Sunday, November 24, 2002

"Reaping What We Sow"

Before I started identifying as a socialist and studying marxist theory, I read a book that challenged how I thought about economic and political issues. The book was Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity by Frances Moore-Lappe. The premise of the book is that hunger is not the result of scarcity but rather the result of the economic system. Growing up in the 1980s in America I was familiar with media images of starving people, particularly in the "third world" and particularly in Ethiopia. The common understanding — and one which I, as a liberal Democrat, had not questioned — was that people were starving because there was not enough food for everyone. The author of Food First convincingly argue that it is the colonial economic and political system imposed on them that have created the hunger crisis.

The author of the book helped form an organization, Food First — The Institute for Food and Development Policy. The organization "provides leadership to the struggle for reforming the global food system from the bottom up, offering an antidote to the myths and obfuscations that make change seem difficult to achieve." The following is excerpted from an editorial, "Reaping What We Sow" by Christine Ahn of Food First:
Last year, 23.3 million people sought emergency food, according to Second Harvest, the nation's largest emergency food provider. However, approximately 3.2 million hungry had to be turned away. Forty percent of the households seeking help had a working adult, one out of three were children under 18, and one out of ten were elderly.

With all the wealth generated in the last decade, the assumption was that increased philanthropy could compensate for cuts in government services. Despite the valiant efforts by charities, they still cannot meet the burgeoning demands for food. There will always be ups and downs in any capitalist economy, but what distinguishes this period from previous economic downturns is the denial of a social safety net to the country's most vulnerable, our children and elderly.

In the six years since welfare reform was passed, the majority who were pushed off welfare have failed to find living wage jobs. According to a landmark study by Boston University Medical Center, children in families whose welfare benefits were cut have 50 percent higher rates of hospitalization and hunger. One in five mothers pushed off welfare has had to reduce meal portions because they didn't have enough money to buy adequate food. But news of growing hunger, poverty, and unemployment in the world's richest country has been shut out from the nation's capital.

While our nation's policymakers turn a blind eye to the poor and unemployed, they have increased military spending by $34.5 billion. Military expenditures will reach $395 billion or 18 percent of the federal budget, while our social safety net constitutes just over 1 percent.

More military spending will not ensure homeland security if our legislators ignore the growing economic insecurity of the millions who don't have food or jobs in the U.S. If Thanksgiving is a time to celebrate the harvest, then we would do well to heed one of the oldest farming wisdoms: you reap what you sow. This Thanksgiving should be a reminder to each and every one of us of our responsibility to decide the fate of our nation. We do have a choice between becoming a nation invested in war or a nation built on peace and prosperity.

Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity is currently out of print but I recommend to anyone interested in how a wealthy society allows so many people to go hungry to check it out from a library or look over the publications offered at the Food First Bookstore.

President Bush has a slogan for his education reform plan: "No child left behind." But how can we leave no child behind in the area of education if they and their families do not have access to food first? This Thursday is Thanksgiving in the United States — a holiday where millions of Americans "give thanks" and take time to think of those less fortunate. This Thanksgiving holiday, let's not just be thankful for our individual prosperity and sorrowful for the less prosperous — let's make a commitment to changing our unjust economic system which keeps millions hungry while producing enough food to feed everyone. Let's, as a society, make a commitment to leave no one behind. We should all demand that our governments fix their priorities and make food first!

Related websites:

Book:
Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity
By Frances Moore Lappe
Houghton Mifflin Co
Buy this book from Powell's Books or Amazon.com

Monday, November 18, 2002

U.S.: Privatization of Federal Workforce

With the exception of the airport security workers (who were federalized as a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks), there has been a trend with the U.S. government towards contracting out workers to private companies.

Last week the Bush regime announced plans to open as many as 850,000 federal government jobs to private sector competition. The administration suggests that increasing competition is good for the U.S. public because taxpayers will get the best deal for their money. Increased competition will drive down the cost of work and make government more efficient.

It is presummed, as an unquestionable fact, that private, for-profit companies are more efficient at managing and operating services. It is often ignored that they do not have the same interest as the public -- they are interested in their
"bottom line." Increased competition means that workers will get paid less, fewer benefits and worsened working conditions. This is all part of Bush's attack on U.S. labor which includes the repeal of OSHA ergonomics regulations, keeping the unions out of the new transporation security administration and anti-union rules for the new homeland security department.

Related articles:

Tuesday, November 12, 2002

Europe: Opposition to Iraqi war grows

On Sunday, The New York Times reported, "Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets here [in Florence, Italy] today to protest a possible military strike against Iraq, chanting antiwar slogans and throwing this Renaissance capital into a jittery state of alert."

The demonstration took place near the end of the European Social Forum -- "an open meeting space designed for in-depth reflection, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and planning of effective action among entities and movements of civil society
that are engaged in building a planetary society centered on the human being."

The size of the demonstration -- according to some reports there were over half a million people -- is quite remarkable and demonstrates how unpopular a war will be (at least ouside of the American 'mainstream').

Related websites:


Related articles:

Wednesday, November 06, 2002

U.S. Elections: Republicans win control of congress

But does it matter? It is difficult being a socialist in a two party system. On the one hand, the Democratic party is not a working class party -- it does not represent the interests of working people. But on the other hand, there is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are better than Republicans on many issues. Democrats tend to be pro-choice, more supportive of environomental regulation, not quite as war hungry, and slightly better for labor rights and social services. Should a socialist support the "lesser of two evils"? I don't think there is a simple, unequivocal answer. In many cases, we should provide critical support but we should devote our efforts to building real alternatives to the Democrats. Critical support means voting for the "lessor evil" in some elections, but we must be vigilant and vocal about exposing shortcomings in the "lessor evil's" policies and political practices.

The two party system has been effective in containing progressive political opinion by excluding leftist theories as "impractical." The system works so that one must either take a "centrist" approach and work within the system of the two parties or else be considered "fringe" -- or worse, a "spoiler" (like Ralph Nader). This means that basic progressive ideas such as national healthcare and living wages don't even register on the radar screen in "mainstream" American politics. Socialists and other progressives must work to redefine the "mainstream" of American politics. We can do so by relentlessly voicing our opinion. We must support and build independent media such as this site and (more importantly) sites and publications like the World Socialist Web Site, Workers World, and Socialist Worker (just to name a few). But it is also important to be active locally. In a way the centrists are correct in arguing that it is "impractical" to elect a leftist to important political positions. We need to ask ourselves why it is impractical and develop strategies for making the impractical practical.

Related articles:

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

Middle East: Amnesty International report calls for investigation into Israeli war crimes

The human rights organization Amnesty International released a report in which they call for the investigation into war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) during attacks on the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin and the West Bank city of Nablus earlier this year.

From the report:
Amnesty International has documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted, or were killed as a result of disproportionate use of force or gross negligence in protecting those not or no longer involved in the fighting.

In several cases the IDF caused the deaths of Palestinians by demolishing homes while residents were still inside. IDF soldiers frequently failed to give adequate warnings before demolishing houses, refused to allow family and neighbors to warn residents, failed to offer help themselves or to call rescue units or ambulances and sometimes shot at those who tried to help. The failure to properly investigate killings in disputed circumstances and those clearly unlawful have created a climate where members of the IDF believe that they may carry out such violations of the right to life with impunity.

Related articles: