Class action lawsuit filed against company pushing unsafe ionizers to reopen classrooms across the US

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/02/ioni-j02.html







Renae Cassimeda
10 hours ago







In the interest of reopening schools as soon as possible, hundreds of K-12 school districts, private schools, and universities across the US have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in federal relief funding provided by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to purchase Needle Point Bipolar Ionizers (NBPIs), supposedly to clean indoor air and kill coronavirus particles.

Despite their lofty claims to neutralize virus particles, recent independent studies show that NBPIs do not improve indoor air quality. A recently filed class action lawsuit consolidates the science by air quality experts and puts forward strong refutations against the claims made by manufacturers, and echoed by hundreds of districts and campuses across the country, that NBPIs are safe and remove pathogens including SARS-CoV-2 from the air.

Air ioniser and purifier with its dust collection plates removed (Credit: Wikimedia)

Michael Mills, one of the attorneys on the case, told the World Socialist Web Site, “The evidence is overwhelming. We are convinced we are right. I don’t know how districts can continue to use these products. If teachers or students get sick, these districts have zero protection.”

The lawsuit was filed last month against Global Plasma Solutions (GPS), a top selling manufacturer of NBPIs. The suit charges the company with fraud and claims the company used false, deceptive and misleading claims to sell its products and capitalize from the COVID-19 pandemic.

As part of the mad dash to reopen schools, ionizers have been installed in classrooms, school buses, offices, gymnasiums and cafeterias, providing a false sense of protection from COVID-19. Furthermore, harmful byproducts produced by the technology place the health and safety of millions of students and staff at heightened risk.

GPS and other manufacturers of NBPIs claim that their ionizers remove over 99 percent of SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air. However, a recent peer reviewed study led by three universities revealed that NBPIs had an entirely negligible effect on removing the airborne particles of coronavirus and only reduced 20-30 percent of the virus from surfaces.

Dr. Delphine Farmer, a leading researcher in the study, recently explained to the WSWS that ionizers do not actually accomplish their “bold claims” in real world settings. GPS based its claims of a 99 percent removal of coronavirus from the air on a company-funded study conducted in a shoe box-sized container (not a room or classroom). Instead of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 particles in the air, the devices instead produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

According to the lawsuit, independent studies cited in the case documents show that the products are not only ineffective at cleaning the air in real world conditions, but byproducts from the devices include the following harmful toxins:
Acetone: long-term exposure can produce damage to kidneys, liver, skin, central nervous system and reproductive system.
Ethanol: chronic intermittent ethanol vapor exposure produces widespread significant tissue injury including hepatic, pulmonary, and cardiovascular changes.
Toluene: long-term inhalation of toluene can cause permanent damage to the brain, muscles, heart, and kidneys.
Butyraldehyde: inhalation of Butyraldehyde can irritate the lungs, causing coughing and shortness of breath, while higher exposures can cause a pulmonary edema.

In addition to the above toxins, Dr. Marwa Zaatari, a mechanical engineer, expert on indoor air quality and member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) epidemic task force, also warns that ionizers have been shown to produce ozone and formaldehyde.

GPS and other companies selling these “snake oil” ionizer devices have profited tremendously off of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the lawsuit documents, GPS, which was founded in 2008, had a previous focus on “providing energy savings solutions. However, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the company’s focus shifted, and in CEO Glenn Brinckman’s words, ‘it’s all about pathogens and coronavirus and COVID-19.’”

ActivePure Technology, which employs former Trump adviser Dr. Deborah Birx as its chief medical and science adviser, is another company profiting from ionizers. A recent LinkedIn job ad for the company recruiting salespeople stated, “Make Tons of Money with this COVID-killing Technology!!...We have reps [who] made over 6-figures in 1 month selling to 1 school district.” Foaming at the mouth over the profits to be made, the ad exclaims, “By the way, the company is expanding by triple digits each month and this is just the tip of the iceberg!”

These technologies are being utilized by districts to provide a false sense of security and reassurance to concerned students, staff and parents who have faced a relentless barrage of propaganda to send them back to unsafe classrooms. Significantly, when a recent statement from Columbia County School District in Georgia announced masks are no longer a requirement in classrooms, officials sought to reassure their community that the continued use of ionizers in classrooms and on buses would provide adequate protection from COVID-19.

The installation of ionizers also solves another issue for districts, as they are far less costly and have no industry standards compared to proven mitigation strategies for improving indoor air quality, such as updating Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems, using Merv-13 filters, and operating HVAC systems at high efficiency in order to ensure at least five complete air exchanges per hour.

The lawsuit itself shows that opposition among parents, educators, and students has emerged in response to haphazard reopening campaigns which have allowed schools and workplaces to transform into sites of spread and infection of the virus.

Concerned parents of Montclair Public Schools in New Jersey expressed opposition to the use of GPS ionizers in classrooms during an April school board meeting. Parents cited independent scientific papers, articles and letters from experts in air quality, and in response the district disconnected the devices until further notice.

Superintendent Mark Triplett of Newark Unified School District in California recently announced the district will turn off all 556 ionizers it installed from GPS until further notice. According to local news media, Triplett sent an email to the entire district on Tuesday, saying the district had “been made aware” of a proposed class action lawsuit filed against Global Plasma Solutions in Delaware.

The San Diego Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee has called for ionizers to be shut off in the Sweetwater Union High School District, and urges educators, parents and students across the US and globally to form similar committees to fight for safety and the defense of public education. All educators and workers concerned with placing the highest levels of safety in classrooms and workplaces should contact the WSWS today to build a committee in your schools and district.

On eve of crisis election, Peru more than doubles its COVID-19 death count

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/02/peru-j02.html




Bill Van Auken
9 hours ago







Just days before a sharply polarized second-round presidential election, the Peruvian government acknowledged that the country’s death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic is at least 2.5 times higher than previously acknowledged.

Based on the advice of Peruvian and international health experts, the number of deaths was revised from nearly 70,000 to 180,000. This makes Peru, with a population of 33 million, the country with the highest fatality rate in the world and the fifth highest in terms of absolute numbers of deaths.

The change in the fatality count was based upon including not just those who died after having tested positive for the virus, but also those who died with symptoms corresponding to COVID-19 or who had “an epidemiological link to a confirmed case.”

Families wait in a line for a free meal in Lima, Peru, June 17, 2020. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

Even the new number undoubtedly underestimates the real death toll. This is not merely a Peruvian phenomenon. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently declared that up to three times more people may have died from the pandemic than is reflected in official figures. This would put the real global death toll at over 10 million.

The president of Peru’s Medical Federation, Dr. Godofredo Talavera, told the BBC that the higher number came as no surprise and was a product of the breakdown of the country’s health care system and the policies of its government.

“We believe this occurs because our health system does not have the necessary conditions to care for patients.

“There has been no government support with oxygen, with intensive care beds. We do not have enough vaccines at the moment. The first line of care has not been reactivated. All this makes us the first country in the world in mortality,” he said.

Compounding the crisis has been the rapid spread of the more contagious and lethal variants of the virus, including the one that originated in the Amazonian city of Manaus, Brazil, as well as the government’s mismanagement of the purchase and rollout of vaccines, with still barely 70,000 vaccinations taking place daily. Former President Martín Vizcarra, who failed to organize vaccine contracts, was embroiled in a scandal after secretly having himself, his wife and closest political associates vaccinated and then falsely claiming they were part of a vaccine trial.

