Africom - the big secret in the USA

From the blog Socialist Banner



No. 3 on the top 25 censored media stories :-

3 AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa's Resources
Source: MoonofAlabama.org 2/21/2007 Title: "Understanding AFRICOM"Author: Bryan Hunt http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/02/understanding_a_1.html
Student Researcher: Ioana LupuFaculty Evaluator: Marco Calavita, Ph.D

In February 2007 the White House announced the formation of the US African Command (AFRICOM), a new unified Pentagon command center in Africa, to be established by September 2008. This military penetration of Africa is being presented as a humanitarian guard in the Global War on Terror. The real objective is, however, the procurement and control of Africa's oil and its global delivery systems.

The most significant and growing challenge to US dominance in Africa is China. An increase in Chinese trade and investment in Africa threatens to substantially reduce US political and economic leverage in that resource-rich continent. The political implication of an economically emerging Africa in close alliance with China is resulting in a new cold war in which AFRICOM will be tasked with achieving full-spectrum military dominance over Africa.

AFRICOM will replace US military command posts in Africa, which were formerly under control of US European Command (EUCOM) and US Central Command (CENTCOM), with a more centralized and intensified US military presence.

A context for the pending strategic role of AFRICOM can be gained from observing CENTCOM in the Middle East. CENTCOM grew out of the Carter Doctrine of 1980 which described the oil flow from the Persian Gulf as a "vital interest" of the US, and affirmed that the US would employ "any means necessary, including military force" to overcome an attempt by hostile interests to block that flow.

It is in Western and Sub-Saharan Africa that the US military force is most rapidly increasing, as this area is projected to become as important a source of energy as the Middle East within the next decade. In this region, challenge to US domination and exploitation is coming from the people of Africa—most specifically in Nigeria, where seventy percent of Africa's oil is contained.

People native to the Niger Delta region have not benefited, but instead suffered, as a result of sitting on top of vast natural oil and natural gas deposits. Nigerian people's movements are demanding self-determination and equitable sharing of oil-receipts. Environmental and human rights activists have, for years, documented atrocities on the part of oil companies and the military in this region. As the tactics of resistance groups have shifted from petition and protest to more proactive measures, attacks on pipelines and oil facilities have curtailed the flow of oil leaving the region. As a Convergent Interests report puts it, "Within the first six months of 2006, there were nineteen attacks on foreign oil operations and over $2.187 billion lost in oil revenues; the Department of Petroleum Resources claims this figure represents 32 percent of 'the revenue the country [Nigeria] generated this year.'"

Oil companies and the Pentagon are attempting to link these resistance groups to international terror networks in order to legitimize the use of the US military to "stabilize" these areas and secure the energy flow. No evidence has been found however to link the Niger Delta resistance groups to international terror networks or jihadists. Instead the situation in the Niger Delta is that of ethnic-nationalist movements fighting, by any means necessary, toward the political objective of self-determination. The volatility surrounding oil installations in Nigeria and elsewhere in the continent is, however, used by the US security establishment to justify military "support" in African oil producing states, under the guise of helping Africans defend themselves against those who would hinder their engagement in "Free Trade."

The December 2006 invasion of Somalia was coordinated using US bases throughout the region. The arrival of AFRICOM will effectively reinforce efforts to replace the popular Islamic Courts Union of Somalia with the oil industry–friendly Transitional Federal Government. Meanwhile, the persistent Western calls for "humanitarian intervention" into the Darfur region of Sudan sets up another possibility for military engagement to deliver regime change in another Islamic state rich in oil reserves.

Hunt warns that this sort of "support" is only bound to increase as rhetoric of stabilizing Africa makes the dailies, copied directly out of official AFRICOM press releases. Readers of the mainstream media can expect to encounter more frequent usage of terms like "genocide" and "misguided." He notes that already corporate media decry China's human rights record and support for Sudan and Zimbabwe while ignoring the ongoing violations of Western corporations engaged in the plunder of natural resources, the pollution other peoples' homelands, and the "shoring up" of repressive regimes.

