to other parts of the school’s budget.

The situation is fueling higher class sizes, cuts to curriculum programs, and extra pressures on the existing teaching workforce.

The Labor government’s plan—endorsed by state education ministers, Labor and Liberal alike, and by the Australian Education Union (AEU)—amounts to less than a band-aid response to the crisis. It involves just $328 million of additional government funding, spread over nine years. This amounts to $36 million a year. For comparison, this is equivalent to 0.07 percent of annual military spending committed by the federal government.

Titled the National Teacher Workforce Action (NTWA) plan and issued last month, the government’s document lays out five “priority areas:” improving teacher supply, strengthening teacher education, keeping the teachers we have, elevating the profession, and better understanding workforce needs. The limited spending measures include $159 million for 4,000 additional university places for teachers, $56 million for bursaries, $68 million to triple the number of mid-career professionals shifting to teaching, and $30 million for a Teacher Reduction Workload Fund.

A central part of the NTWA plan aims to undermine teacher qualifications and erode the professional status of teachers. As part of “improving teacher supply,” student teachers will be given permission to teach before they have completed their teaching degree.

This measure was proposed by the AEU bureaucracy in August last year. Under-trained student-teachers will as a priority be rushed to remote and rural areas, which are suffering from critical teacher shortages and are often among the most impoverished in Australia. This is also the purpose of the bursary program, which will be accompanied by a “commitment to teach” obligation on all those offered a subsidy towards their teaching degree.

Linked with this, the NTWA plan also contains measures to bring teachers’ aides and mid-career professionals into teaching with just a one-year secondary teaching qualification.

Within ruling circles, reducing the duration and complexity of teaching qualifications has been a long-standing goal. There is no concern regarding having less knowledgeable, less skilled teachers—the agenda is to rapidly expand the workforce in order to avoid having to invest money in retaining experienced teachers. The Labor government’s “plan” recalls the cynical political adage of never letting a good crisis go to waste.

A further measure envisaged by the NTWA plan is the recruitment of international teachers by expediting visa application processes. This will likely have limited impact, as the teacher shortage is not confined to Australia, but is an international crisis.

The NTWA plan contains no genuine proposals to address the large numbers of teachers denied the right to permanent employment and employed instead on precarious casual contracts.

Under the hypocritical banner of “elevating the profession,” the NTWA plan proposes that members of the public be encouraged to nominate teachers for an Order of Australia medal. This farcical initiative underscores the gulf between the ordinary teachers and the Labor government and its trade union bureaucrat advisors. Teachers did not enter the teaching profession for public glory but in order to educate and inspire young people, to foster within them a love of learning and confidence in their ability to cognise the world around them.

The government has attempted to present the teaching shortage crisis as a highly complex problem with no clear solution. Education minister Jason Clare last year declared there was no “silver bullet” to the issue.

Teachers and school workers have little confusion on what needs to be done. One survey of educators, conducted by Monash University researchers last year, reported the response of three teachers who were asked what they needed:

“Fewer students in each class and more preparation time.”

“Hiring of additional qualified specialist staff to assist teachers by diagnosing students, helping to create support plans, helping to design manageable adjustments, etc.”

“Fewer classes and more preparation time. I have to use my sick leave to mark!”

Such basic measures will not be implemented to address crushing workloads, one of the key issues confronting burned out teachers, because lowering class sizes and providing teachers with more time for planning, preparation, and assessment requires significant new spending. The Labor government is instead heeding the demands of finance capital and big business for lower debt and deficits by curtailing public spending.

Australia now has one of the world’s most privatised school systems, with 46 percent of secondary students attending private schools. The public school system has been systematically underfunded by successive Labor and Liberal governments, and school staff in working class communities are provided with grossly inadequate resources to deal with the impact of the social crisis expressed within classrooms through childhood trauma, undiagnosed disabilities, and related behavioural issues that make teachers’ work even more challenging and stressful.

A staggering proportion, 50 percent, of students who start initial teacher education (ITE) courses drop out before completing them. Many take one look inside a classroom as part of their course and decide to change profession. Somewhere between 30 percent and 50 percent of graduating teachers are quitting after their first, second or third year.

