Sunday, August 25, 2024

What is Driving the Rise in Racism and Fascism in Ireland?
August 22, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Protest demonstration in front of Leinster House, Dublin.
 (Photo: via Dublin Communities Against Racism)

On 3 August 2024, Tricolours and Union flags were held aloft by racists and fascists at Belfast City Hall, united in prejudice, railing against the organization of a ‘Unity over Division’ rally by anti-racist community organisations and trade unions. The far-right in Belfast was joined by agitators from Coolock in Dublin who have violently opposed the siting of an accommodation centre for international protection applicants in their area. The racists were prevented from marching on Belfast Islamic Centre by the police and turned their anger on businesses in South Belfast owned by members of the minority ethnic communities. They then attacked hotels housing asylum-seekers in what must have been a terrifying ordeal for vulnerable children and adults, many of whom had already suffered the trauma of fleeing their countries to seek sanctuary. Several nights of racist violence followed in which businesses, homes and a mosque were targeted. This wave of far-right violence in England, Wales and the north of Ireland followed the stabbing to death of three young girls in Southport on 29 July. Toxic social media posts attributed the killings to a Muslim and migrant despite the 17-year old suspect being born in Cardiff.

In the south of Ireland, there has been increasing levels of violence directed at international protection applicants forced to sleep in tents because of a lack of state-provided accommodation. There have also been at least 31 arson attacks on ‘properties or locations linked, or rumoured to be linked, to the housing of people seeking asylum or international protection’.

Housing crisis

So, what is driving this escalation in racist intimidation and violence? A common denominator in the north and south of Ireland is a housing crisis, particularly the lack of affordable social housing to buy and accommodation to rent. In the north, only 400 new social housing units are to be built in 2024-25 from a target of 2,000, with the lack of housing feeding the false narrative that the available stock is reserved for migrants. According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), net migration increased by 2,300 people or just 0.1 per cent of the total population in 2022 which means that only 2.5 percent of asylum-seekers in the UK live in the north. The displacement rhetoric whipped up by the far-right on the basis that migrants are lengthening waiting lists for social housing and absorbing available supply is a fallacy as asylum applicants are not on social housing waiting lists. The housing crisis is caused by a supply issue and flawed government policies, not inward migration.



In the south of Ireland, the homeless total has surpassed 14,000, 4000 of whom are children. A chronic lack of social housing combined with unaffordable rental charges and rising numbers of tenant evictions has created a gridlocked housing sector. The 2022 Irish census revealed that 41 per cent of young people, aged between 18 and 34, are living with their parents because they are unable to afford a mortgage or secure a tenancy in the rental sector. The housing crisis is compounded by investor funds from the private sector buying up properties to rent out and create ‘a permanent income stream for their shareholders and wealthy investors’. The Department of Finance revealed that a total of 623 homes were bought by 16 investors in 2023, compared to 395 in 2022 and 187 in 2021. This is the reckless outcome of neoliberal policies that enlarge the role of the private sector and landlords whose only imperative is to turn a healthy profit.

Inner city neglect

But the lack of affordable social housing is not the only driver of poverty and racism in Ireland. Pobal, a government agency designed to support social inclusion and community development, found in 2023 an increase in the gap between Ireland’s most disadvantaged areas and the national average. The Pobal Deprivation Index uses a composite of ten indicators to measure an area’s level of disadvantage including educational attainment, unemployment, access to services and the number of persons per room. It found that 195,992 people ‘now live in areas classed as very or extremely disadvantaged’ including Coolock in Dublin’s northside, where arsonists targeted a site designated for housing units for Ukrainian refugees. With Ireland riding a corporate tax windfall which resulted in an €8.6 billion surplus this year, there is an obvious case to be made for increased investment in services that address the fault-lines in Irish society that have manifested themselves in racially-motivated violence stirred by inflammatory and, in some cases, ‘false and racially-motivated, toxic speech’. While there is no tax boon to be had in the north of Ireland, the newly elected Labour government needs to shed itself of the ‘non-negotiable’ fiscal rules that are constraining much needed expenditure on failing services, particularly on the National Health Service. The north of Ireland has the ‘highest per capita waiting list in the UK’ for health appointments, including patients who have waited more than a year for an appointment. Nearly one-in-five people in the north live in poverty, including over 100,000 children, with one in fourteen households food insecure.

Wealth redistribution

Governments in Dublin and London need to use taxation to redistribute wealth given the polarising effects of neoliberalism in accelerating inequality in Britain and Ireland. Oxfam has reported that the richest one per cent of Britons hold more wealth than 70 per cent of the population combined. The same report found that 95 food and energy corporations more than doubled their profits in 2022 and paid out $257 billion (£211 billion) in dividends to shareholders. The timing of this windfall for the super-rich coincided with millions of families struggling to manage food and energy bills, and unprecedented numbers making recourse to foodbanks to survive. It’s a similarly unequal and depressing situation in Ireland, with the richest one per cent controlling 35.4 per cent of Irish financial wealth. Ireland’s two billionaires have more wealth – €15 billion – than fifty per cent of the Irish population combined, who own €10.3 billion. A progressive wealth tax on Irish millionaires and billionaires could generate up to €8.2 billion a year, argues Oxfam, a war chest that could help address the persistent social and economic problems that are creating so much disadvantage, anger and alienation from mainstream politics.