In FY 2005 the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative received $16 million; in FY 2006, nearly $31 million. A big increase is expected in 2008, with the administration pushing for $100 million each year for five years. With the passage of AFRICOM and continued promotion of the Global War on Terror, Congressional funding is likely to increase significantly. In the end, regardless of whether it's US or Chinese domination over Africa, the blood spilled will be African. Hunt concludes:-

"It does not require a crystal ball or great imagination to realize what the increased militarization of the continent through AFRICOM will bring to the peoples of Africa."

Update by Bryan Hunt

By spring 2007, US Department of Energy data showed that the United States now imports more oil from the continent of Africa than from the country of Saudi Arabia. While this statistic may be of surprise to the majority, provided such information even crosses their radar, it's certainly not the case for those figures who have been pushing for increased US military engagement on that continent for some time now, as my report documented. These import levels will rise.

In the first few months following the official announcement of AFRICOM, details are still few. It's expected that the combatant command will be operational as a subunit of EUCOM by October 2007, transitioning to a full-fledged stand-alone command some twelve months later. This will most likely entail the re-locating of AFRICOM headquarters from Stuttgart, Germany, where EUCOM is headquartered, to an African host country.

In April, US officials were traversing the continent to present their sales pitch for AFRICOM and to gauge official and public reaction. Initial perceptions are, not surprisingly, negative and highly suspect, given the history of US military involvement throughout the world, and Africa's long and bitter experience with colonizers.

Outside of a select audience, reaction in the United States has barely even registered. First of all, Africa is one of the least-covered continents in US media. And when African nations do draw media attention, coverage typically centers on catastrophe, conflict, or corruption, and generally features some form of benevolent foreign intervention, be it financial and humanitarian aid, or stern official posturing couched as paternal concerns over human rights. But US military activity on the continent largely goes unnoticed. This was recently evidenced by the sparse reporting on military support for the invasion of Somalia to rout the Islamic Courts Union and reinstall the unpopular warlords who had earlier divided up the country. The Pentagon went so far as to declare the operation a blueprint for future engagements.

The DOD states that a primary component of AFRICOM's mission will be to professionalize indigenous militaries to ensure stability, security, and accountable governance throughout Africa's various states and regions. Stability refers to establishing and maintaining order, and accountability, of course, refers to US interests. This year alone, 1,400 African military officers are anticipated to complete International Military Education and Training programs at US military schools.

Combine this tasking of militarization with an increased civilian component in AFRICOM emphasizing imported conceptions of "democracy promotion" and "capacity-building" and African autonomy and sovereignty are quick to suffer. Kenyans, for example, are currently finding themselves in this position.It is hoped that, by drawing attention to the growing US footprint on Africa now, a contextual awareness of these issues can be useful to, at the very least, help mitigate some of the damages that will surely follow. At the moment, there is little public consciousness of AFRICOM and very few sources of information outside of official narratives. Widening the public dialogue on this topic is the first step toward addressing meaningful responses.

Will Capitalism Eat Itself?

In the news lately has been the growing concern over the collapsing "housing bubble" and the phenomenon known as sub prime mortgages. The complex situation involving these mortgages is starting to turn sour and already having negative impacts on American financial markets. Even though the long-term effect on the overall economy remains to be seen, it often elicits dire warnings of impending collapse and depression. At the core of the situation are disproportionate amounts of home mortgages that were sold to people who were not likely to pay them back. These people are referred to as the "sub prime" mortgage market and the moniker has been applied by the press as a catch-all to the thousands of loans with variable (and frequently exotic) terms often given to borrowers with low incomes or damaged credit histories.