The full reopening of schools in January–February 2022 by all state governments, in collusion with the AEU bureaucracy, led to prolific student and teacher absences as COVID-19 infections raged through the schools. Classes were merged, teachers were expected to teach additional students on behalf of their sickened colleagues, as well as providing extra tuition for students needing help to catch up with the curriculum. The Monash University survey, involving 5,500 teachers, found that 25 percent of teachers said that they felt unsafe at work. One of the main reasons mentioned was lack of effective measures within schools to protect them from COVID infection.

None of the government’s new measures related to the teaching crisis touch on the risk of further COVID infections, consistent with its false assertion that the pandemic is over.

NATO members pledge “unprecedented” new arms shipments to Ukraine

Andre Damon


The United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic states pledged Thursday to carry out an “unprecedented” increase in arms shipments to Ukraine with the aim of facilitating a military offensive to recapture territory held by Russia.

The announcement took place ahead of a war summit at the US airbase in Ramstein, Germany, in which 50 US allies, including every member of NATO will participate, and where participants are expected to announce the provision of main battle tanks to Ukraine.

Containers and vehicles await transportation on commercial ships to Europe at the Port of Beaumont, Texas, in support of Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20 February 18, 2020. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army)

Thursday’s statement declared, “We recognise that equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping them to defend what they already have. Together we will continue supporting Ukraine to move from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil.”

The statement continues, “Therefore, we commit to collectively pursuing delivery of an unprecedented set of donations including main battle tanks, heavy artillery, air defence, ammunition, and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine’s defence.”

The statement concludes, “The new level of required combat power is only achieved by combinations of main battle tank squadrons, beneath air and missile defence, operating alongside divisional artillery groups, and further deep precision fires enabling targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes in occupied territory.”

The military operation being described in the statement would be a massive combined-arms offensive reminiscent of the Second World War, financed, armed and effectively led by NATO.

The document notes that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania pledged to train thousands of Ukrainian troops. Poland promised to send two companies of Leopard 2 main battle tanks, about 25 in all, alongside 42 infantry fighting vehicles.

The United Kingdom promised to send a “squadron of Challenger 2 tanks, as well as “100,000 artillery rounds; hundreds more sophisticated missiles including GMLRS rockets, Starstreak air defence missiles, and medium range air defence missiles; 600 Brimstone anti-tank munitions.” The UK promised to train 20,000 Ukrainian armed forces personnel in 2023.

While it appeared that the details of supplying Leopard 2 battle tanks were still being worked out ahead of the meeting at Ramstein Air Force Base, Lithuania’s Defence Minister Arvydas Anušauskas told Reuters that a number of countries will announce they are sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine. “The total number of armoured vehicles pledged at Ramstein will go into hundreds,” he said.

Ahead of the meeting, the United States announced a $2.5 billion arms shipment to Ukraine, including 59 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 90 Stryker armored personnel carriers, 53 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles and 350 high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the United States will “likely” announce that it is sending to Ukraine long-range missiles—the ground-launched small-diameter bomb—with a range of over 100 miles.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared, “Weapons are the way to peace.”

Addressing the same gathering, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky declared, “Crimea is our land, our territory. … It is our sea and our mountains. Give us your weapons—we will return what is ours.”

Responding to the escalation being carried out by the NATO powers, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, penned a brief statement on Telegram:

Tomorrow, at NATO’s Ramstein base, the great military leaders will discuss new tactics and strategies, as well as the supply of new heavy weapons and strike systems to Ukraine. And this was right after the forum in Davos, where it was repeated like a mantra: “To achieve peace, Russia must lose.”

And it never occurs to any of them to draw the following elementary conclusion from this: The loss of a nuclear power in a conventional war can provoke the outbreak of a nuclear war. Nuclear powers do not lose major conflicts on which their fate depends.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov endorsed Medvedev’s remarks, telling reporters, “Potentially, this is extremely dangerous. It will mean bringing the conflict to a whole new level which, of course, will not bode well from the point of view of global and pan-European security.”

