Saturday, September 03, 2022

Sri Lankan president deepens social attacks in interim cost-cutting budget


On Tuesday, Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the finance minister, presented parliament with an interim budget to cover the rest of the year.

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe arrives at the parliamentary complex in Colombo, Sri Lanka on Aug. 3, 2022. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena) [AP Photo]

The budget, which heaps even greater burdens on the already suffering working people, will cut government expenditure, impose more taxes and speed up the privatisation of state-owned enterprises (SOE) in line with International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands.

Government negotiations with the IMF delegation, which concluded this week in Colombo, had “successfully reached the final stage,” Wickremesinghe said, indicating that even more savage social attacks are being prepared.

Amid the popular anger over the unbearable cost of living, Wickremesinghe contemptuously proposed a cosmetic increase in welfare allowances for the poor, a measure that will do nothing to alleviate their plight.

The interim budget includes:

* An additional 3 percent increase in the value added tax (VAT), lifting it from 12 to 15 percent on all goods and services, effective this week. This comes on top of an increase from 8 to 12 percent in VAT and other tariffs announced on May 31. In August, the government increased electricity charges by about 75 percent, with water tariffs rising by 127 percent for 2 million families this month.

* Restructure of SOEs will be stepped up, beginning with Air Lanka, the Ceylon Electricity Board and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. On Monday it was announced that 49 percent of Air Lanka ground-handling and catering will be privatised, with 50 other SOEs targeted for future “restructuring.”

* Twenty percent of shares in state banks will be distributed among depositors and bank employees as a first step in the privatisation of these banks.

* The private sector will also be brought into the country’s railways, long-targeted for privatisation by Colombo.

* In line with the planned destruction of hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs, the retirement age of employees in government and semi government institutions was reduced to 60 years, down from 65 and 62 years, respectively. Those who have already reached the new retirement age must leave at the end of this year.

Wickremesinghe’s so-called concessions to the poor consist of a miniscule lift in monthly Samurdhi payments ranging from 5,000 rupees ($US14) to 7,500 rupees. The pitiful welfare payments are currently received by 1.7 million families. Around 726,000 families already on the Samurdhi waiting list will be temporarily paid 5,000 rupees per month.

Allowances for the elderly, disabled, kidney patients and pregnant mothers were also slightly increased from 5,000 rupees to 7,500 rupees. About 61,000 low-income families will receive a monthly allowance of 10,000 rupees for four months.

These rises will add little to the existing meagre allowances which have been drastically eroded by skyrocketing inflation, officially reported to be 64 percent and food inflation 94 percent in August.

Wickremesinghe proposed to write off 688 million rupees in defaulted farmers’ loans to the banks. This will not alleviate the difficult economic problems confronting farmers who still have to pay interest to the banks and have faced massive increases in the cost of fuel, fertilizers and agricultural inputs over the past five months.

He told parliament that the 2021 budget deficit was 12.2 percent of the GDP but that this would be reduced to 9.9 percent this year, 6.8 percent in 2023 and zero in 2025. These figures point the unprecedented and brutal character of the government social assault on the public sector and the masses.

Addressing a Colombo seminar yesterday, Central Bank Governor Nandalal Weerasinghe praised the president and the finance ministry secretary. The interim budget, he said, was “farsighted,” adding, “in order to come out of this crisis, we have to go through this painful process.” This “painful process,” of course, will not be endured by the rich, but only by workers and the poor, who are being made to pay for the deep crisis of Sri Lankan capitalism.

“[O]ur aspiration is to establish a solid economic foundation by the year 2026,” Wickremesinghe declared. His projection to place the economy on a “solid economic foundation,” mitigating the crisis by 2026, is a sheer fantasy.

Sri Lanka’s economic collapse is the sharpest expression of the global capitalist crisis, set off by the COVID-19 pandemic and intensified this year by the US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine, that is now impacting on the major imperialist centres and backward countries alike.

Wickremesinghe told the parliament that the economic miracle he proposed would only occur, “if we work together in unity with common consent.” He called on MPs to join an all-party government because “this unprecedented situation is the responsibility of us all.” 

The devastating conditions facing millions of Sri Lankans were not created by the working class or the urban and rural poor but are the direct responsibility of Sri Lanka’s ruling elite and its capitalist parties.

Acutely aware that masses will resist the planned social attacks, Wickremesinghe’s appeal for an all-party government is to mobilise Colombo’s entire political establishment to suppress the mass opposition.

The opposition parliamentary parties have not accepted the all-party government invitation from the widely despised Wickremesinghe, not because they disagree with the IMF’s demands, but because they fear he will not be able to suppress the mass resistance.

Wickremesinghe continues to mobilise state forces in an attempt to intimidate ongoing mass struggles.

Yesterday, the government unleashed the police to arrest 28 people attending a student demonstration called by the Inter-University Student Federation. The students were demanding the release of three student leaders detained by police last week under anti-terror laws. The three activists were arrested during a student protest against the government repression, attacks on free education and worsening living conditions.

Students protesting in Colombo on 30 August 2022 [Photo: WSWS]

This week the IMF negotiating team met in Colombo with opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) leader Sajith Premadasa and his allies. Far from disagreeing with the IMF’s austerity plan, Premadasa was demanding from the beginning of last year that the former Rajapakse government seek IMF assistance. The SJB is now campaigning for an election, hoping to come to power and implement the IMF program.

Following Wickremesinghe’s budget speech, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) parliamentarian Professor Harini Amarasuriya declared that the economic crisis could only be solved by a “stable government.”

Like the SJB, the JVP/NPP is demanding a general election and a new capitalist government to impose the IMF’s measures. Other parliamentary opposition parties, including the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the Tamil National Alliance, fundamentally agree, insisting that the only solution is drastic austerity.

The main props of the Wickremesinghe regime and Sri Lankan capitalism are the trade unions, who over the previous four months diverted the mass opposition of millions of workers into one-day general strikes in April and May and politically backed the parliamentary opposition. They support the SJB and JVP calls for the interim capitalist government and oppose any independent mobilisation of the working class against the Wickremesinghe regime.

Protest march by Petroleum Corporation workers in Colombo on 22 August 2022 [Photo: WSWS]

Working-class resistance, however, is developing. Last week petroleum, state engineering corporation, government press, and health sector workers began taking industrial action. Fishermen held protests in opposition to oil price hikes, while students held repeated demonstrations in defiance of brutal police measures.

In order to defend social and democratic rights, the working class should take matters into its own hands. We call on workers to form action committees, independent of trade unions and all capitalist parties, in every workplace, plantation and neighbourhood. Workers need to rally the support of rural poor who are facing similar attacks. The rural masses also need to build their action committees to take up this struggle.

To counter the government’s IMF austerity measures and end the social attacks, the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) calls for workers to take control of the production and distribution of the essentials of life. This can be done by repudiating all foreign debts and nationalising the banks, large companies and plantations under workers’ democratic control. There must be guaranteed full employment for all with wages increased in line with the cost of living, and all facilities and subsidies urgently provided to small farmers and rural poor.

The government’s manoeuvres for all-party government and the opposition parties’ call for general election are designed to trap masses within the dead-end framework of parliament. Against these reactionary moves, the SEP has initiated a campaign for a Democratic and Socialist Congress of Workers and Rural Masses for the defence of all social and democratic rights.

This congress, which will be based on democratically elected delegates from action committees, must develop the fight for socialist policies to address the pressing needs of the masses and take forward struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government in alliance with the international working class.

6 Million Afghans Facing Famine as US Refuses To Return $7 Billion in Seized Funds

"Biden should immediately reverse his executive order," said one humanitarian. "With millions of Afghans impoverished and starving, the U.S. must return to the Afghan people what is rightfully theirs."

 Posted on  ANTIWAR.COM

The United Nations aid chief on Monday led calls for a resumption of the humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan that ended after the Taliban reconquered the war-ravaged nation one year ago – pleas that came as six million Afghans face famine and the Biden administration continues to refuse to return billions of dollars in frozen funds.

“The people in Afghanistan continue to face extreme hardship and uncertainty,” U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths told the world body’s Security Council.

Noting that the U.N.’s Humanitarian Response Plan for Afghanistan is currently facing a more than $3 billion shortfall, Griffiths called on donors to immediately provide $754 million in aid to help Afghans survive the coming winter.

“Close to 19 million people are facing acute levels of food insecurity, including six million people at risk of famine,” he warned. “More than half of the population – some 24 million people – need humanitarian assistance. And an estimated three million children are acutely malnourished. They include over one million children estimated to be suffering from the most severe, life-threatening form of malnutrition. And without specialized treatment, these children could die.”

Griffiths continued:

This malnutrition crisis is fueled by recurrent drought, including the worst in three decades in 2021, and whose effects are still lingering. Eight out of 10 Afghans drink contaminated water, making them susceptible to repeated bouts of acute watery diarrhea. Around 25 million people are now living in poverty and three quarters of people’s income is spent on food. There’s been a 50% decline in households receiving remittances; unemployment could reach 40%; and inflation is rising due to increased global prices, import constraints, and currency depreciation.