Since the 1970s, neoliberalism has created the ideal conditions that allow the far-right to prosper. It privatises public services, suppresses wages, erodes the welfare state and undermines the social contract. The atomisation of society under neoliberalism collapses the political into the personal and denies the capacity for systemic thinking. So, in addition to addressing the material causes of poverty through a more equitable redistribution of wealth, is the need for education and critical thinking that demystifies and challenges the fallacies that are driving racism and fascism. As Henry Giroux argues: ‘Education both in its symbolic and institutional forms has a vital role to play in fighting the resurgence of false renderings of history, white supremacy, religious fundamentalism, an accelerating militarism, and ultra-nationalism’. Transformative education is needed to challenge the epistemic injustice that blinds communities on the frontlines of poverty in Ireland from the systemic failures that underpin inequality. The alternative is to allow the far-right to prey upon the effects of neoliberalism to foster prejudice and hate.

ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

Stephen McCloskey

Stephen McCloskey works in the global education sector in Ireland. He is the author of Global Learning and International Development in the Age of Neoliberalism (Routledge, 2022). He is writing in a personal capacity.
Accusations of US Regime-Change Operations in Pakistan and Bangladesh Warrant UN Attention

The very strong evidence of the U.S. role in toppling the government of Imran Khan in Pakistan raises the likelihood that something similar may have occurred in Bangladesh.

August 23, 2024
Source: Common Dreams


Two former leaders of major South Asian countries have reportedly accused the United States of covert regime change operations to topple their governments. One of the leaders, former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, languishes in prison, on a perverse conviction that proves Khan’s assertion. The other leader, former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina, fled to India following a violent coup in her country. Their grave accusations against the U.S., as reported in the world media, should be investigated by the UN, since if true, the U.S. actions would constitute a fundamental threat to world peace and to regional stability in South Asia.

The two cases seem to be very similar. The very strong evidence of the U.S. role in toppling the government of Imran Khan raises the likelihood that something similar may have occurred in Bangladesh.

In the case of Pakistan, Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and Central Asia, met with Asad Majeed Khan, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S., on March 7, 2022. Ambassador Khan immediately wrote back to his capital, conveying Lu’s warning that PM Khan threatened U.S.-Pakistan relations because of Khan’s “aggressively neutral position” regarding Russia and Ukraine.

The Ambassador’s March 7 note (technically a diplomatic cypher) quoted Assistant Secretary Lu as follows: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” The very next day, members of the parliament took procedural steps to oust PM Khan.

On March 27, PM Khan brandished the cypher, and told his followers and the public that the U.S. was out to bring him down. On April 10, PM Khan was thrown out of office as the parliament acceded to the U.S. threat.

We know this in detail because of Ambassador Khan’s cypher, exposed by PM Khan and brilliantly documented by Ryan Grim of The Intercept, including the text of the cypher. Absurdly and tragically, PM Khan languishes in prison in part over espionage charges, linked to his revealing the cypher.


The U.S. appears to have played a similar role in the recent violent coup in Bangladesh. PM Hasina was ostensibly toppled by student unrest, and fled to India when the Bangladeshi military refused to prevent the protestors from storming the government offices. Yet there may well be much more to the story than meets the eye.

According to press reports in India, PM Hasina is claiming that the U.S. brought her down. Specifically, she says that the U.S. removed her from power because she refused to grant the U.S. military facilities in a region that is considered strategic for the U.S. in its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” to contain China. While these are second-hand accounts by the Indian media, they track closely several speeches and statements that Hasina has made over the past two years.

On May 17, 2024, the same Assistant Secretary Liu who played a lead role in toppling PM Khan, visited Dhaka to discuss the US Indo-Pacific Strategy among other topics. Days later, Sheikh Hasina reportedly summoned the leaders of the 14 parties of her alliance to make the startling claim that a “country of white-skinned people” was trying to bring her down, ostensibly telling the leaders that she refused to compromise her nation’s sovereignty. Like Imran Khan, PM Hasina had been pursuing a foreign policy of neutrality, including constructive relations not only with the U.S. but also with China and Russia, much to the deep consternation of the U.S. government.

To add credence to Hasina’s charges, Bangladesh had delayed signing two military agreements that the U.S. had pushed very hard since 2022, indeed by none other than the former Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the neocon hardliner with her own storied history of U.S. regime-change operations. One of the draft agreements, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), would bind Bangladesh to closer military-to-military cooperation with Washington. The Government of PM Hasina was clearly not enthusiastic to sign it.

The U.S. is by far the world’s leading practitioner of regime-change operations, yet the U.S. flatly denies its role in covert regime change operations even when caught red-handed, as with Nuland’s infamous intercepted phone call in late January 2014 planning the U.S.-led regime change operation in Ukraine. It is useless to appeal to the U.S. Congress, and still less the executive branch, to investigate the claims by PM Khan and PM Hasina. Whatever the truth of the matter, they will deny and lie as necessary.

This is where the UN should step in. Covert regime change operations are blatantly illegal under international law (notably the Doctrine of Non-Intervention, as expressed for example in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, 1970), and constitute perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, as they profoundly destabilize nations, and often lead to wars and other civil disorders. The UN should investigate and expose covert regime change operations, both in the interests of reversing them, and preventing them in the future.

