23 Jun 2018

Australia: Telstra announces another 9,500 job cuts

Oscar Grenfell 

Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, announced last Wednesday it will eliminate 9,500 jobs nationally over the next four years. It claimed it will hire 1,500 new workers, meaning a net reduction of 8,000 positions.
This is among the largest mass sackings in Australian corporate history. It is part of a deepening offensive against the jobs, wages and conditions of the working class, enforced by state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, and by the corporatised trade unions.
Telstra’s chief executive Andy Penn insisted the cuts would slash “middle management” and streamline the business’s operations. Between two and four layers of management are to be eliminated.
The scale of the sackings, however, indicates that much of the company’s workforce will be affected, including through forced redundancies. Hundreds of jobs are to be destroyed at Telstra’s Sydney headquarters, and sackings are anticipated in capital cities and regional centres across the country.
The company said it is seeking to digitalise many customer service operations, prompting fears that its call centres, which employ hundreds of low-paid workers, may be closed.
The job cuts are part of a broader restructure, dubbed “Telstra 2022,” aimed at slashing the company’s costs by $1 billion over four years, including through a 30 percent reduction in labour costs. One quarter of the company’s existing staff are to be made redundant. The latest cuts follow a restructure two years ago, to reduce costs by $1.5 billion, which included 1,800 sackings.
The extent of the job cuts triggered a nervous response from the parliamentary establishment, which fears that growing opposition to the corporate onslaught on jobs and conditions will result in major social and political struggles.
Liberal-National Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared: “The loss of so many jobs is very, very tough, heartbreaking news for the Australian workers at Telstra.” His government’s support for the layoffs, however, was made clear by urban infrastructure and cities minister, Paul Fletcher, a former telecommunications executive, who said the sackings were “to be expected.”
Labor Party politicians, whose own governments have overseen the destruction of thousands of jobs across manufacturing and industry, cynically shed crocodile tears for the Telstra workers, while tacitly backing the cuts. Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews called for “reskilling” and “retraining” programs, similar to those that were promised in a bid to placate widespread anger over the shutdown of the entire car industry and the accompanying mass sackings.
Telstra announced a bogus “transition program” to “assist” sacked workers, to be funded by a paltry $50 million.
The unions covering Telstra employees have signalled that, as in every previous restructure, they will impose the sackings.
Alex Jansen, the New South Wales state secretary of the Communication Workers Union, denounced Telstra for allegedly failing to inform the unions of the sackings before they were publicly announced. His concern was that the scale of the restructure threatens the unions’ privileged position at the negotiating table, where they bargain away the jobs, wages and conditions of the workers they falsely claim to represent.
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) appealed for the Turnbull government to intervene. As the CPSU well knows, on every occasion when the government has intervened in an industrial dispute, it has been to suppress strikes and industrial action and ensure the orderly imposition of corporate demands. That includes intervention via the pro-business Fair Work Australia industrial tribunal, created with the support of the unions.
CPSU deputy national president Rupert Evans signalled the unions’ basic support for Telstra’s cost-cutting agenda, saying the company had a “responsibility to manage their workforce” and develop a “long-term plan that identifies jobs at risk.” He promoted the fraud that the company could be pressured to provide the “skills and training employees need to shift into new role.”
The unions are seeking to cover up the fact that Telstra’s sackings are part of a broader onslaught, amid growing storm clouds over the Australian economy and demands by major shareholders for sweeping corporate restructures.
An article in Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald noted that Telstra’s job cuts are part of a “wider war on white collar workers.” The National Australia Bank announced 1,000 sackings earlier this year, and job cuts are slated at other major banks.
A day after Telstra’s announcement, another 700 job cuts were unveiled at Toys ’R Us. Financial administrators said they could not find a buyer for the retail chain, so its 44 Australian stores will be shut down.
Within the telecommunications sector, intensifying competition between corporate giants and new digital technologies have undermined existing business models. The value of Telstra’s shares has plummeted by around $38 billion over the past three years.
The company is in intense competition with its chief rival, Optus, to secure market dominance of the 5G mobile network, which is scheduled to be rolled-out in the next several years. Telstra is dramatically reducing the number of mobile phone plans it offers and investing heavily in digital technologies. The latest restructure involves splitting its infrastructure operations from its retail activities, in a bid to boost shareholder value.
For years, Telstra has conducted a continuous offensive against its workforce, aided by the unions, which have suppressed workers’ opposition time and again. New job cuts have been announced almost every year over the past decade.
Prior to the latest sackings, Telstra had destroyed some 6,000 jobs since 2013. In 2001, the company’s workforce numbered more than 48,000. Before Wednesday’s announcement, the figure was around 30,000. If the most recent cuts are imposed, Telstra’s workforce will have been more than halved within 20 years.
The unions collaborated with successive governments in preparing the privatisation of Telstra, previously publicly-owned. In 1991, the federal Labor government corporatised Telstra, then called Telecom, with the full support of the unions. The move was part of a broader onslaught by the Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, which deregulated the economy, oversaw the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and moved to sell off state assets. Telstra was fully privatised in 2005 by the Liberal-National government of John Howard.
The record makes clear that a struggle against Telstra’s latest cuts requires a break with the unions, and a political struggle against Labor and Liberal-National governments that represent the interests of the corporate and financial elite. Such a fight can only go forward on the basis of a socialist perspective including placing essential services and infrastructure such as telecommunications under public ownership and the democratic control of the working class.

22 Jun 2018

IWMF Adelante Reporting Initiative Fellowship for Women Journalists (Fully-funded to Mexico) 2018

Application Deadline: 9th July, 2018 at 11:59 PM EDT

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Mexico City, Mexico

About the Award: Reporting fellows will begin their trip in Mexico City, Mexico, where they will complete comprehensive security training and an orientation from September 21 – 24. Fellows will then depart for nine days of reporting based in Guadalajara, Jalisco where they will have the opportunity to network with other journalists, report independently and collaboratively with their peers, and gain access to a variety of sources and sites related to their reporting.
The IWMF reserves the right to change reporting locations based on the real-time security situation in both locations. The feasibility of day trips outside of Guadalajara will be determined by IWMF security protocols and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Day trips must be within a two hour radius of Guadalajara.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The reporting fellowship is open to individuals and to teams of two (2) journalists. Both journalists must meet the eligibility criteria. Team members should submit individual applications and indicate their plans to work together in their statements of interest.

Have questions about the application process? Want to hear from IWMF Fellows about their experiences on the ground? Before submitting an application, journalists are encouraged to review the application criteria and frequently asked questions. Also check out the sample application (LINKS BELOW).

Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • Affiliated or freelance women journalists with three (3) or more years of professional experience working in news media. Internships do not count toward professional experience.
  • Women journalists of all nationalities are welcome to apply.
  • Non-native English speakers must have excellent written and verbal English skills in order to fully participate in and benefit from the program.
  • Applicant must be able to show proof of interest from an editor or have a proven track record of publication in prominent media outlets.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The IWMF arranges travel and in-country logistics for all Fellows. The IWMF also covers fellowship-related costs within the framework of the reporting trip including travel, visa fees, lodging, meals and fixers/interpreters, unless a selected journalist’s news organization wishes to assume these costs. Fellows living outside the U.S. are responsible for procuring all necessary visas for which they will be reimbursed at the conclusion of the fellowship.

Duration of Programme: September 20 – October 5, 2018.

How to Apply: Apply in the Link below

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IWMF

Wellcome Trust International Masters Fellowships for Low and Middle Income Countries 2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income Countries

To be taken at (country): UK

About Scholarship: This scheme strengthens scientific research capacity in low- and middle-income countries, by providing support for junior researchers to gain research experience and high-quality research training at Masters Degree level.
Research projects should be aimed at understanding and controlling diseases (either human or animal) of relevance to local, national or global health. This can include laboratory based molecular analysis of field or clinical samples, but projects focused solely on studies in vitro or using animal models will not normally be considered under this scheme.

Type: Masters, Fellowship

Eligibility: Interested candidate should apply if they:
  • are a national of a low- or middle-income country
  • hold a clinical or non-clinical undergraduate degree in a subject relevant to public health or tropical medicine.
You must also:
  • be at an early stage in your career with limited research experience (but you must have a demonstrated interest in, or aptitude for, research)
  • have sponsorship from an eligible host organisation in a low- or middle-income country
  • have a research proposal that is within our public health and tropical medicine remit.
Candidate CANNOT apply if they are:
  • intending to be based in the UK, Republic of Ireland or another high-income country(opens in a new tab) (although your taught course can be anywhere in the world)
  • a researcher in India – instead see the Wellcome Trust/Department of Biotechnology India Alliance(opens in a new tab)
  • currently applying for another Wellcome Trust fellowship.
Selection Criteria: 
  • the quality and importance of your research question(s)
  • the feasibility of your approach to solving these problems
  • the suitability of your choice of research environments
  • the suitability of the taught Master’s course you select – it should take place at a recognised centre of excellence and provide you with training that will complement your research project.
Benefits: £120,000 including salary, studentship stipend, fees and research expenses.

Duration: This fellowship normally provides up to 30 months’ support. A period of 12 months should normally be dedicated to undertaking a taught Masters course at a recognized centre of excellence, combined with up to 18 months to undertake a research project.

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola,  Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. , Congo, Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Federation Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey , Uganda, Ukraine,  Rep. Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Other Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,  Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Fiji, The Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep. Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz, Republic Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mayotte, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea,  Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Serbia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. ,Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Syrian, Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB Vietnam,  West Bank and Gaza Yemen,

How to Apply: Visit link below

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture

Brian Wakamo

Summer: the season of barbecues, baseball games, and backyard fun. It’s also the time of year when the American farming industry comes into full swing producing the crops we hold near and dear.
The pastoral ideal of golden fields of corn and wheat is what comes to mind for most people, and they’d be on the right track. Corn, soybeans, and wheat are the three biggest crops grown in this country, and — along with cows, pigs, and chicken — make up the bulk of our farming output.
There’s a reason for this: The federal government heavily subsidizes those products. In fact, the bulk of U.S. farming subsidies go to only 4 percent of farms — overwhelmingly large and corporate operations — that grow these few crops.
For the most part, that corn, soy, and wheat doesn’t even go to feed our populace. More of it goes into the production of ethanol — which is also heavily subsidized — and into the mouths of those cows, pigs, and chickens stuffed into feedlots. Those grains purchased by the feedlots are also federally subsidized, allowing producers to buy grains at below market prices.
When we do eat these foods, they’re sold back to us in unhealthy forms, pumped full of high fructose corn syrup and growth hormones. Large corporate farms and feedlots also poison waterways, drain aquifers, and pollute the air.
Meanwhile, small farmers continue to go broke, thanks to the low cost of foods subsidized by the government for corporate buyers. Even the few companies that provide seeds and equipment for farmers receive their own tax breaks from state governments, while farmers are stuck with the bill of goods sold to them from companies like John Deere and Monsanto.
Does this help feed America? Not really: We still buy most of our food from far-flung places. So why is our government subsidizing this production model?
Plain and simple: Corporations buy these subsidies for pennies on the dollar.
In 2011, the agribusiness industry spent around $100 million to lobby and campaign for federal support. They got billions in subsidies in return, making them the biggest recipients of corporate welfare.
This is disgraceful. Why should our government support big businesses that poison us and our environment?
Congress is now considering a new Farm Bill. The recently shot-down first draft cut funding for rural development and conservation programs, while opening up loopholes for corporate farms to access more subsidies. That should open the field for newer, better ideas.
All politicians champion small businesses, especially those in the heartland where most agricultural production takes places. If they’re going to subsidize agriculture, why not give more support to family farms, which often farm more sustainably and grow much healthier foods?
Instead of supporting factory farms and mono-crops, we could provide incentives for crop rotations, reduced usage of pesticides and herbicides, pasture-raised meat, and organic practices. Studies show that practices like organic farming produce only marginally less than conventional farms.
These practices are a part and parcel of a growing segment of the agricultural industry bolstered by health and environmentally conscious consumers. Farmers who sell their products at farmers markets and through community supported agriculture groups should be heralded and paid for their support of the community.
This could also lower the costs of healthier foods, which often are priced prohibitively for the people who need them most. Expanding the market for food farmed sustainably and ethically grown would benefit all consumers — and address the health crisis brought on by the mass consumption of unhealthy foods.
Why should we subsidize things that harm us all when we can help out the farmers who support a better life and environment for us all?

Indifference to a Hellish World

Tamara Pearson

Obligatory apathy: We live in a society that despises any sign of caring about just how bad things are for most people. The planet is corroding and smoldering, and time and resources are going into nuclear weapons and sending humanity into its own carefully prepared hell. The unequal global economy is efficiently stimulating the starvation and hunger of 815 million people, and the Internet is a plutocracy where money buys the biggest microphones. The thriving communities of Syria and Yemen are being turned to moonscape, while corporate corruption and consumerism are being cultivated instead of culture. We continue to build a hierarchy of human worth that relegates certain classes, ages, genders, sexualities, and races to shit status, and while millions of refugees are being put On Hold for ever in camps. But society is collectively rejecting even the mention of politics and having an opinion.
People are making the choice to ignore hell, and that is a choice to do nothing. The business-as-usual mentality of society as a whole is one where we believe that accommodating ourselves to the rife injustice is a way to look after ourselves. But in-fact, adjusting to abuse (against yourself or others) is unhealthy for both society and individuals. A healthy culture isn’t one that basks in ignorance and selfishness, that glorifies those who avoid taking a stand (calling such cowardliness “neutrality”), and fosters the gaping black-hole of absence of life as though lack of feeling were a metric of high social standards. Rather, a healthy culture names, remembers, and calls out injustice, and celebrates informed participation in social decision making.
Contributing factors to a collective ignoring of hell
In my city of Puebla, Mexico last year, there was a major earthquake that saw hundreds killed and thousands left homeless. For months, people here collected food and building material donations and traveled to remote areas, helping to rebuild. Financial donations came in from around the world. Why isn’t there the same sense of urgency and commitment to combating poverty?
1) Those who have power are taking the lead in doing nothing
It’s easy to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to a sports stadium and wherever personal gain is involved, but we struggle to unite to make the necessary changes to the world so that it can provide the basics to everyone. World “leaders” have met repeatedly to discuss climate goals, but failed to do anything. A big part of that is that the people who have economic and political power are governing for themselves and their fellow elites, rather than for humanity, and refuse to take any sort of a lead in anything.
2) The world is someone else’s responsibility
And while the leaders are inactive, so are the rest of us. The daunting abyss between what is wrong with the world and what we think we are able to do about it, is a result of the economic and political elites not  allowing even measly scraps of power to trickle down to the rest. Encumbered with resignation, defeat, and impotency, we put up with things when we believe that something better isn’t possible and that we are powerless.
At the same time, the prevailing mentality is that the world is there to be used (take its energy, wood, minerals and metals) but that we don’t owe it or anyone anything. The culture of “it’s not my business” and “each to his/her own” negates the idea that the world is in fact our business and we should have a reciprocal relationship with both the planet and with the people who help provide us with a home and a life. Instead, there’s a sense of entitlement, especially in “first world” (ie wealthy) countries.
3) Suffering has been normalized
Inequality, poverty, abuse of the planet’s resources and more have become “natural” phenomenon. Unlike an earthquake which surprises unlucky victims and is framed as a tragedy by the media, the poverty of billions of people is not a tragedy – instead, it is seen as something that is basically deserved and normal. Ironically, it is earthquakes that are natural and there is little we can do about them, whereas inequality is not natural. It is a conscious policy.
4) Racism and classism mean we don’t care about most people
The media and the world get hooked on events like the Spanish terror attacks in which 13 people died, but are utterly bored by the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, with 2 million refugees. That is an indication of a profound and unacknowledged racism, and one that enables such atrocities to occur in the first place. Likewise, a person’s poverty level is an easy yardstick of how much degradation and violence against them we tolerate.
5) The bystander effect: indifference is self-perpetuating
Most people don’t feel looked after by their community, their schools, their government, and even healthcare providers, so why should they care back? People see that everyone else is littering, so they litter as well – what’s the point in being the only one who doesn’t? Likewise, people see that no one does anything about the latest injustice, and so they don’t either. This is often referred to as the bystander phenomenon. After an injustice, sociology professor Wesley Perkins explains, “people think everybody is mean and cruel-hearted” but much of it occurs because people assume that if no one does anything, then there mustn’t be a problem.
“Most of us do the right thing only when others are doing the right thing. Real heroes are the ones who break out of the group norm. The predominant cultural impulse is for people to transfer responsibility,” argued Paul Ragat Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen. Basically, if no one acts, then no one acts – and the more people actively doing nothing, the stronger the compulsion is to join in with them. The hopeful element to this cause of apathy is that a small act or a voice of dissent can ruin the effect.
6) The numbers can be overwhelming
“Psychic numbing” and “compassion fade” often occur when tragedies involve large numbers of people, according to psychologist Paul Slovic. We feel more emotionally compelled to help individuals with stories, he says, as they are expressed at a “scale we can understand and connect to,” but our response to major crises is inhibited. Two key factors contribute to this: a loss of sensitivity the more people are involved, and a false sense of efficacy. That is, we’re able to see the impact we have when we help an individual, but when we contribute in a small way in tackling the roots of poverty, which affects millions, we’re more conscious of how much we’re *not* helping.
7) There’s a lack of critical thought and knowledge
A healthy society isn’t one that tolerates people expressing an opinion, it’s one that encourages and thrives on that by teaching critical thought and consistently giving children through to adults all the tools and information necessary to be able to navigate current events and participate in a full way in society. Instead, most of us leave high school having memorized the periodic  table, but with no clue about the origins of injustices nor what we can do about them. This intentional political illiteracy is marginalizing and undemocratic, relegating most of us to watching, unamused, as the world falls apart, and unable to wrap our heads around it all.
8) We’re taught to be fatalistic
Encouraged by ignorance, religion (usually), and political leaders who don’t lead or act, a prevailing cultural belief that whatever happens is inevitable and the future is out of our hands eliminates any sense of responsibility or need to analyze.
The dangers and consequences of willfully ignoring hell
Political illiteracy, ignorance, lacking a sense of belonging to the world, and the severe absence of solidarity are dangerous both to those directly affected by tragedies, violence, climate change, famine, and abuse, as well as to those who aren’t. Here are some of the key consequences of collective apathy:
1) Doing nothing
The biggest, most obvious consequence is that nothing is being done about problems that are easily resolved. The world’s 2,043 billionaires have a combined wealth of US$5.4 trillion– enough to end extreme poverty seven times over. The money and resources are there to end hunger, cure or prevent many illnesses, set up solar and other renewable energies to replace most contaminating energy forms, build housing, and more.
2) The powerful can do what they like
Political apathy facilitates the corruption that lead to it in the first place, allowing those with economic and political power to get away with atrocities and lazy incompetence.
3) Setting a low bar
The more apathetic and passive society is, the lower the bar for what is tolerable is set. At the moment, we tolerate our supposed representatives lying to us, we tolerate a press controlled by commercial interests, we tolerate resources going into the creation of a serious nuclear threat while universal healthcare is apparently too hard, and so on. We’re tolerating extreme maltreatment of refugees in Australia and bombing in the Middle East: it’s hard to imagine the bar getting much lower. What goes unchallenged becomes the norm, and what society considers “normal” is in turn a reflection of the health of that society (rather than the mental healthy of individuals being at all related to their level of deviation from the norm). A society that grumbles “stop being so negative” when an individual dares to note injustice, has low standards for what its people should be entitled to.
4) Apathy and inaction actually makes you feel worse
Many people tell themselves that they ignore what is going on in the world in order to protect themselves from it. Yet the suffering is so tangible, even avoiding the headlines, we can’t avoid the homelessness, racism, sexism, or economic  hardship. So when we do nothing about the in-your-face problems, instead of feeling stress and concern about these things, we choose an attitude that is detached and unresponsive – which leads instead to feelings of alienation, bitterness, de-motivation and narcissism. Many people say that following the news is “too much.” But while taking a break is understandable, desensitizing as a permanent, all-the-time strategy doesn’t work. Losing our own humanity and our sense of place in the world is harmful to ourselves as much as to others. As author Margaret Heffernan put it, “We make ourselves powerless when we pretend we don’t know. That’s the paradox of blindness: We think it will make us safe even as it puts us in danger.”
5) The absence of global and local community
Ignoring the world means not being part of humanity and the global community. The pervasiveness of indifference means that we have to live in an uncaring, hostile world where being sick is stressful because we aren’t confident we’ll be looked after, bus drivers can’t be bothered to stop for passengers, people don’t give up their seat for those who need one more, and society can feel like an angry, aggressive, unsupportive experience. Indifference in others discourages motivation and goal pursuit in those facing that indifference.
6) Dehumanization isn’t just a cause, but also a consequence of apathy
When people ignore injustice they make an active choice to turn off empathy, with the consequence of activating disgust – there is no non-emotion, no neutral ground when it comes to being unempathetic. Decommissioning one’s moral sentiments in of itself is dehumanizing.
7) A mentally weak society
We know that it isn’t beneficial to an individual’s mental health for them to ignore a problem in the long term, and the same applies to society’s mental health. Collectively, humanity is not very mentally strong – we lack determination, solidarity, empathy, and we’re submissive. While, on the other hand, I’m continuously moved by the strength and minds of individuals who manage to be incredible despite everything, as a collective force, humanity needs to value selfless behavior more. Further, “avoiding mental discomfort at any cost can be a self-defeating strategy,” according to Joanna Cheek, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry.
8) A meaningless life
A culture of indifference makes for boring conversations, a life lacking in meaning, and a suffocating lack of agency. It’s a stark contrast to my many years in politically-vibrant Venezuela, where there was always something to debate with one’s neighbor, the bus driver, and the arepa seller. Your mind had so many things to turn over, there was never a dull moment, and there were more projects to do and things to attempt than you could handle. Learning and growth – individually and collectively, was constant. Apathy, on the other hand, is a numbness that can go unnoticed until you lose it, as well as being an attitude – a way of life, that is uncreative and tedious.
9) Going through life without hope
We need hope to keep us moving and active. A culture that ignores the suffering of others fosters a feeling that change is impossible, and we go through life embodying that sense of hopelessness.
Doing something about globalized inaction
What if ignoring the world’s problems was the most morally fucked thing a person could do? Would you take two weeks to get politically literate? What does it take to empower people to be part of the solution, rather than through their passivity, being part of the problem?
A starting point is to stop insisting that politics be kept out of everything. Injustices and politics weaves its way into our every thread of being – it’s in the soccer game (look at the advertising, look at the gender roles, look at the distribution of money and resources and who makes those decisions), it’s in the shops (who made the clothing and under what conditions, who allocated the land to be used for consumerism rather than health or education). The politics is there, and ignoring it or telling those who don’t to shut up doesn’t make it go away, it just turns you into a willful accomplice of the crimes.
Speaking out lets others know that they can speak out too – it triggers action. Supporting alternative journalism is a way of supporting more organized attempts to break the silence. And reading or listening to reliable, non-corporate, non-US-centric world news on a regular basis is a basic responsibility that all members of the global community have. Talking to others about what you hear then counters the apathy.  Standing up to racism, sexist jokes, and other forms of ritualized abuse within our daily interactions is also important and de-normalizes such a culture of disrespect.
Get involved in action, movements, and rallies and do what you can in your context. Put politics (ie fighting injustice) on the agenda in your community or home or workplace. Caring about the world needs to be a natural, integral part of living. This shit is urgent. There’s an earthquake happening right now, all the time – treat it with that urgency and value others who are already doing so.
If politics – struggle, action, and having an opinion – seems pointless, it’s only because we’re allowing it to be.