Russia possesses nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads. Despite efforts by the United States to develop its missile defense forces, it is widely believed that a full-scale nuclear war would kill more than half of the populations of both countries.

The rapid escalation of the war has been accompanied by a staggering mood of recklessness within the US political establishment.

In an editorial published Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal demanded strikes inside of Russian territory, declaring, “Why should a dictator who rolled over a foreign border be free to claim his territory as sacrosanct?”

It concluded, “The rejoinder is that Mr. Putin might unleash a nuclear weapon, but the past months have shown that he will make that decision based on his own calculations in any case.”

Millions march in France against Macron’s pension cuts

Alex Lantier & Anthony Torres


Two million people struck or marched in protests yesterday called by union federations against President Emmanuel Macron’s pension cuts. Polls show around 80 percent of the population oppose the cuts, which would increase the minimum retirement age to 64 with a minimum pay-in period of 43 years. Strikes calls were widely followed by rail and mass transit workers, school staff, and electricity and refinery workers, and 200 protest marches were held in cities across France.

Trade unions reported that 400,000 people marched in Paris, 140,000 in Marseille, 38,000 in Lyon, 60,000 in Bordeaux, 50,000 in Toulouse and Lille, and 55,000 in Nantes, 35,000 in Strasbourg. Moreover, many smaller cities saw large turnouts that surprised police authorities. There were 25,000 in Orléans, 21,000 in Le Mans, 20,000 in Nice, 19,000 in Clermont-Ferrand, 15,000 in Tours, 13,000 in Pau, 10,000 in Chartres, 9,000 in Angoulême and 8,000 in Châteauroux.

Over 140,000 people marched in Marseille against Macron's pension cuts. [Photo: WSWS]

Clashes broke out between police and protesters in Lyon and in Paris, where 3,500 riot police were on duty and, as during “yellow vest” protests against social inequality in 2018-2019, reinforced the police guard on government buildings.

Macron’s cuts are being overwhelmingly rejected. Amid a wave of strikes across Europe and internationally against austerity and inflation, an explosive confrontation is emerging between the working class and the Macron administration. Indeed, French officials went on television last night to boast that they would ram Macron’s cuts through despite overwhelming public opposition.

Public Service Minister Stanislas Guérini told TF1 that Macron would not change the cuts in response to the protest. “There were a lot of people today, we should not minimize that fact,” Guérini said, but he added that the cuts were “the product of social dialog” between the union bureaucracies and the state. “The mobilization does not change our plans,” he concluded.

The “president of the rich” aims to cut €13 billion per year from pensions, as European Union states hand out trillions of euros to banks and corporations in massive bailouts and spends billions to send tanks and other weapons to Ukraine for war with Russia.

Protesters who spoke to the WSWS also cited the recent Oxfam report on inequalities produced by the capitalist system. The report, which revealed that two-thirds of new wealth created since 2020 has gone to the richest 1 percent of society, also noted that France’s top 10 billionaires have increased their wealth by €189 billion since 2020. The fortune of French billionaire Bernard Arnault, currently the world’s wealthiest man, now stands at €213 billion.

One statistic exposes the oligarchic interests Macron serves: the €13 billion he wants to cut from the France’s yearly pension budget is less than the amount of profit Arnault has added to his personal fortune each year since 2020, when his fortune stood at €79 billion.

Priscillia [Photo: WSWS]

Priscillia, a caregiver, told WSWS reporters at the protest in Paris why she rejects Macron’s cuts: “With the difficulty of the work, it’s impossible. We are not office workers, we are not government ministers, we are health care workers. We cannot last until 64, it’s not physically or psychologically possible. I use my body a lot to lift people, even if there is mechanical assistance, we use our physical strength. We already have many colleagues on disability because of that.”

She also stressed her “disgust” at mounting inflation, which is impoverishing workers in France and internationally. “Everything is expensive, and salaries are not going up. We have to watch very carefully what we eat, we have to cut out the small pleasures like restaurants, going out, taking vacations.”

