Occupation of French theatres highlights devastation of the cultural sector during the pandemic

Samuel Tissot

Since March 4, Paris’s Odéon Theatre has been occupied by protesters demanding increased support for the cultural sector and a reopening of cultural venues. Currently, at least 60 venues across France are being occupied by protesters compromising mostly students and cultural workers. This follows a wave of similar protests in December, including an appeal to the high court that was rejected.

A number of speeches at the 46th Césars, held on March 12, expressed solidarity with protesters. Most prominently, actress Corinne Masiero stripped naked at the film and television award ceremony, revealing demands for increased financial support for cultural workers during the pandemic written across her body.

Theatre Montparnasse in Paris, France (Britchi Mirela/Wikimedia Commons)

The protests take place in the context of an uncontrolled and accelerating spread of the virus in France. The announcement of inadequate lockdown measures in Paris at the end of last week will not halt the rapid spread of the virus driven by deadly new variants. The seven-day average for daily cases has exceeded 30,000 for the first time since mid-November. Total COVID-19 deaths exceed 90,000.

The impact of the pandemic on the French cultural sector has been catastrophic. According to screendaily.com, last year French live performing artists’ revenue dropped 72 percent or €4.2 billion, and the television and film industry experienced a 20 percent drop, equivalent to €4.8 billion. Many independent artists, freelance film workers, and workers at cultural institutions have seen their income reduced to zero over the past 12 months. At the same time, Europe’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, saw his fortune more than double to €135 billion since March 2020.

The government’s only response has been to waive the threshold for the number of hours worked before an artist can qualify for miserly state support. Hagop Demirdjian, a jazz musician, told France24 that the government’s response was “the absolute minimum: [it] stopped artists of dying of hunger.” Despite the pandemic, government plans to implement further cuts to the social support system in July 2021 remain in place.

A €7.5 billion bailout was handed to businesses in the cultural sector in 2020. However, as has been the case with bailouts in all major industries, only a tiny fraction has been received by workers, with the vast majority lining the pockets of owners and executives of large companies.

While many cultural workers’ concern is their living conditions throughout the pandemic, the unions and media are driving a campaign to channel this anger behind deadly calls for a reopening reopening. The CGT Spectacle union demanded a meeting with the minister of culture, Roselyne Bachelot, to determine “the issues of the profession and the conditions that will allow us to return to work.” The occupations began one day after the French Directors Association penned an open letter, titled “President Macron: Reopen cinemas now!” on March 3.

The media has presented the protests as singularly concerned with loosening lockdown measures. France24 ran the headline, “Protesters occupy Paris theatres to protest against COVID-19 shutdowns.” Le Monde wrote, “several hundred people [gathered] from the Place de la Republic to demand the reopening of cultural venues.” Le Figaro stated that protesters came to demand “the reopening of cultural venues.” In fact, the interviews featured in the articles with protesters focus on the financial crisis facing workers.

Demand for reopenings is however in line with the Macron government’s deadly herd immunity policy, which was only extended with the implementation of another pseudo-lockdown that will not stem the spread of the virus. Minister of Culture Bachelot met with protesters in the Odéon theatre on March 6 and pledged to “continue discussions.”

In contrast, “yellow vest” protests and demonstrations against the build-up of police state laws are met with tear gas, rubber bullets, mass arrests and riot police assaults.

While there is undoubtedly confusion and even desperation amongst cultural workers facing poverty and unemployment during the pandemic, legitimate demands for full income and access to cultural life during the pandemic must not be subordinated to deadly calls for a reopening. The latter demand reflects the narrow interests of an upper-middle class layer, including in the cultural and media industry and union officials, whose wealth is tied to profits in the sector.

This interest is laid bare in the Directors Association’s open letter, published in Le Monde. It was signed by more than 800 figures in the film industry, some of them well-known actors and directors.

The letter complains, “Today, and for many long months, the 5,913 screens of France’s 2,046 cinemas have been kept closed in the name of a health precautionary principle.” Indicating the lack of public support for reopening demands, they note, “we would like to clarify something that public opinion does not know…the nightmare that the film industry and its workers are living through.”

The letter cites a German coronavirus study to claim that “cinemas are twice as safe as supermarkets and three times safer than train travel,” and that cinemas should therefore reopen. Yet even if one accepts the findings of the study—which does not control for air circulation in cultural venues, and lumps together cinemas, museums and theatres into one category—the conclusion to be drawn from such data would not be for the reopening of cinemas. It points to the danger posed by full supermarkets and public transport to the spread of the virus.

The Macron government is opposed to the closure of non-essential workplaces and schools, which contribute to packed public transportation, because such measures would impact the profits of major French corporations.

The authors conclude: “Each week of closure adds to the disaster in progress. It is the future of a profession that is mortgaged, as finished films pile up on distributors’ shelves every week.” To the extent that this is tied to a demand for a reopening of cultural centres, this means that the pandemic cannot be allowed to impact the careers, awards, and incomes of a wealthy layer in the film industry, and the profits of massive media conglomerations from large-scale theatrical releases.

This has nothing to do with the physical or cultural welfare of the 340,000 film-industry workers or 250,000 uncontracted performers and artists in the country. Moreover, the reopening of cultural venues would lead to an increase in COVID-19 deaths, and to a further delay in the period until the virus is controlled so cultural venues can be safely opened. The poorest members of society would make up the majority of the victims.

The demand for the reopening of cinemas is also absurd from any economic perspective other than the short-term profit motives of the large production and distribution companies. It would not be sufficient to save independent cinemas, theatres, or museums from ruin, and would not lead to a significant increase in the income of small and independent artists. In June, when the pandemic was at its lowest point, many cultural venues performed to less than half-capacity, operating at a loss throughout the period. Now that the virus is much more widespread, attendance would be even lower.

Opposition to the irresponsible reopening campaign does not imply any indifference to the decimation of the arts and cultural sector, resulting from decades of funding cuts and exacerbated by the pandemic. Access to art and culture is a basic social right of the working class in France and internationally. It cannot be subordinated to the profit interests of giant media and distribution conglomerations and their shareholders.

A socially progressive response to the crisis in the arts would include the demand for massive investment in the cultural sector, for the free distribution of films and other online cultural exhibitions that can be displayed under conditions of social isolation, and massive support for artists, so that they can continue to produce when the pandemic has been stopped.

This must be implemented as part of a lockdown policy, involving the provision of a living wage to everyone, the closure of schools and non-essential workplaces, so that the population can shelter at home until the vaccines can be distributed. The resources exist for such policies, but they are monopolised by a corporate and financial oligarchy.

The defence of art and culture is indissolubly connected to the development of a new revolutionary movement in the working class internationally in defence of all social rights, for social equality and socialism. Serious artists should consciously oppose the campaign for a reopening and orient themselves toward this progressive international social force.

Long COVID symptoms impact significant numbers half a year after the acute phase

Benjamin Mateus

Many people are marking the first anniversary of their COVID-19 infection. What is remarkable is that chronic issues termed post-viral syndrome or Long COVID continue to plague many of them.

They complain of days of devastating fatigue brought on by mental exertion or physical activity. They resort to making frequent notes to compensate for short-term memory loss. Sudden onsets of shortness of breath and racing heartbeat provoke anxiety and depression. It remains a mystery why this condition afflicts some and not others.

Mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms are typical for millions of people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, usually middle-aged and without the medical comorbidities that define those most at risk for severe disease.

However, approximately one-third will develop symptoms that typify what has been come to be known as Long COVID. Also called long haulers, most of them never even required hospitalization, but after clearing their infection, began to complain of symptoms like chronic fatigue or “brain fog,” leading to cognitive and memory issues and difficulties with concentration. Their persistent loss of smell vexes many.

A rendering of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)

Children, in this regard, aren’t spared. Almost 3.2 million children in the US have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Pediatricians have been noting that some are developing problems that have persisted for weeks or months after their infection. Though large-scale data on this issue is sorely lacking, data emerging out of the UK shows that around 13 percent of children under 11 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing had at least one symptom five weeks after infection. Fatigue, poor sleep, and breathing difficulties were some of the disorders mentioned. For adolescents, that figure was similar, at 15 percent.

There is no federal registry in the US that is presently tracking these cases. A National Institutes of Health initiative was announced in late February that promised to study the cause of Long COVID. The UK’s Office for National Statistics estimated that by mid-December there were at least 186,000 people in England that had persistent COVID-19 symptoms five to 12 weeks or longer after the acute phase of the infection.

“If even a small proportion of the vast numbers of people infected with COVID-19 develop Long COVID syndrome, it represents a significant public health concern,” said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute s of Health (NIH) in January.

Though the number of deaths globally is approaching 3 million, the number of confirmed infected individuals is almost 125 million. It is very possible that this virus has already infected about ten percent of the globe’s population. A report published in Royal Society Open Science from November 2020 remarks, “Despite an overall improvement in detection rates as the pandemic has progressed, our estimates showed that as of August 31, 2020, the true number of people to have been infected across our sample of 15 countries was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.3–10.9) times greater than the reported number of cases.”

A recent collaborative international study conducted between the UK and US cited by the NIH attempted to characterize Long COVID in an international cohort and its impact on daily life.

There were 3,762 participants across 56 countries. Eighty percent were women, and the dominant age group was those in their 40s, accounting for a third of the responders. Less than 10 percent reported being hospitalized, and just over a quarter had received a laboratory confirmation of their infection. Yet, 96 percent reported having persistent symptoms three months after catching the coronavirus.

The most frequent symptoms respondents reported after six months were fatigue (77.7 percent), post-exertional malaise or ill-feeling after routine activity (72 percent), and cognitive dysfunction (55.4 percent). They wrote, “Respondents with symptoms over six months experienced an average of 13.8 symptoms in month 7. 85.9 percent experienced relapses, with exercise, physical or mental activity, and stress as the main triggers.” Many patients, even seven months after their infection, continued to “experience significant symptom burden.” Nearly half couldn’t return to full-time work.

In a recently published report in JAMA Network, titled “Sequelae in Adults 6 months After COVID-19 Infection,” a total of 234 participants were contacted by researchers from the University of Washington, Seattle to complete a questionnaire between three and nine months after their illness. A total of 177 participants completed the survey.

The average age among these subjects was 48 years. Only 13 percent had high blood pressure, five percent had been diagnosed with diabetes, and around 4.5 percent were smokers. The study found that with rising age, there was a greater persistence of these chronic symptoms.

Six percent had been asymptomatic with COVID-19, while 85 percent had suffered just mild disease and were never hospitalized. Nine percent had been admitted for treatment for moderate to severe illness.

The most common persistent symptom reported was a deep sense of being tired, in approximately 14 percent. In a similar number, a loss of taste or smell was described. Overall, 13 percent reported other symptoms, of which the most insidious, brain fog, occurred in 2.3 percent of these subjects.

Dr. Ravindra Ganesh, an internist from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said, “The brain fog’s particularly debilitating to folks who do a lot of intellectual work and often work from home via computer. They can’t focus on the computer that long, and the bright lights bother them and give them headaches. They’re just not as productive as they used to be, and it’s very frustrating for them.”

Dr. Thomas Gut, director of ambulatory care services at Staten Island University Hospital in New York City, explained to WebMD that though the Seattle-based study had a small data set of patients, there was an uncanny similarity in pattern with other researchers’ findings in England, Canada, and China.

In still another study, published in The Lancet on January 16, 2021, the authors reported on 1,733 patients discharged from Jin Yin-Tan hospital in Wuhan, China, between January 7 and May 29, 2020. All patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire, examined, and blood tests were performed.

The follow-up time of this large group was in the range of six months. They were divided into three groups based on their hospital treatment—group one did not require supplemental oxygen, group two did, and group three needed ventilation support. Their median age was 57, almost ten years older than the Seattle cohort.

Fatigue and muscle weakness were still present in 63 percent. The next most common symptom was sleep difficulties, afflicting 26 percent. Twenty-three percent reported anxiety or depression. Those with the most severe disease requiring ventilation support had more mobility problems, pain, and anxiety.

Approximately one in four in all three groups had a reduced walking capacity. However, as baseline data for these patients were not available, direct attribution to their COVID infection remains to be resolved.

A small subset of these patients had lung function tests performed. Astonishingly, six months from being discharged, 22 percent in group one, 29 percent in group two, and 56 percent in group three had impairments of their pulmonary functioning. In another subset of patients at the six-month follow-up, 487 of 1,393 patients, or 35 percent, were found to have suffered some level of chronic kidney injury.

A study released on medRxiv in preprint form in October 2020 on 201 patients, found that heart, lung, and gastrointestinal issues were prevalent among COVID survivors who had been at low risk for severe COVID. They noted mild impairment in heart (32 percent), lungs (33 percent), kidneys (12 percent), and liver (10 percent), including pancreas and spleen. Multiorgan impairment was observed in 25 percent, while 66 percent had some form of derangement of a single organ.

Researchers have referenced older studies from long-term SARS infections in attempting to understand the potential chronic complications associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections. In a Canadian study, researchers found that 33 percent of SARS survivors noted a significant decline in their mental health one year after the acute phase of their infection. A study out of Hong Kong published in 2009, a four-year follow-up, found that 40 percent of the SARS survivors continued to report chronic fatigue problems. These findings have significant implications for those suffering from chronic debilitating symptoms.

A February report published in The Lancet, though encouraged by announcements that public health institutions were acknowledging the disease as a significant public health issue, cautioned that “guidelines must represent the complexity of Long COVID, including the areas where evidence is still emerging. Hasty attempts to rename the condition or compare it to other conditions is a disservice to thousands of people and could result in missed pathology to the detriment of the patient. Comprehensive Long COVID guidelines are essential to prevent an epidemic of long-term, chronic disease as a result of early mismanagement of pathology, and the potential implications of such an epidemic for health systems and economies.”

Pandemic exacerbates social inequality in Germany

Elisabeth Zimmermann

More and more people in Germany are permanently affected by poverty—a development that is being further accelerated and exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. This is shown by the recently published Data Report 2021, which was presented on March 10.

People walk in a shopping mall in Cologne Germany, Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2020 during a spike in new cases of the coronavirus. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

The “Social Report for the Federal Republic of Germany” is produced every two years by the Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB), the Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), the SOEP (Socio-Economic Panel) and the Federal Statistical Office and published by the Federal Agency for Civic Education (BPB). It contains a great deal of information on the social and economic situation.

In 2018, the year covered by the report, the poverty threshold was €1,040 per month net income for a one-person household and €1,352 for a one-parent household with a child under 14. Almost one in six inhabitants in Germany lived below the poverty line in 2018.

Of the poor in 2018, 88 percent had already been affected by poverty at least once in the four preceding years, with half (44 percent) living consistently in poverty. This means that the proportion of people permanently living in poverty has more than doubled since 1998. At that time, they constituted 20 percent.

The main impetus for the increase in poverty was provided by the Hartz IV labour and welfare “reforms” and other measures of the Social Democratic Party–Green Party government of Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer, which led to a massive increase in the low-wage sector in Germany.

In the meantime, poverty has continued to rise. The latest poverty report by the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband (Parity Welfare Association), from November last year, reports an increase in poverty from 15.5 percent in 2018 to 15.9 percent in 2019, or 13.2 million people. The risk of poverty is particularly high for single parents (41 percent), people with a Certificate of Secondary Education but no vocational qualification (35 percent) and people with an immigration background (29 percent).

The great social divide is also reflected in perceptions and attitudes. For example, only just under half of the population consider their own gross income to be fair. Low incomes in particular are seen as unfair.

The last chapter of the Data Report 2021 looks at the initial effects of the pandemic on the social situation in the period from the end of March to the beginning of July 2020. Seventeen percent of semi-skilled and unskilled workers and just under 14 percent of ordinary white-collar employees report financial difficulties. Among low-income earners, one in five was affected by financial problems. Among skilled workers, master craftsmen and qualified white-collar workers, the proportion was lower at 9 percent. Again, single parents were most affected by financial difficulties (25 percent), the self-employed (20 percent) and people with an immigration background (15 percent).

One-fifth of all working people living in Germany receive a low income. Speaking about their hardship under the conditions of the pandemic, WZB expert Philip Wotschak said at the presentation of the report: “They had run into payment difficulties, had to take out loans, had run into serious money problems, may have had to fall back on savings, apply for social benefits or drastically reduce their standard of living.”

The Economic and Social Science Institute (WSI) of the trade union–owned Hans Böckler Foundation had already investigated the loss of income of these people during the last months, in December last year. The WSWS reported on this.

The 2021 Data Report also shows that few workers had the opportunity to protect themselves from coronavirus infection by working from home. In the first lockdown from March to April 2020, the proportion of those who were able to work entirely from home was 26.3 percent. These were mainly white-collar workers in offices and administration with relatively good training and pay. After the relaxations in May, the share dropped to 11.5 and in the summer to 6 percent. However, more than one in five continued to work from home temporarily.

During the first lockdown, considered the harshest yet, 60 percent of employees had to continue working on-site without adequate protection from the life-threatening virus. Factories were only closed for short periods when there were supply problems due to interrupted supply chains. In such cases, workers were put on short-time work or given short-term leave. Workers in temporary employment often lost their jobs altogether and received no support. This mainly affected the retail, catering, hotel, cultural and event sectors, as well as solo self-employed workers.

Short-time working affected almost 7 million workers in April 2020, far more than during the 2008/2009 financial crisis, with corresponding income losses. Workers without children receive 60 and workers with children receive 67 percent of net wages. Only from the seventh month onwards is the short-time working allowance increased to 80 and 87 percent, respectively.

Unemployment has also increased in the first months of the pandemic, with more than half a million people becoming unemployed since it began.

Schools and day-care centres are among the most important spreaders of the pandemic. Although children are less likely to show symptoms, they spread the virus like adults, carry it into the family and infect teachers and educators. Despite this, schools and day-care centres were not closed or were only closed for a short period, so that parents could continue to work to generate profits for big business. Government and the media often cited “child welfare,” the educational and psychological damage caused by long school closures, as justification.

The Data Report 2021 shows that this is pure hypocrisy. Households with a monthly net income of €5,000 to €18,000 have, on average, four personal computers, compared to households with an income of less than €2,000, with an average of two devices. In poor households, there are often no devices at all with which children can participate in digital education. Also, conditions are often cramped, making learning and concentration difficult or impossible.

For single parents, it is also extremely difficult to adequately care for and support their children in home schooling when they must go to work themselves. Help and support from grandparents was also not possible, as they are one of the most vulnerable groups. Even for parents able to work from home, it is a permanent balancing act to reconcile one’s own work and providing support and care for children under stressful conditions.

Although all these problems were known, the federal government provided almost no support for working-class and poor families. There was no aid for technical equipment, masks, and hygiene items, nor paid time-off for child-care. Instead, hundreds of billions of euros were thrown down the throats of banks, corporations, and the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces).

The number of people who have died from COVID-19 in Germany has now risen to 75,000. There is still no comprehensive data on the number of people, including children, suffering from the long-term effects (long COVID). The lives, health, wages and jobs of the working class are most affected, with poorer people disproportionately so. The figures from the 2021 Data Report only shed light on the first few months of the pandemic, and the trend has worsened since then.

Corporations and the wealthy at the top of society, on the other hand, have benefited from the pandemic. Share prices have reached new historic highs. The net wealth of the ultra-rich in Germany increased by almost €80 billion to €486 billion between March and July 2020 alone. Amid death and suffering, a new layer of “pandemic profiteers” has grown. Between January and June, the number of US-dollar millionaires increased by 58,000, and the number of billionaires rose from 114 to 119.

Deutsche Bank just reported that in 2020 it employed 684 investment bankers who earned more than €1 million including bonuses. Deutsche Bank, like many other companies, has also cut thousands of jobs under the pretext of the pandemic.

Russian ambassador returns to Moscow as diplomatic crisis continues

Andrea Peters

Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov arrived in Moscow on Sunday morning, having been called back to the capital in response to American President Joseph Biden’s affirmation on Wednesday, March 17, in an interview with ABC News, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a killer.”

The diplomatic crisis coincides with new allegations by the American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2020 elections by attempting to undermine popular support for Biden. Despite the fact that no evidence has been published to substantiate these claims, Washington and leading press outlets in the US have seized on them to ratchet up anti-Russia hysteria and imply that Vladimir Putin is somehow responsible for the diseased state of America’s political system.

The Kremlin in Moscow (Photo: A.Savin/Wikipedia)

As Antonov returned to Moscow, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) warned that the White House is risking “an irreversible deterioration of relations.” It added, however, that the Kremlin is committed to “open lines of communication” and “rectifying Russia-US relations.” Russia’s envoy will remain at home for an undetermined period, during which time officials say he will hold discussions with different branches of government.

The day following Biden’s provocative statement, President Putin responded to the charge of being a murderer with a quip from a children’s story, “The one who is name calling, is the one who is called by that name”—in other words, “It takes one to know one,” “A case of the pot calling the kettle black.” Putin went on to list a handful of bloody episodes in American history, beginning with the extermination of the native population.

The Kremlin leader also wished Biden “good health,” playing on the idea, which has been widely circulated in the Russian press, that the American president’s accusation was a sign of his deteriorating mental faculties. Putin invited his counterpart to a live, open-air discussion of relations between the two countries, an invitation which the White House publicly declined on March 22.

That same day, Russian Minister of Foreign Relations Sergei Lavrov met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, in the first high-level diplomatic exchange since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The press reports that the conversation between the government representatives focused on their respective countries’ worsening relationships with the United States and the need to strengthen ties between Moscow and Beijing.

A theme that emerged was the prospect of increasingly using Russia and China’s national currencies in bilateral trade. Currently, while dollar-denominated exchange has fallen to less than 50 percent of overall trade between the two countries, much of this has been made up by the euro, not the ruble or the yuan.

As coverage of Lavrov and Yi’s meeting was appearing in news outlets, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov issued a statement warning that the United States may intensify economic sanctions directed against Russia, including cutting off the country from the international financial exchange system SWIFT, through which 33.6 million banking transactions a day happen around the globe. The intense financial isolation caused by such a move, which has thus far only been taken against Iran, could be worsened by an attack on the ruble, which would send its value falling and drastically increase the size of Russia’s ruble-denominated state debt. The Ministry of Finance commented that in the event of such a development, its only option would be to “turn on the printing presses.”

Tensions between Russia and the United States penetrate every sphere. Earlier this week, the US-allied regime in Ukraine announced plans to retake the now Russian-controlled territory of Crimea by force. In mid-March the US conducted joint training exercises with nuclear-capable B-12 Lancer and B-2 Spirit bombers in territorial waters near the shores of Iceland, Greenland, and Great Britain where Russian warships are known to surface. By its own admission, the United States pressured Brazil—which is confronting an out-of-control COVID-19 surge—to not make purchases of Russia’ Sputnik V vaccine, despite the fact that it has now been determined safe and effective by both Russian and European medical researchers.

As manifested in Lavrov’s and Yi’s recent visit, the ceaseless geopolitical and economic pressure being exerted on Russia by the United States and leading powers in Europe is driving sections of the country’s elite to look toward China as a counterweight.

Speaking recently to the leading news outlet Russia in Global Affairs, political scientist Sergei Karganov emphasized the importance of Russia deepening its “turn to the east” under conditions of what is now and will continue to be an extremely “unpredictable” international environment:

“Thirty years ago when Russia ceased to be the Soviet Union we tried to form a strategic union with the West, above all with Europe. The project failed. … And now we are a strategic, in the military-political sense, support for China. And they are our support. And it was precisely because of Siberian resources that we became a great European power, and then a great world power.

“We, of course, need to act carefully, to develop ties with other Asian countries, engage more actively with India, more actively with the countries of ASEAN, and not fall into too great a dependence on the PRC [People’s Republic of China].”

The Russian ruling class’ search right and left, for alliances and new arrangements that will rescue it from the geopolitical and economic crisis it is facing, is fraught with contradictions. The idea that Russia, as part of a Russo-Chinese anti-American bloc, will come to some sort of lasting, mutually-acceptable agreement over control of the Siberian landmass with its Chinese neighbor—with 10 times the population, 8.5 times the size of the economy, and triple the annual military spending—is implausible. The oligarchs of each country wish to have the unreserved right to exploit the resources and people of Eurasia. And the United States, driven to insane attempts to dominate the globe because of the diseased state of American capitalism, will not rest in its efforts to gain control of the region.

The working class of Russia, like its counterpart in China, can only defend itself against the predatory interests of American capitalism and its own capitalist class in a common struggle with the workers of the United States and the world.

Facing COVID-19 outbreaks and privatization, oil workers shut down refineries in Brazil

Brunna Machado

The deadly combination of worsening working conditions and the uncontrolled acceleration of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil is provoking strikes and work stoppages at Petrobras refineries since the beginning of March. On Monday, the strike by nearly 900 oil workers at the Landulpho Alves Refinery (RLAM), in Bahia, entered its 18th day. It has been strengthened by the walkout of fellow Petrobras workers at the Gabriel Passos Refinery (Regap), in Minas Gerais.

Both refineries have suffered severe COVID-19 outbreaks. At RLAM, two oil workers died this month after being infected with the coronavirus: operations technician Carlos Alberto, 55, and shift coordinator Wagner Plech, 52. In addition to these fatalities, more than 80 other workers have tested positive for COVID-19 at the facility, with eight of them being hospitalized and three admitted to an Intensive Care Unit.

Striking workers at the Landulpho Alves refinery (RLAM) in Bahia, Brazil (Twitter)

The coronavirus outbreak at RLAM began after management took action to prevent a strike in February, when workers were protesting against the sale of the refinery. “Workers report that cases of contamination by the virus began to multiply about six days after the eve of their [scheduled] strike [on February 17], when RLAM’s General Manager authorized the entry into the facility, without any kind of safety controls, of contract and outsourced workers, placing up to three teams of operators in CCLs [Local Control Houses], who slept on mattresses on the floor and in a closed environment,” the union reported.

At Regap, the decision to stop the work was taken after more than 200 workers, including contract and outsourced employees, tested positive for COVID-19 in March alone. Eleven of them had to be hospitalized due to severe cases of COVID-19. The cases at Regap skyrocketed during a “maintenance stop,” a periodic procedure for check-up and renovation of the structure that requires the presence of up to 2,000 extra workers. The procedure was started on February 28 and was supposed to last about 30 days.

The coronavirus is also spreading uncontrollably through Petrobras’ terminals and offshore platforms. According to a Reuters report, oil workers at the Campos Basin in Rio de Janeiro have pressed charges at the Labor Prosecutor’s Office demanding that Petrobras provides clarification on the spread of the coronavirus on oil and gas platforms, following a spike in cases in March.

Considered by the government as “essential,” oil workers are being pushed into highly infected workplaces to ensure a high production of fuels and oil derivatives and meet Petrobras’ demand for profits. While subjecting its employees to deadly conditions, the company has closed 2020 with a net profit of 7 billion reais (US$ 1.27 billion).

From the beginning of the pandemic until mid-February, 60 oil workers had already died from COVID-19. According to the Oil Workers Federation (FUP) website, “More than 11 percent of Petrobras workers have already been infected. This is twice the national average. Each week, more than 400 workers are infected and an average of 20 are hospitalized.” According to the FUP, these numbers are an undercount, because “Petrobras insists on not releasing data regarding outsourced workers.”

The spread of COVID-19 in Brazil, which has reached the staggering average of over 2,000 deaths a day, was the last drop of water for Petrobras workers, who were already on the point of exhaustion. In the midst of a privatization process over recent years, Petrobras has substantially reduced its workforce, forcing workers into exhausting shifts and exacerbating the risk of accidents. Today, in several units, the majority workers are outsourced.

This set of conditions has led to a wider mobilization of workers. Besides the ongoing strike at the RLAM and Regap refineries, frequent work stoppages are taking place at the Manaus Refinery (Reman), in Amazonas, at the Abreu & Lima refinery and at the Suape water transportation terminal, in Pernambuco, as well as at facilities in Espírito Santo and São Paulo.

Although presented by the unions as “regional strikes,” with specific demands, these mobilizations express a common demand for safe working conditions, more jobs and better salaries. They also represent a continuation of the long strike that the oil workers carried out in 2020.

Just as with the strike last year, the recent walkouts have taken place in the midst of a rise in fuel prices. At the beginning of the month, protests against the rising fuel prices by truck drivers, app delivery workers and app drivers spread through various parts of the country. Some of these strikes included demonstrations outside the refineries, pointing to their powerful unity with the oil workers.

The necessary unification of these workers, however, faces major resistance from the trade unions, which are fighting to keep oil workers divided from each other, insisting on the separate and particular character of the struggles at each refinery, and, above all, isolated from the working class as a whole.

To respond to the murderous policy of the ruling class, which combines massive layoffs and pay cuts with deliberate exposure of workers to the deadly virus, oil workers must form rank-and-file committees independent of the unions and unite with their class brothers and sisters to fight for the shutdown of all non-essential economic activities, establishing workers control over the workplaces that continue to operate, and demanding full income for all working families.

Bond market nervousness continues

Nick Beams

Last week, the US Federal Reserve upgraded its forecast for growth in the US economy, in the course of 2021, to 6.5 percent from December’s estimate of 4.2 percent.

The reaction on financial markets to this supposedly “good” news underscores the extent of the transformation that has taken place, in both the basic economy and the financial system, as a result of the provision of trillions of dollars of ultra-cheap money by the Fed, and other major central banks, over the past decade and more.

In this Feb. 16, 2021 file photo, pedestrians pass the New York Stock Exchange in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)

One of the main factors behind the increased growth forecast is the expected impact of the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package. But because it is being financed entirely by an increase in government debt, there are concerns it will trigger a rise in interest rates, as a result either of the Fed tightening its monetary policy because of inflation, or the operation of market forces.

In order to finance the debt, the government must issue more Treasury bonds. This increase in supply tends to lower their price and increase their yield (the two have an inverse relationship). The yield, or interest rate, on the 10-year Treasury bond, is the baseline for interest rates throughout the financial system, and so any increase will extend more broadly.

With the US financial system and the economy as a whole so dependent on the continuation of ultra-low interest rates, the fear is that an upward move in Treasury yields, produced by a sell-off, will create financial turbulence, threatening the “recovery.”

So far this year, the shift by investors out of government debt has already seen the 10-year Treasury yield rise from 0.9 percent at the start of the year, to more than 1.7 percent, with further rises expected to come.

Following the meeting of its policy-making body last week, the Fed issued further reassurances that even if inflation were to rise over the next year to above its target of 2 percent, and the official unemployment rate continued to fall, it would not increase its base interest rate, now at virtually zero, until 2024 at the earliest. It also pledged to continue buying Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities, at the rate of $120 billion a month, or $1.44 trillion a year.

In other words, ultra-loose monetary policy, which was further developed last March when the $21 trillion Treasury market froze, would continue.

But as the Financial Times noted in an editorial, “market participants do not quite believe him, and are clearly minded to test the Fed’s resolve to keep monetary policy loose. Bond yields keep rising.”

Speaking at a conference over the weekend, the head of the Bridgewater hedge fund, Ray Dalio, said the fiscal package announced by Biden would result in more bond sales to finance the spending. This would worsen the “supply-demand problem for the bonds, which will exert upward pressure on rates,” he said.

The Fed would “have to buy more, which will exhibit downward pressure on the dollar.”

The Treasury bond market was delivered a shock on February 25, when a $68 billion auction for seven-year bonds was undersubscribed by 40 percent, meaning the underwriters had to step in to make up the gap. The event was a chilling reminder of what happened in March of 2020, when the Treasury market, the most liquid in the world, froze, as bonds were sold off in a dash for cash.

Speaking before the Fed’s meeting last week, Steven Oh, the global head of credit and fixed-income at PineBridge Investments, told the Financial Times that Fed Chair Jerome Powell needed to “show a bit more concern about the rise in yields.” He continued, “What you don’t want to do in the recovery phase is to counteract the fiscal stimulus with monetary tightening.”

But Powell gave no commitment to intervene, saying the Fed would see an issue with the bond sell-off only if it were accompanied by “disorderly conditions in markets or persistent tightening of financial conditions that threaten the achievement of our goals.”

In other words, the Fed has not ruled out intervening, but not yet.

The next market test will come later this week, when there will be an auction for $62 billion worth of seven-year Treasury bonds. Bloomberg noted that the market was haunted by the ghost of what it called the “horrific” auction last month.

One financial strategist told the news agency that this week’s auction would reveal whether the seven-year auction last month was so poorly sponsored “because of the volatility of that day, or whether it’s a continuing theme.” He added, “There’s just a lot of volatility now and questions about whether higher rates are going to impact equities.”

The market may also be impacted by a move by the Fed to end an emergency regulation, introduced as a result of the March 2020 freeze, which allowed banks to exclude Treasury bonds from their asset holdings for the purpose of calculating their reserve ratios. The aim of the measure was to encourage the holding of Treasuries in a bid to boost the market. But the removal of the exemption could lead banks to sell off some of their holdings, further increasing bond yields.

Whatever the outcome of this week’s auction, market nervousness will continue, as more bonds come onto the market to finance its growing debt. So far, the Fed has said it does not want to directly target the yield curve in order to keep interest rates down.

But, as one financial analyst told the Financial Times, if rates were to go up by another 0.5 or 1 percentage points, “that could really slow things down,” and the “blowback in equity and credit markets could also be severe enough to prompt verbal intervention from the Fed, or even a shift towards the Fed buying more longer-term debt.”

The turbulence in the bond market has underscored the changes in the functioning of both the real economy and the financial system, as a result of the massive trillion-dollar interventions by the Fed. If growth is low, the “solution” is supposedly the provision of still more money. But if growth starts to rise, then still more money is needed to keep yield down, in order to maintain stability in the financial system.

Leaked photographs expose dismal conditions in child immigration detention center

Trévon Austin

Leaked photos from a migrant overflow facility in Texas, released Sunday by US Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX), have given the first glimpse of the crowded conditions for child migrants detained at the US-Mexico border. 

(Photos provided by the office of US representative Henry Cueller, originally published by Axios)

In the images, children can be seen cramped in enclosed spaces, many laying on mats with mylar blankets. The pictures were published as the Biden administration continues to block access to US Border Patrol detention facilities housing children detained by immigration officers.

The conditions shown in the pictures resemble similar images taken of immigration facilities under the Obama and Trump administrations. In 2018, pictures of children sleeping on the floor in a fenced enclosure surfaced online. Trump’s cruel immigration policies were initially blamed, and then it was discovered that the photos were actually taken during Obama’s presidency. 

The next year, leaked images showed migrant children sleeping on the ground and on rocks in McAllen, Texas. 

Amid an increase in COVID-19 infections, the crowding seen in Monday’s images makes social distancing impossible. Dozens of migrants are confined together in small spaces, with only disposable masks to protect them from the virus. Many people attempting to cross the border have tested positive for COVID-19, meaning the Biden administration’s detention of migrants will only contribute to its spread.

According to Cuellar, the immigration facility held eight “pods,” each with a 260-person occupancy. Cuellar told the press that one pod held more than 400 unaccompanied male minors. The congressman did not actually visit the facility himself, and would not reveal how he came into possession of the photos.

The conditions at the facility are a political embarrassment for the Biden administration, which has sought to cover up the worsening conditions of refugee camps. Millions voted for Biden, expecting a reversal of Trump’s fascistic immigration policy. However, little has changed from the previous administration. 

Although the Biden administration ended one particularly egregious practice, separating parents and children and detaining them in separate facilities, it is keeping families “united” by expelling them back across the border, denying their rights to file asylum claims once they reach US soil.

In response to political attacks from Republicans demanding even more cruel treatment of immigrants, Biden sent envoys to Mexico and Guatemala on Monday to ask officials to assist the US in blocking migrants from reaching the border. 

Roberta Jacobson, former US ambassador to Mexico, will be joined by Juan Gonzalez, the National Security Council’s senior director for the Western Hemisphere, and Ricardo Zuniga, State Department special envoy for the Northern Triangle. 

On Monday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the delegation would seek a “partnership” to manage migrant crossings. In other words, Biden would like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to do his dirty work for him. 

The Mexican government has already increased its presence of law enforcement at its southern border, under pressure from the Trump Administration. Mexico has been engaged in its own deportations, which it euphemistically calls “assisted returns.” Immigrants in “migration stations” face abhorrent conditions and attacks from police. 

Biden’s promises of reversing Trump’s asylum policies have proven to be lies, as his administration has continued to arrest, detain, and deport migrants in large numbers. More than 100,000 people were detained by immigration officials in February alone. This includes 9,460 unaccompanied minors, a more than 60 percent increase from January.

Government data indicates more than 11,000 unaccompanied children were taken into Border Patrol custody from February 28 to March 20. As of Sunday, there were 822 children held in jail-like Border Patrol facilities for over 10 days. The average time children have spent in custody is about 130 hours, exceeding the 72-hour legal limit.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas adamantly stated the border was closed to migrants on ABC’s “This Week,” saying, “The message is quite clear, do not come. The border is closed, the border is secure.”

Mayorkas attempted to justify the detention of unaccompanied minors by saying the Biden administration was concerned for their safety. Although adults and families would be immediately expelled from the US, his administration would not deport minors “into the Mexican desert.”

Mayorkas blamed the current disaster at the border on the Trump Administration, which “dismantled the orderly, humane and efficient way of allowing children to make their claims under United States law in their own country.”

This means that Biden aims to return to the pre-Trump policies of Barack Obama, who earned the title “deporter-in-chief” because his administration—with Biden as vice president—deported more immigrants than any previous US government.

Biden has blocked tens of thousands of migrants from entering he US, citing health risks due to COVID-19. Despite the opposition of medical experts, 70 percent of the more than 100,000 people who attempted to cross the border in February were expelled under “Title 42,” a federal law that allows the government to refuse migrants’ rights to apply for asylum while remaining on US soil.

Migrants sent back to Mexico under Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy have been told they’ll be sent back to their home countries. Approximately 71,000 people sought asylum under the program, under which they were forced to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases were decided. The vast majority have been denied. 

Additionally, Biden has utilized radio ads to tell migrants they are unwelcome. Psaki told reporters the Biden administration paid for 17,118 radio ads in Spanish, Portuguese and six indigenous languages to discourage migrants from Central America and Brazil. She said 589 digital ads have also been placed.

Those seeking to cross the US-Mexico border are fleeing poverty and violence imposed on Central America from more than a century of US intervention. Billions of dollars in goods and services cross the US-Mexico border daily and US corporations employ workers in sweatshops across Central America. But immigrant workers seeking better opportunities at great personal risk are turned away.