The Afghan War is Killing More People Than Ever

Edward Hunt

Seventeen years into the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history, violence has never been worse. In 2017, more than 20,000 Afghans died, a new record.
The dead include an estimated 10,000 Afghan security forces, 10,000 Taliban forces, and 3,438 civilians. Although there is no reliable data on Afghan casualties available to the public, reports published by the Costs of War Project at Brown University indicate that the annual death toll for the Afghan population has never been higher than it was in 2017.
For civilians, the last four years of the war have been the deadliest, with more than 3,400 civilians killed each year from 2014-2017, according to data from the United Nations and the Costs of War Project.
“We are concerned that we will see greater harm this year unless necessary steps are taken by all parties to prevent civilian casualties,” said Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN Secretary General’s special representative for Afghanistan.
The record violence comes as the Trump administration has intensified the war against the Taliban. Although President Trump repeatedly indicated before he was president that he opposed the war and wanted to end it, he has instructed U.S. military forces to take more aggressive action.
“In Afghanistan, I’ve lifted restrictions and expanded authorities for commanders in the field,” Trump acknowledged last year. The new approach, according to Brigadier General Lance Bunch, means that “the gloves are off.” U.S. military forces are now looking for “any opportunity to target the enemies of Afghanistan wherever we find them in the theater.”
With the new authorities, the U.S.-led coalition has been waging a more aggressive war. In 2017, U.S. forces tripled the number of airstrikes against enemy forces. They also helped Afghan security forces intensify offensive operations against the Taliban.
“In the last year, we’ve seen offensive operations, kind of unprecedented over the last few years, by the Afghan security forces,” U.S. General John Nicholson, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, has commented.
Administration officials acknowledge that they expected the Taliban to respond to the increase in military pressure with more violence. “And so we anticipated this,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis has said. In March, State Department official Alice Wells remarked that “it will not come as a surprise if we see more terrorist tactics addressed at urban audiences.”
The increase in violence has been devastating for the Afghan people. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, which tracks civilian casualties, more than 3,400 Afghan civilians have died and more than 6,800 Afghan civilians have been injured in each of the past four years of the war.
Afghan officials quietly acknowledge that about 10,000 Afghan security forces died last year, a significant increase from previous years. Fearing that the publication of the numbers could undermine morale and hinder ongoing recruitment efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has begun censoring the records.
Although U.S. and Afghan officials estimate that about 10,000 Taliban forces were killed in 2017, Gen. Nicholson has said that “enemy casualty rates have been much higher.” Either way, last year’s combined death toll for Afghan combatants is about 20,000 people.
Despite the record death toll, the Trump administration remains committed to its strategy. “Progress and violence coexist in Afghanistan,” Secretary Mattis recently commented.
The U.S. military’s primary objective is to bring at least 80 percent of the Afghan population under the control of the Afghan government. According to a classified study, the Afghan government might prevail in the war if it achieves this goal. “The focus of our military operations is on increasing and expanding population control by the government of Afghanistan,” General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told Congress earlier this year.
The Trump administration’s approach is failing. Not only are record numbers of Afghans dying, but the Afghan government has been losing control of the population. In its latest report to Congress, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction confirmed that the Afghan government’s control has dropped from 69 percent in August 2016 to 65 percent in January 2018.
Last year, the U.S. intelligence community largely predicted the failures. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “the political and security situation in Afghanistan will almost certainly deteriorate through 2018 even with a modest increase in military assistance by the United States and its partners.”
Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said that the war has reached a new low. “After 17 years in Afghanistan the situation is worse than it’s ever been,” Hagel commented earlier this year.
Perhaps the best hope for Afghanistan now lies with a growing Afghan peace movement, which has been calling for an immediate ceasefire and talks to end the war. Not only has it succeeded in getting Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to announce a temporary ceasefire, but the Taliban announced its own ceasefire, leading to a few days of peace and celebrations throughout the country.
“I think President Ghani is responding to and indeed reflecting the desire of a wide cross-section of Afghans… in desiring to see a reduction in violence and a way forward to an end to the conflict,” a senior State Department official said.
The Afghan government plans to maintain the ceasefire for the immediate future, despite the recent decision by Taliban officials to resume fighting.