The UN Security Council is of course specifically charged under Article 24 of the UN Charter with “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” When evidence arises that a government has been toppled through the intervention or complicity of a foreign government, the UN Security Council should investigate the claims.

In the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the UN Security Council should seek the direct testimony of PM Khan and PM Hasina in order to evaluate the evidence that the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of the governments of these two leaders. Each, of course, should be protected by the UN for giving their testimony, so as to protect them from any retribution that could follow their honest presentation of the facts. Their testimony can be taken by video conference, if necessary, given the tragic ongoing incarceration of PM Khan.

The U.S. might well exercise its veto in the UN Security Council to prevent such a investigation. In that case, the UN General Assembly can take up the matter, under UN Resolution A/RES/76/, which allows the UN General Assembly to consider an issue blocked by veto in the UN Security Council. The issues at stake could then be assessed by the entire membership of the UN. The veracity of the U.S. involvement in the recent regime changes in Pakistan and Bangladesh could then be objectively analyzed and judged on the evidence, rather than on mere assertions and denials.

The U.S. engaged in at least 64 covert regime change operations during 1947-1989, according to documented research by Lindsey O’Rourke, political science professor at Boston Collage, and several more that were overt (e.g. by U.S.-led war). It continues to engage in regime-change operations with shocking frequency to this day, toppling governments in all parts of the world. It is wishful thinking that the U.S. will abide by international law on its own, but it is not wishful thinking for the world community, long suffering from U.S. regime change operations, to demand their end at the United Nations.

 

Source: Resilience

Image credit Allegheny College


As a faculty member at Allegheny College in Northwestern Pennsylvania, I work with students to design and install solar arrays for churches, housing nonprofits, and other organizations that serve our community. Collaborating on local solar projects has taught me a great deal. But what stands out most from my experience is that vulnerable populations are being left out of the energy transition.

As I meet individuals and organizations who are actively pursuing solar installations, it is clear that these stakeholders possess a certain degree of time, knowledge, and/or financial resources that enable them to entertain the idea of a solar investment. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that many others in my community do not have. While the rapid growth of solar will provide clean energy and security to many, others will face an uncertain future without the direct benefit of solar and other green energy technologies. This disparity will have significant consequences on the equity and resiliency of our society.

The roadblocks to resilience

If you own your home, have a suitable roof or yard, and can afford solar, you can dramatically reduce your electric bills. If you combine those solar panels with battery storage, you can even fortify your home against blackouts and other grid disruptions. Lower-income households, however, face significant barriers to solar adoption. Older homes might need expensive roof replacements before solar becomes a viable option. Renters who do not own their roofs and those without access to financing may be entirely out of luck. These barriers to solar mean that wealthier households are lowering their energy bills and receiving more reliable electricity while everyone else is left purchasing electricity from providers with steadily increasing rates.

To make matters worse, low-income households are already facing daunting challenges when it comes to energy consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration, more than a quarter of US households are energy insecure, meaning that they are unable to meet their energy needs due to financial constraints, substandard housing conditions, and other factors that disproportionately impact low-income populations. Many of these households have sacrificed food and medicine to pay their energy bills, and not surprisingly, researchers have identified links between energy insecurity and mental health, respiratory health, thermal stress, sleep quality, and child health. Energy insecurity means less access to air conditioning, refrigeration, and electric-powered medical devices in a time of increasingly extreme weather and more frequent grid disruptions. In other words, energy-insecure communities are less resilient in the face of aging energy infrastructure and a changing climate.

Of course, low-income households are not the only ones impacted by energy insecurity. We all suffer the impacts of inefficient buildings pumping additional greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. We all pay for the social safety nets that keep families afloat when they are unable to meet monthly expenses. And we all pay for heat-related emergency room visits that would be completely avoidable in a more equitable society. We would all be better off emotionally, physically, and financially if we addressed the root cause of energy insecurity rather than its symptoms.

Solar represents an incredible opportunity to address the lack of access to affordable electricity and create a more resilient society. If photovoltaics have the power to widen income and energy disparities, solar can also be harnessed to buoy families facing the worst financial hardships, extreme weather, and grid disruptions. The only question is: How do we get solar in the hands of those who could benefit the most from the technology?

Solar solutions: we can do more

There are several policy approaches that can close the energy divide and help communities become energy resilient. Solar incentives have historically been the go-to strategy for expanding the use of solar power, and the most notable residential incentive in the U.S. is called the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC). As its name suggests, the ITC is a federal tax credit that can be worth anywhere between 30% to 60% of a solar installation. The only downside is that homeowners must owe more in taxes than they would receive from the tax credit in order to receive the full benefit. Low-income families rarely meet this criterion, and this means that they face higher costs when installing solar. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided a direct payment option for tax-exempt organizations to receive solar incentives, but this new payment mechanism does not apply to individual households. Going forward, we need our federal government to extend these direct payments to individuals who do not earn enough to take advantage of this tax incentive.

Another challenge is that residents cannot put solar panels on their homes if they do not own their own homes or if their roofs cannot support solar panels. That is why some states have adopted community solar programs that allow households to receive credit for solar that is installed off-site. In other words, renters and homeowners with unsuitable roofs can be credited with the energy savings produced by solar panels on another building, a shared apartment building roof, or a brownfield site. My home state of Pennsylvania and 25 other states have yet to pass bills to make this an option for residents. This means that millions of families lack the opportunity to benefit from solar directly. Enabling community solar should be priority number one for states that have yet to address this issue.

Of course, incentives and community solar can only go so far when the core problem is a lack of financial resources. Arguably, the most impactful strategy for getting solar energy into vulnerable communities is direct investment. The Biden administration made a historic investment towards this end when it announced its $7 billion Solar For All grant. Awardees will use these funds to pursue solar installations and workforce development projects in low-income communities all over the nation for the next five years. That said, individual households spent several times this amount on residential solar installations in 2023 alone. Unless we allocate more resources towards low-income solar, our most vulnerable communities will continue to fall behind. Local, state, and federal governments all need to invest in low-income solar if we hope to close the gap in solar spending.

The energy transition as an opportunity

Fortunately, solar is just one of several green technologies with the potential to reduce inequality. Access to quality public transportation and active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) programs has been shown to save money, reduce congestion, and promote economic development. Energy-efficient homes have significant financial and environmental benefits, and they are also the first line of defense against physical and mental illness. And when all of these technologies are implemented in coordinated and equitable ways, the co-benefits could be transformative. Communities can become healthier and wealthier while maintaining access to safe environments, medicine, and mobility, even during extreme weather and grid disruptions.

To these ends I and several of my colleagues at Allegheny College are collaborating with local partners to create efficient and affordable homes, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, and government buildings powered by renewables. These local initiatives are rewarding and essential, but citizens pushing for equitable energy policies would be far more impactful. Residents and organizers must push for more inclusive policies and more direct investment when it comes to solar and other green technologies. More importantly, we must elect politicians who understand the connections between equity, energy, and climate resilience. The energy transition represents the opportunity of a lifetime to invest in a more equitable and resilient future.

Source: Labor NotesFacebook

At a New Jersey workshop, Communications Workers identified and mapped hazards. Bosses try to make safety into a game to get us not to report issues or blame each other for unsafe conditions. Photo: NJWEC



Employer-sponsored “safety games” or “safety contests” may seem benign on the surface, but there’s a deadly motive.

Employers are rediscovering an old scheme to con workers into undermining their own job safety. These games are designed to reward employees for not reporting accidents.

In one United Electrical Workers (UE) shop, management (without consulting with the union) announced a new safety game. Each month the names of employees are put into a pool for a $100 prize drawing, but only if their department has not reported any accidents.

If your department has reported an accident, you’re not eligible. If more than three accidents are reported in the plant, the drawing is not held.

WHAT’S WRONG HERE?

The union objected to this “game” precisely because it makes a game of safety. It pits workers against each other. Some workers will blame someone who gets hurt for ruining their chances to win the prize.

The focus is switched from the removal of unsafe working conditions to not reporting accidents. It places the blame on workers, as if workers have accidents on purpose.

There are other variations on this game. “Safety Bingo” turns up every once in a while. Workers are all given bingo cards and there’s a prize. Numbers are only drawn each week that there’s no accident.

In the worst versions of this game, management will post the names of workers who had accidents and thereby “ruined” everybody’s chance to play bingo that week.

HARD TO STOP

These games can easily get divisive, especially when the union tries to put a stop to them. Members may get angry that the union is “spoiling their chance to win.” There’s nothing a boss likes more than a divided union membership.

So it’s best to pull the band-aid off right away, before people get invested in the game. Stewards must quickly oppose the games and explain why.

Try to make people see reason. These “safety games” are daredevil stunts that, for example, we’d never let our teenage sons and daughters participate in.

MONEY

Why don’t bosses want accidents reported? Money.

Insurance companies base the premiums they charge for workers compensation on the nature and frequency of accidents and injuries. As more accidents are reported, premium costs go up.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all employers to keep logs that list every accident or injury, called OSHA 300 logs. If the logs show too many accidents and injuries, OSHA may come in and inspect the worksite.

If an injury is not reported as a workplace injury, the boss’s obligations to the worker under the workers compensation laws don’t exist. If the injury causes problems in the future, the company has no long-term obligation to the worker, especially if the person no longer works there.

SAFETY REWARDS: ALWAYS BAD?

The union should oppose all programs that:

  • cause workers not to report accidents or injuries
  • try to pit worker against worker
  • start with the idea that employees are the cause of accidents and injuries

The union can be in favor of programs that give rewards for pointing out unsafe working conditions or for suggesting ways to eliminate accidents and injuries. Not surprisingly, very few such programs exist.

The best solution is an active union health and safety committee that is trained to look for unsafe working conditions, and stewards who grieve such conditions.

CAN THEY DO THIS?

Health and safety is a mandatory subject of bargaining. So if the employer wishes to start any sort of health and safety program that affects wages, hours, or working conditions, it must bargain with the union.

In some cases these “behavior-based safety programs” may also violate the law.

OSHA and most state workers compensation laws forbid punishing or discriminating against a worker for reporting an accident or injury. Taking the worker out of a prize drawing may violate these laws.

Contests that make public the names of workers who get hurt and therefore stop other workers from getting prizes can be deemed illegal because they subject the injured worker to discrimination from others.

Programs that encourage workers not to report accidents or injuries may also violate the law. OSHA mandates that every accident or injury must be reported and logged.

This article is adapted from the UE Steward, which publishes many great how-to articles. Browse them all at bit.ly/UESteward.