More than half of the deaths have taken place in this year’s second wave of the pandemic.

The government’s admission of the catastrophic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic came just six days before Peruvians are set to go to the polls in one of the most politically polarized elections in the country’s history.

In a second-round ballot on June 6, Pedro Castillo, a former teachers strike leader, will face Keiko Fujimori, leader of the Peruvian right and daughter of the former dictator Alberto Fujimori, who is currently serving prison sentences on charges related to corruption and police-state massacres.

According to the latest poll, Castillo is leading Fujimori by 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent. Fujimori has managed to close what had been a two-to-one lead by Castillo in the aftermath of April’s first round election, with the bulk of the corporate media echoing her virulent anticommunist campaign, linking Castillo to “terrorism” and claiming his election would turn Peru into another Venezuela.

The right-wing candidate and her supporters also managed to exploit a May 23 massacre of 16 people in the central Amazonian region of Junín. Gunmen killed 16 people in attacks on two bars that reportedly doubled as brothels.

Without even going to the scene of the crime, the military and police immediately blamed the killings on Sendero Luminoso, the Maoist guerrilla movement that was defeated in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that left tens of thousands dead in the 1980s. While splinters from the movement have operated in the region in collaboration with drug gangs, there is no history of them carrying out such attacks.

Castillo has appealed to the immense popular hostility to the major parties, including Fujimori’s Fuerza Popular, and their ties to the wholesale corruption that has seen every living ex-president charged in bribery and kickback schemes. Keiko Fujimori was herself arrested and jailed on charges of corruption and leading a criminal organization, i.e., her party.

In the face of the anticommunist campaign of Fujimori and the unions, Castillo has repeatedly sworn his allegiance to private property and his support for foreign investment, insisting that his main aims are to improve tax collection and drive better bargains with the transnational mining companies.

The prospect of a Castillo victory has sparked talk of a potential coup by Peru’s military or a nullification of his presidency by Congress. There is every indication, however, that if elected Castillo would follow a similar path as former President Ollanta Humala, who ran as a left nationalist and once in office pursued a right-wing, pro-capitalist policy.

The crisis in Peru is mirrored throughout Latin America. The World Health Organization’s emergencies chief Michael Ryan said on Tuesday that eight of the 10 countries reporting the highest COVID-19 mortality rates in the last week were in the region.

“The situation in South America right now remains of very high concern,” he told reporters. “South America was really in a difficult situation only a couple of months ago, and that situation again is starting to turn in the wrong direction.” He noted that death rates have increased by 20 percent in Bolivia and Paraguay over the past week and pointed to stunningly high test positivity rates in a number of countries: 37 percent in Paraguay, 33 percent in Argentina and 30 percent in Colombia.

At the same time, he said, the fact that “case fatality rates in South America [are generally] higher than in many parts of the rest of the world” was attributable to the deterioration of health care systems on the continent “for a very long time,” under the impact of successive IMF-directed austerity measures.

“The transmission of the disease in the region is intense, the health care systems are under great pressure, and this is reflected in the high mortality rates,” Ryan concluded.

The pandemic crisis gripping the region has found expression in the chaos surrounding plans for the Copa America soccer championship, which was cancelled last year due to the onslaught of the coronavirus. Initially, Colombia and Argentina were to host the games between 10 South American teams. The Colombian government was forced to pull out in the face of mass popular protests that have continued into a second month, while Argentina withdrew this week because of surging infection rates.

Now an invitation has been extended by the Brazilian government of fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro, who dismissed COVID-19 as a “little flu” and has presided over the uncontrolled spread of the virus and the second largest recorded death toll, or 463,000, in the world.

Ethel Maciel, the head professor of epidemiology and well-known coronavirus researcher at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, described the announcement that Brazil would host the games as “incredible,” noting the new spread of the variant first identified in India. “It is very sad,” she said. “It is a great irresponsibility with the lives of Brazilians. Once again, financial questions are superseding questions of public health.”

Last weekend, there were mass demonstrations throughout Brazil denouncing the government’s homicidal mishandling of the pandemic and demanding the downfall of Bolsonaro.

Danish public broadcaster reveals ongoing NSA spying on top EU officials

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/02/euro-j02.html




Alex Lantier
9 hours ago







On Monday evening, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron protested official revelations of electronic spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA), aided by Danish intelligence, targeting top German, French, Norwegian and Swedish officials. The targets included Merkel, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and former social-democratic chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrück.

Eight years ago, in 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed mass NSA electronic spying and data collection targeting the entire world. Since then, revelations of mass spying by NATO intelligence agencies have gone hand in hand with stepped-up monitoring and censorship of the Internet and social media. The fact that top European officials were targeted for years after Snowden’s revelations, amid US assurances that they would not be spied upon, underscores that no one is protected from the massive, ongoing electronic dragnet.

French President Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (AP Photo/Francois Mori)




Snowden, now exiled in Russia, wrote on Twitter, “There should be an explicit requirement for full public disclosure not only from Denmark, but their senior partner as well.” Referring to Biden’s upcoming trip to Europe on June 11-13, Snowden pointed to Biden’s record as vice president under Obama’s NSA spying operations: “Biden is well-prepared to answer for this when he soon visits Europe since, of course, he was deeply involved in this scandal the first time around.”

NSA use of Danish assets to spy on European politicians was revealed on Sunday evening by an extensive report by Danish public television (DR), citing anonymous Danish official sources. This report, the product of high-level collaboration between leading European media, was shared with the Süddeutsche Zeitung and NDR and WDR television in Germany, Le Monde in France, Swedish public broadcaster SVT and Norwegian public broadcaster NRK.

The operation, code-named “Operation Dunhammer,” involved a collaboration between the NSA and Danish Military Intelligence ( Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, FE), which handed over Internet data traffic passing through Denmark to be searched by the NSA. The FE launched its own internal investigation of the program in 2015, however. The DR writes, “The investigation was carried out by four hackers and intelligence analysts who studied US-Danish collaboration using great secrecy, so the NSA would not become aware of the FE investigation.”

They found that the NSA was searching through this data using phone numbers and other personal data of many top European officials. One Danish source told DR that the NSA “got everything they used their phones for. It is impossible to deny that this was a targeted spying operation.” Another said, “This is an affair that is emerging as the greatest intelligence scandal in Danish history.”

Due to its strategic location between Britain, continental Europe, Scandinavia and Russia, Denmark is critical for spying on EU-Russia communications. Collaboration on this, another Danish official told DR, “has strategic significance for US-Danish relations.” As a result, even after “Operation Dunhammer” was formally ended in 2015, FE officials have kept collaborating with NSA spying.

In 2018, however, the 2015 FE report on “Operation Dunhammer” was leaked to Denmark’s Intelligence Oversight Authority (TET), which investigated the report.

Last August, several top FE officials were sacked without explanation. Thomas Ahrenkiel, who ran the FE during “Operation Dunhammer,” was recalled as Danish Ambassador to Germany, and his successor Lars Findsen was sacked for hiding information on FE operations from the government. Significantly, this mass sacking of top Danish intelligence officials came just after Defense Minister Tine Bramsen received the “Operation Dunhammer” report. DR also cited a TET press statement that concluded that the FE “launched operational activities in violation of Danish law.”

These events again expose the universal character of NATO intelligence agencies’ online spying, aimed above all at the working class. While the NSA undoubtedly has dedicated the most resources and infrastructure to electronic spying, Snowden’s courageous revelations also helped bring to light mass electronic surveillance in Germany, France and other EU countries.

Moreover, NSA documents leaked by Snowden show that in 2013 the NSA already had five ongoing partnerships like the one now revealed with Denmark.

Shortly after Snowden’s revelations, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) contrasted the mass sympathy for him with the universal hostility of capitalist governments, writing :

While Snowden’s actions have met with support and gratitude from workers and young people in the US and across the planet, that is not the case with the governments that rule them. All of them bow to the bullying from Washington. Like the US government, they defend wealthy ruling classes under conditions of ever-widening social inequality, and like Washington, they fear that their conspiracies against their own people will be exposed to the light of day.

The WSWS added that EU countries, who refused Snowden asylum, were doubtless concerned that “material in his possession will implicate their own governments in similar crimes.”

This analysis, fully borne out by subsequent events, again illuminates the EU powers’ muted initial response to this week’s revelations in Denmark. Berlin issued a statement on Monday morning that it “is in contact with all national and international partners to obtain clarification.” The Elysée presidential palace in Paris refused Le Monde ’s request for comment, instead sending Junior Minister for European Affairs Clément Beaune to speak to France-Info.

Snowden’s whistleblowing revealed US wiretapping of Washington’s EU “allies,” including Merkel, forcing Obama to issue empty promises to halt spying on EU officials in January 2014. Beaune nevertheless claimed it was unclear whether Washington spies on EU officials. “It is very serious, we must see if our EU, Danish partners committed mistakes or errors in their cooperation with US agencies,” he said. He called to “verify the correctness of the report,” adding, “And on the American side, we should see if there was … listening, spying on political officials.”

On Monday evening, at a summit on Franco-German military cooperation on the war in Mali and plans for new joint fighter plane and tank systems, Macron and Merkel spoke on the issue. “This is not acceptable between allies, and even less between allies and European partners,” Macron said, adding, “We requested that our Danish and American partners provide all the information on these revelations and on these past facts. We are awaiting these answers.”

Merkel said she “could only agree” with Macron’s statements, adding that she was “reassured” by the Danish government’s criticisms of NSA spying. She said, “Apart from establishing the facts, this is a good starting point to arrive at relations that are truly based on mutual trust.”

In fact, these revelations again highlight the insoluble conflicts inside the NATO alliance, revealed by Trump’s earlier threats to slap billions of dollars in tariffs on EU exports to the United States and to retaliate against firms involved in EU military projects. One of these threats, which occurred as the “Operation Dunhammer” investigation was underway, was Trump’s offer to buy Greenland from Denmark. He then denounced Denmark’s refusal to sell its Arctic territory, while then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced China’s commercial presence in Greenland.

While Biden has been at pains to downplay these commercial and military tensions, casting his election as paving the way for improved US-EU relations, none of the underlying conflicts over control of world markets and strategic advantage have been resolved. Moreover, it seems likely the FE’s “Operation Dunhammer” file will reveal that Obama’s January 2014 assurances that the NSA would stop spying on top EU officials were lies.

Above all, nearly a decade after Snowden’s revelations, it is ever more apparent that the central target of electronic spying is the working class. Massive data collection programs have enabled not only surveillance but censoring of social media posts and the identification and legal targeting of workers engaged in social protests, such as the “yellow vest” movement in France. The defense of fundamental democratic rights requires the international political mobilization of the working class against the reactionary scheming of imperialist military and intelligence agencies.

RMT joins Conservative government’s Rail Recovery Group: A conspiracy against rail workers

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/02/rirg-j02.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws




Michael Barnes
8 hours ago







Last month, newly elected Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union (RMT) General Secretary Mick Lynch issued a press statement boasting, “Our message to the employers and the politicians is that RMT stands ready to campaign and fight against pay freezes, cuts to safety and conditions… We call on the rest of the labour movement to stand strong and mobilise against any new age of austerity which makes working people pay for the Covid crisis.”

Mick Lynch (source: RMT)




Outgoing General Secretary Mick Cash insisted, “It is crucial that the whole union now unites behind Mick Lynch as General Secretary and gives him the support that he will need as RMT focuses on delivering ‎for our members in what we know will be tough days ahead.”

Behind these militant-sounding words, the RMT has joined the Conservative government’s Rail Industry Recovery Group (RIRG) that is committed to making the very “pay freezes, cuts to safety and conditions” and “austerity” the RMT claims publicly to oppose.

A document marked “Strictly Confidential”, dated January 13, makes this clear. It sets out the RIRG’s “terms of reference” aimed at slashing wages, jobs, pensions and safety across the rail network and train operating companies.

A document marked “Strictly Confidential”, dated January 13, sets outs the RIRG's terms of reference, including that train operating companies must achieve “sustainability” in the “short term” through “cost savings”.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government is using the financial crisis triggered by the pandemic—including the collapse in passenger revenue and the “bankruptcy” of the train company franchise holders to force a major restructure of the rail network.

Citing the government’s £6.5 billion coronavirus subsidies to the rail industry in 2020, the RIRG document declares, “the financial commitment from the government is not unlimited and is not sustainable with increasing pressure coming from the Treasury to ensure that the industry remains viable”.

Train operating companies must achieve “sustainability” in the “short term” through “cost savings”, the document states. Such cost savings include:
“an industry-wide transfer and re-deployment scheme”
“reviewing existing insourcing and outsourcing arrangements”
“flexible working”
“a sustainable pension scheme”
“safety and overall performance that increases value for money”
“policies and working practices resulting in reduced costs”

This amounts to a declaration of war against rail workers. “Staffing costs make up circa 30 percent element of the total operating costs of the railway”, the RIRG’s document states, making clear where cuts must fall.

During the pandemic, most of the private rail operating companies temporarily relinquished their contracts. Emergency Measures Agreements (EMAs) were put in place, transferring nearly all revenue and cost risk to the public purse. The government’s Rail Recovery Plan aims to slash costs before retendering to the likes of Abellio, First, Virgin, etc., who will swoop like vultures to gorge on increased exploitation and profits.

Rail Minister Chris Heaton-Harris approached rail employers and unions to join the RIRG in mid-December, but the RMT has remained virtually silent on its participation. The sole mention to members was a January 19 letter stating that the RMT executive had agreed “in principle” that the union would be “prepared to participate in such arrangements”, despite acknowledging that its aim was to “reduce the operational costs of the railway.”

By January 13, rail union members of the RIRG had been confirmed: Mick Whelan, the General Secretary of the train drivers’ union ASLEF; Mick Cash, General Secretary RMT; Manuel Cortes, General Secretary of the white-collar union TSSA; Harish Patel, National Officer for Rail UNITE. They are working together with Andrew Haines, the Chief Executive Network Rail; Steve Montgomery, Managing Director First Rail; Pauline Holroyd, Group Human Resources Director Network Rail; Andy Meadows, Human Resources Director Abellio (Chair); and Leila Rahimzadeh, Industry HR Partner RDG (Governance and Secretariat).

The RMT, ASLEF, TSSA and Unite will report directly to the Tory government. The RIRG “will liaise with both the DfT [Department for Transport] and the relevant ministers to ensure that any changes that are introduced are aligned with the key principles set out in the Williams Review.”

The Williams Review, chaired by former British Airways chief executive Keith Williams, was initially commissioned by Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps. Its outcome is the joint Williams-Schapps Plan for Rail. This sets out the government’s proposals to rescue rail privatisation following the collapse of the private franchise model introduced in 1996. With its announcement last week of the launch of Great British Railways, the Johnson government is seeking to exploit the image of its nationalised predecessor, British Rail. But private companies will operate beneath the new network’s umbrella. Chapter six of the review states, “The government is… determined to maintain and increase private involvement and private finance to supplement the money paid by the state …” The RMT created illusions in the review, published a submission to it and opposed any fight to mobilise workers against the government’s plans.

Williams’ review called for a 20 percent reduction in operating costs. Rail unions are now tasked with identifying and implementing the required cuts—and more. The document states, “It is proposed that the RIRG shall provide a vehicle for employers and unions to consider proposed plans and measures which have been identified as well as consider other ideas necessary to address the funding shortfall. In doing so consideration shall be given by RIRG to how any such measures shall be taken forward.”

The RIRG shows the reliance of the Johnson government on its corporatist partnership with the trade unions: “It is recognised that RIRG shall provide an additional mechanism for engaging with the trade unions but shall not seek to go outside the existing collective bargaining arrangements unless there is agreement on all sides to do so”. While cuts have been achieved at British Gas and elsewhere via the imposition of fire-and-rehire contracts, the Johnson government prefers to utilise its “existing collective bargaining arrangements” with the rail unions.

Throughout this year’s RMT elections, not a single candidate denounced the RIRG or called for a withdrawal from the corporatist body. The RIRG was not mentioned by any of the candidates for general secretary. So-called socialist candidate Steve Hedley, who was actively promoted by the pseudo-left Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party, remained silent on the topic.

Already, in a sign of things to come, a two-year pay freeze was announced at the end of January 2021 for 62,000 rail workers across 22 operating companies. Months later, Cash threatened “coordinated national strike action”, words which that have since evaporated.

In early April, the BBC published details of an agreement between RMT and South Western Railway (SWR) to remove door operations from train guards, imposing these duties on train drivers. This deal marked the betrayal of a four-year struggle by 900 guards and 40 drivers against Driver Only Operated trains (DOO).

RIRG emerged out of the Rail Industry Coronavirus Forum (RICF). The RMT’s participation in this secretive body led to the suppression of strikes throughout the first 12 months of the pandemic. Through its participation in the Tory government’s RICF, the RMT has cemented its role as an arm of the state. Its verbal posturing as a militant union is window dressing, aimed at deceiving an angry and restless workforce. The RMT has now been rewarded alongside ASLEF, TSSA and Unite, with a central role in the RIRG.

According to reports on social media, over 3,000 London bus workers have applied to join the RMT, seeking a way forward against Unite’s open collusion with the bus companies. But the experience of rail workers with the RMT must serve as a sharp warning. Despite the RMT’s promotion as a “left-wing” union, they have the same corporatist and pro-company agenda as Unite. It is essential for bus, rail and London Underground workers to break from the pro-company, corporatist trade unions and form rank-and-file organisations of struggle.

The centenary of the Tulsa, Oklahoma race massacre

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/02/pers-j02.html




Niles Niemuth@niles_niemuth
11 hours ago







This week marks the centenary of the Tulsa, Oklahoma race massacre, one of the deadliest and most destructive antiblack pogroms in the history of the United States.

Officials confirmed 39 deaths—26 black and 13 white people—but it is estimated that the true toll could be as high as 300, with many African American victims uncounted and buried in mass graves. An Oklahoma state commission estimated in 2001 that the present day cost of the damage was $30 million.

Excavation begins anew at Oaklawn Cemetery in a search for victims of the Tulsa race massacre believed to be buried in a mass grave, June 1, 2021, in Tulsa, Oklahoma (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)




On the night of May 31 and into June 1, 1921, a marauding mob of several thousand armed white men with the complicity of the police rampaged through the segregated African American section of Tulsa, Oklahoma, known as Greenwood, looting and burning businesses and homes. Eyewitnesses relayed that airplanes flew overhead, dropping firebombs onto rooftops.

Black residents, many of them veterans of World War I, fought back with rifles and pistols, but it was not enough to hold back the mob. When the attack subsided and the smoke cleared, 35 square blocks of Greenwood had been burnt to the ground, including the business district and the city’s largest African American church. Some 1,470 homes were burned or looted. With the aid of deputized marauders, 6,000 black residents were rounded up by the police and National Guard and imprisoned for several days. Many men were held in the livestock pens at the city’s fairgrounds.

The trigger for the violent rampage was an encounter between Dick Rowland, a black 19-year-old shoeshiner, and Sarah Page, a white 17-year-old elevator operator, in an elevator in downtown Tulsa on May 30, 1921.

According to the most widely accepted account, Rowland had tripped on Page’s foot and grabbed her arm, and she screamed out before running away. There is speculation that the two had a romantic relationship, and Page refused to pursue charges against Rowland. The next day Rowland was arrested and charged with attempting to rape a white woman, an accusation that had ended in the violent lynching of many other black men. The Tulsa Tribune ran an article with the headline, “Nab Negro for Attacking Girl in Elevator.”

Fearing that Rowland would be lynched, a group of armed black men twice went to the courthouse to offer to protect him but were denied by the police. On the second occasion, a white man attempted to disarm a black veteran. A shot was fired, triggering the violence that ensued.

The Tulsa massacre is a genuinely horrific moment in American history, which has been concealed from public consciousness for far too long and has never been dealt with and confronted as it should. Its commemoration and memorialization should be welcomed. However, like all such events, how it is presented and analyzed is critical to drawing the necessary political lessons.

Destruction from the 1921 Tulsa race massacre

How could such an outrage take place nearly 60 years after the end of the Civil War, in which tens of thousands of white men died to end slavery? The narrative that is now being promoted is one that focuses entirely on race. It would be absurd to remove race and racism from the narrative, as the victims were overwhelmingly African American. However, it is impossible to understand what happened, and why, except within its broader historical and political context.

The period surrounding 1921 was one of intense class conflict, to which the ruling class responded with savage violence.

The United States experienced its largest strike wave to date in the years between 1916 and 1922. In spite of the American Federation of Labor’s efforts to keep workers on the job during the war, more than 1 million went on strike each year.

The growth of the class struggle throughout the world was intensified by the Russian Revolution of 1917, which showed that it was possible for the working class to take political power into their own hands. In February 1919, more than 65,000 workers in Seattle, Washington participated in a five-day general strike, part of a massive strike wave that involved 4.5 million workers that year. The Communist Party was founded in the United States at the end of 1919 after a split in the Socialist Party.

The American ruling class responded to this radicalization by launching an open war against the working class. No ruling class feared more the influence of Bolshevism than the American bourgeoisie. Every form of prejudice was promoted, against Italians, Irish, Catholics and Jews. African American workers were often brought from the South to the North by company bosses to be used as strike breakers, with the express aim of inflaming racial tensions.

The US entry into World War I and its aftermath gave rise to a wave of political reaction across the United States known as the First Red Scare, much of it centered on stamping out labor radicals. Internationally, fascism was on the rise in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, and Hitler was consolidating his control over the fledgling Nazi Party in Germany.

This was the period of the Palmer Raids, anti-immigrant hysteria, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, and the transformation of the FBI, with J. Edgar Hoover at the helm, into a national police force devoted to the struggle against left-wing radicalism. Immigrants and socialist union organizers, who opposed the war or failed to swear their loyalty, were imprisoned and lynched. Socialist Party of America leader Eugene Debs was arrested in 1918 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for giving a speech opposing US intervention in the world war.

The lynching of African Americans intensified, especially as a growing number of veterans returning home from the war in Europe challenged Jim Crow restrictions. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson expressed his concern in private remarks in March 1919 that “the American Negro returning from abroad would be our greatest medium in conveying Bolshevism to America.” The modern Ku Klux Klan, which terrorized European immigrants and African Americans, boasted half a million members throughout the country by 1921.

The massacre in Greenwood was preceded by the Tulsa Outrage in 1917, when the Knights of Liberty, an outfit similar to the KKK, drove 12 members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), who were organizing oil workers, out of town, tarring, feathering and whipping them.

The Socialist Party of Oklahoma, which had over 9,000 dues-paying members in the state in 1916, was subjected to repeated attacks for opposing the war and defending equal rights for African Americans. Its 1912 platform upheld the basic socialist principle that “safety and advancement of the working class depends upon its solidarity and class consciousness. Those who would engender or foster race hatred or animosity between the white and black sections of the working class are the enemies of both.” The party was disbanded in 1917 under the pressure of intense persecution by vigilantes and state prosecution and after the suppression of the Green Corn Rebellion, an interracial uprising against wartime conscription in central Oklahoma.

Reaction reared its head far and wide in these years. Frank Little, a member of the IWW’s General Executive Board, was lynched in Butte, Montana in 1917 while fighting to organize miners. Little was grabbed by masked men, beaten and dragged from the back of a car before being hanged from a bridge on the edge of town. IWW member Wesley Everest was castrated and lynched in Centralia, Washington after a deadly confrontation with members of the American Legion in November 1919.

The Red Summer of 1919 saw attacks on black neighborhoods by white mobs in at least 60 cities. In the worst instance of urban violence, 38 were killed in fighting in Chicago, 23 black and 15 white persons, after a black youth was stoned to death by a white mob at a beach on the segregated lakefront. That year also saw the Elaine Massacre, in which up to 237 African Americans and five whites were killed. The attack was part of an effort to crush the unionization of poor black sharecroppers and tenant farmers across Arkansas.

Just three months after Tulsa, between August and September 1921, 10,000 striking miners squared off with police and company strike breakers in West Virginia in the Battle of Blair Mountain. As many as 100 miners were killed and 1,000 arrested. The miners strike was finally broken by a combined assault of the US Army, West Virginia National Guard, the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, and local and state police. A million rounds were fired, and airplanes were used to drop bombs on entrenched miners.

A man stands in front of his home which was destroyed during the attack on Greenwood

A review of the historical background and context of the Tulsa massacre makes clear that it was part of a broader offensive of the ruling class against left-wing and socialist opposition in the working class. Racism was promoted as part of this offensive, employed consciously to divide workers and utilized as a spearhead of political reaction.

The massacre in Tulsa is presented by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media as the product of the all-consuming racial hatred that all whites hold toward blacks. As with the 1619 Project, which posits that American history is driven by white racism and that blacks have fought back alone, this narrative is anti-historical and profoundly dangerous, stoking racial animosities that have been created to weaken and divide the working class.

President Joe Biden issued a proclamation Monday declaring a national day of remembrance and calling on Americans to “reflect on the deep roots of racial terror in our Nation and recommit to the work of rooting out systemic racism across our country.” On Tuesday he traveled to Tulsa, where he met with survivors of the massacre, and announced vague policy proposals that he claimed would close the “wealth gap” between blacks and whites and combat racial discrimination in the housing market.

Historical falsifications have contemporary political motives and consequences. The current effort to blame “systemic racism” for all of society’s ills and to portray the United States as torn between “white America” and “black America” absolves the capitalists of any responsibility, places blame on the general population, especially white workers, and pits workers against each other along racial lines.

The most fundamental problem of the socialist movement in the United States has been the fight to unify all workers in one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world. It is only on this basis that all forms of backwardness and reaction can be vanquished and the rights and interests of all workers defended.

There will be no solution to the social and economic problems which black workers confront today outside of a united struggle of workers in the US and internationally against the capitalist system and the fight for socialism—the establishment of the democratic control over society by the working class and the end of the profit system.

WE’RE GOING TO HAVE FAIRY CREEKS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME

By Sarah Cox, The Narwhal.

June 1, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/were-going-to-have-fairy-creeks-happen-all-the-time/



Question And Answer With Garry Merkel From B.C.’S Old-Growth Review Panel.

As tensions escalate and arrest tallies grow at logging blockades on Vancouver Island, The Narwhal spoke with one of the foresters tapped to help the province navigate its old-growth woes


Last fall, during the B.C. election campaign, NDP leader John Horgan promised to implement the recommendations of an old-growth strategic review panel led by foresters Garry Merkel and Al Gorley.

After hearing from thousands of people all over the province, Merkel and Gorley called for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages its old-growth forests, saying old forests have intrinsic value for all living things and should be managed for ecosystem health, not for timber.

The report, which laid out a blueprint for change in 14 recommendations, also said many old forests are not renewable, countering the notion that trees, no matter how old, will always grow back.

Fast forward to May 2021, more than one year after Merkel and Gorley submitted their report to the NDP government, which was subsequently re-elected. None of the panel’s recommendations have been fully implemented, leaving some questioning the government’s sincerity.

At least four dozen people have been arrested at visually striking, emotionally charged, on-going protests in the Fairy Creek and Caycuse watersheds on southern Vancouver Island, where forestry company Teal Jones has obtained a court injunction banning blockades of logging activities — and the conflict shows no signs of abating.

Merkel, a member of the Tahltan Nation, is watching the Fairy Creek events closely. He’s also waiting to see how the B.C. government implements landmark provincial legislation that embraces the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Fairy Creek watershed lies in the territory of the Pacheedaht First Nation, which has asked people to respect that it is up to Pacheedaht people to determine how the nation’s forestry resources will be used. The Caycuse watershed, where blockades and arrests are also taking place, lies in the territory of the Dididaht First Nation. Although arrests are now taking place at encampments throughout the area, the name Fairy Creek is used as a catch-all term to describe the blockades generally.

The Narwhal asked Merkel if the Fairy Creek conflict could have been prevented and what big and small steps we need to take — including painful, thorny ones — to sidestep future conflicts over the old-growth forests left in B.C.

The interview has been edited for brevity.
We’re Seeing Increasing Conflict Over Old-Growth Logging Right Now In B.C., Highlighted By The Recent Arrests At Fairy Creek And The Continuing Blockades On Vancouver Island. Is There Anything We Could Have Done To Avoid This Situation?

This might sound a bit fatalist but I’m not sure that there is. Our paradigm in British Columbia is that we see the forest as a huge bank of unending resources, particularly timber. That’s its value. It’s a mental thing because we built British Columbia on the backs of the timber industry. This is our culture in British Columbia. It’s where we come from. It’s who we are.

Shifting from that culture to a new lens that’s focused on ecosystem health, the health of landscapes, the preservation of ecosystem functions — and taking timber as one of many benefits that flow from managing that perspective — is an extremely difficult shift. It involves such a huge mental shift to start with. And then there’s the associated policy, legislation, management systems, practices, etcetera, all the other pieces that have to follow. The transition is not so easy because we built our entire way of being on that previous mentality.
Have We Missed Previous Opportunities To Shift That Paradigm?

B.C. did an old-growth strategy 25 years ago. There were a huge number of really good recommendations. If we had implemented them, we would not be in the situation we’re in right now. We implemented almost nothing out of that report.

We’re in a world now where people are afraid. They see the effects of climate change. They see the effects of large-scale pollution. You can see now at a global level what we are causing and that it’s going to hurt us — lots — as a species and hurt other things too. There’s very little accessible iconic old-growth. Couple that with the entrenched paradigm. You almost have to have conflict to get through it, and push and shove. I hate to be a bit fatalistic, but when I look at it at a larger scale it’s what I feel about this. It’s almost necessary for us to move through this, unfortunately.
How Do You Understand The Significance Of Fairy Creek Within B.C.’S Larger Forestry Context?

We’re going to have Fairy Creeks happen all the time. There is certainly a perception out there in the public that we have so little old-growth left that we need to protect what’s left. And I can appreciate why people would have that. The kinds of old-growth that they’re speaking about tend to be those very iconic old big coastal stands or interior. It is true, those are the first ones that disappear when you harvest.

The industry was built down in the lowlands and it got to the easy areas first. Those are the areas we populated. Those are the areas where we built our farms. Those are the areas where we built our roads, where we do all our clearing. All those things are a death of a thousand cuts. We have harder-to-get-at areas and Fairy Creek is one of those. And there are other places like that in the province, where it feels to a lot of people that they’re making a last stand. You have to go so far to actually see something like that now. And a lot of people only know one or two of those places and, if they’re going to get cut down, they’re going to fight for them.

I don’t think that we’re going to get through this for a while, if ever, because this is a flash point. It’s like climate change. It becomes symbolic. It doesn’t become about the place itself. It becomes symbolic about a much larger issue, so it’s going to continue. I don’t see it changing. That’s just what the realism side of me says.
I’m Curious About The Old-Growth Strategy From 25 Years Ago. Can You Point To Some Of Those Recommendations That Would Have Made A Difference?

What science tells us is that as long as you have at least 70 per cent of the older parts of the ecosystems, in sufficient size, you will have little to no material effect on biodiversity. But once you start dropping below 70 per cent, you start to impact biodiversity and you’re going to start to see species loss. You’re going to start to see possible water issues. Your biodiversity index is going to go down. It keeps dropping quite quickly until you get to about 30 per cent.

Once you get to 30 per cent or so, you will be at the highest risk of biodiversity loss. You are pretty much guaranteed to have species loss and probably major large mammal loss. You’re starting to lose caribou, moose, sheep, goats, possibly bears, you’re starting to see all those major mammal species being negatively impacted. By then you have lost numerous smaller species, plus you’ve lost numerous species of plants. And if you don’t have biodiversity, you also start to become much more susceptible to wide-scale disease and infestations. And so, we manage for risk. We say ‘how much risk are we willing to accept?’

Low risk is 70 per cent. Medium risk is 50 per cent. High risk is down in the 30 per cent range. That old-growth report advocated that we manage for at least 50 per cent medium risk, which means we might see some impacts but they would not be material or major. Well, we didn’t do that. We implemented a couple small things out of it — OGMAs, old-growth management areas, little patches across the landscape, and a couple of other small things — and then we just forgot about it.

Their report was almost as comprehensive as ours and had a lot of similar thoughts in it. If we had implemented that, our options and choices would be very different right now. But we manage for timber, subject to constraints, and we really have to change that paradigm. Until we do, as a society we’re going to keep pushing ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole.
How Much Biodiversity Risk Do We Have Now In B.C.?

Let me give you one really ugly, graphic example. The maps produced by Rachel Holt, Karen Price and Dave Daust show that in almost all of the province we’re in a high-risk situation. High risk meaning 30 per cent or less. If we follow our current management regime, in the not very distant future there will be very little yellow left and there will be no green left in the entire province. Red meaning high risk, yellow meaning medium risk, green meaning low risk. Some people might be able to argue the numbers a little bit. But it’s pretty hard to argue them because they used the same information and mapping data that everybody else uses.

We often hear that, ‘oh, we have nothing to worry about because we have 50 per cent of our old-growth left.’ And I think some of the people who are saying that actually believe it because they don’t understand the science. Very few people understand the science. And so, then it just becomes a big numbers game. But almost all of that 50 per cent right now is at the tops of mountains and has tiny little trees. That doesn’t make a landscape healthy. Not having any connectivity between them and not having any of the richest sites that support the highest level of biodiversity, which tend to be down in the rich lowland areas, almost all of those are gone now.

I want to tell you a story. We did the CORE plans [The Commission on Resources and Environment, a collaborative planning model used in B.C. in the 1990s.] The Kootenay Boundary plan, after full public involvement, recommended managing to a 50 per cent biodiversity risk. That means try to maintain 50 per cent of each type of ecosystem. But when the government approved the plan there was a huge uproar. It didn’t get very much press, which surprised me. Government unilaterally at the time decided to cut that target to a third. So the target became 17 per cent with the stroke of a pen.

And to compound that even more, we didn’t build a system to track it. So, we weren’t really sure what we had left and it was poorly mapped to begin with. Recently a group of government folks did the research and mapped it out and looked at where they were at and, in most areas, they were below the 17 per cent already because they weren’t tracking it. And that’s not an unusual situation in this province. And so, one of our recommendations said [the government needs] to ensure compliance with provincial orders. That’s part of the issue right there.
B.C. Has Reallocated Some Forest Tenures To First Nations. Do You See First Nations Tenures As Part Of The Solution?

First Nations tenures tend to be allocated in hot spots because they [logging companies] have more ability to get to them. A lot of those tenures are dependent on those areas that are right on the edge [of consequential biodiversity loss.] I just felt that was absolutely unfair for that to have happened. Because we don’t want to disproportionately affect their tenures, that’s not fair. It’s certainly not consistent with DRIPA [B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.]

The government did make an announcement and clawed back tenure from most of the licensees and reallocated it to First Nations. But interestingly enough, many First Nations don’t have the ability to operate those tenures and the tenures are too small for them to build the necessary corporate infrastructure to do it. So, they just enter into operating agreements with companies and have companies manage them as part of their tenure in exchange for benefits and employment and involvement in planning and things like that.
What Situation Does This Put First Nations Communities In?

It does create internal tension in some areas. In other areas, they have started to come up with management systems that are built from their community’s way of thinking about land and are trying to come up with new approaches so that they don’t have to do this. On the coast, it’s not as easy because everywhere is old except for some second-growth and there’s not enough second-growth on line to support the industry yet. We’re hugely dependent on old-growth right now to maintain our industry as it is.
In Terms Of Fairy Creek, The Pacheedaht First Nation Is Essentially Saying To Everyone ‘Please Back Off, It’s Our Territory, We’ll Do Our Own Job Of Managing It, Thank-You Very Much.’ Can You Comment On That?

That is what most First Nations are saying across this province. I just want to read to you our first recommendation [from the old-growth strategic review panel report]: “Engage the full involvement of Indigenous leaders and organizations to review this report and any substantive policy or strategy development and implementation.” We believe that it is critical to implement this in cooperation and collaboration with the Indigenous community. And that means setting up the management relationships on a local basis across the province. And the province has already started to implement that anyway as a result of DRIPA. And that’s really where First Nations want to be.

I’m dealing with this in my own community right now. It’s not that we don’t want to use land. The way the land is being used is the problem. It’s not being used right. Almost every First Nation I know … they’re just not happy with the way that the land is being used because they feel it’s just too harmful and destructive and it’s wrecking things. And they want to change that.

From the time I was born, I learned that I had to look after the land. It’s built right into you. I know my family’s been from where I come from for at least 8,500 years. When you go there you just feel something very, very different. It’s deeply inherent in you this notion that you have a stewardship responsibility. It’s just part of who you are. And yes, there is an economic component to it. But the driving thing is we want to be part of looking after our lands again, the way we always have.

In a lot of First Nations communities we saw, they were not deeply dependent on the economic side and so still they had lots of options and flexibility. A lot of them are building their own management system from their own cultural philosophy. I think some of those systems are going to have a lot to teach all of us about how to manage for ecosystems, about how to look at the land holistically, about how to treat it gently — all of those things that we’re struggling to figure out right now.
Some People Say The Provincial Government Has Fostered The Dependence Of First Nations Communities On Old-Growth Logging. What’s Your Response To That?

I certainly don’t think that was by design. There was a strong desire for First Nations to be part of the forest sector and all of the economy. And the government saw that as an important policy direction. Part of it was a bit of self-interest … if [First Nations are] involved on the economic side, maybe we can work our way through some of these disputes. There was no illusion that First Nations were going to convert and become the type of commercial entities we see now, at least not on a mass scale. But at least with them being involved, that removed an impediment to having the conversations. And then if they were involved on the management side, ‘maybe we will have a new future and it will look different. And the fights are not there anymore because we’re working it out together.’ That tended to be more the policy driver. I know there’re a lot of people out there who believe conspiracy theories out of government. Government frankly is too disjointed and not able to think with a cohesive mind to actually do that.

First Nations wanted it, too, and industry was supportive of it. Industry is trying to work in the First Nations territory and every single permit they get and everything they try to do was always a constant battle because the community didn’t know the industry, they weren’t getting anything out of it and it was just an incredible source of frustration. So, industry supported this and said ‘they should be involved and it would be a lot better for all of us if they were.’
What Situation Does This Put First Nations In Now, Especially In Areas Like Fairy Creek That Are The Subject Of So Much Controversy? Could Anybody Have Foreseen This?

Hindsight’s always 20-20. Let’s put it this way. If you’re operating by approved operating plans that say ‘this is your operable forest land base, your timber harvesting land base and that area’s included it.’ If you’re not at a policy level then you just take that for granted. And a lot of the people who allocate and manage tenure, they’re not dealing with these higher policy issues. They have a map in front of them that says ‘this is your operable land base. Go forth and do what you’ve got to do.’ And that’s where they run into conflicts. If you’re going to manage a tenure yourself, you’ve got to go for easier, less expensive and more valuable stuff which tends to be the most controversial, unless you go into an operating agreement with a large company.
You Said We Haven’t Seen The Last Of These Conflicts. What Would You Do Now If You Were In Charge To Make Things Better?

COVID has been a real challenge. There’s no question. They’re trying to implement a major policy change [to implement the old-growth panel recommendations] in the middle of a time when you can’t bring people into a room and work together. And that is tough, tough, tough by any standard. If I were in charge, I would do a couple things. Number one, I would build a report card on implementation of that old-growth strategy and other associated initiatives. I would build a report card using a multi-disciplinary group to provide advice and oversee and build an objective report card on how we are progressing and make that available publicly on a regular basis. Then you’re just saying ‘we’re making this transition together folks’ — and then we’re all part of the ugliness of it because it is a tough transition.

The second thing I would do is I would put a lot of resources into building the capacity to adapt to this change. One specific example is as we move to collaborative or joint management with Indigenous groups we’re doing all of the necessary supporting paperwork — we’re changing the legislation, we’re changing the policy — but we’re putting very little into building our readiness for that both on the government and on the First Nations side. It’s very similar to the whole shift to ecosystem health-based management.

We’re just not putting the necessary work in to develop readiness to actually do the job. We’re struggling still. It’s just so much all at once that I think people are almost overwhelmed. And now on top of that there’s huge stress because of things like Fairy Creek.

I’m not the boss. I’m not in charge. These are just musings of an old fellow sitting here who gets lots of time to think. I don’t have to live with the consequences.
Do You Think Conservation Financing Could Play A Role?

Yes. There is an unavoidable economic component to this. Carbon offset, conservation financing, a number of other financial tools would need to be employed. Economic diversification is obviously a really important tool, but here we are in the middle of COVID where nobody’s allowed to come here. We just got hit with a perfect storm right now. What I worry about is that, because it’s been so difficult to implement this, maybe our momentum starts to drop and maybe because of that we just take our foot off the gas pedal.
Where Do You Find Hope And Optimism In All This?

I find hope and optimism in the fact that we have an incredibly well-informed scientific community around us which is watching closely and who are very media savvy. We have a lot of people in government with very good intentions who want to go here. They’re afraid to, of course, just like everybody. We have a government who, at least on the surface, wants to go here. I genuinely believe they want to go here. How far they are able to go is another question.

At a more global scale, the reality of what we’re doing to the planet is becoming less and less avoidable and it’s getting much, much harder for us to deny and duck it. That whole trend is really, really pushing the envelope, the Greta Thunberg, the youth movement. Our young people are just not happy. They want a change. I see so many of them doing so many amazing things. They don’t just talk about it, they actually go out and build companies that do good things. They’re doing real things to make changes, they’re not just bitchin’ … if you’ve got the energy and the smarts, go figure out something to do, let’s all chip in here. I am really optimistic about that — that’s where I see a lot of hope.
Do You Have Any Final Thoughts?

I think we have a whole crowd of people out there just waiting to see what’s going to happen here. It’s like a pot that’s on simmer just below boil … waiting to see the government’s response.

NICARAGUA – A REVOLUTION WORTH DEFENDING

By Jorge Capelán and Stephen Sefton, Telesur English.

June 1, 2021




https://popularresistance.org/nicaragua-a-revolution-worth-defending/



One Of The Reasons Comrades Elsewhere Have Difficulty Perceiving This Revolutionary Model Of Sandinista Nicaragua In Its True Dimensions Is Because For The Sandinista Revolution In Nicaragua The Development Of The Productive Economy Is A Central Task.

In a recent article “Washington: new attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government” Pablo Jofre Leal recognizes that Nicaragua, is the target of imperialist aggression by the U.S. and its regional pawns, more than ever now in this election year. He also notes the absurdity of the US authorities’ declaration that Nicaragua is a danger to US national security and observes how the media routinely falsely portrays Nicaragua as a dictatorship, focusing its hate campaign mostly on President Comandante Daniel Ortega. Jofre Leal accurately and correctly summarizes that Nicaragua, like Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela is the object of a conspiracy between the U.S. and its European allies to destabilize the country through economic warfare, psychological warfare, and the financing of opposition organizations and politicians.

His article then goes on to enunciate a series of problems that in his opinion the government of President Daniel Ortega has to overcome, but he does so on the basis of a completely false account of Nicaraguan reality. Jofre Leal documents his reservations in relation to the government of the Sandinista National Liberation Front and President Ortega by means of a reference to this article by Tomás Andino Mencia in which the author demonstrates his total ignorance about the reality of Nicaragua. Anyone who wants to get an idea of Andino Mencia’s fallacies can follow this link.

That intelligent people accept this kind of falsehood promoted by the Nicaraguan opposition and its regional supporters indicates a lack of intellectual rigor in sectors of the Latin American left in relation to Nicaragua. Almost all of these falsehoods originate from individuals and organizations financed by imperialist governments, primarily though non-governmental proxies in Nicaragua. That fact alone is sufficient to indicate the falsity of these sources of information. It is worth noting that, as a rule, both official Sandinista government sources, as well as associated media and even independent media supporting the Sandinista revolution, are de facto routinely ignored and made invisible.

To be sure, both Nicaraguan revolutionaries themselves and international solidarity comrades inside and outside Nicaragua have, over the years, produced a considerable amount of material on the reality of the country from every conceivable angle. For example, the books “Live from Nicaragua – Uprising or Coup?” and “The Revolution Will Not Be Stopped” or writings by international anti-imperialist authors such as Fabrizio Casari, Dick Emanuelsson, Brian Willson, Giorgio Trucchi, Max Blumenthal, Rick Sterling, John Perry, Alex Anfruns, Steve Sweeney or Dan Kovalik. It is striking that most leftist analysts generally prefer to ignore this intellectual production in solidarity with the Sandinista revolution in favor of material of highly dubious origin and veracity.

On the subject of solidarity with Nicaragua in the face of aggression by the United States and its allies, Jofre Leal cites the solidarity of governments in the region and movements such as the Sao Paulo Forum. This solidarity emphasizes the defense of fundamental concepts of international law such as non-intervention and self-determination. But we should clarify that Nicaragua is not simply an object of the Sao Paulo Forum’s solidarity, but in fact a leading actor in this continental coordinating body of the Latin American Left. Together with Brazil, Nicaragua is the country that has most often organized the Forum’s meetings and had it not been for the Covid-19 pandemic, this year’s meeting would have been held in Managua for the fourth time.

Jofre Leal states that the hysterical obsession of the U.S. government against Nicaragua indicates the failure of imperial policy in the region but, after mentioning the words of President Ortega denouncing the constant meddling of the U.S. Ambassador in Nicaragua, he concludes by arguing:

“The government and the people of Nicaragua can independently find the peaceful solution to their difficulties that have arisen in the interest of guaranteeing the sustainable socio-economic development of society, respecting constitutional norms and principles, with respect for human rights and civil liberties but also with all-out combat against the threat of a coup. For this, the Ortega government must also deepen social reforms that allow satisfying social needs and this implies following a path, which avoids maintaining a model whose shortcomings have been demonstrated by other countries in Our America.”

It is good that Jofre Leal cares enough about Nicaragua and its people to offer well-intentioned advice to President Ortega. However, he ignores the tremendous efforts the Nicaraguan government has made to foster a national dialogue, efforts which continue to date with no serious response from the country’s political opposition. Instead, Nicaragua’s opposition calls for economic aggression against their own nation by the imperialist powers and seeks the intervention of Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the OAS. On the other hand, some sectors of private enterprise that never allied themselves with the coup perpetrators maintain excellent relations with the government. So, it is not for lack of willingness to dialogue that the Sandinista government has not been able to reach a new consensus after the pre-2018 consensus broke down.

It is also difficult to understand what Jofre Leal means when he suggests that Nicaragua should “move along a path, which is not just to maintain a model whose shortcomings other countries in our America have demonstrated.” In relation to that, one could say that South American intellectuals have a very superficial idea of what is happening here in Nicaragua. In fact, it is clear that if one takes as a reference the fantasies of writers like Tomas Andino Mencia one cannot have the faintest idea that here in Nicaragua the government and people are developing a truly revolutionary model.

One of the reasons comrades elsewhere have difficulty perceiving this revolutionary model of Sandinista Nicaragua in its true dimensions is because for the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua the development of the productive economy is a central task. Unfortunately, the Latin America and Caribbean Left generally and in rest of the world, have trouble visualizing what that means. In the worst case, they tend not to see beyond mere income redistribution or, at best, they tend to support some version of State capitalism.

But socialism is more than that, it means direct producers’ control over the means of production. That is what we are building in Nicaragua, where associative, cooperative and family enterprises today are responsible for a decisive part of the economy. The country’s former ruling oligarchy still exists, but they no longer control society’s strategic heights of society and no matter how hard they try, they cannot destroy the economic and political power Nicaragua’s people have now made their own.

Pablo Jofre Leal’s article shows there are comrades with the best intentions who want to support us, since it is indeed true that we are the under imperialist attack. For the Sandinista Front, being attacked by the empire in some shape or form has always been a permanent reality, it has not started just now and we must point out that sometimes not even our friends understand what our true situation really is.

We are not merely victims. Within the precarious Central American and Caribbean reality, we do have the means to defend ourselves and we have accumulated a wealth of experience. One might argue that at this moment the Sandinista Revolution and the FSLN are stronger than ever before in the last 17 years. And that is true despite the destruction the economy suffered as a consequence of the “soft coup” of April 2018, followed by the tremendous effects of the pandemic and the two strongest hurricanes of the last 20 years.

How is it possible to have achieved that level of resilience? Quite simply, because Nicaragua is guided by a Sandinista Revolution. Neoliberalism has no place in Nicaragua, because if it did:

There would be no public education or health, which is now not only free, but of a quality previously unthinkable in the country.

There would be no heavily subsidized and quality basic services (electricity, water and transport) for the majority of low income people .

There would be no constant improvement in the infrastructure of a country which, despite being one of the poorest in Latin America, is among the countries with the best roads in the region.

Food production would not be at a level where the country is almost 90% self-sufficient in terms of national consumption

Nicaragua would not prohibit the planting of genetically manipulated crops.

The country would not be a world leader in gender equality with majority participation of women in government posts and one of the countries with the highest number of women in parliament.

Nicaragua would not be among the countries that have most empowered women economically at every level.

Small and medium-sized landowners would not control 80% of the country’s land.

Nor would Nicaragua be a country whose small and medium-sized producers are the bulwark defending and making possible the country’s economy development.

An underlying problem preventing many people from understanding the Nicaraguan “miracle” is that they believe the 1979 revolution ended in 1990. This is not true. What has happened in Nicaragua from 1979 to date is part of a single process, one that had to overcome the extremely adverse conditions after the war imposed by the United States as well as resisting 16 years of constant attack by neoliberal governments on the achievements of the first period of revolutionary government of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. The lessons of the 1980s were assimilated, and what is being done today derives from those lessons, now in the context not of a war but of a regional economy still being strangled by the dead hand of Western capitalism.The Sandinista Front, with Comandante Daniel Ortega at its head, understood very deeply that the development of the real economy should be and is the fundamental task of contemporary revolutionaries. In a world in which capital controlled by the Western financial monopolies does not want to produce, it is necessary that workers become economic subjects, prioritizing and developing their productive capacity. To achieve this emancipation of the productive capacity of the Nicaraguan people, the Sandinista government is implementing a true democratization of all aspects of national life.The government of President Ortega has promoted an economy with infrastructure policies, with a health system, with an education system, all working in an integrated way in favor of small and medium producers, both rural and urban, in favor of women, in favor of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, in favor of youth. Latin American and Caribbean opinion does not perceive this reality because, often unconsciously, it tends to accept uncritically the lies produced on an industrial scale by a Nicaraguan opposition managed and financed by its North American and European owners. If anyone really wants to offer a rigorous, serious opinion on the Nicaraguan reality, the best way to do so is to visit the country and see for oneself.