Australian Senate votes for huge tax cuts for wealthy

Mike Head

Backed by nearly all the right-wing populists in the Senate, the Turnbull government yesterday succeeded in pushing through parliament legislation that promises to hand massive income tax cuts to rich households.
While the government claimed to be assisting low-income families, their tiny tax cuts will be dwarfed by those for the wealthiest layers of society. Workers paid less than $37,000 a year will get up to $200 in a tax offset—just enough for a cup of coffee a week—to be paid in a lump sum after July 1, 2019.
By contrast, high-income households, on combined incomes of up to $300,000, will benefit by up to $764 a year from this July 1, rising up to $8,350 a year from 2024–25. In general, the higher the income, the greater the tax cut. Someone on $200,000 a year, for example, will gain a 16 times greater benefit than a nurse on $55,000.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hailed the passage of the three-stage, seven-year package as the “most comprehensive reform of personal income tax in a generation.” An historic shift is certainly involved, in favour of the wealthy elite. The centrepiece of the tax package is a virtual flat tax plan, whereby tax rates will not rise for incomes from $41,000 through to $200,000.
“It is fair, it rewards and encourages enterprise, it encourages and enables aspiration,” Turnbull said. Earlier in the week, Turnbull had told parliament what he meant by “aspiration.” In a display of ruling class contempt for working people, he said the tax package would encourage a low-paid 60-year-old aged care worker to “aspire” to a higher-paid job—an “aspiration” virtually impossible to achieve.
The tax bill passed by 37 votes to 33 in the Senate, where the Liberal-National Coalition government holds just 31 seats. Significantly, the extra votes were provided by an unstable assortment of “crossbenchers.” They had won seats at the 2016 double dissolution election by posing as anti-establishment candidates, exploiting the deepening discontent with the main pro-business parties, the Coalition, Labor and the Greens.
Among them were Senator Pauline Hanson and her sole remaining One Nation colleague, plus the two surviving senators from Centre Alliance, formerly called the Nick Xenophon Team. Fearing an electoral backlash, they each initially voted against the third stage of the tax package, the one most blatantly rewarding the rich. They reversed their votes yesterday, however, when the government refused to split the bill to separate off the third stage.
Buoyed by the vote, and urged on by the corporate media, the government vowed to seek a similar vote next week on its full plan to slash the company tax rate from 30 to 25 percent, which would deliver an $80 billion handout to the big banks and large companies over the next decade.
At present, Hanson and the Centre Alliance are vowing to vote against the company tax bill. They are aware of intense popular opposition to it and worried about an electoral disaster in by-elections scheduled for July 28 and the next general election, which is due within nine months.
Various media commentators have called into question the reality of the promised tax bonanza over the next 10 years, given the global economic turmoil and danger of another financial crash. The looming trade wars, particularly between the US and China, could have devastating consequences for Australian capitalism, which depends heavily on exports to China and investment from the US.
The tax plans are actually both designed to boost corporate profits and investors’ incomes under these conditions. They seek to match the tax cuts being offered by the Trump administration and capitalist governments around the world as they fight each other for investment and markets.
The tax bills, key parts of the government’s May budget, go hand-in-hand with vicious cuts to welfare and other social spending, intended to force jobless or low-paid workers into even lower-paid and less secure employment, and further multi-billion dollar increases in military spending in preparation for war.
Labor and the Greens voted against the government’s tax package, posturing as advocates of “fairness.” Labor leader Bill Shorten, a long-time trade union bureaucrat and former senior Labor government minister, again spoke of “working families doing it tough” and against “big banks and big business.”
This populist stance shows the acute concerns in the Labor and affiliated trade union leadership of the social and political discontent that is threatening to erupt outside the control of the political establishment. Disaffection is growing because of soaring inequality and decades of attacks on working class conditions by Labor and Coalition governments alike.
Even as he claimed to speak for working people, Shorten emphasised Labor’s aim to head off any eruption of working class hostility. He insisted in parliament that it was “not class war” to demand bigger tax cuts for the majority of workers and more funding for school and hospitals.
In reality, Labor’s alternative tax package is a modified version of the government’s. Its purpose is to satisfy the requirements of the corporate elite while trying to channel the disaffection back behind the election of another pro-business Labor government.
Labor has promised to double the tiny income tax offsets for people on low to middle incomes. This still would not pay for transport fares or petrol costs. Labor also supported the government’s increase in the $87,000 tax threshold to $90,000 from July 1, a move that will hand higher-income households up to $764 in 2018-19, and much more over future years.
The fraud of Labor’s posturing was underscored by this week’s election of former Treasurer Wayne Swan as the next Labor Party national president. Swan ran a campaign that insisted Labor had to make “fairness” the centre of its electoral pitch.
After his victory, Swan told Sky News: “There’s a very clear choice—a prosperous, fair Australia, with a fair tax system under Labor, and under the Liberals what you get is the rich are getting richer.”
Swan explained: “To get new members coming through our door, and a new generation campaigning and voting for us, we have to show them we mean business about creating a better, more democratic and more equal society.”
This is from the man who handed down one budget after another under the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments of 2007 to 2013. After propping up the major banks with borrowing guarantees after the 2008 global financial crisis, the Labor governments inflicted the burden on the working class via cuts to welfare, including for sole parents, and to education and healthcare.
The voting figures in the Labor Party poll provided another glimpse of the ongoing collapse in the party’s membership and support, precisely because of its record. Only 19,504 people voted, about 40 percent of the party’s claimed membership, which is dominated by parliamentary careerists, union bureaucrats and staff members.
Far from representing “working families doing it tough,” the Labor Party is a thoroughly corporate entity. It was the Hawke and Keating Labor governments of the 1980s and 1990s, working very closely with the trade unions, that began the restructuring of Australian capitalism to make it “internationally competitive” at the direct expense of the working class.