Google Has Been Convicted of Monopolization. Will It Matter?

In a landmark decision by a federal judge this month, Google was found guilty of illegal monopolistic conduct. What happens next — and will it be enough to rein in the search giant’s massive power?
August 23,  2024
Source: Jacobin




For years, Google has been synonymous with its main search product. Generations have grown up relying on the company’s flagship service to search the web, answer questions, and cheat on exams prepared by innocent, hard-working professors.

But now all this has been called into question, as this month Google was formally adjudicated to have been running a monopoly in search. What does that mean? Doesn’t Google have competitors, after all? And what will happen to the company, and the enormous part of the online experience it shapes for billions of users?

The decision, the result in part of the Biden administration’s relatively aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, amounts to a landmark verdict, similar in many ways to the 2001 ruling that found Microsoft guilty of monopolistic conduct. Yet if that case is any indication, Google is unlikely to face serious consequences — nor is it plausible that antitrust remedies really address the biggest problems with the search giant.
Search Party

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” wrote federal judge Amit Mehta of the US district court for DC in his decision earlier in August. Google has known for years this moment might come and has done everything possible to avoid or delay it, including a policy of automatically deleting chat messages between executives after twenty-four hours. But at long last a legal ruling of monopoly has arrived, with all its potential ramifications.

The ruling focuses on Google’s long-running practice of paying giant sums to other tech firms to make its search engine the default setting on web browsers. This practice reached enormous scale, with Google paying Apple $18 billion in 2021 to appear as the standard search option on Apple’s Safari browser. Phone maker Samsung and browser Firefox also received billions annually to privilege Google Search in similar ways. Phone users can always change their search engine preference, but in practice very few do so.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and a group of US states sued in 2020 to end these arrangements, which have helped Google establish monopoly status in search — a 90 percent market share according to DOJ estimates, rising to 95 percent in mobile search. Usually economists don’t require a company to have a full 100 percent market share to be a monopolist, just a strongly dominant position.

But Google didn’t buy its way to being a monopoly. As I’ve discussed previously in Jacobin, the stupendous stature of trillion-dollar platforms like Google and Facebook are owed mainly to the well-known economic phenomenon of network effects. As more users create Instagram accounts, say, or upload videos to YouTube, those hubs become more attractive to audiences, in turn attracting more creators, which then brings in an even bigger audience. This positive-feedback effect means the value of goods like phone service or an Instagram account gets bigger as more users join the network, unlike other goods such as food or clothes. So Google’s paradoxical-seeming claim that its market control actually helps users is actually true to a point, since its dominance means top-tier search results for free.

Indeed, the lawsuit and court ruling recognize this, claiming reasonably that Google used its giant payoffs to other tech platforms to “reinforce” or “strengthen” its already existing dominance. And crucially, the corporation in fact does this: Google’s specific network effect in search comes from its access to user data.

As users conduct searches on the platform, Google collects data on user behavior, such as what links they click on or don’t, what responses best answer different questions, and so on. That data was used for years to improve the quality of Google’s search product, making it by far the best option. (This was prior to Google’s gradually stuffing the results with profit-driving ads in recent years, driving down the quality of the search product in the eyes of many users.)

So Google’s default deals with Apple and Samsung did help Google entrench its monopoly, since they steered large amounts of search queries to its platform and starved of data its rivals like Yahoo or Microsoft’s Bing search tool. Thus Mehta ruled that the deals “have given Google access to scale that its rivals cannot match.”

Fair enough. Google has announced it will appeal, likely pushing a final resolution of the case several years out. But in the meantime, we can make an educated guess about what lies ahead, using the one other example of a convicted platform monopolist.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. versus United States v. Google LLC

In many ways, the ruling is Google’s Microsoft moment.

Readers of these pages may know I have a certain obsession with the Microsoft antitrust case from the 1990s and early 2000s, since (until this week) it’s the only example of a major tech platform being adjudicated as a monopolist. While Microsoft then and Google today are different beasts, they were both indicted and convicted for abusing monopolies based on network effects and platform dominance, so there’s a good deal to be learned from the case.

Indeed, Mehta’s own ruling refers to Microsoft on 104 of its 277 pages. That case was brought after Bill Gates belatedly recognized the importance of the newfangled “internet” and decided to crush the then-dominant web browser, Netscape. It did so by bundling its own Internet Explorer browser into the hyperdominant Windows operating system. This “monopolization” meant its competitors were eventually able to get the government interested, leading to a suit brought by the DOJ and several US states. That ultimately resulted in a federal court ruling that Microsoft was an operating-system monopolist that had abused its power to take over adjacent markets, including web browsing.

An appeals court upheld this finding but pared back its conduct requirements, including allowing Microsoft to bundle its browser and OS — which suggests Google may well trim its liabilities on its future appeal. Crucially, the federal court ruling found Microsoft must be broken up into an OS company and an apps company, but appeals reopened the remediation process, which lasted through the controversial 2000 US presidential election. The George W. Bush administration’s DOJ publicly abandoned the effort for structural remedies — in other words, it gave up on breaking up the company.