Traditional home mortgages are for 15 to 30-year terms with a fixed annual percentage rate of interest. In the past, lenders would ask for 10-20% of the price of a house as a down payment as a way of ensuring the borrowers' ability to make good. Sub prime mortgages, on the other hand, involve little or no money down and an adjustable interest rate that "resets" periodically. Often, the terms are set up so that only interest is paid for the beginning of the mortgage, lowering payments while little or no balance is reduced. What is happening now is that large numbers of these mortgages are going into foreclosure, particularly a few months after the interest rates reset. The next major reset will be happening at the end of 2007, so people paying attention are predicting tens of thousands of people, mostly low-income families, losing their homes.

While the media typically focus coverage on these mortgages around lower-income borrowers who may have jumped at the chance to buy a house during the so-called "housing bubble" of the early 2000's, it should be noted that more exotic versions of these loans have often been obtained by capitalist speculators who buy houses at a low price and "flip" them (i.e. re-sell them at higher price without actually living in them), sometimes in a matter of weeks after buying them. These mortgages defer much of the payment until after the time the buyer expects to flip the house, so as to maximize the profit for the speculators and facilitate economy-boosting activity in what was for years a seller's market.

If it wasn't bad enough that the self-imposed prudence of the financial industry concerning mortgages was gradually thrown out the window in a me-first orgy of easy-money lending facilitated by years of low Federal Reserve-set interest rates, the primal greed of capitalists led them to increasingly use bundles of mortgages containing a high percentage of sub primes as loan collateral for even higher levels of financial speculation, often taking the form of hedge funds.

Rather than let all this financial terminology get out of hand, let's summarize: lenders, spurred on by easily available Fed money, offer mortgages with less than desirable terms to people who have a high probability of not paying them off. Those risky mortgages are then bundled with other traditional mortgages into securities that are then used for, among other things, speculation in unregulated hedge funds.

What eventually happened is a) people stopped paying on their sub prime mortgages due to rate resets so large numbers went into foreclosure, and b) the housing market for overpriced "flipped" properties started to dry up, leaving speculators with no one to buy their McMansions - thus leading to further defaults as the terms demanded more payment. As more and more foreclosures occurred, word got around and people started looking at these bundles of mortgages that contained more and more rotten eggs. Hedge fund money secured by these bundles started to dry up, and a few notable hedge funds themselves collapsed. Luckily for some of the capitalist scum involved, the Fed made billions in bail out money available to stem the tide of hedge fund putrefaction and made some mortgage lenders more willing to restructure some of the onerous mortgages that hadn't foreclosed already. This is still going on right now.

Why is this phenomenon involving a small but important part of the population being seriously considered by some as the beginning of the end of capitalism? Well, a lot of it is wishful thinking, particularly when coupled with Peak Oil predictions, but it does shine a light on a dark "secret" of the American economy – that more and more of what is called "wealth" is actually not real and exists as credit – not just in the form of home mortgages but as the entire realms of Consumer and National Debt. All debt is predicated on the assumption that at some point the borrower is going to pay back the amount borrowed plus some amount of interest that is profit for the lender. Preferably, the debt is incurred in order to create more wealth in the form of investment or building of a business enterprise. Debt is a fundamental building block of capitalism and is nothing new, or secret, but has never existed in such astronomical amounts or made up such a large part of the American economy.

Consumer debt, which is money owed by people (not including things like mortgages), is according to the Federal Reserve close to $2.5 trillion dollars. This wealth, which actually doesn't exist, is counted in the economy (though this fact is not brought up in polite company). The fundamental weakness of such a high consumer debt is that at some point, people can decide to stop paying back money they owe. Therefore, the sub prime fiasco is serving as a canary in a coalmine to an economy primarily fueled by consumer spending (i.e. debt). If people can start defaulting on mortgages en masse, where the potential self-harm in doing so is rather severe, what is to stop them from defaulting on credit cards, payday loans, and other consumer credit devices and in doing so wash away the very foundation of the American economy like a broken sewer line buried beneath a downtown street? Yes, there have been a few hedge fund managers fired and a few extra yachts put up for sale, but so far there is no indication that this toxic mess has any danger of spreading into the murky and uncharted waters of consumer debt, which has in fact stayed level for 2007.

In 1929, the American economy, and with it the world's, took a plunge into depression due to careless and rampant speculation in stocks. Many then thought capitalism would collapse and the way become clear for the seizing of power by the working class. The SPGB wrote about it in 1932 in a pamphlet called "Why Socialism Will Not Collapse". While much of the work cites previous examples of financial crises that did not spell the death of capitalism and then attempts to explain the then-current state of affairs, their argument is plainly stated up front:

"The basis of Capitalism is the private ownership of the land, the factories, the railways, and the rest of means of life. This is the root cause of poverty, insecurity and wars, and a whole host of other evils."

In these two sentences we are assured that no matter what heights of greed or convoluted displays of smoke and mirrors the capitalist class achieves, and no matter how devastating their blunders may have on the short term conditions of the economy, the foundation of private property, and thus Capitalism itself, will remain intact so long as we continue to accept it. And by continuing to search for leaders and laws that will prevent economic calamity from ever happening again, as has happened after the many meltdowns of centuries past, we sadly ensure that it does happen, again and again! See, capitalism - no matter how bleak the outlook may seem, whether due to Peak Oil or endless war, or consumer debt – will remain as long as we allow it to by accepting its laws and playing its game. Only when the majority of the human species decides to reject the rule of property law, and the class that benefits from it, can Capitalism finally be defeated!

-TP

9/11

The following statement was issued by the World Socialist Party of the United States in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.

Terrorism, and the greater terrorism

The World Socialist Party of the United States condemns the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We offer our condolences to those who lost family or friends in these attacks. We do not believe that violence is an effective or acceptable means for social change, or change of any kind. We condemn all acts of violence, regardless of who carries them out.

As much as we disavow the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we also denounce the military strikes against Afghanistan, and any other attacks that follow. No capitalist war is worth the shedding of a single drop of blood, on either side.

We urge the people of the United States, that is to say, the working class, to recognize their common interests, and common plight with the people of all other countries, including Afghanistan. These people are not our enemies. The enemy is the capitalist system.

In addition, we urge the workers of America to recognize that fellow workers of Arab or Middle-eastern descent who live in America are not the enemy either. They are trapped in the same anti-human capitalist system as all other workers, both in America and the rest of the world. The workers of America must not take out their anger over the attacks on fellow workers of Arab descent.

We also wish to make it clear that the picture on the cover of our journal, the World Socialist Review, was printed before the September 11 attack on the Pentagon. The picture has nothing to do with the attack.

We are working to abolish the system which allowed and is responsible for these attacks and invite all who wish to permanently end terrorism and all forms of war to join us.

National Administrative Committee. WSPUS

Articles from Socialist Standard on 9/11 and its aftermath:

..>..>

From the September 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard - 'September 11, 2001: Reflections on a Somewhat Unusual Act of War' From the October 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard - 'Terrorism versus Terrorism' From the October 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard - 'Reactions' From the October 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard - 'The Middle East Connection' From the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard - 'More Reactions' From the December 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard - Redefining War From the April 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard - The War: Capitalism Does it Again

How money downed the Minneapolis bridge

(Jeff Wheeler/Star Tribune)

The Associated Press reported this week that in 1989, bridge inspectors had warned that pigeon droppings were accumulating on the steel beams of the I-35W bridge connecting Minneapolis and St. Paul. Apparently, the ammonia and acids in the droppings, the inspectors said nearly a decade ago, could corrode the beams.

This span collapsed August 1st of this year, killing 13 people and injuring more than 100. It is not yet clear if the bird droppings had been the cause of the terrible accident last month, but this story illustrates how terribly accident-prone is the capitalist system. Such a system simply does not have the money available to perform the necessary checks, cleanings, and repairs of the thousands of similar bridges in the United States to the advisable extent (as advised by professional bridge inspectors).

In fact, existing technology that could aid in averting such accidents are almost never employed on a consistent basis because of economic cost. For example, according to a report on Southern California Public Radio 89.3 on August 6th, Orange County, UC Irvine researcher Maria Feng has already developed a real-time sensor technology that could detect at any moment the effect of traffic upon a bridge. If a heavy truck somehow damaged a bridge, the data could be beamed back to a lab, where researchers could alert authorities. The structure could then be shut down if the damage proved too potentially dangerous. Ms. Feng said that as it is now, engineers only have to inspect bridges every two years. That's required under federal law. Ms. Feng was quoted in the show as stating: "The problem is sometimes things can happen between, in those two years, right? So if you have sensors on the bridge continuously monitor the bridge, we can find the problem in real time, so we can fix the problem immediately, before a catastrophe occurs."

When the growth of new inventions is no longer hampered by the needs to market them, and the oftentimes failure to find them finance capital is replaced by the free exchange of new ideas around the entire globe, human safety and need will replace profit-making as the modus operandi.

It is true that accidents are accidents, liable to occur in any society, however an economic system that has transcended the idiocies of state budgets and indeed of financial cost itself, will have to find a way to prioritize social investment of resources and labor in terms of the overall quality of life, nothing else. In a moneyless society of common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, it would only require a rotating pool of, say, a hundred local citizens at a time, trained by able engineers, to regularly monitor, clean and repair our bridges. It is possible that all that was required to prevent this terrible accident was a few hundred pair of arms and very simple tools, equipment and chemicals.

At any moment, there stand simultaneous millions of buildings, bridges, levees, roads, and so on, and millions of unemployed souls eager to provide useful functions in society. Even many of us who do work are employed in socially useless occupations, those that do not contribute to real wealth, but to the administration of capital, as in such fields as banking, marketing or selling - which also robs society as a whole from vital attention to its infrastructure - for example, to maintaining safety, to improving quality of structures or services, or simply to beautifying.

By understanding social problems in terms of the way wealth is produced (today, for sale to realize a profit) society may be able to evolve to a mode of wealth production in which our increasingly sophisticated modern techniques are inherited and democratically administered by society as a whole for one sole purpose - to meet our needs.

Thus, whatever the reason for the terrible bridge accident in Minnesota last month, the possibility that the capitalist mode of production is not somehow to blame is likely pigeon shit.

-Dr. Who

The Jewish Anarchists

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

It makes a refreshing change to find a TV programme dealing with radical ideas in a serious and sympathetic manner. The Free Voice of Labour: The Jewish Anarchists (Channel 4, June 26), was the fourth programme in an excellent series on American labour. The film, using interviews, snippets of rare films, newsreels, stills and song, told the story of the Yiddish anarchist paper, Freie Arbeiter Stimme, established on 4 July 1896. Although the aim of the paper was to spread ideas about a society without government, coercion and wars, it also provided a medium for Yiddish culture, theatre, poetry and literature.

The historian Paul Avrich, author of several books on anarchism, explained how Jewish immigrants escaping from Eastern Europe were disappointed with life in capitalist America. The so-called land of liberty, promise and opportunity, was brutal and oppresive. The conditions of labour in the sweatshops and factories of Boston and New York were miserable, the wages low. Some of these experiences are reflected in the folksong, Mayn Rue Plats, (My Place of Rest).

Don't look for me where the myrtles grow
You won't find me there, my love.
Where lives wither at machines, that is my resting place
Don't look for me where birds sing.
You won't find me there, my love.
I am a slave, and where my chains ring,
That is my resting place.

The Jewish immigrants worked mainly in the needle trades and it was here that anarchists and radicals became involved in the struggle, often violent, to establish trade unions and the eight hour day. This story is captured in the Yiddish feature film, Uncle Moses (1932) and in the folksong, Makhnes Geyen (Masses Marching):

How long, oh how long
Will you remain enslaved
Bearing the shameful shackles?
How long can you create magnificent riches
For him who robs you of your bread?
How long will you stand stopped back,
Down trodden, homeless, in pain?
It's dawn, already! Wake up!
Open your eyes!
Recognise your strength of steel!

The Jewish anarchist movement was at its height between 1880 and 1920, and during this short period of time it helped to influence the development of the American labour movement. In the 1920s and 1930s anarchist ideas were kept alive by Italian and Spanish immigrants. Several reasons were given for the decline of the Jewish anarchists. Firstly, the overthrow of Tsarism in Russia by the Bolsheviks, who used slogans such as "All Power to the Soviets", attracted many young and active anarchists, who formed the backbone of the American Communist Party. Secondly, America's entry into the First World War led to an increase in patriotic fervour and a crackdown on all "subversive organisations". Anarchists and Wobblies were attacked for making anti-war speeches. The Palmer raids led to persecution and imprisonment for radicals. Under the Espionage Act, anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were deported. Finally, Jewish anarchism can be seen as partly a response to the experience of being an immigrant in a strange and hostile country. Future generations were rapidly assimilated into mainstream American life. With the decline of Yiddish language and culture went the decline of the Freie Arbeiter Stimme. It ceased publication on the 25 November 1977, with a circulation of 1,700.

Many of the ideas discussed in this fascinating programme have been consistently advocated by the Socialist Party (The World Socialist Movement) - the abolition of the state, opposition to all capitalist wars, and rejection of the state-capitalist system found in Russia and other so-called socialist societies.

Having watched this programme and sung along with Hey, Hey, Daloy Polltsey (Down with the Police), I somehow couldn't face the next programme, Their Lordship House.

Steve Coleman

You can now view the film online at the following website.

Public Ownership and Common Ownership

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Under public ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under public ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. Thus in Russia bureaucracy as the ruling class is master of production and produce, and the Russian workers are an exploited class.

In Western countries we know only of public ownership (in some branches) of the capitalist State. Here we may quote the well-known English "socialist" writer G. D. H. Cole, for whom socialism is identical with public ownership. He wrote

"The whole people would be no more able than the whole body of shareholders in a great modern enterprise to manage an industry . . . It would be necessary, under socialism as much under large scale capitalism, to entrust the actual management of industrial enterprise to salaried experts, chosen for their specialized knowledge and ability in particular branches of work" (p. 674).

"There is no reason to suppose that socialisation of any industry would mean a great change in its managerial personnel" (p. 676 in An Outline of Modern Knowledge ed. By Dr W. Rose, 1931).

In other words: the structure of productive work remains as it is under capitalism; workers subservient to commanding directors. It clearly does not occur to the "socialist" author that "the whole people" chiefly consists of workers, who were quite able, being producing personnels, to manage the industry, that consists of their own work.

As a correction to State-managed production, sometimes workers' control is demanded. Now, to ask control, supervision, from a superior indicates the submissive mood of helpless objects of exploitation. And then you can control another man's business; what is your own business you do not want controlled, you do it. Productive work, social production, is the genuine business of the working class. It is the content of their life, their own activity. They themselves can take care if there is no police or State power to keep them off. They have the tools, the machines in their hands, they use and manage them. They do not need masters to command them, nor finances to control the masters.

Public ownership is the program of "friends" of the workers who for the hard exploitation of private capitalism wish to substitute a milder modernized exploitation. Common ownership is the program of the working class itself, fighting for self liberation.

We do not speak here, of course, of a socialist or communist society in a later stage of development, when production will be organized so far as to be no problem any more, when out of the abundance of produce everybody takes according to his wishes, and the entire concept of "ownership" has disappeared. We speak of the time that the working class has conquered political and social power, and stands before the task of organizing production and distribution under most difficult conditions. The class fight of the workers in the present days and the near future will be strongly determined by their ideas on the immediate aims, whether public or common ownership, to be realized at that time.

If the working class rejects public ownership with its servitude and exploitation, and demands common ownership with its freedom and self-rule, it cannot do so without fulfilling conditions and shouldering duties. Common ownership of the workers implies, first, that the entirety of producers is master of the means of production and works them in a well planned system of social production. It implies secondly that in all shops, factories, enterprises the personnel regulate their own collective work as part of the whole. So they have to create the organs by means of which they direct their own work, as personnel, as well as social production at large. The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under Socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their organs must consist of delegates sent out as the bearers of their opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organization of production secured.

Such bodies of delegates, for which the name of workers' councils has come into use, form what may be called the political organization appropriate to a working class liberating itself from exploitation. They cannot be devised beforehand, they must be shaped by the practical activity of the workers themselves when they are needed. Such delegates are no parliamentarians, no rulers, no leaders, but mediators, expert messengers, forming the connection between the separate personnel of the enterprises, combining their separate opinions into one common resolution. Common ownership demands common management of the work as well as common productive activity; it can only be realized if all the workers take part in this self-management of what is the basis and content of social life; and if they go to create the organs that unite their separate wills into one common action.

Since such workers' councils doubtlessly are to play a considerable role in the future organization of the workers' fights and aims, they deserve keen attention and study from all who stand for uncompromising fight and freedom for the working class.

-Anton Pannekoek

Western Socialist, November 1947

World without borders

We live in a world which has the potential to adequately feed, house and provide clean water and decent medical care for every single man, woman and child on Earth. The resources exist to banish material want as a problem for members of the human race. Yet millions throughout the world are malnourished, live in squalor or are actually dying of starvation or starvation-related diseases. The big question that faces the human race is: what can be done about it?

For some years, pressure groups concerned with the plight of populations in the less developed countries have urged bankers and governments in the richer nations to cancel the Third World debt. They imagine that if the billions of dollars in loans and interest owed by governments in Africa, South America, and Asia were written off then the crushing burden of poverty suffered by the mass of people in those regions would begin to lift. A fresh way would be open for development, they argue. Food subsidies and health programmes would attack the deaths from malnutrition and disease. Education and housing would raise the quality of life for millions.

These things would not happen. The cancellation of the debt would leave the curse of world poverty intact. The beneficiaries would be amongst the ruling elites who own and control production and distribution in the debtor countries. They are the ones who through their governments owe the money but they are not poor. Amidst the poverty of the masses they live in luxury. Holding power often with brutally oppressive methods they care little for their populations. Their aim is their own self-enrichment. Why should we want to bail them out? Why should we want to ease the way for the rising capitalists of the underdeveloped countries to accumulate capital from the exploitation of workers?

There is of course a case for the populations of the advanced regions giving aid and assistance to the people in areas where infrastructures, services, means of production and distribution are poorly developed. This is the compelling case that those with advantages should put themselves out to help those in need. Most people will accept this but it cannot happen under world capitalism which keeps even our ability to help others in economic shackles — or reduces it to the pathetic levels of charity. The tragic illusion which is misguiding those organising the Cancel the Debt campaign is their belief that the devastating problems of world capitalism can be tackled by re-arranging its finances.

The things that are desperately needed — food, clean water, housing, sanitation, transport, medical services and so on — can only be provided by useful labour, of which there is an abundance throughout the world. Finance is part of a system which operates as a barrier to useful labour producing what people need. Useful production must be freed from the constraints of profit and class interests. Only useful labour applied through world cooperation in a system of common ownership can solve the problems of world poverty.

World socialism could stop the dying from hunger immediately, and provide the conditions for good health and material security for all people across the Earth within a short time. It would do this by producing goods and services directly for need.

World socialism will operate with one simple and ordinary human ability which is universal — the ability of every individual to cooperate with others in a world-wide community of interests. For too long has indignation at human suffering been dissipated by useless causes. How much longer must the price of failure be the misery of countless millions?

Socialist Standard