The migrant crisis at the border exposed the bankruptcy of capitalism and the nation-state system, and the urgent necessity for American workers to come to the defense of their class brothers and sisters from south of the border.

Europe sides with the US in imposing punitive sanctions against China

Peter Symonds

In a deliberate escalation of geo-political tensions, the European Union joined the US, as well as Britain and Canada, in imposing coordinated sanctions against Chinese officials on Monday for alleged human rights abuses against the Muslim Uyghur minority in China’s Xinjiang province.

The intensifying demonisation of China follows the modus operandi of US imperialism and its allies over the past three decades as they have prepared for one criminal war after another in the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken (Creative Commons/Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs)

The sanctions follow a fractious meeting between top US and Chinese officials in Alaska. The talks commenced last Friday with provocative public US condemnations of China across a range of issues, including its treatment of the Uyghurs—claims that were rebutted by China. The two days of talks ended without agreement or a joint statement.

The US set the stage for the showdown in Alaska by imposing sanctions on Chinese officials over a new law tightening the electoral system in Hong Kong. Now it has targeted Wang Junzheng, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) secretary of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, and Chen Mingguo, director of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau, for “serious human rights abuses” against Uyghur Muslims. The US froze assets and imposed travel restrictions.

In a statement reeking of hypocrisy, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused China of continuing “to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang” and called on Beijing to release “all those arbitrarily held in internment camps and detention facilities.”

While the CCP regime undoubtedly uses police-state measures in Xinjiang, as it does more broadly against the Chinese working class, Washington—which is guilty of war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere—is again selectively exploiting “human rights” to advance its imperialist interests.

Blinken’s accusation of Uyghur “genocide” by China—a designation only made by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the dying days of the Trump administration—is intentionally inflammatory. While the term conjures up images of mass killings, it rests on nothing more than grossly distorted and largely unsubstantiated claims that China’s birth control methods in Xinjiang constitute “genocide.”

The European Union has cynically jumped on board the US “human rights” wagon as a means of extracting concessions from the US as the Biden administration seeks to “revitalise” relations with Europe that soured under Trump. Significantly, the coordinated sanctions on China were announced immediately prior to Blinken landing in Brussels for talks with European officials.

The EU formally announced travel and asset sanctions against four Chinese officials, including two punished by the US. These are the first EU penalties against China since 1989 when the European authorities imposed an arms embargo following the Tiananmen Square massacre. The EU statement stopped short of accusing China of “genocide,” but alleged that Beijing was responsible for “arbitrary detentions and degrading treatment” of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, as well as systematic violations of their religious freedom.

The US also released a joint statement condemning China by Blinken and the foreign ministers of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance, consisting of the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The UK and Canada have imposed their own sanctions on China, but Australia and New Zealand have yet to do so.

The joint statement declared: “The evidence, including from the Chinese government’s own documents, satellite imagery, and eyewitness testimony is overwhelming. China’s extensive program of repression includes severe restrictions on religious freedoms, the use of forced labor, mass detention in internment camps, forced sterilisations, and the concerted destruction of Uyghur heritage.”

The evidence, in fact, is far from overwhelming. Eyewitness accounts derive in the main from Uyghur exiles associated with CIA-funded organisations such as the World Uyghur Congress and the American Uyghur Association, while satellite photos and supposedly leaked Chinese documents provide no direct evidence and are inevitably interpreted through the jaundiced eyes of pro-US analysts. In the absence of independent evidence, no more faith should be placed in Western propaganda than claims by the Chinese government that no abuses are taking place.

The Chinese government immediately hit back, accusing the EU of “disregarding and distorting the facts” and “grossly interfering in China’s internal affairs.” Beijing imposed its own sanctions on 10 European politicians and individuals, as well as four entities. The latter included the right-wing, pro-US Alliance of Democracies Foundation established in 2017 by former NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Among the individuals sanctioned by China was Adrian Zenz, a right-wing German academic and self-described born-again Christian. While he claims that he was “led by God” to research into Chinese minorities, Zenz has undoubtedly been driven by more earthly motives. He is well connected in anti-communist circles in Europe and the United States, including to the anti-communist Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. US and European allegations against China rely heavily on his tendentious “research.”

With the latest round of sanctions barely announced, the Biden administration hinted that more is to come. Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, after reiterating Washington’s “grave concerns” over China’s treatment of Uyghurs, stated: “We will be evaluating what the appropriate next steps are in close coordination with our allies around the world.”

Less than three months in office, the extraordinary rapidity with which the Biden administration is ramping up the US confrontation with China, as well as Russia, has even surprised some hardened US propagandists. David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, entitled his comment yesterday: “That was fast: Blowups with China and Russia in Biden’s first 60 Days.”

Sanger declared that the US had entered “a new era of bitter superpower competition, marked by perhaps the worst relationship Washington has had with Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with China since it opened diplomatic relations with the United States.”

Sanger also pointed, at least indirectly, to the underlying driving force for the escalating US war drive against China—the fear in Washington that the Chinese economy will eclipse that of the US within a decade. The power of the Chinese, he wrote, “arises not from their relatively small nuclear arsenal or their expanding stockpile of conventional weapons. Instead, it arises from their expanding economic might.”

Sanger highlighted China’s growing expertise in hi-tech areas, such as 5G technology, that are critical to the US maintaining its global economic and strategic dominance. The speed with which the Biden administration is ratcheting up its anti-China propaganda, alongside the expansion of its military forces in Asia, flows from a sense in Washington that time is running against it.

US imperialism cannot tolerate any threat to its hegemony and is prepared to use all means, including military conflict, to subordinate China. Outside of the political intervention of the international working class on the basis of a unified socialist perspective, the world is rapidly descending into war between nuclear-armed powers.