Peruvian teachers strike in defiance of government ban

Cesar Uco

Peruvian teachers have continued an indefinite strike in defiance of a government decree Wednesday declaring their action illegal and threatening mass firings in retaliation.
The decree was imposed in the 19 out of 24 of the country’s regions where the action has shut down public schools. According to business daily Gestión, 70 percent of public schools remain closed, affecting 3.5 million students.
Prime Minister César Villanueva warned that teachers who fail to heed the strike ban will face administrative measures, including the loss of pay for every day not worked.
Minister of Education Daniel Alfaro was more menacing, telling the daily Expreso that “teachers who do not come to work for three consecutive days will be definitively replaced,” having been deemed to have abandoned their jobs. The government will also freeze the accounts of any regional government that pays strikers for days not worked, he said.
The government has attempted to vilify the teachers movement, with the minister of the interior, Carlos Basombrio, linking it to the former Maoist guerrilla movement Sendero Luminoso, based on the fact that a few of the strike’s leaders belong to Movadef (Movement for Amnesty and Fundamental Rights), a group that has called for the release of imprisoned Sendero members.
Hundreds of teachers have come into Lima from the provinces to participate in daily demonstrations against the government. They are being fed by soup kitchens and sleeping on cardboard on the floor of the union headquarters.
According to Gestión: “The government has practically agreed to all salary demands, although it will be gradual, but refuses to yield on the evaluation of teachers’ performance,” a measure supposedly aimed at removing those found incompetent.
The claim that demands dealing with wages and benefits have been resolved has been rejected by the teachers themselves, who continue to press for both salary increases and an increase in the education budget in daily mass marches.
The conditions facing teachers in a country that lacks proper roads are extremely harsh. A considerable number of teachers have to travel hours on foot every day to get to schools to teach, with a salary of just 1,200 soles (US$ 370) a month.
Thus far, there have been no violent confrontations between the police and teachers. During the last 50-day walkout by teachers last year, however, demonstrations by teachers were brutally attacked by the police on several occasions.
The present strike is based on the government’s failure to fulfill the agreements reached to settle the 2017 teachers strike. The teachers’ union president, Pedro Castillo, has declared that teachers are preparing larger mobilizations in the coming days. He said that one of the main demands was an increase in the education budget to 6 percent of GDP; it currently stands at 3.67 percent.
The teachers’ strike is part of growing wave of workers’ struggles throughout Peru. Railroad workers in Cusco walked out, while in Lima and its neighboring port city of Callao, transit workers launched a strike Wednesday.
It was estimated that half of public transport was paralyzed in Lima at rush hour Wednesday morning. The attitude of the government was to accept the demands of the transport workers, approving 280 new licenses, which extend transport companies’ rights to continue operating until 2019.
In spite of the agreement, Lima municipal officials issued a warning asking the police to intervene if there were incidents involving people trying to take the bus to work.
The highly visible “tourist” train to Machu Picchu was partially paralyzed by the strike of railroad workers. They are demanding wage increases and also an increase in the education budget. They are in the third day of an indefinite strike.
In addition, there are 198 unresolved social conflicts—146 of which are active—that are threatening to erupt once again because of the intransigence of the administration of Peru’s new President Martin Vizcarra in denying their basic demands.
The Peruvian ruling class has been taken aback by the mass movement of workers and peasants all over the country, which is disrupting their attempts to destabilize a crisis-ridden state apparatus. Expressing fear and concern, the daily Expreso led Wednesday’s edition with “Strike season begun in Peru.” It warned that a “new strike wave and protests threaten the country,” and that many more workers could be expected to “join the indefinite teachers’ general strike that started Monday.”
The Peruvian economy has been in decline for the past two years. The economic crisis has been combined with a crisis of governability, with former president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) forced to resign over his involvement in the multibillion-dollar bribery and concessions scandal involving the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht. Recently, it was revealed that the bribes in Peru could amount to a sum much higher than the previously reported US$29 million.
The approval ratings of politicians in the executive and legislative branch are below 20 percent. The right-wing fujimorista Fuerza Popular, which dominates the legislature, is divided between the followers of Keiko Fujimori and her younger brother Kenji. In December, Kenji struck a deal with president PPK to free his jailed father, Alberto Fujimori, who had been sentenced to 25 years in prison for crimes against humanity, in exchange for avoiding impeachment. According to the polling firm Ipsos, as of April 2018, Keiko’s approval rating was a meager 19 percent, her brother Kenji’s, 15 percent. The left bourgeois parties fare no better, with their most visible leader, Veronika Mendoza from Nuevo Peru, reaching an approval rate of only 18 percent. Meanwhile, the governing party has seen its representation in Congress cut almost in half.
Given the discrediting of all the major parties and institutions in Peru, a renewal of the class struggle threatens to destabilize the entire existing capitalist political setup.