While Microsoft’s OS monopoly was itself never legally challenged and lasted for many more profitable years until the advent of mobile and the broad adoption of Chromebooks, the requirements on its conduct that survived appeal were weak. The company endlessly foot-dragged on compliance with the rulings, quickly falling behind deadlines on sharing protocols with competitors. It was so egregious the original consent decree was extended twice, ultimately lasting over nine years from the original decision. A “technical committee” was appointed over the company’s loud objection, in part to help determine which problems were technical and which were driven by the company’s recalcitrance.

The European Commission (EC), which conducted its own investigation at the same time, ordered the company to include a “choice screen,” where users could choose their browser — a likely remedy in the Google case, but for search engines rather than web browsers. But a year after this requirement was imposed on Microsoft, the company issued a Windows update without the software for displaying the browser-choice screen. In a suggestion of what Google’s “compliance” may look like, the failure somehow went unnoticed by the authorities for seventeen months, until the EC received reports and ordered a fix.

The judgment cites Google’s internal estimates that it could lose 60 to 80 percent of queries on iOS devices, coming to a loss of over $32 billion (counting the money saved from not paying Apple), if Mehta were to recommend these remedies and they survive appeal. Notably, Microsoft tried repeatedly to get its unpopular Bing search engine into the dominant spot on the iPhone, even at one point offering to give Apple 100 percent of its search ad income on iPhones, or even selling it to Apple outright. But Apple preferred the higher-quality option from Google, especially since it came with gigantic payoffs.

Imposing a search-engine-choice screen on phone makers would be a natural choice. However, when the European Union forced Android mobile devices to carry such a screen in 2020, the giant majority of users stayed with Google, keeping its European market share north of 95 percent since. The United States may encounter a similarly enduring monopoly, since Google has by far the greatest data hoard to optimize search, plus near-universal name recognition.

Much as in Google’s case, the court ruled in 2001 that Microsoft’s contracts illegally blocked rivals — Microsoft did it through deals with PC makers to keep out Netscape, and Google has done it through deals with phone manufacturers to keep out Bing. Crucially, the companies’ original, network-based monopolies weren’t illegal, but their use of that monopoly power to buttress or expand those monopolies was illegal.

In other words: monopoly is legal, monopolization isn’t. The press quotes a former antitrust official explaining that “while you can be dominant, you can’t abuse that dominance.” Google’s deals were more based on the carrot of billion-dollar checks while Microsoft’s were based on threats of withholding the Windows OS, but the underlying rationale is the same — monopolies arising from market forces are OK, but using them to take over more sectors isn’t.
Antitrust Skepticism

Liberals and some conservatives are enthusiastic supporters of antitrust law, seeing it as an adequate means of policing monopolies and excessive market power. But leftists have long been critical of US antitrust regulation, from its nineteenth-century origins as a tool mainly used against labor organizing through its New Deal–era glory days and its recent, wimpier neoliberal period.

Antitrust in the United States has a number of major weaknesses, even when compared to other developed, capitalist countries’ anti-monopoly rules. For example, the EU’s competition authority can outright declare a company to be a monopolist without taking a case to trial, whereas in the United States, the DOJ or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) must win a federal court case.

Further, over the past forty years, antitrust enforcement has shifted to a “harm-based” approach, which only recognizes consumers to be “harmed” by monopolization if it leads to price increases. From Standard Oil’s petroleum price cuts to Google’s nominally free services, this newer, business-friendly standard allows a galaxy of corporate consolidation and control to continue well within the law, as long as price spikes don’t occur too nakedly. Google’s defenders are quick to insist that the company can’t possibly harm consumers since its products are free to use.

But even setting aside this Robert Bork–inspired change, the enterprise of policing monopolies comes up against fundamental limits due to the numerous inherent monopolizing forces in markets, from network effects to economies of scale. At best, antitrust typically breaks up a monopoly and creates an oligopoly, as with the breakups of Standard and AT&T, which became gigantic, still-powerful firms that remain with us today, like Exxon, Chevron, and Verizon.

And some markets are meant to be monopolies — so-called natural monopolies — and Google is certainly one of them. The most common natural monopolies are regional utilities — power and water companies, commonly observed to be the only providers in an area. The infrastructure required for these industries, like power grids and water mains, come with giant costs, but then also have highly reliable demand, resulting in giant up-front expenses divided by enormous volumes of output. This creates falling costs, known as economies of scale, making competition unlikely (and redundant if accompanied with duplicate power lines or water pipes).

Strengthened by search-data network effects, with an obligation to the public to limit outright disinformation in a disinterested way and in a position to control the flow of online information, Google Search is in fact too important to be left to Google — or a handful of hypothetical post-breakup Google offspring, for that matter.

If there’s any company that should clearly be nationalized, it’s this one. Even compared to other gigantically important firms, including Microsoft and the Wall Street megabanks, Google has a uniquely key role as the online master switch of knowledge. No other corporation has this particular power, and so many tools to undermine behavioral rulings, and so much cash to spend to convince politicians to let it do what it wants. Its parent company, Alphabet, currently has a stupendous net cash balance of $87.5 billion.

Nationalization could allow the search engine to exist as public property, without constantly warping the engine to allow more ads and purchased results at the top, as has become the case with today’s commercial model. Like the other public agencies, it could make information available to all parties. We might recall that billionaire Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin wrote in a grad school paper about the program that became Google: “Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. . . . We believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.”
Recidivism Revisited

Observers and antitrust experts expect that, rather than a drastic breakup, Mehta will likely rule merely for injunctions against Google’s default-search deals and require that the company add a choice screen for users to pick their browser search engines. The ultimate outcome of the case will have major influence on the other ongoing DOJ and FTC antitrust lawsuits, including against Amazon, Apple, and Meta.