About Macron’s reckless decision to send tanks to Ukraine for war with Russia, she said: “I worry about what can happen between Russia and France, and I also worry about the French people.”

Priscillia spoke of her anger at the gulf between Arnault, raking in tens of billions of euros each year, and workers struggling to get by: “It is disgusting, it is we the poor who will pay for people like that. Today, if both people in a couple are not working, it’s impossible to make ends meet. As a public sector worker, it is extremely hard to find a place to live. We make too much money to obtain social housing, but we are too poor to afford private housing on the market.”

WSWS reporters in Paris also spoke to Ludovic, who said: “I am a professional firefighter, I have a pension system, and now I’m learning they will make me work two years more before I can retire. It’s a physical job, I’m sure I cannot last until the end. … With work at night and by day, working 24 or 48 hour shifts, the physical demands of this job mean that we have seven years shorter life expectancy than the average in France.”

Ludovic [Photo: WSWS]

Ludovic warned that Macron’s pension cuts aim to make workers work until they die. He said, “In the fire station where I currently work, I have never seen a retirement party. The last two colleagues who left, they went straight to the cemetery before they could retire. I had one colleague who died of a massive stroke a week after starting to retire, a second died of cancer. Our profession is known to be dangerous because of all the toxic smoke we breathe on our missions.

“I started work at age 19, I want to have free time when I retire and not just die,” Ludovic said, stressing his anger at the obscene enrichment of the financial oligarchy: “It’s sick that we are being asked to give things up, either in our daily lives or in our pensions, when these people are given unlimited opportunities to soak up wealth.”

Catherine, a social worker, told WSWS reporters in Marseille she wants to fight the systematic assault the ruling establishment is waging on the social rights of the workers. “Everything earlier generations built is under attack,” she said.

Protesters in Marseille hold a sign saying "Macron's rule = Lies, Corruption, Racketeering, and Oppression" [Photo: WSWS]

She added, “They are destroying all our rights: unemployment insurance, welfare payments, public hospitals are being wrecked, now pensions. This has to stop. The government hands out billions to super-rich corporations and asks for nothing in exchange, we have no idea what they do. … I work with people who struggle, eat in soup kitchens, don’t heat their homes, and must pawn what little they still have. They are sad, worried about their future and those of their children. They are worried about getting sick.”

Catherine also emphasized the growing distrust of broad layers of workers towards the corrupt negotiations between the union bureaucracies and the Macron government: “The unions no longer represent the workers, they have compromised themselves. … Yes, the unions are waking up, but one can no longer simply rely on the unions, that is no longer possible. We are attacked on all sides, we have to all revolt together.”

French union confederations including the Stalinist General Confederation of Labor (CGT), the social-democratic French Democratic Labor Confederation (CFDT) and Workers Force (FO) met last night and announced a new protest for January 23. Well aware of explosive social anger in the working class, the union bureaucrats are desperate to posture as opponents of Macron, even though they negotiated the cuts with him.

Workers cannot give any confidence to the CGT, CFDT or FO bureaucracies, however. They isolated the 2019-2020 rail strike against these pension cuts, which let Macron pass the cuts in March 2020. He only withdrew the cuts, as strikes grew across Europe against EU inaction on COVID-19, out of fear of an uncontrollable social explosion. Now, with the complicity of the union bureaucracies, Macron is returning to try to pass the pension cuts again.

Bitter experience shows that the façade of trade union “unity” will collapse with the escalation of the class struggle between the financial oligarchy and the working class, as union bureaucrats try to prop up the capitalist state machine against the workers.

The best allies of workers in France, struggling against global problems like inflation, war, the COVID-19 pandemic and social austerity, are their class brothers and sisters in other countries. Strikes are erupting internationally. A national strike of nurses, together with calls for strikes in transport and education, is underway in Britain, while Portuguese teachers are on a nationwide strike. As nurses and teachers strikes spread in the United States, demands are growing among US rail workers for a strike against a draconian concessions contract imposed by the Biden administration.