“So these relentless layers of crisis persist at a time when communities are already struggling,” Griffiths added. “In June, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake affected over 360,000 people living in high-intensity impact areas. And since July, heavy rains have led to massive flash floods across the country, and indeed the region, killing and injuring hundreds of people, and destroying hundreds of homes as well as thousands of acres of crops.”

Because the Taliban – which fought for two decades to oust U.S.-led forces and the coalition-backed Afghan government in a war that claimed over 170,000 lives – is not formally recognized by any nation and is under international sanctions, it is difficult to deliver humanitarian assistance to the country.

US policy is exacerbating the crisis. Despite pleas from economists and humanitarians, the Biden administration continues to withhold around $7 billion in Afghan central bank funds stored in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

On Monday, a US federal judge concluded that relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States should not be allowed to claim billions of dollars of the frozen funds to settle legal judgments against the Taliban, who sheltered al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden before unsuccessfully offering to turn him in for trial in a third country as the U.S.-led invasion began. However, another judge can decide whether to accept that conclusion.

US President Joe Biden had sought to set aside $3.5 billion of the $7 billion to settle 9/11 claimants’ cases, while signing a February executive order allocating the remainder “to be used for the benefit of the Afghan people.”

However, six months later, the administration still has not released the funds, citing the Taliban’s apparent sheltering of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri – who was killed by a US drone strike on Kabul on July 31.

Also addressing the UN Security Council on Monday, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the world body, contended that “no country that is serious about containing terrorism in Afghanistan would advocate to give the Taliban instantaneous, unconditional access to billions in assets that belong to the Afghan people.”

Assal Rad, research director at National Iranian American Council Action, tweeted Monday that “the U.S. is still collectively punishing the people of Afghanistan.”

Brett Wilkins is is staff writer for Common Dreams. Based in San Francisco, his work covers issues of social justice, human rights and war and peace. This originally appeared at CommonDreams and is reprinted with the author’s permission.

If Only We’d Listened: Mikhail Gorbachev

When Western history sings its own song, it tells the tale of triumph over the Soviet Union bringing the Cold War to an end. But that is never what happened, and the events went the other way around.

Mikhail Gorbachev, who passed away on August 30, was a visionary who first negotiated the end of the Cold War and then piloted the nearly bloodless internal closing of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev negotiated the end of the Cold War with no winners or losers, contrary to the doctrinal Western tale. When the Cold War ended, Gorbachev said, we all won the Cold War. And that was not just Gorbachev’s face saving version of history. President Reagan would write in his notes, “Let there be no talk of winners and losers.” And when Gorbachev compelled the countries of the Warsaw Pact to adopt the reconstructionist reforms of his perestroika and informed them that the Soviet army would no longer protect their communist regimes, George H.W. Bush promised him that if those countries chose to replace their communist regimes, the US would not claim victory.

Having negotiated the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev brought about the self-engineered close of the Soviet Union. In Super-power Illusions, Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was the US ambassador to Russia during this transformative time, says that “pressure from governments outside the Soviet Union, whether from America or Europe or anywhere else, had nothing to do with [the Soviet collapse].” Russia scholar Richard Sakwa says Gorbachev brought about the “self-willed disintegration of the Soviet bloc.”

Gorbachev was a rare character in history who offered up the opportunity to alter the world paradigm. He was a visionary who wanted to pull the plug on the Cold War world of blocs and alliances and bring to birth a world with neither alliances nor lines drawn across the globe. Gorbachev tried to usher in a world that transcended alliances. He wanted to replace the Soviet Union that belonged to a world of Warsaw Pacts and NATO alliances with a Russia that could join a transformed international community made up of equal partners.

But Gorbachev lacked whatever it takes to succeed in the world of politics. He lacked the political acumen to bring his visions to reality. In a world of politicians and officials who maneuver and deceive, Gorbachev was defeated. He lacked the cynicism to joust with political figures like US Secretary of State James Baker who promised NATO would move not one inch to the east while simultaneously planning the massive movement of NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

Gorbachev, in the end, failed to realize any of his goals. He offered us a new world, and we chose to keep the old one.

Gorbachev was a visionary who was a little lost when it came to building his blueprint in the real world. Instead of taking advantage of him, manipulating and deceiving him, we could have helped him and partnered with him. The world might have been a little bit better if we did.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.


Opinion: Mikhail Gorbachev failed, and made the world a better place

Many countries and people around the world owe their freedom to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader. His present-day successor, Vladimir Putin, could not be more different, says DW's Miodrag Soric.

Gorbachev helped end Cold War divisions in Europe

The Communist utopia never became reality — neither through kind words and promises, nor through mass executions and gulags.

In 1985, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union undertook one last effort to preserve its empire. The Soviet Union's relatively young leader at the time, Mikhail Gorbachev, was meant to bridge a growing gap and catch up with the West. But, just like all his predecessors, he floundered.

His failure didn't just end the Cold War. By loosening the shackles of repression that held the Communist empire together, he gave millions of people their freedom back and with it their dignity — among them Russians, Ukrainians and other people in the Soviet Union. 

They regained their national identities as Russians, Georgians, Armenians, Latvians and so on, becoming citizens with civil rights. They were no longer expected to think of themselves as the proletariat standing in front of empty supermarket shelves and at the same time, pretending to live in some kind of paradise.

'A common European home'

It's tragic that Gorbachev has passed away now, of all times. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the people of the Baltic states — Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, East Germans, Romanians and others — joined what Gorbachev once called the "common European home."

A middle-aged man wearing a dark suit and tie, and glasses with half a rim

Miodrag Soric is chief correspondent for DW

But his own Russian compatriots still cannot decide to do the same. Russia is a belated nation. Even worse, the current Kremlin leader, Vladimir Putin, also wants to prevent Ukrainians and Belarusians from taking the path to freedom and democracy. 

Putin wants a return to pathos, utopia and slavery. He wants people to serve the state, not vice versa, like in Communist times. As in the Communist dictatorship, any public dissent is dangerous in today's Russia, where citizens are lied to via the state-controlled media. Just like the members of the erstwhile Politburo, Putin suffers from the delusion that Moscow is surrounded by enemies.  As in the time of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, today's Nomenklatura is lining its pockets at the public's expense, with corruption and mismanagement rife.

Gorbachev promoted transparency by opening the Soviet archives so that Russians could see for themselves how many millions of their own people Stalin and Lenin had killed for no reason. Putin did the opposite: Closing the archives, censoring history books, reintroducing the state's dogma of the infallibility, and resorting to lies to promote the patriotic education of the masses.  

Putin, a political dinosaur

During his time, Gorbachev withdrew troops from the unwinnable Afghanistan war. Putin, on the other hand, has dispatched forces in a "special military operation" to fight non-existent fascism in Ukraine. Putin is a political dinosaur, inspired by 19th century ideas. He is a leader who fights to set up global "spheres of interest" because he is unable to modernize Russia's economy and infrastructure.

He does not understand that young Russians today will choose material prosperity — like the latest iPhone — over national greatness (whatever that is). This is evident from the hundreds of thousands of highly educated Russians who have left the country since the invasion of Ukraine began in February.

Granted, Gorbachev was a party functionary with little economic expertise. East Germany's command economy, supposedly one of the most advanced systems around, was impossible to reform, as became clear after 1990. Most likely any Kremlin leader would have failed trying to quickly reform Moscow's planned economy.

Putin's alleged economic achievements 20 years ago were due entirely to high commodity prices. Or are there any products that Russia has developed and produces that are in demand anywhere in the world — apart from weapons? 

Language of the pariah

Gorbachev secured a place in the history books. No other politician changed the world for the better in the second half of the 20th century as he did. Millions of people across the world started learning the Russian language because of Gorbachev, this new, humane politician.

Putin, in contrast, has turned Russian into the language of the pariah. Even many Ukrainians now avoid speaking it. And in the West, cultural managers feel they need to justify themselves for putting on a Tchaikovsky ballet, or a Dostoevsky reading, and so stage something else instead.

Yes, Gorbachev's life was sometimes tragic, he failed all too often. But his intention was to change the world for the better. At least he tried.

This article was originally published in German

The death of Mikhail Gorbachev and the legacy of Stalinist counterrevolution

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former general secretary of the Communist Party (CP) and president of the Soviet Union, died on Tuesday at the age of 91 in a Moscow hospital. He had reportedly been suffering from kidney disease for several years.

Gorbachev, who joined the CP in 1950, was a loyal servant of the Soviet bureaucracy for three and a half decades. He was responsible for the final act of betrayal carried out by the parasites who raised themselves up above and fed off the Soviet working class: the full-scale restoration of capitalism and the dissolution of the USSR into more than a dozen states. He was a man with whom, in the words of arch-reactionary Margaret Thatcher, “one could do business.”

Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev addressing a group of 150 business executives in San Francisco on June 5, 1990. [AP Photo/David Longstreath]

Gorbachev’s policy of perestroika (restructuring), implemented over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, initiated the systematic dismantling of the system of nationalized property that emerged out of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Perestroika scrapped restrictions on foreign trade, legalized small businesses, ended subsidies for key industries, tossed out labor laws and threw the Soviet economy and society into disarray.

Enterprises suddenly forced onto a system of “self-financing” found themselves unable to secure the resources they needed to produce, pay wages or fund the social services and benefits that were the right of the working class and the backbone of their living standards. Managers of the most well-positioned factories, directed by the state to manufacture for profit, diverted goods from the state sector of the economy and sold desperately needed consumer items at whatever price the market would bear.

The reforms initiated a process of the wholesale looting of state assets. The children of the elite took advantage of special legal privileges granted to members of the communist youth organization, the Komsomol, to open businesses and sell Soviet assets and resources domestically and abroad. An entire secondary banking industry emerged, as those with access to enterprises’ financial accounts set up lending operations that profited off the crisis and social desperation.

By 1989, about 43 million people in the USSR were living on less than 75 rubles a month, well below the official poverty line of about 200 rubles. Writing in 1995, researcher John Elliot described the era as characterized by “deteriorating quality and unavailability of goods, proliferation of special distribution channels, longer and more time-consuming lines, extended rationing, higher prices … virtual stagnation in the provision of health and education, and the growth of barter, regional autarky, and local protectionism.” Officially, about 4 million were unemployed as of 1990, although specialists argue that was a vast undercount, with the real number being as high as 20 million. With masses of people shipwrecked, alcoholism, drug use and deaths of despair all exploded during the years to come.

For all of this, Gorbachev is widely and rightly hated throughout the former USSR.

During perestroika, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), the world Trotskyist movement, was the only political tendency that rejected Gorbachev’s claims to be ushering in a new era of prosperity and “socialist justice” in which the deserving would be rewarded and the corrupt stamped out. In a 1987 statement, What Is Happening in the USSR? Gorbachev and the Crisis of Stalinism, the ICFI warned:

For both the working class in the Soviet Union and the workers and oppressed masses internationally, the so-called reform policy of Gorbachev represents a sinister threat. It jeopardizes the historic conquests of the October Revolution and is bound up with a deepening of the bureaucracy’s counterrevolutionary collaboration with imperialism on a world scale.

The ICFI published dozens of statements exposing Gorbachev and his policies for what they were. This extraordinary record of political analysis can be accessed here. David North, currently national chairman of the Socialist Equality Party and chairman of the World Socialist Web Site international editorial board, traveled to the USSR in 1989 to intervene in events. He spoke with workers, students and intellectuals about the political dangers Gorbachev’s phony reform agenda posed.

In opposing any conception that the Soviet bureaucracy was undergoing a process of “self-reform,” the ICFI stood against all those claiming to be socialists who supported and cheered Gorbachev. Leading among them were the Pabloite parties, which in 1953 broke with Trotskyism on the grounds that Stalinism did not have to be overthrown but rather could be pressured to move to the left. They covered up and facilitated Stalinism’s many crimes against the working class over the course of the subsequent half century. During the 1980s, the Pabloites were gripped by the “Gorbymania” that hailed the Soviet leader as a great liberator of the people and his wife, hated in the USSR for her shameless displays of personal wealth, as a true “first lady.”

Writing in 1989, Ernest Mandel, a leading figure in Pabloism, declared in his book Beyond Perestroika, “From the viewpoint of the Soviet working people and the world proletariat, Gorbachev would today be the best solution for the USSR.” Just that year alone, according to official data, the USSR lost 7.3 million working days to strike action, largely driven by mass unrest in the mines. During just the first nine months of the following year, that number rose to 13.7 million.

Gorbachev was not, the ICFI insisted, breaking with Stalinism, as was claimed by the Pabloites and many others, but bringing it to its logical conclusion. The ICFI based its analysis on a historical perspective, rooted in the struggle led by Leon Trotsky against Stalinism and the subsequent fight of the ICFI against Pabloism.

Trotsky, who led the 1917 Russian Revolution alongside Lenin and later the socialist opposition to Stalin, described the bureaucracy which emerged within the context of the Soviet Union’s backwardness and isolation as akin to a police force controlling who would get what out of a growing but still inadequate pie. It made sure that it took the most for itself.

In conflict with the egalitarian principles of the revolution and the working masses’ claims to the wealth produced from its own labor, the bureaucracy ruled by force. The Great Terror of the 1930s, which culminated in Trotsky’s assassination at the hands of a Stalinist agent in 1940, exterminated an entire generation of revolutionists and sought to violently suppress the demands of the proletariat.

However, the brutality of the Terror did not resolve the problem of the working class for the Soviet bureaucracy. Inasmuch as the ruling elite was living off the nationalized property that emerged out of the 1917 Revolution, it knew that the workers of the USSR could reassert their claims to what they had once conquered and in so doing, drive the bureaucrats out of power. As Trotsky wrote in Revolution Betrayed, the question was, “Will the bureaucrat devour the workers’ state, or will the working class clean up the bureaucrat?” The repeated eruptions of working class anger against Stalinism—in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, in Poland in 1980-1981—haunted and terrified the CP.

Gorbachev was rising in the ranks of the party bureaucracy during this period. He moved ever higher in party circles with the support of forces who, notwithstanding criticisms some came to make of Stalin’s crimes as part of the Khrushchev era thaw, were full participants in the dictator’s bloody rule. They were absolute defenders of their own privilege and power, their comfortable apartments, vacation homes, chauffeurs, closed shops where only they could purchase special goods and so forth.

With the backing of Leonid Brezhnev, Gorbachev moved into the CP’s upper elite during the 1970s. He was politically and personally close to Yuri Andropov, the head of the Stalinist secret police and the early architect of the perestroika reforms. They even vacationed together.

After Andropov’s death in 1984, Gorbachev became the leading representative of that wing of the CP that believed the only way it could preserve its privileges was to move as quickly as possible to restore capitalism in the USSR—that is, to make itself, as Trotsky predicted, a genuine owning class before the proletariat could move against it. When miners’ strikes hit the USSR in the late 1980s and millions of workers in other sections of industry walked off the job in protest against the policies of perestroika, the bureaucracy accelerated the process of capitalist restoration.

Alongside perestroika, Gorbachev initiated the policy of glasnost (openness). It allowed, for the first time in many decades, public debate and discussion of Soviet history, including further revelations of Stalin’s crimes. The aim of glasnost, however, was not to democratize Soviet society, much less give the working class the right to any say in the affairs of its own state. Rather, Gorbachev’s goal was to create a constituency for capitalist restoration among the emerging Soviet petty bourgeoisie and those layers seeking to gain entry into it by permitting them a voice in political affairs and encouraging a liberal democratic reinterpretation of Soviet history that was both anti-communist and defended Stalin’s attack on Trotsky. In addition to being the object of endless historical lies, Trotsky was disparaged as an “equality-mongerer.”

As glasnost was developing, the Communist Party promoted a vicious assault on the principle of equality. It was identified as the real source of the USSR’s myriad problems. Particular vindictiveness directed at the working class, who allegedly got too much and did too little. While many former revolutionists were officially rehabilitated during the Gorbachev era, Trotsky remained an object of official hatred and falsifications. In his 1987 speech commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 1917 revolution, Gorbachev explicitly denounced Trotsky as a heretic and “an excessively self-assured politician who always vacillated and cheated.” He was never rehabilitated by the Communist Party.

In his 1990 speech to the congress of the Communist Party, Gorbachev declared that his reforms laid the “the material foundations for an irreversibly peaceful period of history and for the solution of mankind’s global problem.” None of this has come to fruition. The dissolution of the Soviet Union produced a collapse in life expectancy unseen outside of world war.

The Putin regime in Russia represents a faction of the oligarchy that enriched itself enormously through the liquidation of state assets. The vast majority of people in Russia and the former USSR are impoverished. The entire region is an object of imperialist machinations. Little remains of the entire post-World War II settlement. The Middle East and North Africa are in flames. Ukraine is being destroyed as part of the US-NATO war against Russia. The world is closer to nuclear holocaust than ever before.

As the ICFI has argued for decades, the liquidation of the USSR by the Soviet bureaucracy did not mark the triumph of the global capitalist order but was an initial sign of its descent into an ever-deeper crisis. During the 1980s and 1990s, the nation-state system of the postwar era was breaking up under the pressure of globalization, and all the forces used to contain and corral the working class, keep its struggles locked within national borders—from the Stalinists to the social democrats to the trade unions—were falling apart. The imperialists, who had long relied on the Stalinists to stabilize the world system politically, would once again be at each other’s throats, vying for control over resources and markets. The opening up of the USSR to foreign investors vastly increased the size of the spoils.

On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev signed the declaration that wrote the Soviet Union out of existence. Since then, it has been 30 years of unending war. Shortly after he died on Tuesday, the pages of the Western press filled with hosannas for the former Soviet leader. The very news outlets that are shedding tears over the USSR’s last counterrevolutionist are also those applauding the US and NATO’s war against Russia. They demand not the end of the bloodbath but its expansion.

Gorbachev’s true legacy lies not in his nit-wit pronouncements about the alleged virtues of capitalism and that imperialism was a myth, not a reality, but in the fratricidal war, prepared by the US and NATO, which is currently ripping apart Ukraine and targeting Russia for dismemberment.

As for the proclamations from the West that Gorbachev’s reforms and the dissolution of the USSR heralded “the end of history” and the triumph of the liberal world order—they have been proven equally false. American democracy is in a state of near-death. Nineteen months after a far-right coup nearly brought down the US government, President Biden is due to speak today on the threatened collapse of American democracy. Meanwhile, life expectancy in the US has fallen by a staggering three years due to the homicidal response of the ruling class to the pandemic.

But just as much as the Stalinist bureaucrats and the imperialists were wrong about the victory of global capitalism, so were they wrong about the class struggle and the supposed end of socialism. The massive growth of social inequality, the grotesque state of modern politics, and the brutality of everyday life are drawing tens of millions into struggle around the world. For them, socialism did not die with the Soviet Union but is rather very much on the order of the day.

Nigeria: Waste Pickers in Lagos Tell Their Stories About a Dangerous Existence

Facebook

Premium Times
PSP operator evacuating the waste at Tinubu Square.


ANALYSIS

Lagos, Nigeria's economic hub, with a population of more than 15 million, generates an estimated 12,000 metric tonnes of waste daily, which comes to about 4.3 million tonnes of waste annually. This ends up on the streets and in the city's four officially designated landfills.

These sites support thousands of people who search through what's discarded for materials with resale value. Our survey of two landfill sites discovered a total of about 2,800 waste pickers - men and women.

Most landfills have buy-back centres, where the waste pickers sell recyclables such as metal, glass, plastic and paper. We observed that the subsistence incomes of waste pickers fluctuated daily, depending on the volume of recyclable waste delivered to the landfill, its quality, and varying prices. The daily average income of the street waste pickers was N2,075 (US$4.99) while that of the landfill waste pickers was N5,530 (US$13.30). Though this average income is higher than the poverty line, the work and the environment are hazardous, and its value is not fully appreciated.

Waste pickers often work without protective gear, unassisted, and without access to primary care or first aid and employment regulations. They operate on the margins of or outside the formal process of managing solid waste, but play vital roles, especially in reuse, recycling and cost recovery.

They work in unsheltered environments and are unprotected from severe heat, sun, rain, and cold weather. These conditions have been linked with cardiovascular disorders. Likewise, exposure to dust, micro-organisms and microbial toxins can result in chronic respiratory diseases, skin problems and gastrointestinal illnesses.

Research on waste pickers has tended to focus on the health risks of their occupation. Our study confirmed that Lagos waste pickers were exposed to occupational health hazards, but also aimed to reveal more about their well-being and their own perspectives.

The findings may help waste management authorities to make landfills a more dignified working environment that sustains waste pickers' livelihoods without jeopardising their well-being.

Occupational hazards of waste picking

For our research, we interviewed 125 waste pickers in Olusosun landfill and 27 in Solous landfill. Olusosun is situated in Ojota, Kosofe Local Government Area and Solous in Egbeda, Alimosho Local Government Area of Lagos state.

We established that waste picking in landfills was mostly done by younger people: 88% of our respondents were aged between 18 and 45. The collection of recyclable materials and items was mostly done by men, while the sorting was mostly by women.

They operated at the landfill because of the abundance and concentration of waste there. In fact, 66% lived at the dumpsite. The majority worked seven days a week. The average number of years they had spent doing this work was seven.

Most of the waste pickers we spoke to had experienced illnesses or injuries. Body pain, bruises and fatigue were the most frequently mentioned conditions. Most waste pickers had bruises or scars on their hands, arms and feet, mainly from cuts or piercings during sorting.

Other illnesses and injuries were caused by inappropriate posture and prolonged work hours. Many had sore or itchy eyes caused by exposure to smoke from burning garbage and to other hazards like methane gas, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.

The people in our study didn't use personal protective equipment or go for regular medical checks.

When we asked about their subjective feelings, we found that the waste pickers were very dissatisfied with their unhealthy working conditions, the extreme poverty they lived in, and the stigmatisation they experienced. Many used alcohol and drugs. Most said they were distressed by their work.

They experienced discrimination, prejudice and social rejection.

Yet with low education levels - 61% were illiterate - they could not find other work. They settled for waste picking as a last resort to earn a living.

Value of waste pickers

Nigerian authorities don't fully appreciate the beneficial role of waste pickers. These workers contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing wastes in dumpsites and providing material for recycling and reuse. But they are never considered when waste management policies are designed.

Waste pickers should be recognised in waste management policies and their well-being should be taken seriously.

Waste management authorities, NGOs and multinational organisations must ensure that potable water, sanitary facilities and clinics are provided at landfills. Waste pickers must be allowed to use them free of charge, as is the case in Brazil.

In addition, waste pickers should be encouraged to develop workplace health frameworks to alleviate accidents and risks.

Training to build their capacity and expand their skills, giving them other work opportunities, could reduce their dissatisfaction.

There is also a need for investment in regular occupational health and safety training through public/private partnerships. Waste pickers should be provided with personal protective equipment and monitored to ensure proper use. Non-compliance should be penalised.

Lastly, the rights of waste pickers must be protected. They should not be stigmatised but treated as essential to waste management.

Olanrewaju Dada, Lecturer, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria, Olabisi Onabanjo University

New U.S. rules on EV subsidies slam Hyundai, Kia's dreams


Munich Motor Show IAA Mobility 2021

Wed, August 31, 2022
By Heekyong Yang and Ben Klayman

SEOUL/DETROIT (Reuters) -After grabbing the No. 2 spot in the U.S. electric vehicle market with stylish, long-range models, Hyundai Motor and Kia are the automakers with the most to lose from new rules that halt subsidies for EVs made outside North America.

These two companies, which make the popular Ioniq 5 and EV6 models, sold more than 39,000 EVs in the United States between January and July – doubling last year's sales and blowing past Ford Motor Co, Volkswagen AG and General Motors Co.

But the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by U.S. President Joe Biden last month excludes Hyundai Motor Co and its affiliate Kia Corp from federal tax credits because they don't yet make EVs in North America, knocking their EV ambitions in the short term at least, a Hyundai official, parts suppliers, analysts and car dealers said.

Only about 20 EVs qualify for subsidies under the new rules, among them models from Ford and BMW, and starting next year, GM and Tesla Inc. The rules also specify requirements for EV battery materials and parts sourcing from 2023.

Other foreign carmakers such as Toyota Motor Corp which will also be affected by the law have less at stake because they offer fewer models or command less market share.

"If all things are equal and if I buy this one I get a $7,500 tax credit and if I buy that one I don't, I love you Hyundai but I'm going to go with the one where I can get a tax credit," said Andrew DiFeo, a Florida-based dealer who has seen a few potential customers already drop Hyundai EVs as a preference.

Hyundai Motor Group, which announced over $10 billion in U.S. investments some three months back including a $5.5 billion EV plant in Georgia, is not pleased.

Biden had thanked Hyundai for the investments in May: "Thank you again for choosing the United States. We will not let you down."

An official at a large Hyundai supplier who has spoken to senior officials at the company told Reuters that the automaker was caught off guard by the law.

"So much for not letting us down," said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's a big mess."

South Korean officials met U.S. counterparts this week to express concerns, and the Financial Times reported that Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Euisun Chung headed to Washington too last week.

A senior government official said on Tuesday Seoul has asked Washington to postpone the new rules until the completion of the Georgia factory in 2025. South Korea has said the new law may violate treaties such as the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement.

"Our U.S. EV factory plan was to get subsidies in light of the growing EV market in the United States … the new law negatively and directly affects us," said a company official who declined to be identified because they are not authorised to speak to media.

AMERICAN MADE

While the auto group is considering bringing forward the construction start of the factory to as early as this year, analysts still expect a drop in sales due to a loss of momentum.

Analysts said it was too early yet to quantify how much the new rules will cost the companies in revenue and profit, but several said they would likely use incentives to attract American shoppers, a move that could push up costs.

After Biden signed the Act on Aug. 16, shares in Hyundai and Kia fell some 4% each. They have since recovered.

"We are internally considering diverse ways to cope with the Act," Hyundai Motor Group said in a statement to Reuters.

While Hyundai and Kia's American EV sales added up to just over a tenth of Tesla's volumes and roughly 9% of the U.S. market share, they suggested that the companies were on their way to cement their position as a top EV player in the country.

Hyundai will launch it first EV sedan Ioniq 6 early next year in the United States, a car that analysts had expected could compete with Tesla in the U.S. market because of its pricing.

Kia has not confirmed plans for a U.S. launch of the EV9, an SUV much bigger than the EV6, though analysts expected it to be a hit with American consumers who prefer big cars. Seoul-based Daol Investment & Securities analyst Yoo Ji-woong said Kia would likely consider making the EV9 in the United States to get subsidies.

Yoo is sanguine that all automakers will ultimately benefit.

"It may take a few years, but eventually the law will help make electric cars more affordable."

(Reporting by Heekyong Yang in Seoul and Ben Klayman in Detroit; Additional reporting by Aishwarya Nair in Bengaluru; Editing by Sayantani Ghosh and Kim Coghill)