While we wait several years for Google’s various appeals to play out and hold our breaths in the meantime to see what remedies are prescribed, we can be confident that relatively little will change in the near term. Google’s giant deals for default-search status can continue under appeal, although the company is now exposed to class-action lawsuits from users during that time. But Google’s “long game” is unlikely to conclude with a serious breakup of the company, although it’s not out of the question. More likely, like Microsoft, it will get away with wimpy “behavioral” requirements that only partially address the issues and that it will be able to water down over time.

But even in a best-case scenario, antitrust remedies are limited to moderately policing market structure, turning a monopoly into an oligopoly with two or three firms instead of one. This isn’t valueless and can put some constraints on the liberty of the giant platforms to utterly control our online experience and the flow of information. But as in many other cases, attempting to rein in capital’s power here with regulatory guardrails, or limiting market share with court cases, fails to address the fundamental problems with private ownership, and antitrust remedies don’t generally call for nationalization. For that, taking Google into public, collective ownership would be the real solution.
The DNC and Beyond

August 23, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Trump Las Vegas hotel workers fighting for a contract joined a rally against his campaign for president in 2016. Despite his posturing, Trump has always been on the employers' side... and if he wins this time, the employers are preparing to take even fuller advantage. (Photo: UNITE HERE)

Some of you may remember the line, I think it was from an Alka Seltzer commercial, “I can’t believe I ate the whole thing.” Well I can’t believe I watched the whole thing. What an upside down, inside out, totally whacked out world we live in. But, as instructed, let’s “do something.”

Since you are reading this, the odds are pretty good you may find navigating between Trump versus Harris, and between Vance versus Walz troubled waters. How will you yourself actually vote much less how will you urge others to vote? If we name our electoral option crazy versus reasoned or callous versus caring or suicidal versus joyous, then, yes, there is only one choice. We’ll take sane, caring, and joyous. But what if we name our electoral option crazy versus less crazy, callous versus less callous, suicidal versus less suicidal? I understand that then some will hesitate. Some will feel “none of that is for me.”

If I enter my “we gotta stop Trump persona,” I have to admit the DNC was actually uplifting. It had eyes on a real primary aim, to stop Trump, and it had fight. And to have fight is something new for these folks. It even had considerable humanity. Some of their stories touched nerves. There was plenty of boredom too, yes, not just flimsy substance but even flimsy style. But there was also considerable charisma. And there was even some reasoned, impassioned substance. Higher ground indeed. And did they really close out day three with Neil Young’s Rockin In The Free World? Who invited that?

Was I surprised? Actually, yes, I was, more than once. For example, I was surprised by two war criminals, ex presidents Obama and Clinton. I never thought I’d find them more relevant than, well, so many others. But amidst all the hoopla they both carefully admitted that the other side has views too. They didn’t outright say but to my ears intimated that the other side, many of them, would probably say they too are choosing sane, caring, and joyous. Many of them, too, would say they aree choosing their lesser evil. And those two war criminal ex presidents told us, don’t deny the obvious. There are a shitload of them. This won’t be over until it is over—and maybe not even then. Which is why, and I hope I am not giving them too much credit, I think Obama and Clinton seemed to me to both say it isn’t enough to reach out to undecideds…it is not even enough to win swing counties, and it is not even enough to win the vote and the electoral college. We have to prevent a disenfranchising steal and then, even having won and even having prevented a steal, we need to reach out to Trump’s working class supporters who think we are the thieves and who think we want to crush them and find and nurture real common cause. And you can’t do that without listening. You can’t learn or teach without offering respect.

There is an incredible symmetry that almost no one acknowledges even with all the profoundly critical and undeniable differences between the two opposing forces. So which side are you on? The side that lies? The side that kills? The side that burns the sky until it melts us and that floods the sea until it drowns us? Whoops. That is both sides. Looking at the voters, not at the candidates, each constituency too often sees the other without a shred of respect, understanding, or hearing. That way disaster lurks.

I watched the celebration of colorful, joyous, energetic delegates that was the DNC. I watched through the roving camera to see their reactions as best I could. Call it an anecdotal perception fueled by some cautious conjecture. They felt to me way more progressive than the parade of their officials, and an another step further, I think the Democrat’s voting base is still more progressive. That is potential. I heard the “cop” who laid down riot gear to talk with protestors. And who was there, on stage, to say so. Who invited that? Now there was a surprise. And that is more than potential.

I most certainly want Harris and Walz to win, but I won’t forget much less deny the official ugliness that can’t be ignored. Palestine, and not just Palestine. Militarism. Idiot wind patriotism. Yes, attention to singular crimes that come in personal bunches was undeniably prevalent and to me it felt real. And that is something. It matters. Because absent that there would be nothing. But attention to institutional causes was nearly nil. And that matters too. Because absent that fundamentals will go untouched. I listened and I know you never know for sure what to believe. But it is rarely if ever the best option to dismiss everything, much less to make believe.

You know how serious sports fans root, root, root for the home team so hard that they start to say we won, we were great, the refs screwed us, or we did this and we did that? How fans to enjoy a peculiar unity start to see patterns and qualities that really aren’t there? I felt this gnawing fear that too many progressives, radicals, and even revolutionaries, would not just root for the home team, and not just find ways to help the home team, but also start to say “we”…forgetting that there is much more to seeking change than whipping up peculiar unity via patriotic nationalism without institutional vision, albeit sprinkled with a lot of heartfelt personal commitment and empathy. I also worried that too many progressives, radicals, and revolutionaries who rightly want to avoid a slip-slide toward phony patriotism would attack voting Harris and Walz and attack supporting Harris and Walz as selling out.

Hell, last night I hoped Bruce Springsteen would get on board. Tired bones singing really loud. I don’t know, maybe even “Badlands” to stretch a respectful branch to the rightly very angry white working class. And then, to pave the way for Harris, I hoped I’d see a Jackson Brown and Taylor Swift duet. Yes, I want the Democrats to win. And yes, I liked most every little thing that betokened a win coming, or that seemed to me conducive to winning. And yes, I was surprised by Harris addressing Palestine at all, albeit not enough. I was less surprised but saddened and outraged at excluding a Palestinian speaker.

And I didn’t feel “we” about any of it. I’d seen a number of Harris’s campaign stop speeches. She either held the delivery back then, or she took a big delivery leap forward last night. But substance? She didn’t say stop the arms shipments. She didn’t say end the genocide now, dammit. Much less did she acknowledge that America hasn’t been democracy’s international protector but it’s international denier and defiler. She didn’t say bring down big arms manufacturers. She didn’t sing Shawn Fain’s song, yet.

But yes, I enjoyed each time she and just about everyone who spoke said big pharma. But no one said big pharma is just capitalism made visible. Big pharma is drug dealing for profit on a scale cocaine and heroin cartels can only dream of. She didn’t say imagine some humans perverted by their corporate roles, perched up on a hill, draped in golden robes, sheltered by bloody mansions of false glory, calling down on us tornadoes, hurricanes, and rising tides. She didn’t say their global warming threatens to end us, to end all humanity, so I aim to end fossil fuels, to end them, dammit.

So what will emerge from the White House as Winter turns to Spring. I’m not sure anyone knows. I sure don’t know. Most likely, if not Trump belching pestilence for all, everywhere, than Harris and Walz offering more and perhaps even better Bidenism—unless we who want way more than Bidenism take some actually righteous advice and “do something.”

And we certainly have a lot to do to turn fascistic confusion into progressive optimism, and to turn progressive optimism into revolutionary passion. We have a lot to do to sometime but hopefully not too far down the road, hear a presidential speech even a little like what we would legitimately cry joyously for.

And even then, even when whoever hears such legitimately joyous words, there will still be a lot more work to do to solidify unlimited militant and caring popular desire into unbreakable institutional structure. But for now, for right now, the next step is to stop Trump. And to then hear and transform much of his support. And to then push on…to move toward a day when instead of America First, “USA, USA” idiot wind patriotism we will celebrate a new fired up but humble President who offers legitimately joyous words perhaps a little like these:

“Fellow citizens of the world, in the name of my country I apologize for our military and fiscal role in international mayhem and injustice from Latin America to Asia and from Europe to Africa. I apologize to Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Guyana, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Congo/Zaire, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.

“From recent genocidal assault on Palestine to past violations of all manner, I apologize to Chile, Greece, East Timor, Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iran, Venezuela, Somalia, and Syria.

“I apologize for our support of dictators, for our exploitative extractions, for our arms shipments and arms use. I apologize for threats, boycotts, and destruction, for massacring Native Americans, for slavery and racism, for sexism and sexual predation, for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and more…

“Together we need to reverse our history of exploitation and violence toward others and in its place to enact a new agenda of sharing and respect. We need to study war no more and to instead foster solidarity and mutual aid and to do it with as much energy and effort as we previously put to war-making and profit-seeking. We need an entirely new and compassionate, internationalist mindset.

“We need to transform our domestic defining institutions of polity and economy, culture and kinship, and our relation to our natural environment to remove hierarchies of wealth and power and to attain a sustainable new historical beginning. We need to aid and learn from all those who have already or who will now take up similar aims, as they deem suitable, worldwide.

“Amidst our planet’s tremendous, sustaining, and enriching diversity, we need to embrace our shared universal humanity. We need to celebrate and apply our shared values of universal human liberation. We nee solidarity and diversity. We need equity and self-management. We need international peace and environmental balance for all our own countries, each in mutual aid with the rest.

“We need to reject greed and profit-seeking. We need to reject self-aggrandizement and power-wielding. We need to embrace our natural home, our planet. We need to replenish it and not despoil it. We need to and we will usher in a new era of empathy, a new time of joyous exploration of our collective capacities.

“As an emissary and servant of the Revolutionary people of the United States and in accord with their wishes and schooled and guided bytheir incredible grassroots endeavors in our workplaces and neighborhoods, I embrace all around the world whoever around the world will walk that walk forward. Together.”

And after that, as tears of joy flow, delegates and citizens prepare to make it happen. That is not impossible. I and you can imagine it. More, There is no need to deny the long run agenda to go all in on the essential first step, now.

Stop Trump. But then turn eyes toward the full prize. Fight for more. Get in it to win it—to win it all.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

Related Posts


Michael Albert

Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork