*Midwestern Marx youth writer Sahil Siddiqi has compiled a list of links leading to mutual aid organizations in Texas. They can be found at the bottom of the article.*
 
An unprecedented winter storm has thrown the state of Texas into chaos. Texans have experienced freezing cold temperatures and multiple inches of snow. At face value, this may not seem like a big deal to a Midwesterner. To those of us accustomed to these conditions, winter weather simply means it’s time to break out the winter coat and boots. For most Texans however, grabbing the Winter apparel to protect from these conditions is not an option, as the storm they are currently experiencing is unlike anything Texas has seen in recent memory. 21 people have now died, and much of the homeless population is desperately looking for warmth.

​Not only are people freezing, but the state’s infrastructure is completely unprepared to withstand a blizzard of this magnitude. Videos have spread around the internet of Texans filming their roofs caving in from buildup of snow. Reports from the Texas Tribune detail millions being left without power, and many now being forced to ration food.[1] The storm, which scientists are telling us is climate change induced, is a warning of what’s to come if the US does not change course when it comes to production. Texas’ privately owned energy grid has failed millions, while continuing to rake in profits for their services. The crumbling homes are an example of how ill prepared US infrastructure is for the storms which will only increase as the climate worsens. The clear solution is to move to a system of planned production, and worker ownership of all major industries. Continuing to allow private companies to command production is suicidal for the working masses. Socialism and planned production must be implemented, or private interests will continue to destroy the planet, while apathetically watching us die in the climate storms of their own creation.
 
 
Local Texas news station KHOU 11 reports that the private utility company ERCOT met to discuss what should be done during this disaster. The conclusion was that electricity prices should be raised, due to an increase in the demand for power.[2] There may have never been a clearer example of how little profit driven private entities care for anything besides profit itself. The very fact that companies are allowed to make a surplus profit off of something as essential as electricity, highlights the irrationality of a capitalist economy. However, in the face of an unprecedented storm, it becomes more clear than ever how the system incentivizes profit, and profit alone. Private companies like ERCOT look at a situation in which people are dying and being left without power, and see only an increase in consumer demand, which will allow for a hike in their prices. They care nothing for the human costs of their actions.
 
Privately owned utilities must be seized and made public. This is quite literally our only option. So long as private interests are in control of the major sectors of the US economy, they will continue to be apathetic towards the effect their production has on the climate, and they will continue to turn the climate change storms they create into profitable business opportunities. The solution is for the working masses to seize the major sectors of economic power, because workers are those who feel the negative effects of climate change. The capitalists are not struggling in Texas. On the contrary, they are thriving. Capitalists sit and watch the chaos of the storm on television from the comfort of million dollar electrified homes, plotting new avenues of exploitation, which can bring an increase in shareholder profits. Capitalism is, at its core, a system which incentivizes a group of greedy vultures to extract all they can from the masses of society. A fact which this storm in Texas has made apparent. It is as Rosa Luxemburg said many years ago, we must choose between socialism, or barbarism.
 
*Links to Help Texas Compiled by Sahil Siddiqi*
 
- North Texas Mutual Aid
- Austin Mutual Aid
- Ending community homelessness coalition (ECHO)
- get free lunches to homeless people
- Texas health and human services
- Texas COVID-19 Mutual relief
 


[1] Aguilar, Julián. “Texans Running out of Food as Weather Crisis Disrupts Supply Chain.” The Texas Tribune. The Texas Tribune, February 18, 2021. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/texas-food-supply-power-outage/.

[2] Staff, Author: KHOU 11. “ERCOT to Raise Texas Energy Prices, Blaming High Demand from Winter Storm.” khou.com, February 16, 2021. https://www.khou.com/article/weather/ercot-to-raise-texas-energy-prices-blaming-high-demand-from-winter-storm/285-76ea495b-b67b-4cb7-8f1a-47f0fb4b4234. 

Egypt is one among the five countries in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) most affected by hunger during the COVID-19 pandemic. Widespread hunger in Egypt follows an international pattern. The World Food Program (WFP), the branch of the United Nations (UN) responsible for delivering food assistance, expects to need to serve 138 million people in 2021 - more than ever in its 60-year history.
​
The inability of the majority of countries of the world to effectively counter-act hunger is a result of decades-long neoliberal policies. These policies have either instituted import dependency or unleashed a process of export-oriented agro-industrialization, thus creating a highly unstable and deficient food regime. Egypt is not immune to these economic factors. Present-day hunger in the country is structurally situated in a pro-bourgeoisie paradigm intended to enrich the few at the expense of others.​

The historical context for food insecurity in Egypt is provided by former President Anwar Sadat’s policy of economic liberalization, faithfully continued by Hosni Mubarak till 2011 and by Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi until today. In 1960, Egypt had a self-sufficiency ratio (domestic production in relation to consumption) for wheat of around 70%. By 1980, the self-sufficiency ratio had fallen to 23% as imports rose to massive levels. Food aid and grain imports performed two important functions for imperialist powers. First, they tightly integrated Egypt with the world market and hence exposed it to fluctuating global prices. Secondly, they paved the way for growing levels of indebtedness as access to foreign currency became a key determinant of whether a country could meet its food needs. 

In Egypt, these developments were an important part of Sadat’s decisive turn toward the U.S. through the 1970s. The 1973 war was estimated to have cost around $40 billion, and the general fiscal squeeze caused by rising food and energy imports led Sadat to seek loans from U.S. and European lenders as well as regional zones of surplus capital such as the Gulf Arab states. The latter played a decisive role in bringing Egypt into the orbit of the American empire, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar forming the Gulf Organization for the Development of Egypt (GODE) in 1976 to provide aid to Egypt. 

The condition for Gulf financial aid was the elimination of Soviet influence in Egypt (the Soviet-Egyptian Friendship Treaty was canceled in March 1976) and the implementation of a series of economic reforms prescribed by the US Treasury, IMF, and World Bank, which included an end to subsidies and a deregulation of the Egyptian pound (which would raise the cost of imports). As the Egyptian government moved to amend laws to allow repatriation of profits, free flows of capital, and attempted to lift subsidies, funds arrived from GODE.​

With the arrival of neoliberalism in Cairo, the masses became increasingly poor. When they became poor, they were unable to buy food in adequate quantities. This was the natural outcome of an unending spate of privatization. In the 2000s, Egypt gained the dubious distinction of being the leader of privatization in the Arab world.  The country’s privatization program was launched as part of a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) agreed between the Egyptian government and the World Bank and IMF in 1991. The major focus of this SAP was Law 203 of 1991, which designated 314 public sector enterprises for sale. 

By 2008, Egypt had recorded the largest number of firms privatized out of any country in the region and the highest total value of privatization ($15.7 billion since 1988). Unlike other states, in which just one or two deals made up the majority of privatization receipts, Egypt’s sell-off was wide-ranging - covering flour mills, steel factories, real estate firms, banks, hotels, and telecommunications companies.

To prepare state-owned companies for privatization, the Egyptian government terminated subsidies and ended their direct control by government ministries. In many cases, loans from international institutions were used to assist in the restructuring and upgrading of facilities prior to sale - burdening the state with debt while investors received newly retooled and modernized factories. The end result of privatization was a severe deterioration in labor rights and wages, facilitated by the growth in informal work conditions and the increasing exploitation of women in “micro” or small enterprises where minimum wage, social security, and other legal rights were not in effect. 

Informal workers make up over 63% of Egypt’s estimated 30 million employed population, according to the International Labor Organization (ILO). Egyptian officials say the sector generates nearly 40-50% of the country’s economic output. Informalization of the labor market has systematically immiserated the workers. The poverty rate rose from 25.2% in 2010/2011 to 26.3% in 2012/2013 and 27.8% in 2015, then jumped to 32.5% in 2017/2018, which means that 32.5 million Egyptians are poor according to the “national poverty line” (EGP736 per month and person, about $45). 

The World Bank pegs the poverty rate even higher, at 60% of the entire population. Inequality across regions is sharp; poverty levels in Egypt’s poorest villages are as high as 81.7%. The Severe Poverty Line also rose to 5.3% in 2015 and reached 6.2% in 2017/2018, which means that 6.2 million Egyptians - according to the national severe poverty line of 491 EGP (about US$25) per month and person - are extremely poor. ​

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Egypt’s agricultural exports increased significantly. The country became the largest exporters of oranges in the world, as well as strawberries and among the largest in onions. Most of the Gulf countries lifted trade restrictions related to their import of Egyptian products. Egypt’s exports increased not due to a boom in production but because these countries were preparing for an impending crisis. This has greatly affected Egyptians’ access to goods since productivity did not increase but exports did.

The heavy focus on export crops rather than local staples is not new. Since the 2000s, rice, maize and wheat production has been pretty much stagnant. As a result, Egyptians are dependent on expensive food imports. In 2016/17, Egypt imported 12 million tons of wheat, over a million tons more than the average for the preceding 5 years. This coincided with 42% annual food price inflation, the highest for 30 years. The Egyptian Food bank, a large charity that feeds the poor, increased its “handouts” by 20%, extending their reach to “middleclass” families - an extent of the pervasiveness of food insecurity. 

In the current conjuncture, Egypt needs to move beyond the neoliberal model of agriculture which only succeeds in increasing hunger.  Liberalization, immiseration and agro-export industrialization - all of them serve to buttress the power of imperialism and facilitate the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. While there was hope after the 2011 uprising that farmers would enjoy new freedoms and opportunities, it was not forthcoming. On the contrary, farmers have been harassed, they have seen their crops being damaged and there has been considerable police intimidation if farmers have had the courage to challenge aggression from agri-business firms. Small farmers have been bogged down in costly legal proceedings where big landowners have reclaimed land that they had lost during Gamal Abdel Nasser’s agrarian reforms in the 1950s. In addition, small farmers have had to bear the burden of increased rents and expensive farming inputs. An alternative model needs to be urgently established to replace Egypt’s current agricultural architecture which will end up in a seemingly endless “hunger pandemic”. ​

​About the Author:
​Yanis Iqbal is an independent researcher and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at yanisiqbal@gmail.com. His articles have been published in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and several countries of Latin America.

Arauz faced two politicians - Guillermo Lasso and Yaku Pérez Guartambel. According to a quick count by the National Electoral Council (CNE), Pérez and Lasso took 20.04% and 19.97% of the votes, respectively. 

Lasso is the candidate for the conservative alliance “Creating Opportunities” (CREO). He is also a member of Opus Dei, banker and businessman. A true representative of the Ecuadorian oligarchy, he served as a minister of economy in the Jamil Mahuad government in 1999, which fell in the winter of 2000 at the hands of 2 million peasants and poor workers who took over the streets in protest against dollarization. 
​
Pérez is the candidate of the indigenous Pachakutik Party. While he portrays himself as an “eco-socialist”, many from the Correa camp have questioned his commitment to defend indigenous communities and remember that some factions of the Pachakutik Party have, in the past, opportunistically aligned with the right against Correa’s government. Moreover, he is also known for supporting US-backed right-wing coups in Latin America and wholeheartedly backing imperialism. ​

The construction of the Ecuadorian State was based on “good living” (El Buen Vivir) - a conception which places life at the center of all social practices and includes the strengthening of the welfare state in order to guarantee it. Correa acolyte René Ramírez argues that buen vivir means: “free time for contemplation and emancipation, and the broadening or flourishing of real liberties, opportunities, capacities, and potentialities of individuals/collectives to bring that which society, territories, diverse collective identities, and everyone - as a human being or collective, universal or individual - values as key to a desirable life.”

An essential part of buen vivir is communal action. While there were many gaps in the achievement of this aim, the Corriesta administration did try to start the “citizenization of political control” - the election of institutional and control authorities not by the legislature, but by an ad hoc organizational structure called the “Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control”. These measures were intended to establish a framework for participatory governance. ​

Lenin Moreno assumed presidency in 2017, riding on the back of Correa’s support. Having served as vice president (2007-13) in Correa’s government, he was expected to continue the progressive agenda of a strong welfare state. Instead, Moreno chose to comprehensively break away from the previous paradigm of anti-neoliberalism, persecuting Correa and his supporters.
​
Moreno used a February 2018 referendum to destroy the CNE, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Judiciary Council, the attorney general, the comptroller general, and others. With the assistance of the CNE, Moreno divided and took control of Correa’s party.  When the Correistas tried to re-organize themselves in a new party, the state blocked them. They said that the proposed names were misleading or that the signatures collected were invalid. By 2019, the Correistas used the “Social Commitment Strength” platform to run for local elections in 2019. This platform was then banned in 2020.

The suppression of Correistas has occurred against a backdrop of a neoliberal onslaught. Moreno has followed laissez-faire economic policies, privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and state reduction promoted by the Washington Consensus. His initial actions aimed to incentivize private economic activity, including the elimination of advances on income taxes for firms and a move toward labor market flexibility. Further, Moreno introduced tax exonerations for firms that repatriated funds within the next twelve months. 

In August of 2018, the National Assembly approved the “Organic Law for Productive Development, Attraction of Investment, Employment Generation, and Fiscal Stability and Equilibrium”. This law included amnesty for any outstanding interest, fines, or surcharges owed to a number of government agencies. 

A 10-year income tax exemption was introduced for new investments in the industrial sector. Along the same lines, a 15-year exemption for investment in basic industries, and a 20-year exemption for investments located near the country’s border, were also specified in the bill. Exemptions were introduced to the tax on capital outflows for productive investments. These measures reduced the high-tax burden that private companies earlier faced.

Moreno has announced many austerity adjustments: reduction in the salaries of many government functionaries, elimination of bonus payments for state employees, overall reduction in the number of public sector workers, and the sale of state-owned companies. All this resulted in the “October 2019 uprising”. ​

It is likely that Arauz’s socialist leanings will help him succeed in re-gaining presidential power. He is committed to rolling back Moreno’s neoliberal measures, standing firm against the ruthless demands of international capital, increasing public spending on education and healthcare, and imposing restrictions on capital flight. Arauz has conceived of a state model oriented towards selective economic interventionism for the benefit of the poor. 
​
This model argues that the people-centric acceleration of economies is not a spontaneous phenomenon that results exclusively from market forces, but is the result of vigorous state involvement in strategic sectors through planning and structural reforms in the context of a mixed economic system. Considering the fact that absolute poverty has tripled during Moreno’s 4-year presidency, Ecuadorians will elect a leader who promises to provide them with dignified lives. ​

About the Author:
​Yanis Iqbal is an independent researcher and freelance writer based in Aligarh, India and can be contacted at yanisiqbal@gmail.com. His articles have been published in the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and several countries of Latin America.

For years NeoConservatives within the American Political Establishment have salivated over the idea of going to war with Iran. The last four years under Donald Trump have seen hostility towards Iran reach dangerous levels, as neocons within Trump’s administration such as Mike Pompeo and John Bolton have openly encouraged Trump to overthrow the Iranian Government. While not a socialist country, The Islamic Republic of Iran has long defied the economic interests of Western multinationals. The notoriously right wing, Koch brothers funded, Heritage foundation says, “Large numbers of state-owned enterprises and other firms controlled by Iranian security forces crowd out private-sector activity.” [1] Iran’s economy is largely driven by state run oil and gas industries, and the country is considered an “energy superpower.” This of course is the primary reason neoconservatives like John Bolton with deep ties to the private fossil fuel industry have long obsessed over regime change in Iran. If the Iranian Government is overthrown, while the country and its people will be thrown into violent chaos, US based multinationals will have unhindered access to Iranian oil.
 
While neocons like Bolton claim their advocacy for Iranian regime change is based on a desire to protect human rights, a look at recent history reveals their true motives. Almost 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, which Bolton staunchly defends, what we’ve seen is the destabilization of Iraq and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. This is a war which Noam Chomsky calls “the crime of the century”[2]. Are we going to allow these bloodthirsty politicians to lie us into yet another war where they claim to be protecting human rights while murdering hundreds of thousands? At a time when people in the US are struggling to meet their basic needs, and the Covid pandemic continues to rip through the country, the last thing we need in this world is a war between Iran and the United States. Let us demand our public officials meet the needs of American workers, rather than send them to die in yet another disastrous oil war.
 
The United States has a long history of interfering in Iranian Politics. One of the first acts of the CIA following their inception in 1947 was to overthrow the secular, Democratically elected, Iranian Nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Declassified documents released over 60 years later have proved the CIA and UK collaborated to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister and replace him with the pro-Western Shah. Mossadegh’s primary economic proposal was to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. He argued that Iran had a right to the resources produced in their own country. In 1951 Mossadegh would Nationalize the British controlled Anglo-Persian Oil company. [3] Effectively booting British multinationals from the country. The CIA and UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (m16), threw their support behind the Iranian Shah, Reza Pahlavi, and launched an anti-Mossadegh propaganda campaign, both in Iran and The United States.[4] The first attempt to capture Mossadegh failed, however days later a second attempt would apprehend Mossadegh, leaving Iran in the hands of the Western backed Shah.

​The 1953 coup would become a rallying cry 26 years later during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Under the pro-Western Shah Reza Pahlavi, opposition parties were outlawed and suppressed. The opposition parties include The National Front, a combination of noncommunist left-wing groups, as well as the Tudeh Party, a party of pro-Soviet Communists. During the 1979 Revolution these parties would unite behind a shared desire to overthrow the oppressive Shah. Former philosophy professor Ruhollah Khomeini was gaining popularity in Iran through advocating the reduction of the authoritarian powers of the Shah, and a more populist economic program aimed at meeting the needs of the Iranian masses. Both the Tudeh and National Front parties would put their support behind Khomeini, eventually overthrowing the Shah, dealing a heavy blow to Western influence in Iran. [5] 
 
Since the Revolution Iran has remained a theocracy with an economic program based on central planning and state ownership of large portions of the economy. Many in Iran heavily criticize their government, and advocate for the state to become more secular. Iran has a rich intellectual history, and many academics and student groups have organized to push for change recently, as many did in the 1979 revolution. While many in Iran are critical of their Government, the people are unified against intervention from the United States. Continued escalations against Iran from the Trump Administration have given Iranians a common enemy in the US, who has been unable to resist meddling in Iranian Politics for over 70 years now. The Conservative parties in Iran are now calling for breaking off all ties with the US, and to end the 24 hour a day monitoring of the Iranian nuclear program agreed to in the Iran deal. [6] Iran’s internal politics are complex, and belligerent US foreign policy threatens to push Iranians in a reactionary direction.
 
The Trump administration has made multiple escalations towards invading Iran. The decision to pull out of the Iran deal was one of the most belligerent foreign policy decisions of the century, and the justification from the State Department was truly incoherent. The Iran deal forced Iran to allow 24-hour a day surveillance of their nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency. [7] While under this 24-hour surveillance not one time has Iran ever been accused of creating a nuclear weapon. The nuclear energy is used for power, while enriched uranium is used to create medical isotopes. However, despite no findings of wrongdoing, the US has put crippling sanctions on Iran. Including blocking medicine from entering the country. [8] US officials justify this action by calling Iran the number one state sponsor of terrorism. The media has yet to ask these officials if blocking a foreign nation from importing medicine in a pandemic qualifies as terrorism or not.

​So, while Iran has never before sought to create a nuclear weapon, now many in the country are calling for that to change. The people of Iran got a great view of how the US invaded Iraq on false pretenses about nuclear weapons. Iran has seen the devastation and brutality of the United States empire on those who dare claim sovereignty over their natural resources. The Iranian people do not want their country to see the same fate as Iraq, and they are seeing the similar rhetoric from the US about their country. It is truly hard to blame Iranians for wanting their country to increase defense capabilities, especially following the US murder of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. A clear act of aggression, and a blow to the Iranian military. And now at the end of 2020 Israel and the US have assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists who the US media, of course, portrays as dangerous terrorists. [9] While Iran has never created Nuclear weapons before, US aggression may push them to.
 
So, now to my fellow Americans. Are we going to let them do this again? Are we going to allow our bloodthirsty Government to take hundreds of thousands of lives, in a war that is so clearly being waged for control of natural resources? How many US soldiers were killed in Iraq? How many died to stop the Iraqi nuclear program which never existed? Are we really going to allow this to happen again? Will we destroy a nation, and hundreds of thousands of lives, to maximize the Koch Brothers’ profits?
 
I for one stand against war with Iran and see through the lies of our corporate media. Remember how loudly the war drums were beating after 9/11, to stir up patriotic fervor, and manufacture support for the invasion of Iraq. They PROMISED YOU that it would be a short invasion to extract nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years later the US still occupies Iraq, nuclear weapons were never found, and hundreds of thousands are dead. Do not fall for this again my friends. Tell the US Government that either they make peace with Iran, or face mass resistance.

Citations


[1]Heritage Foundation. (2020). 2020 Index of Economic Freedom: Iran. Heritage.org. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.heritage.org/index/country/iran
[2] Chomsky, N. (2015, 10 28). Voices on Iraq: Noam Chomsky. Sputnik News. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201510281029239831-chomsky-us-iraq-invasion-crime-obama/
[3] Byrne, M. (2013, 8 19). CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup. NSA Archive. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
[4] Wu, Lawrence, and Michelle Lanz. 2019. “How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy in 4 Days.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days.
[5] Afary, Janet. 2020. “Iranian Revolution.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution.
[6] Karimi, Nasser. 2020. “Iran's parliament approves bill to stop nuclear inspections.” Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/iran-parlianment-bill-nuclear-inspection-e2f2225c1f91c5c09afaf776cf9e04e3
 [7] IAEA. n.d. “Verification and Monitoring in Iran.” IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran.
[8]Zakavi, Rasoul. 2019. “Economic Sanctions on Iran and Nuclear Medicine.” NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352058/.
[9] “State Media Says Iran's Top Nuclear Scientist Killed In Ambush.” 2020. New York Times. Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed in Ambush, State Media Say.

About the Author:
​My name is Edward and I am from Sauk City, Wisconsin. I received my B.A. in Political Science from Loras College, where I was a former NCAA wrestling All-American, and active wrestling coach. My main interest are in Geopolitics and the role of American imperialism with relation to socialist states, specifically China and Venezuela.  ​I also worked for Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2020.

​This time around, residents were pushed out of the encampment due to a zoning change proposal which was posted about in a notice on a fence near the Arkins encampment. As the notice explains, Tryba Architects seeks to change the zoning at Arkins Court and three other locations in Denver to allow “mixed use development between 110 and 250 feet in height,” in other words, more high-rise buildings. 

The sweeps tend to gather protesters and supporters of the homeless population (some are both) who offer moving supplies, refreshments, and a helping hand in moving their camps. On the morning of the Arkins sweep, dozens of people showed up with Uhaul trucks as well as the usual supplies, including a pop-up table with coffee, hot chocolate, pastries, sandwiches, fruit, and more.

About the Author:
My name is Maddy. I am a journalist, writer, and thinker based in Colorado where I work as a stringer for a small-town newspaper and have some odd jobs on the side. I am a member of the Democratic Socialist of America and am interested in bringing a lens of intersectionality to journalism and "pushing the envelope" to make people think critically about social issues. I love animals, music, food, creative writing, and the outdoors. She/her. 

This past 3rd of November the interest of capitalist class wasn’t just assured a win in the presidential election, but it also took a big win in California with the passing of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was a ballot proposal to maintain the gig economy workers of companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, etc. under the status of ‘Independent Contractors’. A vote ‘yes’ would mean that the workers in these sectors would remain categorized as independent contractors, a vote ‘no’ would force these app-based gig companies to provide “basic protections to their workers”[1]. After outspending the opposition 12 to 1 by pouring more than 200 million[2] on the ballot initiative, gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and more, won.

The opposition to the bill was led by various labor organization, but at the head of it was the California Labor Federation (CLF). CLF understood that the passing of this bill meant boosting profits for these gig companies by “denying their drivers’ right to a minimum wage, paid sick leave and safety protections.”[3]
​
Companies like Lyft advertised that the passing of prop 22 meant that workers in these industries would maintain their ‘flexibility’, and fearmongered by stating that up to 90% of drivers could lose their jobs if the bill did not go through. They also mentioned that a vote yes would give drivers “more benefits”, of course, without mentioning that the extra ‘benefits’ they would get are still nowhere near what they would be required to give them if they were considered as workers and not independent contractors.[4] To urge a ‘yes’ vote, these companies went as far as showing videos of single moms saying they wouldn't be able to figure out how to make extra money for their family[5] if the bill didn’t pass. This massive influx of advertisement money was what caused a vote that was polling in at 38% six weeks before its election, to rise 19 points and win.[6]

While these gig economy app based companies have grown to be worth billions of dollars, the employees whose labor their growth has depended on have been partaking in worldwide protest because of their poverty wages.[7] Taking this into consideration, and the fact that only 38% was in favor of the bill just six weeks before the vote, it is fair to say that the bill passed because more than $200 million was spent propagandizing people in favor of it. A nice exemplar of how our American Democracy works.

The core of the $200 million that was spent was aimed at convincing folks that this was the route that would prove to be the most beneficial for workers. Although not all working families fell for this, the outcome demonstrates quite a few did. The wealth of the owning class proved to be a sufficient engine for the ideologically coercing of workers into consenting against their own interests. What we have here is not the usual schematics of a working class who participates in electoral processes whereby both candidates represent the interest of their enemies; but a working class that when confronted with a clear dichotomous decision of advancing or regressing their interest as a class, was conditioned enough to overwhelmingly vote against their own interest.  

These ideological tactics of coercing workers into consenting against their own interest are not new. In the days of child labor, the arguments for its maintenance usually presented the same form of cynical concern for workers and their families, stating that families would be unable to survive without the children contributing, and using analogies of child labor at the farm[8] to naturalize and thus legitimate the continuation of such bruteness as having kids under 10 years old lose limbs or die working 10-12 hours a day for miserable wages.[9]

In terms of relations of power between labor and capital, the neoliberal capitalism we see today is perhaps closer to the conditions in the time of Mother Jones, than it was after the second world war. Although child labor is not around, the hard-fought victories by unions and communists for workers are constantly attacked and defeated. The last four decades of neoliberal capitalism has been a continuous disempowerment of workers through the cutting of benefits, stagnating of wages, and repression of unionization efforts. The gig economy takes this even further, through an employer’s complete removal of responsibility for workers. By categorizing workers as ‘independent contractors’, the ‘flexibility’ they continuously speak of is one that is only for them. Flexibility for the capitalist entails the removal of responsibilities for his workers, and subsequently, increasing profits for him. But for the worker - regardless of how much the capitalist’s propaganda says they are now ‘flexible’ and ‘free’ – flexibility means insecurity, less pay, and less benefits. Like in sex, flexibility for the worker here only means he can get screwed more efficiently.
​
The passing of this bill in California entails that it will probably be the first domino in many to come. Soon, our working class will face an instability that has not been seen in the last two centuries. The question we must ask ourselves is not just 'what are we doing to prevent this?'; for this question takes a necessarily defensive approach. If we are only defending, although we might win some battles and lose others, those wins are not steps forward, but the prevention of backward steps. This puts us in a pickle between maintaining our position or taking steps backwards. Unlike in sports, were defense is the best form of offense, in the struggles of labor and capital offense is the best form of defense. We must be ready to counter the barbarities that neoliberal capitalism is taking us towards. This is something that cannot be down if our efforts are limited to protecting previous gains, we must be ready to affirm a socialist tomorrow. Our situation is at a crossroad, now more than ever does Luxemburg’s famous dictum ring true, it’s either “socialism or barbarism”.


Citations


[1] “What is Prop 22, the Uber/Lyft Ballot Measure?,” California Labor Federation, https://calaborfed.org/no-on-prop-22-faq/

[2] Sarah Jones, “Uber and Lyft’s Proposition 22 Win Is a Warning Shot to Democrats,” Intelligencer, last modified November 4, 2020, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/uber-lyfts-proposition-22-was-a-warning-shot-to-democrats.html#:~:text=In%20the%20weeks%20leading%20up%20to%20November%203%2C,of%20the%20measure%20regularly%20featured%20people%20of%20color.

[3] “What is Prop 22, the Uber/Lyft Ballot Measure?,” California Labor Federation,

[4] “What is Prop 22 | California Drivers | Vote YES on Prop 22 | Rideshare | Benefits | Lyft,” Lyft, October 8, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QJLgdQaf4

[5] Suhauna Hussain, Johana Bhuiyan, Ryan Menezes, “Prop. 22: Here's how your L.A. neighborhood voted on the gig worker measure,” Yahoo!Finance, last modified November 13, 2020, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-lyft-persuaded-california-vote-140036656.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Keith Griffith, “Uber drivers around the world go on strike to protest 'poverty wages' as the company prepares to go public at a valuation of $91billion” Daily Mail, last modified May 8, 2019, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7006975/Uber-drivers-world-strike-protest-low-wages.html

[8] Bill Kauffman, “The Child Labor Amendment Debate of the 1920's” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, last modified January 29, 2018, https://mises.org/library/child-labor-amendment-debate-1920s-0

[9] Mother Jones, “Civilization in Southern Mills” Industrial Workers of the World Historical Archives, March 1901, https://archive.iww.org/history/library/MotherJones/civilization_in_southern_mills/

About the Author:
​My name is Carlos and I am a Cuban-American Marxist. I graduated with a B.A. in Philosophy from Loras College and am currently a graduate student and Teachers Assistant in Philosophy at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. My area of specialization is Marxist Philosophy.  My current research interest is in the history of American radical thought, and examining how philosophy can play a revolutionary role . I also run the philosophy YouTube channel Tu Esquina Filosofica and organized for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.

​Anthony Steward, former cook at the Fiserv Forum, made remarks about the history of the struggle for labor rights in Milwaukee specifically, saying that it was “once known as the best place in America for Black folks to raise a family.” Steward said that was so because of workers uniting “in our workplaces, and at the ballot box to elect policy-makers who would help rewrite the rules and enable us to win unions that balanced the power between workers and bosses.” 

Bringing it back to the present, he said, “Political action also took it away. As soon as we won, the forces against us—billionaires and the boss class, Wall Street and the 1%—started trying to turn back our progress.” Our world now “looks a lot like the world before workers fought to change it,” he said, going on to emphasize the need for a renewed workers’ movement.

Justin Otto, who worked at The Pabst Theatre until March when live music events were all cancelled, referenced his conversations with service workers in Milwaukee: “Every single person I’ve talked to who’s back at work has had to deal with extra concerns, extra precautions, and extra work on top of their normal job, but they’re not getting any extra pay.” He went on to say that hearing these things are “really upsetting… but it’s not surprising.” 

“It’s exactly what we can expect when decisions are made without us,” Otto said. “It’s exactly what we can expect when elected officials represent our bosses, corporations and themselves, instead of us. It’s exactly what we can expect until we elect different leaders and then demand that they listen to us.” 

The final speaker was Troy Brewer, a father of three and former employee of the Fiserv Forum, Miller Park, and Jose’s Blue Sombreros. “I worked three jobs, not by choice but out of necessity,” Brewer said.

“What I have is hope and optimism that we, the people, meaning all the working people, can get through this thing together. As these jobs are coming back we know we can’t go back to the way things were. Normal doesn’t cut it for us. Normal was over 400 years of oppression and my people are still struggling. Normal was people having to work three jobs out of necessity. We can’t go back to normal. We have to build something new.” Brewer laid out his own vision for the future, where “Black lives matter… the educational system (is) revamped so that minorities in public schools get the same education and opportunities as private and suburban school children get” and “billionaire corporations pay their fair share.” 

“Now, let’s march over to the MATC and vote together for Biden/Harris, and vote for that brighter future,” Brewer said.

Although speakers seldom referenced the Democratic Party as who would get their vote, MASH is openly supportive of the Biden/Harris ticket. Lindsay Adams, Lead Organizer at MASH, said that in terms of workers’ rights, another Trump administration will mean “reacting and protecting,” instead of moving forward. 

“One example might be the National Labor Relations Board, which is like the court system for unionization and union-related complaints and decisions. They oversee union elections, contract compliance, grievances, etc. Usually it’s a bipartisan body, where you would have republicans and democrats. And there are typically five people who serve on the National Labor Relations Board. Well since Trump has been in office, he’s only put three people in, not five, and all of them have been republican.” 

“In general, there’s this mismatch that you see as an extreme during the pandemic where on the one hand, we have all these people who are out of work and need work, and on the other hand we have all of these things that need doing, that are not being done. So something like the Green New Deal, where we have good union jobs with high wages and benefits and people trained to do the things like transition to a green economy. A Green New Deal is something that we would be pushing for and we would definitely not be seeing under Trump. There are plenty of Public Works projects that are needed and there are plenty of workers out there who need good quality, family supporting jobs. The thing is that we need a government that can match those two things together,” Adams said.

When asked for an official stance from MASH on the election, Adams said, “People are suffering and so is the climate. And so we do have the opportunity with someone who has publicly supported a Green New Deal, a public option in health care, unionization protections for workers, and a $15 minimum wage. These are already public commitments that Joe Biden has made, and so it is our position that we are going to be able to work with administrations that publicly support the things we care about to move the working class agenda forward. Whereas we know already that will be an impossibility with Trump. It’s damage control with him.” 

MASH represents all of the workers at the Fiserv Forum. Adams said originally when they were going to build the arena, the owners wanted tax subsidies (public money) to do this, but several community groups asked for agreements on what these tax subsidies will generate for the city of Milwaukee, and particularly for working class people and people of color. 

“Out of that came a Community Benefits Agreement, where in exchange for these tax subsidies, the arena had to hire at least 50 percent of their work force from zip codes with the highest unemployment rates in Milwaukee, with MASH enforcing that requirement.  They had to maintain neutrality if there was a union drive, so we had work site access on the ground every day to workers to begin discussions around unionizing and also a path beyond $15 an hour.  These were parts of the Community Benefits Agreement. So workers opted to unionize, that’s over 1000 employees at the arena, and bargain their first contract which was finally ratified and set to go into place the week that COVID hit, when the NBA season was cancelled and the arena as well as others across the country were shut down. So our members are now temporarily but long-term unemployed, since March.”

Having a union helped with their unemployment situation, according to Adams. “Everything from making sure that members had the appropriate unemployment information so that they could file very quickly, or if there were errors on the side of the employer, making sure that those were corrected so that people could get their unemployment benefits as soon as possible, to when they started having events without fans but still needed staff, making sure that those people who were hired were based on the agreements in the contract based on seniority and that they were paid under what should be their wages in the contract,” Adams said. 

MASH made a reservation for the group to vote together at MATC ahead of time.



​Photo Credits to MASH

About the Author:
My name is Maddy. I am a journalist, writer, and thinker based in Colorado where I work as a stringer for a small-town newspaper and have some odd jobs on the side. I am a member of the Democratic Socialist of America and am interested in bringing a lens of intersectionality to journalism and "pushing the envelope" to make people think critically about social issues. I love animals, music, food, creative writing, and the outdoors. She/her. 

Nicolas Maduro and the Venezuelan Constituent Assembly have passed an anti-blockade law in an effort to circumvent crippling sanctions from the United States, and jump start the Venezuelan economy. The law will look to increase foreign trade in Venezuela, which many Venezuelan Socialists now fear will lead to an increase in privatizations, particularly in the oil industry, as well as an increase of foreign capital moving into Venezuela. Voices from the revolutionary left in Venezuela have also expressed concern that the law will lead to less government transparency in business dealings. Hashtag #NoApruebo (I don’t approve) was seen trending on Twitter in Venezuela at one point, as Venezuelans voiced their concerns that the law is a betrayal of Bolivarian Socialist values. President Maduro has argued that the law is necessary in the face of the US economic blockade.
​
The past four years have seen the Trump Administration ramp up sanctions, which began in the 2000s with George Bush, and were escalated further under Obama. The Anti-Blockade law shows how many struggles in Venezuela stem from US sanctions. While the US media portrays Maduro as an evil dictator, destroying his own countries’ economy, and oppressing his own people. In reality, the primary critique of Maduro from the working masses of Venezuela themselves, is his inability to combat US sanctions with the same success as his predecessor Hugo Chavez. The anti-blockade law, and subsequent public response, can reveal much about the current situation in Venezuela. A situation which Western corporate media has consistently lied about, in an effort to manufacture public support for regime change in Venezuela.
 
The public outcry against the anti-blockade law on Venezuelan Twitter reveals that many of the Western media narratives about Venezuela are inaccurate. The nonprofit outlet Human Rights Watch (HWR) claims Venezuela “imposes prison sentences of up to 20 years on those who publish messages of intolerance and hatred in media or social media.”[1] HRW says that the Government aggressively targets those who speak negatively about them. The public outcry against the Anti-Blockade law provides an example of how censorship in Venezuela is largely overblown by Western Media. Valid accusations of police brutality, and Government violence in Venezuela, are always met with loud public outcry from the masses in opposition. There are of course valid critiques of Maduro and the Venezuelan Government, however the reality in Venezuela is far from the totalitarian dictatorship it’s made out to be by outlets like HRW.

Many Western Media outlets cite HRW as a source when discussing Venezuela, despite the fact that HRW has faced criticism for having former CIA members, and multinational business executives on their board of directors. Rather than sending journalists to investigate Venezuela, HRW publishes reports from members of the US backed Venezuelan Opposition, who are the minority party in terms of public support. This gives us a glimpse into how lies can be perpetrated on a mass scale in order to sway public opinion in favor of regime change. Even the name Human Rights Watch, gives readers the impression of a non-biased organization reporting on human rights abuses out of concern, when in reality the organization is controlled by corporate executives, and former CIA officials.[2] And most of the so called reporting, is from far right members of the US backed Venezuelan opposition. HRW is just one of many NGOs who feign concern for human rights, while spreading lies, or exaggerations to manufacture support for regime change.
 
The work of HRW is frequently cited by Western media outlets when discussing Venezuela. A survey conducted by Fair.org found that “Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela.” [3] This is in the US, who claim the Venezuelan media is one sided and controlled by the Government. It is hard not to see the irony of a country whose media offers no scrutiny to the idea of overthrowing another countries’ leader in favor of a far right alternative, accusing another country of having a corrupt media apparatus. In reality Venezuela has a mixture of state and opposition media, with the privately owned Venivision dominating the Venezuelan TV and News Market.[4] A far cry from the hegemonic US media, who loudly beat the war drums for the US Empire at every turn.

While the anti-blockade law provides an opportunity for us to critique Maduro and the PSUV Government, the critique stems from the President’s inability to combat US Imperialism. The people of Venezuela are not calling for their President to be ousted, but rather they are demanding he remain faithful to the ideals of the Bolivarian Revolution. A 2017 poll found that 75% of Venezuelan’s still support Socialism.[5] While Venezuelans have their critiques of Maduro, they ultimately recognize that their economic hardships are mostly being caused by the United States, and the economic blockade.
 
The ultimate irony of the US Venezuela situation is the fact that Venezuela is used in the US as a talking point to argue that “socialism fails every time it’s tried.” Meanwhile, within Venezuela, the masses are critiquing Maduro for not being socialist enough. Arguing Maduro should nationalize more industry, and allow for less privatization of the economy. The economy needs to be diversified, and sectors outside of the oil industry need to be strengthened. Outside of those in the Venezuelan Opposition Party, the people of Venezuela largely want more Socialism, not less. In a recent interview concerning the anti-blockade law Venezuelan Chavista leader Telémaco Figueroa said “Socialism will not happen if we join hands with the bourgeoisie. It is we, the working people, who are called upon to carry out the task of saving humanity”[6] It is clear the working masses of Venezuela remain committed to building socialism, and recognize the enemy in their fight is the imperialist US blockade, and the bourgeois opportunists within their own country.

It is vitally important for US leftists to understand the situation in Venezuela. Many who speak out against the blockade within the US are labeled as “dictator defenders,” even by those who see themselves as leftists. However, it is not Nicolas Maduro who those like me are defending. It is folks like Telémaco Figueroa, and the working masses of Venezuela who I choose to defend. Working masses who will loudly critique Maduro when necessary, but who also realize that their struggles originate from the US economic blockade, which is itself a product of capitalism and neoliberalism. I choose to stand with the working masses of Venezuela, and against the criminal economic blockade being imposed by my own country. Those Western leftists calling for regime change should reflect on what it truly means to be anti-imperialist. It is not Maduro who we must stand behind, but rather the working masses of Venezuela. A revolutionary people who remain committed to building socialism while facing pure economic warfare from the US. I stand with the people of Venezuela, and the Bolivarian Revolution as a whole.
 
VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!

​Citations.​

[1] “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Venezuela.” Human Rights Watch, January 17, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/venezuela.

[2] Bhatt, Keane. “The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch.” NACLA, 2013. https://nacla.org/article/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch.

[3] Teddy Ostrow, Helga I. Fellay, Ian, Gpcus, Doug Tarnopol, John Wheat Gibson, Wondering Woman, et al. “Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela.” FAIR, April 30, 2019. https://fair.org/home/zero-percent-of-elite-commentators-oppose-regime-change-in-venezuela/.

[4] Lucas Koerner., Ricardo Vaz Ricardo Vaz is a political analyst and editor at Venezuelanalysis., Doug Latimer, Janice Olson, EL Comandante, Kc, Wondering Woman, , Arkan, and Michel St-Laurent. “There's Far More Diversity in Venezuela's 'Muzzled' Media Than in US Corporate Press.” FAIR, May 20, 2019. https://fair.org/home/theres-far-more-diversity-in-venezuelas-muzzled-media-than-in-us-corporate-press/.

[5] Mallett-Outtrim, Ryan. “75% Of Venezuelans Support Socialism: Poll.” Venezuelanalysis.com, August 2, 2019. https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13251.

[6] Venezuelanalysis.com, Cira Pascual Marquina –. “The Controversial Anti-Blockade Law: A Conversation with Telémaco Figueroa.” Venezuelanalysis.com, October 27, 2020. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/15029. 

About the Author:
My name is Edward and I am from Sauk City, Wisconsin. I received my B.A. in Political Science from Loras College, where I was a former NCAA wrestling All-American, and active wrestling coach. My main interest are in Geopolitics and the role of American imperialism with relation to socialist states, specifically China and Venezuela.  ​I also worked for Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2020.

​Since nearly the beginning of the Trump administration’s immigrant family separations in 2017, the ICE Detention Center in Aurora has been the subject of much speculation in the media. The facility, owned by private prison corporation GEO Group, is funded through a high sum in tax dollars and has been found to still overspend its budget. Despite the $7.5 billion that ICE spent in 2018 and $7.6 billion in 2019, there were a list of issues documented by the U.S. Inspector General in 2019 including incidents of mumps and chickenpox spread among inmates. Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic, there are worries that the detention center is a breeding ground for infection.

In September of 2019 the ACLU of Colorado released a report citing human rights abuses and neglect at the facility that led to the deaths of two detainees. Kamyar Samimi, a 64-year-old man who was held in detention for 15 days before he passed, had been on methadone for 20 years and complained repeatedly of severe withdrawal symptoms to nurses. His complaints elicited almost no response. Had Samimi been given his medication, or never been taken off of it in the first place, he would have likely survived.

Evalin-Ali Mandza, 46 years old, was in detention at the Aurora GEO Center in 2012 when he suffered a heart attack in the early morning. Because the ICE nurse on staff did not know how to use an electrocardiogram machine, nor how to read the test results, there was a delay in the decision to call for an ambulance. An investigation by the Department of Homeland Security found that staff also did not use proper Chest Pain Protocol, and Mandza wasn’t given cardiac medication. All these factors “may have been contributing factors to the death of the patient,” per the report.

GEO Group CEO George Zoley seems to believe GEO’s operations are going well. The ACLU report notes that Zoley, who immigrated from Greece to the USA with his family when he was only three, announced in a February 2019 conference call with shareholders that he was “pleased with (GEO’S) overall operational and financial results during the very active fourth quarter of 2018.” During the call, he also proudly shared that the GEO Corrections and Detention unit served over 300,000 individuals in 2018. Net income for the fourth quarter of 2018 was $33.4 million.

Local immigration rights activists disagree about what it means to “serve” inmates in ICE’s facilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, activists have been concerned about spreading of the virus in detention centers. Ana Rodriguez, community organizer with Colorado People’s Alliance, talks regularly with people in the Aurora facility. At the beginning of the pandemic, inmates told her they weren’t even receiving clean towels.

“They didn’t have anyone doing laundry service. This virus requires excellent personal hygiene. How are you supposed to stay clean and protected if you don’t even have a clean towel to use?”

On March 27th, one of the detainees she talks to regularly told her that GEO guards gave the detainees written notices stating that they would be placed on 23 hour lockdowns in their cells and would be let out in groups so they could “adhere to Governor Jared Polis’” directive for detention centers.

“For weeks, detainees were in their cells around 23 hours a day. The one hour they were allowed out was their only time to call family, attorneys, shower, etc. Some cells were even forgotten to be let out so they were stuck in their cells more than one day. Others were only allowed out 20 or 30 minutes instead of the full hour.”

GEO claimed they were following social distancing guidelines, but at the time, they were keeping six to eight inmates in one cell.

“That literally made it impossible for them to practice social distancing within their own cells for the 23 hours they were locked down per day. Even if they stood in different corners of the cell, they wouldn’t be able to be six feet away from each other,” Rodriguez says.

In response to the news about inmates being grouped together in their cells, community organizations like COPA (Colorado People’s Alliance), AFSC (American Friends Service Committee), family members of detainees, and more allies made noise about the issue. They used social media, press releases, and contacted Congressional offices. After a few weeks, GEO started allowing detainees four hours out of their cells per day instead of just one. They were also spread out so cells had two to three people, but some cells still hold four to six people. COPA pressed Congressman Jason Crow’s office to ask why they couldn’t further spread detainees out and use every single cell.

“They heard back from GEO that they couldn’t share that information because it was contractual with ICE. This made it seem as if they had no control over how spread out people were and it was ICE’s fault because that’s what the contract said.”

And there was still a problem with the schedule inside the facility.

“The problem was that GEO’s schedule was so poorly planned that for several weeks, at least once every few days some of the cells would not be released for 32 consecutive hours. The folks in these cells were released one day from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and would remain in their cells from 11 am until 7 pm the next day when they would be released from 7 pm to 11 pm.”

This issue also required pressure from the outside to change.

“Detainees created an alternative plan in a grievance that they submitted to the Major. They are supposed to hear back within five days. But they were getting radio silence.”

Congressman Crow’s office stepped in at Rodriguez’s request, and asked GEO for information on their release schedules.

“We also published this testimony on our social media and talked about it in our actions. Within a few days of the Congressman’s office asking for GEO’s cell release schedules, I got a message from my detained friend telling me that GEO had reorganized their schedules and they were now being released four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening.”

Rodriguez has been organizing to increase transparency and accountability from ICE for two years now. She says her work, and community pressure, has gotten results.

“The first year was about building relationships and hearing families’ stories, partly through canvassing outside the detention center. In October 2019 a local level ordinance was passed. In December 2019 the Pod Act was passed. And there’s been all of the work done with Jason Crow. Now community members in other places have precedent to use their Congress members to hold GEO accountable.”

The local level ordinance mentioned requires ICE to report contagious disease outbreaks to the fire department. It is intended to protect first responders who may risk their health while visiting the facility on the job. The POD Act (Public Oversight of Detention Centers) allows members of Congress access to detention centers within 48 hours of their request.

Congressman Jason Crow’s office does weekly visits to the Aurora ICE detention center to check on conditions in the facility.
​
Rodriguez has heard from the fire chief that ICE has been reporting, per the ordinance, during the pandemic. However, she says, “Only two people have been tested. So the ordinance isn’t enough.”

Rodriguez says that in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, she hears from people all over with loved ones who are detained.

“Most recently I’ve been hearing from folks in California, Utah, Ohio. People are really panicked about what’s happening to their loved ones during the pandemic. In some cases they haven’t seen them in person since they were brought into the facility.

They call me in desperation, saying, ‘I don’t know what’s happening,’ worried about their loved ones with asthma, saying people are getting sick and could die in there and the guards aren’t doing anything. They want me to check on (their loved ones).”

Rodriguez would like to see a state policy to bring facilities under the responsibility of the state.

“State facilities are important because GEO does not have official inspections. Reports on Congressman Jason Crow’s website are done by his staff, so they’re allowed to go through the kitchen for example and check for temperature of food. But imagine if you were hired onto Crow’s staff and on your first day, you had to go do an inspection of the Aurora ICE detention facility.” In other words, Crow’s staff is not trained for health inspections, especially during the time of a major health pandemic.

“It would be much more thorough if a designated agency, like CDPHE, did it. They would have a laundry list of things they’re inspecting for.”

Can ICE detention centers practice CDC safety guidelines well enough to contain the virus? From Rodriguez’ perspective, it’s not possible.

“Having people in close quarters and in these for-profit detention centers will lead to inefficient care; they will always cut corners and choose the cheaper option versus the humane option. It’s inevitable that they will get sick in these facilities.”

Medically vulnerable detainees are being released early due to a federal judge’s order, and as of Tuesday April 21st, ICE said they had already released 700 at-risk detainees. Rodriguez says this is not enough.

“They have legal authority to use parole and let people go home to their families and continue ICE check-ins. It’s a preliminary injunction, and makes it clear that they’re not using basic tools at their disposal because people are not their priority.” She notes that there are many community organizations whose purpose is to provide direct service; help with placements, plane trips, and post them while this crisis is in place.

“ICE should use every tool they have to get people out, to get them back to their families. That’s what our tax dollars should go to. Owners are making millions of dollars a year off our tax dollars to profit off these detention centers.”

The order that ICE consider releasing medically vulnerable detainees early happened a week after RMIAN (Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network), Arnold & Porter, and NIPNLG (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild) lawyers filed a federal lawsuit to release 14 detainees who were “at severe risk of serious health complications or death should they contract COVID-19.”

Laura Lunn, an attorney at RMIAN, said that their lawsuit was similar to the case that caused a federal judge to order to release vulnerable detainees early.

“That case provides a wonderful framework, this is the first time that something like that is happening,” she said.

Eight of the 14 people in the lawsuit were released the day after the group filed suit. Six were denied release.

“What’s striking about the group of people they released is they are all living with HIV, but they did not release another person living with HIV,” Lunn said. “It’s really hard to say what other factors they could be considering. Four of them have criminal history and two do not. Some of them have criminal history from over a decade ago, and this is civil detention, not criminal custody. None of them are serving a sentence, so there’s not a known end date to their confinement. They are being held before they go to immigration court. The government’s purpose that they go to court is not being met because they can’t go if they’re sick.”

Lunn added that a July 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service titled “Immigration: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Programs” notes that 99 percent of participants in Intensive Supervision Appearance Program III (ISAP III) showed up for their court hearings. And between the fiscal years of 2013 and 2017, 92 percent of asylum seekers showed up in court to hear the final decision on their claims.

Lunn says that she doesn’t think the federal judge’s injunction is going to be effective.

“Most of our clients have had their parole requests denied by ICE; we don’t believe that they’ll change their minds just because a judge says they need to re-review their cases. We want the district courts to make a ruling where a judge says, ‘Absolutely, you must release them.’ When you boil it down, they are the custodians and they have already decided to hold these people in their custody. The litigators will have to keep going back to court to make sure the judge is enforcing the order. ICE is going to have a conservative reading of that order. We don’t have time for the judge to create more clarity around his order when people’s lives are hanging in balance, we need a judge in Colorado to say their lives matter and they need to get out of ICE custody now.

One of the plaintiffs in the case Lunn worked on, who wished to remain anonymous for the sake of her asylum case, is a transgender woman who came to the USA border on March 13th at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. She fled her country of origin “because of the transphobic violence that is criminal and threatened with death by gangs.”

She crossed a bridge from El Paso and requested a number to enter COESPO. She was detained right away and transferred to Montana, then Arizona, finally ending up at the Aurora detention facility. She said that detention had a significant effect on her health.

“For me, it was very traumatizing. I have HIV and I started sinking into a depression and a lot of fear. I felt how my immune system started getting weaker, people with HIV can really feel that. I was very fearful of getting sick. The norms were not good, it wasn’t clean, and too many people were placed together.”

She was lucky to have pro bono attorneys working her case.

“We had to file a lot of grievances against GEO, especially during the pandemic. We had to make a lot of denunciations (against ICE) with attorneys because many of our group of women are HIV positive, so any infection can really harm us in the detention center. There was no cleaning, no detergent. Our immune system was already down from the stress of being detained, so the risk (of contracting) coronavirus was even higher.”

“Seven trans women are still there, two of them have been for over a year. One of them has diabetes. I ask that ICE be more flexible with trans women. All of us carry a lot of hardship and have problems from our home countries. Sharing our stories over and over with officers, I always started crying because every time I have to repeat it, it’s like I have to live it again. They ask us again and again to see if we’re trying to lie. I wish they were more sensitive.”

When she entered the country, she thought she was doing the right thing. “We voluntarily gave ourselves over to immigration, we’re trying to follow the process, we should be treated more sensibly.”

She explained that she doesn’t think detention centers should be the solution for all immigrants. “There should be a different type of detention center. We are all mixed together; people in red jumpers have committed crimes, and (people in) orange jumpers have broken some law, but we’re all in there together. When they arrested me, they treated me like a criminal. I had never been arrested in my life. We were handcuffed in the airplane, like we would try to escape.”

“Everything I experienced with ICE has been traumatizing. I didn’t think it would be that way. For example, another trans woman and myself were singled out by officers and told we needed to go wash our faces. We just didn’t think us having makeup had anything to do with this process. Some guards kept saying you are men, you aren’t women. They would make us take off our bras because we don’t have breasts.”

As an immigrant rights attorney, Lunn’s main concern is the health and safety of detainees. She doesn’t know why more people haven’t been tested for the virus.

“That’s something you should ask ICE. I don’t know why they haven’t tested more people. Anecdotally our clients have noted that many people are coughing, sneezing, have fevers, have difficulty breathing. That’s what’s fueling the fear they experience each day because they see so many sick people around them.

One of our clients has said that there has been intermingling between dorms in the facility. All of the dorms are understaffed because a lot of staff members are not coming to work. One of our clients has one lung as well as asthma, so she could easily die from the virus but she cannot easily control who she’s exposed to on a daily basis.”

She says oversight of the facilities is a band-aid.

“As of April 17th a GEO employee tested positive so that same day they started practicing quarantine inside that pod. But no detained setting is appropriate during a pandemic because it’s impossible to practice social distancing. Even if you make sure no one else is going in and out, staff is coming in and out every day and not wearing PPE. There are still people being detained and brought into the facility by ICE. 20 percent of people infected show no symptoms but still can transmit it. Even if they’re doing temperature checks and telling staff to stay home, it’s not preventing the spread. Vulnerable people will suffer health complications for the rest of their lives. TIME looked at the whole prison system in Ohio and 78 percent of inmates had it. When you boil it down the government has argued that our clients are not better outside detention than in it.”

“Medicine doesn’t support the claims the government is making. Our clients are saying the people bringing them food are not wearing face masks and their food is uncovered. So they say, ‘What risks am I facing just by nourishing my body?’ All the comforts we have through this pandemic are stripped from our clients so emotionally they are better off not in detention.”

During the time of COVID-19, only detainees with added health issues are being considered for early release. But all detainees are reliant on staff to follow CDC guidance, especially because they don’t receive updates on best safety practices themselves, according to Lunn.

“The main outlet people have to understand any of this is through the news and our clients don’t have control over the flow of information that they’re receiving,” Lunn said.

Some detainees still do not have legal representation for their cases in this time of elevated health risk. Claudia Robles, a USA -born citizen, says she has spent $15,000 on legal help for her husband who was detained in November of last year. When his case was denied, she took matters into her own hands.

“On March 17th, Luis was denied his cancellation of removal by a GEO ICE judge. I could not afford a lawyer anymore so I had to help my husband file his own appeal to see if somebody else can take a look at the case and see that the judge made a bad call that my husband should have to leave the country just because she thinks that he’s a bad husband, which he is not. That was her reasoning for denying his cancellation of removal. I disagree, my husband is the rock of our family. He completes us and we feel empty without him with us.”

Claudia and Luis have a four year-old daughter together, and with schools closed until next year due to the pandemic, and her husband detained, Claudia will have to pay for private day care until schools open. Claudia calls herself the “bread-winner” of the family: “I work as a medical assistant in my local urgent care (clinic). I am an essential worker in this pandemic,” she said.

Claudia has no idea when her husband will be released, though she is worried for his health, as he suffers from asthma. “It’s been super hard to have Luis in GEO knowing he gets spoiled food and not enough food. I barely sleep just worrying about his health and well being, especially now that in this pandemic my husband has to share his cell with five other people. If he gets COVID-19, that could be deadly, since it’s a virus that affects his lungs which are already compromised due to his asthma.”

Claudia and her daughter have not been able to see her husband since the pandemic began. “We have no information of when he will be released because he was denied bond twice by the same judge that denied his cancellation of removal. Before the pandemic his visiting days were Tuesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. My daughter and I went every Saturday to go see my husband since he has been there. The last time we were able to see him, behind glass of course, was on March 8th. My daughter is very sad and tells her dad every day how much she misses him and misses seeing him even though it was behind glass. She never understood why she wasn’t able to hug and touch her father, why she had to talk to him through glass and hear his voice through a phone.”
​
Claudia may have to wait through the whole pandemic for Luis to be released.

“We’re waiting to hear if his case is going to be able to be appealed. They told us that it could take six months to a year for a response, which means my husband would have to be in detention that whole time until we heard back to see if his case would be able to be appealed. We are trying to do a humanitarian parole right now for him but it seems that GEO has been returning all the legal documents that I’m trying to send my husband so that he can apply for humanitarian release due to having asthma. Hopefully soon this information will finally get to him and he will be able to file for humanitarian parole and be able to come home until we can hear from the appeal.”

For the foreseeable future, detainees, their families, and immigrant advocates will be counting on the mercy of ICE to release those on the inside with added health risks.

When asked for comment, Pablo E. Paez, Executive Vice President of Corporate Relations, replied, “As a service provider to the federal government, we would refer you to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for specific answers to your questions, as well as the agency’s latest guidance on COVID-19. Our company has taken comprehensive steps to address and mitigate the risks of COVID-19 to all those in our care and our employees as detailed in our public statement at geogroup.com/COVID19.”

After a year or so since the CIA backed coup that ousted Morales, today we rejoice with the news that Movimiento al Socialismo is back in power in Bolivia. This event represents the first appearance of hope in a year plagued by a deadly virus and an even deadlier dealing of the virus by capitalist countries like the US, where more than 200,000 people have died. Some in the American left have used this victory in Bolivia as an inspiration towards organizing against Trump, stating that like Bolivia, we can vote fascism out of power. Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is pushing a campaign called Vote Against Fascism, which tries to inspire its members to vote for the lesser of two evils. With the victory of Arce, the message has been “Bolivia did it so can we”. In this way, they partially equate a vote for Biden in the US with a vote for Arce in Bolivia. In both cases we have the removal of a proto fascist government; this can be stated as “in both cases we have the electoral negation of fascism.” Although the American left agrees that in the affirmative end, Biden and Arce are nothing alike, their similitude comes from their position as a negation to fascism.  

The thing about negation, is that it is always the mere initial face of affirmation. A similitude in negation, cannot itself meaningfully exist without a similitude in the affirmation upon which the negation opens the door for. Similarity in the space of removing fascism can only really stand as similarity if in the affirmative afterward of the fascist negation it stands as a similitude as well. If two rock climbers are slipping into an abyss and one jumps and catches on to a sturdy rock, while the other jumps and catches on to a fragile stick, both equally jump, yet we must be delusional to talk about such a minute similarity when the results in each case are so gradually different. The jumping in this case is the negation of the fall, and the grabbing is the affirmation of a possible climb. As in the electoral struggle against fascism, in the rock example, we have a life or death situation. In both cases jumping is the only thing that will bring the possibility of life.

Bolivia is the jumper that landed on the rock. It is, at least for now, safe to keep climbing. The US is the climber that is about to jump to the stick. Since it has not jumped yet, I wish to present a couple points about possibly jumping for the farther rock, given that if we miss the far rock or grab on to the close fragile stick, in both cases we will still fall. The stick, as in the case of Biden, is the most reachable out of the alternatives. The problem is that, as in the case of a vote for Biden, the stick is not going to prevent the eventual fall. This is clear, especially as one sees that the reason the rock climber is falling in the first place is because of his continual attempt to merely climb through sticks. Thus, the similitude a Biden win would have with the win in Bolivia is as minute as the example of the rock climbers. Arce and MAS combine their negation of fascism with a socialist affirmation. They negate fascism with the hope of the continual progress socialism has brought in Bolivia. Along with this, in the last year the major unionized industries in Bolivia have been tremendously active in fighting against the fascist coup; uniting worker and indigenous groups in striking and calling for the resignation of Áñez.[1] With Biden this is not the case. A Biden negation has no truly hopeful affirmation behind it.

It is obvious to anyone who is halfway conscious about the class struggle in the US, that Trump is not some anomaly. The rise of fascism did not appear from a supernatural void that opened in 2016. This rise has its roots in the natural decay of a capitalism where a socialist revolutionary movement is absent. When socialist do not work on the subjective conditions of the working class when their objective conditions are revolutionary, it is bound that they will fall into reactionary circles. Concretely, Trump is a result of 8 years of an Obama administration that accelerated a neoliberal agenda even quicker than Bush had before him. On this, most communist agree, Trump is not an anomaly, but a symptom of the system and the last 4 decades of neoliberal governments.

From this perspective, we can see that a Biden administration is a return to the conditions that gave us Trump in the first place. I do not think there is much disagreement here. CPUSA and the American left do not conceive of Biden as potentially any better than Obama. The question they are asking is the following. “We accept Biden is not a panacea of the ills of our society. We accept that Biden is a return to the condition which gave us Trump in the first place. But is government that can potentially lead to fascism again better than a fascist government?” Their answer is a big YES. The American communist who disagrees with CPUSA’s informal agitation for Biden gets told that “a candidate who maintains the capitalist status quo and imperialism is better than a candidate who maintains the status quo and imperialism but who also agitates his militarized white nationalist base to kill communist and people of color”. When posed like this, it is quite obvious that the answer is correct. Anyone would prefer this lesser of two evils approach, given that the lesser is obvious in this case.

What we have here in their reasonings is a central assumption which I hope to pick out, in order to then more objectively analyze the scenario. The central assumption can be presented in both its philosophical and material formulations. Philosophically it is a question of potentiality and actuality. Do you want potential fascism or actual fascism? When proposed like this, potential fascism is the better route, given that it buys us time to potentially depotentialize that potential. The assumption here is that one can revert to repotentializing something which is already actual. The assumption is that a Biden win does not just negate a Trump presidency but negates the historical effects of that Trump presidency. The problem is that, once the oak tree is there, there is no reverting it to an acorn. All one can do, besides radically tearing the tree apart, is replant the new acorn the oak tree gives. That oak tree itself will never be an acorn, it will only give you new acorns, but even then a replanting of a new acorn does not remove the existence of the oak tree, but expands the possibility of that oak tree making a new oak tree friend. Their assumption is that this potential negates the actual. Where in reality, this potential will do no more than re-establish itself as the bearer of the potential to duplicate the actuality.

In its material formulation, their assumption centers around the conception that with Trump out of office, and with Biden in, the fascist militancy of the Trump fanatics somehow disappears, or at least begins to dissipate. But how much more guarantee do we have that Trump’s militant base will be less potent with a Biden presidency? Is the man who says that police should shoot black folks in the leg instead of killing them really going to take the steps necessary to face the militancy of white nationalism? Especially considering his involvement in the crime bill, his continual denial to decriminalize marijuana, and his old segregationist stances, all which are lethal for black communities. This is the guy you think will help lower the threat of the militant white supremacists Trump empowered? They might respond that since Biden does not provide the legitimation for these groups that Trump does, that this will be the source of the disempowerment of those groups Trump gave a voice to. But this assumes to easily that those shouting the loudest will be quite just because they were removed of their official microphone. Not only does it assume this, but it ignores the plethora of Trump supporters claiming outright civil war if Trump loses. In any case, I do not think that communist or people of color are much safer from the militancy of white supremacy just because Trump is out of office. On the contrary, if the current status of things tells us anything is that replanting that acorn will quickly result in a new oak tree. By this I mean a Biden win, from what we can infer, can only but exacerbate the militancy of white supremist.

So, what then? Do we not vote? Do we just allow Trump to win because we are scared of the civil war threats from his militant white supremacist circles? No, this is of course not the correct answer. We must vote. But as all communist should be aware, voting is perhaps the smallest and last part of a revolutionary struggle. Before any true victory can come from the electoral arena, we must have already had a strong level of economic organization. As Haywood states in Industrial Socialism “Our fight is, first of all a shop fight. It takes place at the point of production where the workers are at present enslaved. Until this is understood there can be no real understanding of Socialism.”[2] The American left focuses the majority of its efforts in pursuit of electoral victories without the prior existence of organization among class lines. Until the irrational divisions of socialist parties and organizations in the US unite and focus their energies on workplace organization as the necessary predecessor to the electoral struggle, we will continue to face futility in the political sphere.

Although I have argued here that Biden is not the knight that will smash the rise of fascism Trump allowed, that does not mean in other social and welfare positions a Biden presidency will seem to make it easier for us to organize our revolutionary struggle. Regardless of how we decide to vote this election, the result will likely be very similar; American will continue to face the brutalities of a capitalism in decay. A day like today 94 years ago the most popular American socialist of the 20th century, Eugene V. Debs, died. Whether we step into the ballot box with his famous dictum “I rather vote for something I want and not get it, then vote for something I don’t want and get it” in mind and vote for a La Riva or Hawkins ticket, or whether we take the more pragmatic approach of voting for Biden; the reality of the revolutionary futility of this election is present. The only way to eliminate this endless condition of revolutionary futility the American socialists have had for a century is to dedicate the next four years to combining all of our forces together and begin, under one umbrella, a process of economic organizing. Only if we are able to do this will a serious revolutionary party impact in the political sphere be possible. The inspiration of the victory of socialism in Bolivia should not be spent on motivation for a futile election, but on organization to make the presently impossible possible. We are facing a capitalism challenged by its natural cycles of crisis and by the surplus crisis brought about by a pandemic. As millions of American lose their jobs and their employer-tied healthcare plans in the middle of a pandemic, the wealth of the 643 billionaires in the US grew by $845 billion.[3] The time is now for communist and socialist to take advantage of these objectively revolutionary conditions and add the subjective element necessary to blow this whole thing open.

​Citations.

[1] Peoples Dispatch, “National Strike Continues Across Bolivia, Demands Grow For Áñez To Step Down,” last modified August 7, 2020, https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/08/07/national-strike-continues-across-bolivia-demands-grow-for-anez-to-step-down/.

[2] Haywood, William, and Frank Bohn. Industrial Socialism (Charles H. Kerr & Company Cooperative, 1911), p. 45.

[3] Saloni Sardana, “US Billionaires’ Wealth Grew By $845 Billion During the First Six Months of the Pandemic,” Markets Insider, last modified September 17, 2020, https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-billionaires-wealth-net-worth-pandemic-covid-billion-2020-9-1029599756

[4] Hellen Keller, “Why I Became an IWW,” New York Tribune, January 1916. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/16_01_16.htm 

About the Author:
​My name is Carlos and I am a Cuban-American Marxist. I graduated with a B.A. in Philosophy from Loras College and am currently a graduate student and Teachers Assistant in Philosophy at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. My area of specialization is Marxist Philosophy.  My current research interest is in the history of American radical thought, and examining how philosophy can play a revolutionary role . I also run the philosophy YouTube channel Tu Esquina Filosofica and organized for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.

Going into the 2020 election, the Covid-19 pandemic and Government response, will be an important issue for most American workers. The working masses of America continue to feel negative effects from the pandemic, as Republicans and Democrats in Congress squabble over the details of a second stimulus check for workers. Many jobs have been labeled “essential,” meaning they must be continually done in order for society to function. Those who work as grocery store cashiers, bus drivers, child care providers, and meat packers, are putting themselves at risk daily just by going in to work. At a time like this the Federal Agency OSHA is essential for protecting the safety of American Workers. OSHA’s stated purpose is to ensure safe working conditions by enforcing safety standards. While OSHA is always important for the health and safety of working Americans, during a pandemic proper enforcement of safety standards can become a matter of life and death. During the Pandemic 10,000 complaints have been filed to OSHA by workers. The response of OSHA has been to issue only 2 citations to businesses for failure to follow safety standards. [1] Reports from various workplaces have begun to appear, accusing OSHA of failing to properly inspect those workplaces being accused of violations. The Trump administration has repeatedly downsized the agency, and pushed them to be increasingly pro-business. The failure of OSHA during the pandemic shows just how vulnerable American workers are, and how the ruling class attempts to dismantle any institutions workers create to protect themselves.

While companies continue to pump out advertisements praising the bravery of their so called “essential workers,” those same companies seem to have little care for the health of those same essential workers. In Franklin Wisconsin much of the meat goes through Strauss Brands meatpacking plant. Christopher Cook of The Progressive wrote an incredible piece titled Killing Workers Safety. Cook interviewed Maria Ramirez who contracted Covid-19 while working at Strauss meatpacking plant. Ramirez said that her workplace took almost no precautions to prevent the spread of Covid. She talks about the constant fear she and her coworkers lived in, worrying that they would catch the virus at work, and bring it home to their families. The employees made multiple complaints to the company, all of which were ignored. After Ramirez’s worst fears came true, contracting the virus at work, she found herself coughing up blood, and without the ability to see a doctor. She complained to the company, and was subsequently fired for speaking out. After being fired, Ramirez and 27 of her coworkers, worked together with the nonprofit group Voces de la Frontera to put constant pressure on OSHA into providing some compensation. OSHA finally agreed to provide minor compensation to the angered workers. [2]

OSHA’s choice to provide compensation in the situation of the Strauss meatpacking workers was rare, and took a concerted effort from workers in order to force the agency into action. At other times, they have reportedly done nothing at all in response to worker complaints. Employees at the Maid-rite meat packing plant in Pennsylvania told Bryce Covert of The American Prospect that OSHA had been consistently ignoring their many complaints. After a concerted effort from concerned employees to convince OSHA to perform an inspection, the agency finally agreed. However, OSHA did not follow standard protocol, which says they’re supposed to show up for the inspection unannounced. Instead, they called the Maid-rite 24 hours in advance, to warn them when the inspection would be happening. In response, the company told workers to wear face shields, and stand six feet apart as the inspection was happening, then continued with business as usual when the inspectors left. [3]
 
This blatant failure to protect workers during a deadly pandemic shows how truly disrespected and devalued the working class has become in America. Although society recognizes that the labour of these workers is essential, we don’t feel the need to protect those doing the essential work. The capitalists, who can’t help themselves but to squeeze every last penny they can from the working class, won’t even allow the existence of an agency which ensures workers not be put in life threatening situations at the work place. Capital seeks to destroy even the most minor existing protections which labour has fought for. The most powerful man in the country, President Donald Trump, currently sits ahead an administration filled with wealthy businessmen and banking executives. The powers of the government/state rest in the hands of the capitalists, and they are doing everything in their power to destroy any worker protections which may halt the flow of their capital. Only through the solidarity and organization of workers, like that of the Strauss meatpacking employees, can the working class strengthen protections for ourselves.

While the 2020 election offers no candidates who will truly fight for workers in Washington, issues such as this, the deregulation of OSHA, are why I am making the reluctant decision to vote for Joe Biden this year. While many conspiracy minded American’s think the pandemic will disappear November 3rd at the conclusion of the election, in truth we will likely be battling this virus for a good while longer. While Biden’s donors won’t be enthusiastic about his administration strengthening OSHA, I believe with enough public demand, we can force Biden to appoint more pro labour administrators to OSHA. And the more pro labour people there are in any section of the government, the better.

While these stories of workers who are alive to tell their stories may outrage us, we aren’t even mentioning here the many who have died. There is no doubt that many of the 215,000 people who have died from Covid-19 contracted the virus while at work. The death toll continues to rise as many American’s continue to demand the economy be reopened. Demands being made both by wealthy businessmen, and American workers who desperately need to work in order to get their next paycheck. While the media is often hyper critical of Trump, the administration’s response to the Pandemic has truly been a failure, and as a result people have lost their lives. Decisions to deregulate Wall Street, and downsize workers safety agencies despite a deadly pandemic, truly highlights how organized capital seeks to roll back any advances made by organized labour, despite the human costs it may have on the working class.

If workers are to have any kind of future we must realize the necessity of organizing, and fighting. Understand that those who hold power in the country will take even your most basic protections from you if it means protecting their wealth. Let’s organize, let’s fight, and let us demand that whoever ends up as President this November strengthen OSHA, and stand with workers. Or else expect mass resistance.



Citations


[1] Covert, Bryce. “How OSHA Went AWOL During the Pandemic.” The American Prospect, October 6, 2020. https://prospect.org/labor/how-osha-went-awol-during-the-pandemic/.

[2]Cook, Christopher D. “Killing Worker Safety.” Progressive.org, October 12, 2020. https://progressive.org/magazine/killing-worker-safety-cook/.
 

[3] Covert, Bryce. “How OSHA Went AWOL During the Pandemic.” The American Prospect, October 6, 2020. https://prospect.org/labor/how-osha-went-awol-during-the-pandemic/. 

About the Author:
​My name is Edward and I am from Sauk City, Wisconsin. I received my B.A. in Political Science from Loras College, where I was a former NCAA wrestling All-American, and active wrestling coach. My main interest are in Geopolitics and the role of American imperialism with relation to socialist states, specifically China and Venezuela.  ​I also worked for Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2020.

Naomi Klein’s 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism details a long history of the United States using times of disaster as an opportunity to push for neoliberal policies. Klein begins her book using Hurricane Katrina as an example. In the aftermath of Katrina, famed free market economist Milton Friedman wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. Freidman said “Most New Orleans schools are in Ruin… This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity to radically reform the Education system.”[1] By radically reforming the education system, Freidman of course meant transitioning from Government funded public schools, to privately managed charter schools. Freidman saw that New Orlean’s education system had been completely decimated by the hurricane, and would need to be rebuilt. Friedman urged New Orleans to seize the opportunity and rebuild their school system from scratch with a focus on privately operated schools.
​
The Bush administration heeded Friedman’s advice, and began dumping millions of dollars into the creation of new charter schools in New Orleans. In a matter of 19 months, the school board went from managing 123 Public Schools to 4, the number of Charter schools increased from 7 to 31, and the teacher’s union contract was shredded, leading to forty-seven hundred teachers being fired.[2] The free market advocates had successfully used the chaos created in the wake of a natural disaster to implement neoliberal policies, while framing these policies as the solution to the problems many New Orleans residents were facing. This playbook is what Naomi Klein calls “The Shock Doctrine.” Using chaos in the wake of natural or political disaster as an opportunity to push for neoliberal free market policy. The Covid-19 Pandemic provides another clear example of the shock doctrine, and what Naomi Klein calls in her book “disaster capitalism.”
           
An area of heavy focus in Klein’s book, is the 1973 coup in Chile. The CIA famously allied with Agusto Pinochet’s military government, who overthrew and killed socialist leader Salvador Allende.[3] Pinochet’s government was notoriously brutal. Upon taking power Pinochet ordered the massacre of approximately 20,000 people suspected of being communists. The political murders took place in the Estadio Nacional Julio Martinez Pradones, which is Chile’s official national fútbol stadium. Pinochet’s rapid seize of power, and following acts of political violence, left the Chilean people in a place of fear and chaos. It was at this time, the aforementioned Milton Freidman became chief economic advisor to Agusto Pinochet. In addition, many Freidman trained economists from the Chicago School became advisors to Pinochet. Chile would then be subjected to a series of free market neoliberal economic reforms. All government spending besides military was cut 10%, price controls were lifted, and unlimited foreign imports were now allowed. Additionally, leftists and union activists were hunted and killed by the Pinochet military dictatorship.[4]  These policies had a disastrous effect on average Chilean workers. Unemployment hit as high as 30%, while simultaneously corporate profits soared.[5] Katrina shows how the shock doctrine is applied domestically, while Chile provides an example of how the Shock Doctrine playbook is used as a tool of imperialism.

Currently the US is using the Covid-19 pandemic as a chance to destabilize Venezuela, as they did Chile years ago. Prior to Pinochet taking power, the US had placed Chile under economic embargo, blocking them from trading with most the world. This same strategy has been used on Venezuela for years, however it has been ramped up to new heights as of late. Venezuela now has 150 economic sanctions placed on their country by the United States.[6] The US has blatantly ramped up sanctions on Venezuela, during a time when the Latin American country is attempting to fight against the Covid-19 pandemic. As the UN and EU call for the US to alleviate sanctions during the pandemic, the Trump administration has instead created new sanctions. Including sanctions imposed on March 12, cracking down on a Russian firm, which was helping to sell Venezuelan oil. Venezuelan expert Jeffery Sachs says “sanctions have weakened both countries’ (Iran and Venezuela) health infrastructure by curtailing access to foreign exchange and the capacity to import key medical inputs”[7] The increase in sanctions follow the shock doctrine playbook closely. The US is attempting to use the Global Pandemic as a tool to achieve the regime change they desperately want. After blocking Venezuela from importing medical supplies, the US can turn and President Maduro, and the Venezuelan Government for people’s suffering. The US backed Venezuelan opposition party, will no doubt parrot this anti Government narrative to struggling Venezuelans.

Were the US to be successful in overthrowing the Venezuelan Government, Venezuela would no doubt follow the same path as Chile. Juan Guaidó, or another neoliberal puppet from the Venezuelan opposition party, would take power and immediately implement neoliberal reforms. US sanctions would be lifted, and GDP along with corporate profits would skyrocket, while social programs and unions would be destroyed. Free Market advocates would claim victory, and point to Venezuela’s increased GDP as a success story of capitalism, claiming that the country had been saved from the evils of socialism. These Free Market advocates would never mention the US of sanctions used to starve Venezuela out during a pandemic. This is a playbook the free market advocates have been using for years. The US destabilizes a region using sanctions or other measures, then when a US friendly leader is appointed, the sanctions are relieved, and GDP skyrockets. The Free Market economists then claim victory, as the country in question becomes a source of cheap resources and labour for multi-national corporations.

Venezuela sits on 300 billion barrels of oil, the largest oil reserves in the world.[8] Now blocked off from trading with the rest of the world, the oil based economy now has an abundance of commodities to sell, but nobody to sell them too. The government is trying desperately to sell the countries’ oil to anyone who will buy it, in order to properly fund the Venezuelan healthcare infrastructure. Now a pandemic is tearing through the country, and the response from the US has been to increase sanctions and destabilize Venezuela further. This is what Naomi Klein calls Disaster Capitalism. In a world that makes sense, the global community would come together during a pandemic. The resources and productive power of all human beings should be used to help every nation fight this deadly pandemic. Instead the imperialists who rule the world see the pandemic as an opportunity. An opportunity to destabilize enemy nations, and implement neoliberal policy reforms.

​This reveals the true nature of capitalism. A system which incentivizes only greed, and the acquisition of more commodities. It is a system which creates a psychology among the ruling class, where even in a pandemic which effects the whole of humanity, the system remains focused on profit. Capitalists no longer view Venezuela as a country with millions of regular people living their day to day lives. Venezuela is nothing but a metaphorical gold mine to them. A giant pool of oil that can be extracted and sold at a profit. For the ruling class this Pandemic is not a horrible tragedy, but an excellent business opportunity. If the pandemic can be used as a tool to destabilize Venezuela and allow corporations to access those 300 billion barrels of oil, that is exactly what will happen. Greed takes precedent to human life, and natural disasters are no longer tragedies, but tools for destabilization. This is disaster capitalism, and it is the modern state of human civilization. 

​Citations


[1] Friedman, Milton. “The Promise of Vouchers.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, December 5, 2005. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113374845791113764.

[2] Klein, Naomi. “Introduction.” Essay. In The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism, 5–5. London: Penguin, 2014.

[3] “CIA Cover-Up on Chile.” National Security Archive, August 11, 2017. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2016-09-09/cia-cover-chile.

[4] The Pinochet Myth. Youtube.com, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIwJCtboXQA&t=87s.

[5] Klein, Naomi. “Introduction.” Essay. In The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism, 5–5. London: Penguin, 2014.

[6] Service, Congressional Research. “Venezuela: Overview of US Sancitons.” FAS.org, 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf.

[7] D. Sachs and Francisco Rodriguez – Project Syndicate, Jeffery. “A Pandemic Is No Time for US Economic Sanctions.” Venezuelanalysis.com, July 8, 2020. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14822.

[8] “Top Ten Countries with World's Largest Oil Reserves, from Venezuela to Iraq.” NS Energy, April 5, 2019. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/newstop-ten-countries-with-worlds-largest-oil-reserves-5793487/. 

Any politically active individual in the United States advocating for Socialism has likely heard the argument “what about Venezuela?.” In 1998, Venezuela elected President Hugo Chavez of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and are currently led by President Nicolàs Maduro of the same party. Beginning around 2012 Venezuela began experiencing economic slowdowns which have worsened since that time. The country is currently experiencing what Economists refer to as stagflation, meaning high inflation combined with high unemployment. Reports now show the Venezuelan citizenry are experiencing food and medical shortages creating a humanitarian crisis in the country.

In 2018, the Organization of American States (OAS) concluded that the Venezuelan elections were fraudulent, and had been illegally influenced by Maduro in order to maintain his position as President. These elections were used as justification for The United States, Britain, German, France, and many other Western powers to support a 2019 coup attempting to install Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as President. The coup failed, however, and Maduro remains in power. Despite the failed attempt, the aforementioned Western countries, as well as some right wing Latin American Governments, such as Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, now recognize Guaido as the rightful President of Venezuela.

The vast majority of Western Media have concluded that Maduro and his socialist policies are to blame for Venezuela’s Political and Economic turmoil. Corporately owned Western outlets, such as the Washington Post, blame nationalization of industry and irresponsible government spending for Venezuela’s economic collapse. This narrative often fails to include any information about the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela or their effect on the Venezuelan citizenry. These sanctions, which began under Bush in 2005,  have only increased under both the Obama and Trump administrations; the Congressional Research Service reports 144 different sanctions imposed by the United States on Venezuela(FAS). The timing of these sanctions seems to coincide with the Venezuelan economic slowdowns that have led to the current humanitarian crisis.

To understand what is happening in Venezuela it is essential to consider the impacts of both the US sanctions as well as mistakes made by the Socialist Party. This essay will attempt to answer the seemingly simple question “What about Venezuela?”. Looking at all factors involved including sanctions, CIA intervention, and Venezuelan Government policies. This essay will also analyze the hegemonic Western media narrative about Venezuela and the financial motivations which exist for the media to encourage regime change in the country.

Since 1912, Venezuela has been an economy based on exporting oil. To this day, the entire economy and standard of living for people in Venezuela is dependent on how the oil industry is being managed. The vast amounts of oil underneath the country was a metaphorical gold mine for Royal Dutch Shell, and Rockefeller Standard Oil in the early 1900’s. In 1936, Venezuela began to take control of their oil industry while cutting out foreign companies, attempting to “Sow the Oil”. This plan aimed to take oil revenue and use it to invest in other industries and social programs, diversifying and modernizing the Venezuelan Economy. By 1976 Carlos Andres Perez fully nationalized Venezuelan oil with a goal of redistributing more of the wealth it created to workers. Although the Perez administration would take a turn towards neoliberal policy, allowing multi-national corporations to share in Venezuelan oil riches. This lead to a poverty rate of over 50% and two attempted coups by Hugo Chavez. Perez would eventually be convicted by the Venezuelan Supreme court of embezzlement. The Venezuelan economy has always been somewhat of a roller coaster. When global oil prices are up, so is the Venezuelan economy and vice versa. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela and began visiting every country, especially those membered with The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), urging them to set a quota on oil production. This quota was meant to keep production of oil low enough so that prices remained higher and more stable. Chavez’s efforts were successful as oil prices rose to their highest levels since 1985. Chavez also “renationalized” the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA which he argued was acting independently of the state, becoming its own entity which prioritized their own profit over the betterment of Venezuela. Since 1912 the Venezuelan economy has been tied to oil and has found itself in a constant struggle to keep global oil prices high, to diversify their economy, and to remove possibilities of foreign companies profiting from their oil reserves. This history is vitally important for understanding the current economic and political situation in the country.

The main flaw in the Venezuelan Economy is that it is not adequately diversified. Since the early 1900’s, the country has been completely dependent on oil which has led to multiple negative side effects. Economists have prescribed Venezuela with Dutch Disease, meaning the country’s oil industry has become disproportionately large, and other industries have suffered as a result. This Dutch Disease phenomenon was first seen in Holland in the 1970s when the country discovered oil. Essentially, as the oil market of a company becomes strong, that country’s currency is strengthened globally as a result of the new revenue. This makes it more expensive for other industries to export their goods, as the costs for goods has now increased due to the spike in oil revenue. A journal entitled Sowing the Oil states, “The discovery of oil and the conversion to a petro-economy caused an influx of foreign exchange in the country, making food imports cheaper than domestic production and a resultant massive rural exodus.” (Clark).

A main goal of Venezuelan Government since 1999 has been to combat Dutch Disease by creating food sovereignty in the country. The plan has been to use the money brought in through oil exports to create state run farms allowing more domestic food production. Overall, these policies had success lowering poverty from 49% to 26% between 2000 and 2010. Along with this, malnutrition became almost nonexistent in Venezuela, raising average calorie consumption from 91% of recommended levels to 101.6%. (Weisbrot). Additional successes include the Mission Robinson program which taught 1.5 new Venezuelans to read and write, prompting UNESCO to declare in 2005 that Venezuela had abolished illiteracy. Infant mortality in Venezuela dropped by 49% from 1999 to 2010. 700,000 new homes have been built to combat homelessness. (Lamrani).

In order to implement these policies, Chavez, and Maduro after him, needed to maintain control of the Venezuelan oil company, PDVSA. Prior to his election, Chavez felt that PDVSA was functioning as a State within the State. In order to enact the policies of food sovereignty, Chavez fired many directors of the PDVSA and strengthened state control over the oil company. This allowed for the Government to use oil profits as they see fit. This meant more focus on endogenous development, meaning the country could use the revenue from imports to increase equity and human development.
           
The goals of the Venezuelan government have always been at odds with those of the United States. Venezuela is run by a Socialist party which has nationalized their oil using the revenues to increase social programs and domestic food growth. The United States on the other hand, promotes capitalism and the autonomy for private entities to make decisions that are based on what is in their financial best interest. This philosophical clash has created a situation where the more the Venezuelan state gains control over their oil, the less profit there is to be made for private fossil fuel companies. Citgo is the only US Company which remains in Venezuela, and it is forced to make large payments to the Venezuelan State in order to remain. This could be the motivation behind the strong sanctions which the US has imposed on Venezuela since Chavez was elected. As Venezuelan oil sovereignty has increased so have the sanctions from the United States. The conflict between the two countries peaked in 2018 when Juan Guaido and the US backed opposition party attempted a coup on the Maduro. The United States has now escalated their position from imposing economic sanctions to outright refusing to recognize Maduro as the sitting President.

The United States Government has become closely linked to private oil companies within the country. This has led the United States to impose economic warfare on Venezuela in the form of sanctions, mostly on Venezuelan oil. In addition, the US has maximized global oil production in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which keeps private profits high and the price per barrel of oil low. This economic warfare has become more visible during the Trump administration, whose members speak openly about meeting with oil executives to kneecap the Venezuelan economy.
​
The sole remaining US Company in Venezuela is Citgo, which maintains refineries in both the US and Venezuela. The Citgo refineries in Venezuela are owned by the PDVSA, meaning most of their profits go to the Venezuelan Government. In 2019 Trump and former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, attempted to halt this cash flow. The Washington Post reports “The administration’s new sanctions order the company to divert its payments for Venezuelan crude into a US bank account that Maduro would be unable to access.” (Mufson). Bolton also told the post he had a “very productive meeting with three Citgo executives.”

This meeting between the US government and the oil executives is a perfect microcosm of what US economic policy has been in Venezuela. The US state and oil executives have become so closely tied that the National Security Advisor openly admits urging Citgo to divert money created by Venezuelan labor into a US bank account. While some might define this action as theft, the Post article written by Steven Mufson is clearly supportive of this new sanction. The article calls Citgo “the last remaining crown jewel of Venezuela’s failing economy.” The article later states, “only Citgo has provided cash that Maduro has used to ensure the loyalty of his supporters.” Referring to Venezuelan social programs as “payments to ensure loyalty”. Furthering the idea that Maduro is a corrupt dictator only concerned with furthering his own power. The article goes on to praise Citgo who saw economic gains after sanctions allowed them to simply take the oil revenue for themselves rather than paying it to the State where it was produced.

This reporting from one of the largest and most respected media outlets in the US has a clear bias towards private business. The article fails to explore how these new sanctions affect the Venezuelan people. Simultaneously, the author accuses the Venezuelan Government of corruption while not questioning whether it is ethical for a US secretary of foreign affairs to meet with top oil executives at a private fossil fuel company. This narrative is perpetrated by almost every news source in the country and provides a hegemonic narrative with a one sided view about the crisis in Venezuela that completely absolves the US of any blame.
           
The justification given for the sanctions and attempted coup in Venezuela in the narrative popular with the US media is that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator who needs be removed. The United States rejected Venezuela’s electoral process in 2018, arguing that the election was undemocratic and had been altered by Maduro. Maduro received 68% of the vote in 2018, US media reported low voter turnout and irregularities in the voting schedule as evidence that the elections were fraudulent. Many academics have questioned the claims of illegitimate elections as Venezuela is known for their clean and fair elections.

A report on the 2018 Venezuelan elections and subsequent media coverage said “The supposed dictatorial Venezuelan Government pleaded with the UN to send as many observers as possible. Elections in Venezuela are already probably the most heavily monitored around the world. Successive reports from hostile sources such as the European Union and Carter Center have strongly praised the election system” (McLeod). The organization CEELA comprised of Latin American election officials, many from countries hostile to Venezuela, praised the 2018 elections for their scrutiny. CEELA President Nicanor Moscoso said “We can emphasize that these elections must be recognized because they are the result of the will of the Venezuelan people.” Despite these reports, the US and many other countries refuse to recognize Maduro as President. 

Another reason given for the need to overthrow Maduro is that he has cracked down on any dissent in Venezuela, even torturing those who dare to oppose the Venezuelan Government. The organization “Human Rights Watch” has been one of the main perpetrators of this narrative. In 2017 they published a report entitled Crackdown on Dissent. Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. In this article, Human Rights Watch reports between April and September of 2018. “88 cases involving at least 314 people who were victims of serious human rights violations” (Vivanco). It is unclear how Human Rights Watch received this information. However, what is known is the organization wants increased international pressure on Venezuela. The article concludes with a ‘recommendation’ paragraph which reads “To ensure accountability for and deter the repetition of human rights abuses documented in this report, it is critically important to redouble international pressure on the Venezuelan Government.”
​
Human Rights Watch is heavily funded by billionaire Capitalist George Soros who in 2010 pledged to give $100 million to the organization over 10 years (Pilkington). Along with this pledge, in 2020 the group was caught taking a $470,000 donation from Saudi Arabian real estate magnate Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber under the stipulation that the money could not be used to support LGBTQ advocacy (Emmons). In addition, Human Rights Watch has also come under fire for a revolving door on their board for US government members including NATO secretary, Javier Solana, Colombian ambassador, Myles Frechette, and CIA analyst, Miguel Diaz (Democracy Now). This revolving door allows Human Rights Watch to act as a mouthpiece for the US Government and the interests of their donors. The organization has been one of the strongest advocates for regime change in Venezuela. Their claims about Maduro and calls for regime change need to be looked at with scrutiny and conflicts of interests need to be addressed.

Another one of the most powerful voices for regime change in Venezuela has come from the Atlantic Council, a multimillion dollar think tank in Washington DC. In 2017 the Atlantic Council published a research report on their Economic Sanctions Initiative, which in their own words is meant to “build a platform for dialogue between the public and the private sector to investigate how to improve the design and implementation of economic sanctions. The initiative has a focus that goes beyond a purely national security perspective on sanctions to bridge the gap with the broader business perspective” (Forrer). This publicly available statement from the Atlantic Council helps to reveal what exactly is motivating these economic sanctions. The group openly admits that they are attempting to create a partnership between the public and private sectors. In other words, allowing private capital to use the state as a tool to create better business opportunities abroad.

The Atlantic Council’s board of directors is a who’s who of powerful U.S. businessmen, including Council Chairman, John F.W. Rogers, who also resides as an executive officer of Goldman Sachs. (Goldman Sachs). Chairman of the Atlantic Council International advisory board is former US treasury secretary, David McCormick, who is also the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, the self-proclaimed “world’s largest hedge fund” (Bridgewater). It’s far from a conspiracy theory to say that private business interests influence sanctions imposed by the United State Government. The Atlantic Council has close ties to both the state and private business, and as can be seen with David McCormick, often acts as a revolving door between the two groups. This relationship has allowed The Atlantic Council to have great influence over US economic policy dating all the way back to 2006 when their report on the global oil markets targeted Venezuela as a “major energy producer” who had “re-nationalized their oil assets”. The Atlantic Council goes on to say, “it was seen as an increasing challenge to U.S. dominance in global energy and political affairs” (Atlantic Council 2006). Rarely mentioned in the Atlantic Council briefings are concerns about human rights or fear of authoritarian power grabs by the Venezuelan Government. Those encouraging and crafting the sanctions seem to be primarily concerned with global oil markets rather than providing humanitarian aid.
           
Despite the United States public “commitment of humanitarian support for Venezuelan people” (US Treasury). A report done in 2019 by economist, Jeffery Sachs, linked 40,000 Venezuelan deaths as a direct result of US sanctions since 2017. (Sachs). Sachs makes the argument that the economic collapse in Venezuela is being purposefully orchestrated by the U.S. Government. The Trump administration has had the goal of regime change in Venezuela since 2017, when Trump initiated  the idea to advisors of a full on military intervention in Venezuela, and even saying publicly in 2017 “we have many options for Venezuela, and by the way I’m not going to rule out a military option” (Merica).  

After being met with pushback from those within his administration as well as many Latin American allies, Trump instead has opted to metaphorically strangle the Venezuelan economy through sanctions. The goal being to create more instability in the region, making it easier to instill a puppet President in Gauido who will hand the PDVSA over to U.S. Business interests. Sachs argues that in 2017, a new batch of U.S. sanctions prevented the PDVSA from accessing global oil markets, and prevented the company from restructuring its loans. The report finds that these sanctions are what triggered the hyperinflation Venezuela has experienced since 2017. After these sanctions were implemented oil revenue plummeted. As was mentioned earlier, the Venezuelan economy hinges entirely on the success of its oil revenue. As a result of decreased income, funding for medicine, food, and social welfare programs plummeted along with oil revenue. We also know that since 2017, the U.S. has directly intercepted money from Citgo which is supposed to be paid to the Venezuelan Government. John Bolton boasted about this fact when he was still with the Trump administration in 2019. (Mufson). Jeffery Sachs is clear that the numbers in his report are rough estimates based off what has been studied in Venezuelan universities. While nobody can know the exact death toll, Sachs says that we need to look at the clear fact that U.S. policy has created and exacerbated the Venezuelan economic crisis in order to destabilize the region and create regime change.
​
May 2020 saw the first coup attempt in Latin America in years. Two former Green Beret’s attempted to enter Venezuela through Macuto Port. It was later discovered that their plan was to travel to Caracas and simply take out Nicolas Maduro. The attempted coup was organized by the company Silvercorp, a company known for supplying bodyguards, who thought they should try their hand in mercenary work. The two men attempting the coup were captured by Venezuelan fisherman before they ever reached land in Venezuela. They have since been sentenced with up to 20 years in prison for the failed coup attempt.

The US of course denied involvement with the coup, despite the fact that they placed a multi-million dollar bounty on Maduro’s head for supposed drug trafficking. It is highly likely that the Silvercorp mercenaries were hoping to capitalize on that bounty. This incident demonstrates how deeply anti-Venezuelan propaganda has penetrated the US public consciousness. The US Government, and private media, have manufactured a culture in the US where people are willing to sacrifice 20 years in a Venezuelan prison, for an ill-fated attempt to take down the Venezuelan president, and also make some quick money. The mercenaries believed they would be welcomed as liberators, freeing the Venezuelan people from their tyrannical dictatorship. What they found in reality were simple fisherman, who remained loyal to the Venezuelan Government, and were willing to risk their lives to expel US imperialists. No situation illustrates US-Venezuela relations better than the Silvercorp coup of 2020.
​
Another factor that can’t be overlooked is Venezuela’s relationship to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Maduro referred to the IMF in 2020 as “bloodsucking assassins” as well as a “tool of U.S. imperialism” (Emersberger). As the Covid-19 pandemic has swept across the globe, the IMF has provided some legitimacy to Maduro’s claims. Being a country already struggling to fund its healthcare services, the Venezuelan people are at high risk for being killed by the virus (Reeves). To help keep hospitals running as they are flooded with covid-19 patients, Maduro requested a loan of $5 million from the IMF. The IMF has rejected the request claiming that there is no certainty whether the International Community recognizes Maduro or not. This action comes even though 105 countries voted at the United Nations assembly for Maduro to be included into the human rights council, with only 50 countries voting against. In addition to this, the IMF immediately offered loans to the opposition party who removed Hugo Chavez from office for a full 47 hours via coup in 2002. (Emersberger).

The IMF has a long history of assisting with U.S. foreign policy interests and global business interests alike. Although the original goal of the IMF was to prevent global economic crises, it has come under fire for acting as a tool of imperialism, especially at the behest of the United States. The Organization’s headquarters are stationed in Washington D.C. and the U.S. has the most votes on IMF decisions, and is the only country with the power to veto any actions voted on by the rest of the IMF council (Rivera). Those who sit on the IMF council are not elected democratically but are appointed by the United States and Europe (Hickel). Given the amount of U.S. control over the IMF it should be no surprise that the organization rejected Venezuela’s request for a loan. This situation highlights the hypocrisy of the claim that the United States is concerned with humanitarian issues in Venezuela. In a global panic surrounding the Corona Virus, the IMF is refusing to fund the failing Venezuelan hospitals. The US focus seems to be on further destabilizing Venezuela by refusing their request for life saving loans, while placing the blame on the Venezuelan Government by claiming it’s unclear who their leader is.

The statement from the IMF on Corona Virus says they currently have $1 trillion prepared, which it will use to “shield effected people and firms with large, timely, targeted fiscal and financial sector measures.” (Georgieva). Keeping the Venezuelan hospitals afloat would appear to be a worthy goal for an organization like the IMF tasked with keeping an eye on the global economy. The refusal to bail out the Venezuelan hospitals is evidence that the IMF acts as a tool of U.S. foreign policy interest rather than an organization entirely focused on the public good. 

Continuing with the topic of Corona virus, an analysis of the US response to covid-19 in relation to Venezuela can also help to reveal their intentions in the region. As the pandemic has swept across the entire world, severely hindering the global economy, the US justice department has charged Maduro for being an illegal drug trafficker. The hope being that the global pandemic offers a prime opportunity for regime change in Venezuela. An article published by the New York Times in late March titled “U.S. Counts on Global Crises to Press Again for Power Shift in Venezuela” (Jakes). The US offered to relieve some of the harsh sanctions on Venezuela during the pandemic, so long as Maduro relinquishes power to opposition leader Juan Guaido.

​The Times article fails to give an overview of the sanctions, or the Venezuelan situation, and only features interviews from high ranking US officials. One of these being Elliot Abrams, a diplomat who made a name for himself in the Reagan administration. The Times article asked Abrams about the Pandemic, and the recent crash of global oil prices with him saying “If any good can come out of those, maybe it is the combination of pressures on the regime that leads them to negotiate seriously.” This statement reveals the brutality of US foreign policy in Venezuela, and the dedication to regime change in the country. At a time when citizens in both the US and Venezuela are suffering from a pandemic, the goal of the government remains fixed on regime change. Venezuela remains desperate for funds to keep their hospitals running. A true humanitarian approach to Venezuela would be to relieve sanctions, and supply them with the loan to keep hospitals running. Instead the US looks to capitalize on the pandemic by destabilizing Venezuela further, and withholding aid until Maduro steps down. The pandemic reveals that the goal of the US in Venezuela has less to do with human rights, and everything to do with regime change.

Another common accusation hurled at the Venezuelan government is the censorship of independent media. A Times article from 2019 said of Venezuelan media “Most television is state-run, and authorities ban the few independent TV and radio stations from covering Venezuela’s crisis as it unfolds.” (Nugent). This statement is simply false as the last study conducted on Venezuelan media in 2013 found that of the three major media outlets in Venezuela only 25% of the public watches the state run VTV. The most popular news outlet is Venevision which is independently owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, with 36% viewership. In addition to this are the privately owned Televen, and Globovision who account for a combined 37% of viewership. (Mccoy). The Time article is either ignorant to these statistics, or the author is choosing to lie purposefully in order to further encourage regime change.

The cries of censorship from the US appear hypocritical when analyzing the Venezuelan media in comparison with the Hegemonic US corporate media. In 2019 a survey from FAIR found “no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change” (Ostrow). When it comes to regime change in any country it is difficult to find any voices in the US media championing diplomacy rather than increasing sanctions or military aggression. As Noam Chomsky once said “any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the US media.” This rings true for the case in Venezuela as every mainstream media outlet calls for regime change in unison.
           
The primary error of the Socialist party in Venezuela has been the inability to diversify their economy beyond oil. When Hugo Chavez took power in 1998 he inherited a country suffering from Dutch Disease, with an oil industry which dwarfed all other industry in Venezuela. Having an economy which is over reliant on oil has made Venezuela an easy target for destabilization through economic sanctions. Along with this the vast oil reserves make Venezuela a gold mine for multi-national fossil fuel corporations. Venezuela have found themselves in a situation similar to Cuba after the fall of the USSR, hurriedly attempting to diversify in an attempt to survive the trade war being waged upon them by the world’s largest superpower. Venezuela has been critiqued as being a failure of socialism, but in reality Venezuela is not socialist enough. For comparison look to Norway, a country similar to Venezuela with a nationalized oil industry, and large oil reserves to pull from. Unlike Venezuela Norway is considered an economic success, maintaining a healthy welfare state, and ranking 7th globally in quality of life by the Economist. Unlike Venezuela, Norway has amassed a trillion dollars in capital, which pays for Government spending and the welfare state.

In total the Norwegian Government owns 76% of the countries non home national wealth. (Breunig). Although exact statistics on Venezuela are not available, we know their numbers are nowhere near this. In addition Venezuela has used their oil wealth to create social programs, but have not created large amounts of collectively owned capital in the same way Norway has. This process of creating collectively owned capital using oil revenue can prevent crises if the oil market is to crash “By purchasing shares rather than spending directly, these funds grow in comparison to their fossil-fuel income. For jurisdictions that are dependent on finite resources, this builds up a durable buffer stock of renewable financial income that can be used to pick up the slack from a declining fossil fuel industry.” (Gowan).

Norway’s key to success has been their ability to further collectivize the nation’s wealth, while further diversifying their economy. Venezuela on the other hand has failed to create this collectively owned capital, which the economy can fall back on in times of oil crisis. The irony of this being that the solution for Venezuela, the poster child for the failure of socialism, is more socialism, or collectivization of the nation’s wealth. Of course another distinct difference between these two countries, is that Norway has never been forced to deal with crippling economic sanctions. The luxury of being located in the European Global North has allowed Norway to mostly avoid becoming the target of imperialism. Venezuela on the other hand, must attempt to diversify their economy in the face of crippling sanctions, and constant foreign intervention.

Since sanctions have increased Venezuela has been experiencing what is known as hyperinflation. This occurs when a country experiences extreme inflation, meaning their currency loses its value, making the price of goods and services increase. Western media sources often blame Venezuela’s decision to print money as the reasoning for this hyperinflation they are now experiencing. An article by the economist reads “The worthlessness of Venezuela’s currency is the result of inflation, 46,000% a year, which in turn is largely caused by the printing of money to finance the Government’s deficit of 30% GDP.” The idea is that the increased amount of Venezuelan currency in circulation made it less valuable on a global scale when compared to other countries. This assertion requires further investigation, especially when considering all the factors at play in Venezuela.
​
Firstly we know that printing money does not always lead to hyperinflation. The best example of this is the United States, who have provided enormous corporate bailouts during the 2008 recession, and currently during the Corona pandemic. This has brought the country almost $25 trillion in debt, which outweighs the US GDP of around $20 trillion. The US will continue to take on debt during the pandemic, most recently agreeing to a $2 trillion dollar stimulus package to bailout major corporations including the airline industry according to Business Insider. Despite printing trillions for corporate bailouts, the United States has avoided experiencing hyperinflation. This is evidence that printing money is not in fact the root cause of the hyperinflation phenomenon. If it were the case that printing money caused hyperinflation, the US would have experienced the phenomenon a while ago.

Many economists now dispute the idea that hyperinflation is caused by the printing of money. A Forbes article from 2011 responding to the recession explained how inflation is far too complex to simply blame on the printing of money. The article by economist John T. Harvey explains that alternate factors such as global oil prices have far more to do with inflation than printing money. In addition to this much of the money in circulation at this point is digital, and not backed by any kind of physical currency. The inflation analogy given in introductory economics courses says to imagine a helicopter dropping money into one country. If a country does this they will then have more currency in circulation which devalues in comparison to other currencies in the world. However, the fact that much of the money in circulation is electronic complicates this theory. Money is no longer dependent on the amount of physical monetary value in circulation. Therefore, the US has been free to increase debt by handing stimulus money to the private sector without facing hyperinflation. The Harvey article is extremely technical, and involves a thorough mathematical analysis of factors which lead to inflation. His argument simply stated being “It is conventional wisdom that printing money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of… how the Federal Government’s deficit will lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works.“(Harvey). The concept of inflation is far more complex than the media often makes it out to be. A deeper analysis is needed to truly understand the hyperinflation which Venezuela is currently experiencing.

To better understand hyperinflation we can look to the historical examples of when this economic phenomenon has occurred. Every time throughout history the economy experiencing hyperinflation has been subject to many external shocks. The primary example of this was Germany in the early 1920s. Following the First World War the treaty of Versailles was signed, concluding that Germany had started the war, and demanding they pay large reparations to the allied countries. The book When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson explains what happened in Germany following World War 1 which led to their hyperinflation. The books says of the Treaty of Versailles “what spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations- in money and in kind- to meet the allies cost” (Fergusson). It is clear that the outside shock caused by the allies is what caused the German economy to implode. The time that followed the treaty was a period of great economic instability for the people of Germany, which laid the foundation for the rise of fascism. Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party took advantage of this economic insecurity, unifying people against the allies who had a part in sending Germany into hyperinflation.

Much can be learned from the historical example of Germany’s hyperinflation almost 100 years ago. We know now that printing money is not the main factor which leads a country to hyperinflation. Outside shocks to a country’s economy are what send them spiraling into extreme inflation. Although there is no treaty demanding Venezuela pay the US reparations, as stated earlier in this paper, Citgo is now diverting money owed to the Venezuelan Government into US bank accounts (Mufson). Other outside shocks of course include the harsh economic sanctions, and the US influence over OPEC oil production used to deplete the amount of money Venezuela can sell their oil for (Lawler). Venezuela’s money printing habits likely have far less to do with the hyperinflation than does the external shock to their economy caused by this multitude of factors.
           
Unfortunately hyperinflation has strong negative impacts on the Venezuelan populace. Citizens are often forced to use alternative forms of currency, or cross the border into Columbia for food. An article by Reuters on the subject interviewed Venezuelan Citizen Moises Hernandez, who works in San Antonio Venezuela. Hernandez often times crosses the border into Colombia for food, and is paid in Colombian Pesos. Hernandez is quotes as saying “unless we buy over there, we cannot eat.” (Armas). This leaves the question of how those who don’t live on the border pay for food when their currency has lost its value while food prices increase? The answer is many don’t as people suffer from hunger and poverty in the heart of the country. The idea that US intervention in Venezuela is based on protecting human rights begins to fall apart when this is taken into consideration. Even the highest estimates of deaths inflicted by the Maduro government fall well short of the death and suffering caused by the systematic economic destabilization of the country.

 Another charge often lobbed at Venezuela by Western media is their rejection of humanitarian aid from the United States. Maduro has used the Venezuelan military to blockade the border wherever the US attempts to ship humanitarian aid to the country. Opposition leader Juan Guaido on the other hand has been a strong proponent of allowing the humanitarian aid into the country. On the surface this seems like a simple issue, as Venezuela should accept the aid their people need. This is the media has helped to spin a narrative that Maduro is too proud to accept the aid, and would rather allow his people to suffer. An NPR articled parroted the talking points of the US foreign policy hawks such as Mike Pompeo saying “the Maduro regime must LET THE AID REACH THE STARVING PEOPLE.” (Wamsley). The only quote from Venezuela included in the article is from Maduro himself who said “never been, nor are we, a country of beggars.” This article along with many others relating to this topic portray the narrative that the US is trying to help, but Maduro’s pride is too great to accept the humanitarian aid. This from NPR, one of the most respected news outlets in America, who are sometimes accused of having a left wing bias. However, NPR’s willingness to champion regime change narratives in Venezuela bring into question their legitimacy as a left wing outlet.

In reality the reason Maduro gave for rejecting humanitarian aid from the United States is a fear that the US will not be sending exclusively food and medicine, but guns and ammunition to arm the opposition party against the socialist government. Elliot Abrams who is currently one of the strongest and most powerful proponents of regime change in Venezuela, was a part of the Reagan administration who shipped weapons disguised as humanitarian aid to the Contra forces in Nicaragua. This is not a matter of speculation but fact, as the US officials have admitted that this happened in 1986. An LA Times article reads “Reagan administration aids deliberately used a 1986 program of ‘Humanitarian Aid’ for Nicaraguan rebels to help support the secret effort to deliver military aid to the contras, U.S. officials said.” (Mcmanus). The US history of disguising weapons as humanitarian aid, with the goal of regime change, reveals the real reason Maduro is skeptical of accepting aid from the United States. Contrary to the narrative from Western media that the so called dictator is too proud to accept aid, Maduro’s true goal is to prevent the US backed opposition party from further arming themselves against the Government. 
           
​Not only does the US have a history of disguising arms as humanitarian aid in other Latin American countries, but have already been caught trying this tactic on Maduro’s Venezuela itself. During the Nicaraguan crisis the US used $27 million in congressionally approved humanitarian aid to hire a private consultant who then shipped arms to the contra forces. This pattern was replicated almost exactly in Venezuela, where a Boeing 767 airplane owned by a private company in North Carolina was caught smuggling arms into Venezuela. Democracy Now reports “Venezuelan authorities claimed they had uncovered 19 assault weapons, 118 ammunition cartridges, and 90 military grade radio antennas on board a US plane flown from Miami into Valencia” (Goodman). It was also reported that his plane had recently made 40 trips between Miami and Venezuela. The failure of US media to report the history of the US shipment of weapons disguised as aid into Latin America, further shows the agenda of those crafting these narratives. Rather than a nuanced discussion of the conflict between the two countries, and the economic hardships, Maduro is portrayed as a villainous dictator who starves his own people. It is easy to see why many in this country do not have a nuanced view of US foreign policy when supposed left wing outlets such as NPR perpetuate this black and white narrative of Maduro as a villain. The stories of Maduro rejecting humanitarian aid are case studies in how the media can use selective facts and quotes to promote their preferred narrative.

The narrative told about Venezuela in the Western Media is far from the whole story. The harsh economic sanctions intended to destabilize the country are rarely if ever critically analyzed by corporate media. A deeper dive into the sources of the information shows clear conflict of interest, as those who control the media often have business interest in freeing up the Venezuelan oil reserves to be extracted and sold by multinational corporations. With nine of ten United States elections being decided by the candidate who raises the most money, these corporations now appear to have a stranglehold on the United States Government. (Open Secrets). This corporate domination over the U.S. political system has allowed for the systematic destabilization of Venezuela, although the U.S. has yet to reach their ultimate goal of regime change in the country. As even supposed left wing democratic socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez come out in favor of regime change in Venezuela, it is important to look deeper into what is truly occurring in the country, and what the motives of U.S. corporations are in the country. It is equally as important to remain critical of how much power corporations are allowed to have over the CIA and other tools of government, international agencies such as the IMF and World Bank, as well as the Media who inform the public about issues of foreign policy. A more critical analysis of all these factors reveal that the situation in Venezuela is far more complicated than it appears on the surface.

​Works Cited
Venezuela overview of U.S. sanctions. (2020, February 21). Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
Booth, J. A., & Richard, P. B. (2014). Latin American political culture: Public opinion and democracy. CQ Press.
Blank, D. (1984). 'Sowing the Oil'. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-),8(4), 63-78. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/40256783
Wilpert, G. (2007, September 14). The Economics, Culture, and Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/74
W. M. CORDEN, BOOMING SECTOR AND DUTCH DISEASE ECONOMICS: SURVEY AND CONSOLIDATION , Oxford Economic Papers, Volume 36, Issue 3, November 1984, Pages 359–380, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041643
Clark, P. (2010). Sowing the Oil? The Chavez Government's Policy Framework for an Alternative Food System in Venezuela. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 33(1/2), 135-165. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/23263229
Weisbrot, M. (2009, February). The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf
Lamrani, S. (2019, August 01). 50 Truths about Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8133
McLeod, A. (2018). Manufacturing Consent for the 2018 Elections in Venezuela and Colombia. Glascow University Media Group, 2(2). Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02047706/document
Mufson, S. (2019, January 30). Trump's sanctions hit Venezuela where it hurts: Its oil. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/citgos-profits-propped-up-venezuelan-leaders--until-now/2019/01/30/f0342c0e-2324-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
teleSUR/jc-MH. (2018, May 21). Ceela Electoral Experts Say Venezuela Vote Reflects 'Will of the People,' Must Be Respected. Retrieved from https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Ceela-Electoral-Experts-Say-Venezuela-Vote-Reflects-Will-of-the-People-Must-Be-Respected-20180521-0017.html
Vivanco, J. M. (2019, January 15). Crackdown on Dissent: Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/29/crackdown-dissent/brutality-torture-and-political-persecution-venezuela
Fernández, B., Fernández, B., Frase, P., Foner, E., Jones, E., Ackerman, S., … Blanc, E. (2014, August 6). Human Rights Watch's Revolving Door. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/06/human-rights-watchs-revolving-door/
Pilkington, E. (2010, September 7). George Soros gives $100 million to Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/07/george-soros-100-million-human-rights-watch
Emmons, A. (2020, March 2). Human Rights Watch Took Money From Saudi Businessman After Documenting His Coercive Labor Practices. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-money-from-saudi-businessman-after-documenting-his-coercive-labor-practices/
Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to U.S. Gov't to Criticize Its Foreign Policy? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/11/debate_is_human_rights_watch_too
Executive Officers - John F. W. Rogers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/executive-officers/john-f-w-rogers.html
FORRER, J. (2017). (Rep.). Atlantic Council. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep16794
Executive Officers - John F. W. Rogers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/executive-officers/john-f-w-rogers.html
David McCormick. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bridgewater.com/leadership/david-mccormick/
ATLANTIC COUNCIL. (2006). U.S.-China Energy Security Cooperation Dialogue (pp. 5-7, Rep.). Atlantic Council. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17101.5
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2020, March 27). Retrieved from https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm752
Economist Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Sanctions Have Devastated Venezuela & Killed Over 40,000 Since 2017. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/1/economist_jeffrey_sachs_us_sanctions_have
Merica, D. (2017, August 11). Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politics/trump-xi-north-korea/index.html
Emersberger, J. (2020, March 25). Media Struggle to Defend Washington's Cruelty Toward Venezuela and Iran as Coronavirus Spreads. Retrieved from https://fair.org/home/media-struggle-to-defend-washingtons-cruelty-toward-venezuela-and-iran-as-coronavirus-spreads/
Reeves, P. (2020, April 10). Many Venezuelan Hospitals Lack Basics To Function, Let Alone Handle COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/831569313/many-venezuelan-hospitals-lack-basics-to-function-let-alone-handle-covid-19
Rivera, A. (n.d.). What Is the IMF and How Does It Work? Retrieved from https://www.leftvoice.org/what-is-the-imf-and-how-does-it-work
Jason Hickel. (2019, October 16). Apartheid in the global governance system. Retrieved from https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the-global-governance-system
Georgieva, K., & Imf. (2020, April 9). Confronting the Crisis: Priorities for the Global Economy. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/04/07/sp040920-SMs2020-Curtain-Raiser
Jakes, L. (2020, March 31). U.S. Counts on Global Crises to Press Again for Power Shift in Venezuela. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/world/americas/coronavirus-venezuela-maduro-guaido.html?emci=8cbb9437-6273-ea11-a94c-00155d03b1e8&emdi=ba9cc165-6273-ea11-a94c-00155d03b1e8&ceid=4607783
Nugent, C. (2019, April 16). Inside the Battle to Get News to Venezuelans. Retrieved from https://time.com/5571504/venezuela-internet-press-freedom/
Mccoy, J. (2013). Presidential Elections in Venezuela. The Carter Center. Retrieved from https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_publications/election_reports/venezuela-pre-election-rpt-2013.pdf
Ostrow, T. (2019, April 30). Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela. Retrieved from https://fair.org/home/zero-percent-of-elite-commentators-oppose-regime-change-in-venezuela/
Noam Chomsky Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_143312
Rankings. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9
Bruenig, M. (2018, March 14). The State Owns 76% of Norway's Non-Home Wealth. Retrieved from https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-owns-76-of-norways-non-home-wealth/
Gowan, P., Frase, P., Beggs, M., Majumdar, N., Billet, A., & Bruenig, M. (n.d.). Why We Need a Social Wealth Fund. Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/social-wealth-fund-alaska-peoples-policy-project
Venezuelan cash is almost worthless, but also scarce. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/07/12/venezuelan-cash-is-almost-worthless-but-also-scarce
Zeballos-Roig, J. (2020, April 4). Here's why the depleted cruise line industry will be one of the biggest losers of the new $500 billion corporate bailout program. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-lines-coronavirus-corporate-bailout-program-economy-trump-2020-4
Harvey, J. T. (2012, May 24). Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation! Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/#9612c9542f58
Furgusson, A. (2010). When Money Dies. Public Affairs.
Lawler, A. (2019, April 10). Venezuela reports collapse in oil supply, tightening global market: OPEC. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-opec-report/venezuela-reports-collapse-in-oil-supply-tightening-global-market-opec-idUSKCN1RM1BT
Armas, M. (2019, March 14). In Venezuela, not even the dollar is immune to effects of hyperinflation. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-inflation/in-venezuela-not-even-the-dollar-is-immune-to-effects-of-hyperinflation-idUSKCN1QV38P
Wamsley, L. (2019, February 8). Humanitarian Aid Arrives For Venezuela - But Maduro Blocks It. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692698637/humanitarian-aid-arrives-for-venezuela-but-maduro-blocks-it
Mcmanus, D. (1987, May 19). Use of Humanitarian Aid Flights to Arm Contras Told. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-05-19-mn-1157-story.html
Goodman, A. (2019). Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties. Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/13/venezuela_accuses_us_of_secretly_shipping
Open Secrets, Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever. (2009, July 16). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/

Let us run through a brief history of US-China relations, starting from the Communist revolution in China led by Mao Zedong from 1948-1952. In the Chinese Civil war, Mao and his communist party fought mostly against the Kuomintang Nationalist Party. Both parties supported Chinese independence from the Japanese, but Mao’s party wished to establish a Marxist economic system, while the Nationalists would continue with capitalism, albeit capitalism independent from Japanese colonizers. The United States heavily funded the Kuomintang Nationalist Army, which was formed in Taiwan, and remains independent of China to this day. The Chinese Communist Party on the other hand received funding from the Soviet Union, making China one of the many proxy battlefields that came about during the Cold War, and the ideological war being waged between Communism and Capitalism. By 1949 the Communists controlled most of China, and the war began to draw to an end. When the fighting ceased an estimated 1.5 million communists, 600,000 nationalists, and 5 million civilians, had been killed. [3] 
              
Following the Communist victory, and establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, Harry Truman and the United States refused to recognize the new Chinese Government and continued funding the Kuomintang in Taiwan. Additionally, the PRC and United States fought against each other during both the Korean and Vietnam wars. [4] Wars which were also proxy battlefields between the Capitalist and Communist nations during the Cold War. It is worth mentioning that Mao Anying, the son of PRC leader Mao Zedong, was killed by a US airstrike during the Korean War.[5] Relations between China and the United States following the Chinese civil war were marked by hostility, and warfare, which was fought on the proxy battlefields of Korea and Vietnam.
              
However, in the 1970s relations between China and the US would take a turn. By 1970 China had emerged as an important geopolitical player, including increasing steel production by four times. In addition, agriculture had skyrocketed in the country. Despite many who died during the famine which occurred during implementation of Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy, the country did in the end greatly increase agricultural output.[6] Another factor in the increase of US China diplomacy, was the fact that China had split with the Soviet Union, after the Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin’s foreign policy. This originally turned the Cold War from a Bi-polar, to a tri-polar war. However, it would eventually allow the US and China to repair relations, now having the USSR as a common enemy of sorts.
              
In 1972 Richard Nixon travelled to the Peoples Republic of China to speak with Chinese leadership for the first time in 25 years.[7] At this point, relations between the countries became more diplomatic than ever before. This would only increase with the rise of Deng Xiaoping as leader of the PRC in 1978. China’s rapid industrialization had US business interests salivating at the opportunity to gain access to Chinese markets. At this point Deng made one of the most important geopolitical decisions of the 20th century, choosing to open China to foreign capital. Deng himself was exiled by the Cultural Revolution of Mao before rising to power in the Communist Party. While in Power he denounced both Mao, and the Cultural Revolution, and proposed a new economic path for China. China would remain a Marxist-Leninist state, striving for the creation of socialism. However, they would simultaneously allow foreign capital into the country. In addition, Chinese State-run industries, such as steel, would begin trading goods on the global market, and use the revenue to reinvest in China.
              
Deng’s reforms brought US- China diplomacy to its peak. The US seemed to have no problem with China’s Marxist ideology, so long as US capital was allowed to make a profit in China. In 1978 Jimmy Carter announced that he US would recognize the People’s Republic of China for the first time in history.[8] The US and China had seemingly found a sort of middle ground between Marxist and Capitalist ideology. However, the US may have underestimated the speed and extent to which China would continue to grow.
              
Over the next 40-year period, China has continued to grow their economy. Currently China is the second most powerful economy on the planet, with a GDP only bested by that of the United States. China has come to dominate the steel industry globally through their state-run steel companies. [9] This allows vast amounts of money to flow to the Chinese state, which is of course, reinvested in China. In addition, China’s tech sector has expanded at an astounding rate, now making up 30% of the Chinese GDP.[10] China’s centrally planned economy has allowed them to put the most resources into sectors of the economy which are the most lucrative on the global market. A positive effect of China’s rapid growth has been the raising of 850 million people from poverty, according to the World Bank. [11]

So why, in the year 2020, are tensions between the US and China escalating once again? The answer, as is the case with most US foreign intervention, can be found by studying the current situation of the global economy.
              
The US playbook on foreign intervention since the mass public outrage sparked by the brutality of US forces in Vietnam, has been to portray whatever regime the US wishes to overthrow as an unimaginable evil, who are oppressing their country’s civilians. The US then postures as the hero in this situation, asserting that we will use our vast military power to overthrow the evil regime, and liberate the oppressed civilians. The war in Iraq offers a salient example of this strategy, as the US public was promised the war would be a short campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein, liberate the Iraqi people, and then withdraw US troops. Former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld famously said of the intervention in Iraq “Five days, five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that” [12] Fast forward 17 years from Rumsfeld’s comments, and the United States remains in Iraq, trying to stabilize a region thrown into chaos after the overthrow of the regime in power.
              
Even most corporate media outlets now admit the Iraq war was fought for control of Iraqi oil. Prior to the invasion US media uniformly told the public that the goal of intervention in Iraq was to overthrow the brutal dictator that was Saddam Hussein, when in reality the goal was to free up new oil markets for corporate America to exploit. Journalist Antonio Juasz explains in his 2013 write up on the war that “Before the 2003 invasion. Iraq’s domestic oil industry was nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized, and utterly dominated by foreign firms.”[13] The report was published by CNN, who now openly admit the catastrophic role they played in pushing public opinion towards support for war in Iraq. However, CNN claims that the press has learned from their mistakes.[14] This claim is false. The corporate media have continued to use the same playbook from Iraq, to push for more US intervention abroad. This includes China, who corporate media now portrays as possibly the greatest evil of the 21st century.

So, if the economic basis for regime change in Iraq was oil, what is the true motivation, or economic basis, for regime change in China?
              
As we said earlier, China has gone from a colonized nation to the second most powerful economy on earth in the 70 years following the Communist Revolution. While the US developed a cooperative relationship with China following Deng’s decision to open China up to foreign capital, China has now begun to challenge the United States as the world’s leading economic superpower. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has felt little resistance to their economic global dominance, nor their policies of military intervention in foreign countries. That is quickly changing however, as now in the year 2020, China provides the US with a rival in geopolitical dominance. The newfound competition between pro Communist China, and the pro Capitalist United States, is creating a sort of 20th century cold war between the two nations.
              
The Chinese tech sector clearly presents a challenge to US tech, where companies like Apple have long dominated the Global tech market. Kenneth Lee of the South China Morning Post writes “For the past few decades, the US market has dominated the listing of technology stock” He goes on to say later “However, investor interest in the United States- and the resulting effect on share prices- has been declining for Chinese Issuers”[15]  It is clear that Chinese based tech companies are now challenging US companies in an unprecedented fashion.
              
Tech giants such as Apple now face stiff completion from the Chinese phone producers Huawei and ZTE. In a letter to Shareholders, Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote “Lower than anticipated iPhone revenue, primarily in greater China, accounts for all of our revenue shortfall.” [16] US tech companies are no longer profiting from China’s policy of allowing foreign capital inside the country. Chinese companies are simply offering a better product, cutting into the revenue of firms like Apple, who are accustomed to seeing revenue from selling their products to China’s population of 1.3 billion.
              
Apple was recently outed for purposely slowing down their phones when users update the IOS software. This of course would encourage IPhone users to buy the newest version of the IPhone, in order to have a fully functioning device.[17] It should come as no surprise that Chinese citizens with a better alternative available to them, would stop purchasing from apple, and instead buy a phone that won’t break when updated.

However, rather than creating a better product than the Chinese companies, the way advocates of the so called “free market” argue that firms will always do, US tech giants have begun pressuring the Government  to use sanctions, and other methods to hamper China’s economy. This, as well as other economic sectors such as agriculture, are what have been the true motivation for Trump’s trade war being waged against China. The tech industry spends $582 million lobbying the US government for this purpose exactly.[18] When big tech loses their stranglehold on a foreign market, they can call in the state apparatus to do something about it.

​If economic sanctions fail to reestablish US tech dominance in China, it is likely that the US tech sector will begin pushing the Government towards real military intervention. This is why I have chosen to write this article. To argue to my fellow Americans that risking a hot war between the two largest world superpowers, is not worth increasing the profits of the already vastly wealthy US tech giants.

A simple google search of China will reveal that the US media has begun reporting frequently on human rights abuses committed by the Chinese Government. The Chinese are typically described in Western Media as authoritarian, a dictatorship, a “regime”, and it is frequently mentioned that they are communist, or Marxist. This is wording the Media uses to invoke fear, or negative feelings towards foreign governments. Fear is a powerful emotion, which often can override our critical thinking skills. If the American public fears China, they are more likely to support regime change in the country.
              
​Prior to the Covid-19 breakout, which President Trump has dubbed “Kung Flu”, in an attempt shift blame for the pandemic from himself onto China, the primary criticism the US media used to spread contempt towards China, is the Chinese Government’s treatment of Uygur Muslims.  A quick google search will show that any US media outlet in existence can be found condemning China’s treatment of the Uyghurs.
              
The media claims that China is doing a genocide of the Uyghur Muslim population, attempting an ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur people. Atrocities such as forced sterilization are among the list of accusations being hurled at the Chinese Government by the West. Recently, 22 Western countries signed a letter condemning China for their treatment of the Uyghurs. On the other hand, 37 countries, more than half of which are Muslim majority nations, have come to China’s defense. China, and the nations who support them, claim the camps are ethically run vocational training facilities, which also focus on de-radicalization from extremist ideology. They claim that this was a response to a spike in extremist terrorism committed by the Uyghurs.
              
Honestly, I’m not here to tell you which side is correct. I have never been to China, I’ve never investigated the Uyghur territory, and therefore, I will not pretend that I have enough knowledge to inform you about what exactly is happening. However, I will tell you that it is extremely naïve to believe that the United States Government cares deeply for the Human Rights of Muslims. If the US had such respect for the lives of Muslims, they would not have invaded Iraq, killing over 200,000 Muslim Civilians.[19] If the US really feels they must protect Islamic people, then why are they funding a bombing campaign in the Islamic country of Yemen, which targets the water sanitation facilities that Yemeni Civilians depend on?[20]
              
Friends, I am not arguing that China is a perfect country, who are above criticism. What I am telling you is that the United States is following the exact same playbook in China, as they have with every other foreign intervention since World War 2. They claim that a state enemy is committing unimaginable human rights abuses, which gets the public to support military or economic intervention. In reality the reasoning for every intervention is purely economic, and is driven by a ruling class of CEOS and stockholders, who have near full control over the US Government.
              
Do not fall for this same playbook once again. Criticize China’s human rights violations if you wish, but when the US Government begins pushing for intervention in China, the response from the public must be a loud, and resounding “NO”.
 

In conclusion, the US does not need any more wars. The official stance of the Chinese Government towards the US is to have a harmonious relationship, which allows for the peaceful development of both countries. This is a policy which the US should adopt towards China. We can always be critical of their policies; however, the US Government can no longer be allowed to act as an apparatus which serves only to further the accumulation of capital. The Human cost of a war between two nuclear powers in the 21st century is unimaginable. We must loudly reject any attempts by our government to interfere with Chinese affairs. This includes bringing an end to the trade war, as well as removing US presence from Hong Kong and Taiwan.
              
​China is not a perfect country, but that does not mean we should invade them. Let’s begin to focus our resources here at home.

​
[1] Axelrod, T. (2020, May 07). Trump campaign releases new ad attacking Biden on China. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496591-trump-campaign-releases-new-ad-attacking-biden-on-china
 

[2] Zhou, C., & Huang, K. (2020, June 06). Why Beijing sees US election as battle of 'anti-China hawks'. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3087873/either-way-anti-china-hawk-wins-why-beijing-does-not-expect
 

[3] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020, February 18). The tide turns (1947–48). Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Chinese-Civil-War/The-tide-turns-1947-48
 

[4] Editors, H. (2009, November 13). United States announces that it will recognize communist China. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-announces-that-it-will-recognize-communist-china
 

[5] Roblin, S. (2017, May 07). A U.S. Bombing Run in North Korea Wiped Out Mao Zedong's Dynasty. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-bombing-run-north-korea-wiped-out-mao-zedongs-dynasty-20550
 

[6] Ghosh, I. (2019, October 12). The People's Republic of China: 70 Years of Economic History. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.visualcapitalist.com/china-economic-growth-history/
 

[7] Editors, H. (2009, November 13). President Nixon arrives in China for talks. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-arrives-in-china-for-talks
 

[8] Editors, H. (2009, November 13). United States announces that it will recognize communist China. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-announces-that-it-will-recognize-communist-china
 

[9] Braw, E. (2020, May 19). Don't Let China Steal Your Steel Industry. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/19/dont-let-china-steal-your-steel-industry/
 

[10] Dace, H. (n.d.). China's Tech Landscape: A Primer. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://institute.global/policy/chinas-tech-landscape-primer
 

[11] Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved September 02, 2020, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview
 

[12] Esterbrook, J. (2002, November 15). Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/
 

[13] Juhasz, A. (2013, April 15). Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html
 

[14] Waldman, P. (2013, March 19). Opinion: Duped on Iraq War, has press learned? Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/waldman-media-iraq/index.html
 

[15] Lee, K. (2020, September 01). Why US-listed Chinese tech firms are heading to Hong Kong. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3099420/how-us-china-tensions-are-pushing-us-listed-chinese-tech-firms-hong
 

[16] Howley, D. (2019, January 03). Apple's Chinese competitors figured out how to make better Apple products than Apple. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-chinese-competitors-figured-better-184935389.html
 

[17] Sulleyman, A. (n.d.). Apple admits it deliberately slows down iPhones as they get older. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apple-iphones-slow-down-old-models-smartphone-speed-ios-updates-a8121906.html
 

[18] Henney, M. (2019). Big tech has spent $582M lobbying Congress. Here's where that money went. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-apple-facebook-google-microsoft-lobbying-congress
 

[19] Iraq Body Count. (2020). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
 

[20] Summers, K. (2019, January 28). The US's Role in the Hidden Genocide in Yemen. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20190128-the-us-s-role-in-the-hidden-genocide-in-yemen.cfm

​In late December, news broke from Wuhan China that a new virus was making its way through the population. Covid-19 was spreading through the country of 1.3 billion people, forcing them into a total lockdown for two months. At the time of writing this, the World Health Organization reports that China has seen 82,985 cases, and 4,634 deaths. When the disease first broke out in Wuhan, doctors did not know what to make of it, initially labeling the virus as Pneumonia. This misdiagnosis allowed the virus, which often doesn’t show symptoms until days after contraction, to spread from the travel hub of Wuhan, to the rest of China, and eventually the world. Eight months later the United States leads the world in with cases with 5.64 million, as well as deaths with 175K, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Claims of the virus being a hoax, or some sort of biological weapon created by the Chinese have perpetrated the American consciousness. President Trump has labeled the virus “Kung Flu” in an attempt to push blame for the virus onto the Chinese. Now that we are months into the virus, we have a chance to reflect on how Governing bodies around the world have handled the virus response, and what the results have been. This article will objectively analyze the Government responses of China, Japan, Sweden, Cuba, and the United States, in terms of lockdown protocol, economic relief policy, and healthcare sector response.

China
 
Population: 1.3 Billion
Cases: 84,951
Deaths: 4,634
 
Let us begin where the Virus started, in China. The response to COVID-19 fell on the shoulders of the Chinese Communist Party, headed by Xi Xingping. Despite claims that China attempted to hide the Virus from the world, Xi Xingping was issuing warnings to other countries to “take the virus seriously” in late December. UFC women’s Strawweight Champion Zhang Weili, the first Chinese champion in UFC history, spoke about Covid-19 in her post fight speech on March 7th, 2020. Although China originally misdiagnosed the virus, claims that they tried to hide it from the world appear fraudulent. The slogan “China lied people died” seems less based on reality, and more in an attempt to place blame for the Virus on a nefarious other.
 
On the 23rd of January China closed all public transportation and banned citizens from leaving Wuhan. China continued to lock down cities until over 780 million people in total were under strict lockdown, only being allowed to leave to purchase provisions twice a week.[1]
 
Financially China’s banks and financial institutions have propped up both large and small businesses, in order to help them sustain themselves during the virus and recover when it has run its course. In addition, individuals received payments to support themselves while being unable to work during quarantine.[2] This has allowed them to avoid the financial instability and unrest felt by other countries around the world.
 
China also began producing for the sake of protecting their population, which may appear as a foreign concept to many countries where production is only carried out for the sake of profit. China began by producing 1.6 million test kits per week in order to track and trace the virus. In addition, China built multiple hospitals within two weeks in order to treat those who contracted the virus.[3] This was vitally important in containing the virus, as 16% of people who contract Covid require hospitalization. For reference, only 0.2% of influenza patients are admitted to a hospital.[4]
 
The response of the Chinese Healthcare system was to quickly mobilize doctors and health experts; 1,800 epidemiologists were tasked with tracing those who had been exposed to the virus. 20,000 doctors were brought from outside providences, into Hubei where the outbreak was at its worst.
 
These tracing methods, and mobilization of the healthcare sector, as well as production for the sake of treating the sick were vital in China being able to contain the virus. The Chinese culture appears, from the outside looking in, to be far more concerned with the public good, and trusting of their Government than countries such as the United States. This has allowed China to keep their Covid numbers low despite being the largest, most crowded country on the planet.

Japan
 
Population: 126 million
Cases: 61,914
Deaths: 1,179
 
Next, let us turn to the capitalist nation of Japan. The first outbreak In Japan occurred on the Daimond Princess cruise ship outside of Tokyo. (7). Passengers were quarantined on the ship itself until the virus ran its course. The Japanese Government did not originally have testing kits available to conclude whether the outbreak was in fact Covid 19.
 
Since the outbreak Japan moved to a regional method of addressing the virus. Rather than having their response handled by a national organization such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in America, the Japanese had smaller Public Health Centers (PHCs) focus on containing the virus in specific locations[5]. This was an attempt to allow health officials to focus on specific regions, which may have different factors at play when it comes to containing the spread of Covid.
 
Any Japanese citizens with symptoms have been encouraged to call in to a PHC. Health experts then determine whether the caller should be tested or treated for the virus.
 
After spread of the virus increased, Japan chose to declare a national state of Emergency. This strengthened the existing healthcare infrastructure, with measures such as converting hotels into makeshift hospitals.
 
The strategy has allowed Japan to flatten the curve, doing so better than countries of similar size, such as Italy. PHCs regional sphere of influence allowed them to make specific adjustments when the country suffered from a second wave of outbreak.
 
The main fault with the system was an original unequal distribution of recourses. Many PHCs were heavily staffed, while others were understaffed. Declaring a state of emergency and creating a communication network between the PHCs was vital to distributing recourses where they were most needed.
 
As far as lockdown protocol, the Japanese government simply made a mask mandate for anyone going outside[6]. Part of Japanese culture is wearing a mask when you are sick with the flu or cold. This made it easy for the Japanese public to adjust to wearing masks in public until Covid had passed. New York Times author Motoko Rich writes that during her time in Tokyo when there was no pandemic, she had grown accustomed to seeing people where masks in public.[7]
 
Economically Japan has enacted an almost trillion-dollar bailout to protect their economy during the pandemic[8]. Billions of dollars will go to cash handouts for individuals, and bailouts for small business owners. Although the government did not force firms to shut down, many shops chose to close, and many workers have been telecommuting to work. Although the Japanese economy has dipped slightly, it shows impressive resilience to the virus. Another factor in this could be the Japanese culture of hard work, which discourages staying home unless entirely necessary.
 
Japan managed to flatten the curve through an innovative healthcare infrastructure, as well as a culture which had no problem accepting a mask mandate. 

Sweden
 
Population: 10 million
Cases: 86,068
Deaths: 5,810
 
Many Covid sceptics have pointed to Sweden as a country who were able to flatten the curve without a government mandated lockdown.
 
While most of Europe and Sweden’s Scandanavian neighbors have shut down their economies and mandated quarantine, Sweden chose to forgo a lock down in favor of “herd immunity.” The idea that young people will get the virus, and make a full recovery, while also developing immunity to the virus.
 
There is no mask mandate, gatherings of 50 or more people are banned, and residents are encouraged but not mandated to work from home. Instead the Swedish government launched a massive information campaign to warn people about the danger of the virus, as well as how to avoid contracting it. Swedish Epidemiologist Mozhu Ding says Sweden’s ability to flatten the curve is “likely a combination of measures taken by individuals, businesses, and a widespread information campaign”[9]. Sweden experienced lower levels of both cases, and deaths, when compared to European countries such as Spain and Britain.
 
Many Swedish Academics have been critical of the response; however, 25 Swedish academics published an op ed in USA today titled “Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb Covid-19. Don’t do what we did. It’s not working.”[10]
 
The academics argue that Sweden has a death toll “nearly five times greater than that of the other Scandanavian countries combine”[11] Sweden has the highest population of the Scandinavian countries, and so they should be expected to have higher numbers. However, both the percentage of contracted cases by population, and per capita cases have been much higher in Sweden than their neighbors.
 
Sweden hoped that the herd immunity would allow their economy to thrive while the rest of the world was stagnant. However, the global economic slowdown caused by the pandemic has also affected the Swedes. The Swedish Central Bank announced that the GDP is down 4.5% from last year.[12]
 
The Swedish strategy has received much praise from Americans, but has also come under fire from experts, including those within the country. In April 2,000 Swedish scientists signed an open letter urging the Government to reconsider their strategy and issue a nationwide lockdown.
 
The Swedish Prime Minister has defended the decision to forgo lockdown, arguing that his strategy both protects individuals, and limits the spread of infection. Sweden is committed to continue with a policy of testing and tracing the virus while encouraging individuals to take precautions. There is no plan to enact a lockdown at this point.

Cuba
 
Population: 11 million
Cases: 3,565
Deaths: 88
 
Since the 1959 Revolution led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, Cuba has been an incredibly important geopolitical player. The country has found themselves under economic embargo from the United States and has suffered greatly from the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, who were the main trading partners of Cuba. During this time period many Cubans fled the country to settle in Miami, Florida. Since the 90s however, Cuba has made a recovery, and now trains more doctors than any other country in the world in free government funded universities.
 
Even Western media, which is notoriously hostile towards the Cuban Government, admits that Cuba is a success story in their response to Covid-19. The Guardian released a stunning article titled “Cuba sets example with successful programme to contain Corona Virus.”[13] Although the article takes many pot shots at the Cuban Government, they admit that even despite Latin America being a hot spot for Covid at the time the article was published, Cuba’s numbers remain incredibly low in comparison.
 
Although Cuba is reliant on the tourism industry, they chose to close their borders until the pandemic has passed. This has disallowed new cases from coming into the country via tourist.
 
Cuba has mobilized its vast number of doctors to walk the streets and screen every house in the country on a nearly daily basis. American University Professor William Leogrande says, “There is no country in the hemisphere that does anything approaching this”[14] In reality there is no country in the world who has taken the same precautions as Cuba. Even the hyper intense Chinese response simply did not have the ability to screen every home, due to the population of 1.3 billion. Any Cuban who tests positive for the virus is immediately hospitalized, and those in contact are placed in 14-day isolation centers.
 
Cuba has survived economically, as they are not a country reliant on exporting goods. Rationing food and supplies in time of Crisis is nothing new for the Cuban people who have long lived under a 60-year embargo from the world’s largest economic superpower.
 
After containing the Virus in their own country, Cuba has begun exporting their surplus of doctors in order to assist in other countries. Holding true to Fidel Castro’s famous line “medicos y no bombas” in which he claimed that while other countries export bombs, Cuba will instead export doctors.
 
The United States has urged countries to reject Cuban medical support, claiming that the doctors are unpaid, and are simply part of a geopolitical ploy to gain the goodwill and financial support of other countries.
 
Right Wing Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro expelled 10,000 Cuban doctors upon taking office, claiming that they are “terrorists disguised in Uniforms.” Recently as Brazil struggles to contain the spread of Covid, Bolsonaro has requested Cuba return the 10,000 doctors to Brazil in order to help the now overcrowded hospitals.[15]
 
Although some criticize Cuba’s “isolation camps” as coercive, there can be no denying that the small communist run island is a success story when it comes to fighting the global Pandemic.

The United States of America
 
Population: 328 million
Cases: 5,680,000
Deaths:  176,000
 
 
The United States currently stands as the world leader in both cases and deaths related to the Covid-19 virus. During the Pandemic, the United States has seen mass protests demanding racial justice, after the police murder of George Floyd. One of the most politically polarized nations in the world has become even more divided over issues of police brutality, as well as the Government response to the Covid-19 Pandemic.
 
Democrats have accused President Trump of calling the virus a hoax, however, this is false, as Trump never claimed the virus was a hoax, but rather said the Democrats criticisms of how Trump handled the Pandemic were a “hoax.” This serves as an example of how hyper politicized the Corona Virus has become, as the US approaches the 2020 election.
 
Elected Democrats have rushed to attack Trump over his handling of Covid, while providing little in the way of substantive alternatives to the Trump administration’s response. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority caucus have continually failed to push through a second $1,200 stimulus check, as 40 million Americans now risk eviction, while 26 million adults say they have struggled to afford food during the pandemic.[16]
 
President Trump has repeatedly stated his opposition to any kind of lockdown. The brash US President has repeatedly looked to blame China for the Virus, which has now taken over 150,000 American lives. Trump drew backlash at a campaign event earlier this year, when he referred to the virus as “kung flu.” He can also be seen on Twitter referring to the pandemic as the “china virus”, a term which his supporters have eagerly adopted. As many states and localities now issue mask mandates, herds Trump supporters can often be seen protesting, claiming that the mandate in an infringement on their civil liberties.
 
Leading up to the pandemic the US economy was in a 12-year period of expansion since the housing crises of 2008. Those who study economics will know the capitalist mode of production is prone to crises, which in modern times occur every 6-12 years. Libertarian economist Peter Schiff argues “The economy is a bubble; corona virus is the pin.” Meaning that the US economy was ready for a collapse, and Corona virus is simply what will spur the newest recession.[17]
 
As has been the policy of the US government for years in times of recession, the federal reserve has injected over $6 million of liquidity into the stock market, in order to prevent a complete collapse. This has increased the US debt to $26 trillion.[18] Much to the dismay of any remaining principled conservatives who believed Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate the debt within 8 years.
 
Given that 84% of stock is held by the richest 10% of Americans[19], this most recent bailout is sure to increase the ever-expanding wealth inequality between workers and owners in the United States.
 
Whereas other countries have locked down their borders or had those entering the country quarantine for two weeks in hotels, the United States continues the border policy of capturing asylum seekers and keeping them in closed quarter detention centers. Many refugees have tested positive for the virus, and rather than be quarantined, they are kept in tight quarters, which of course increases the spread of the virus.
 
In terms of foreign policy, the United States has taken the opposite approach to Cuba, using the virus as an opportunity to heighten attacks on geopolitical rivals. As the Venezuelan Government struggles to handle the Covid pandemic at a time when the oil dependent nation is already deeply impoverished, the US has added to the already existing 144 economic sanctions on Venezuela[20]. The US has sanctioned both Iran and Russia for trading oil with Venezuela, whose economy is entirely dependent on revenue from oil exports. The US no doubt hopes that Covid will add to the destabilization of Venezuela and prompt an overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro.
 
It can also not be ignored that the United States remains as the only developed country on the globe who does not guarantee healthcare to its citizens as a right. Therefore, there are many uninsured Americans who would be denied treatment after contracting the disease, or who would be treated, but would then leave the hospital under the massive burden of medical debt.
 
Finally, it must be noted that 36.5% of the American population is Obese[21]. The CDC warns that obese individuals face a much higher likelihood of losing their fight with covid-19.[22]
 
The Covid-19 pandemic in many ways shines a light on what many have criticized about the American system for years. Polarization, lack of healthcare, wealth inequality, rampant imperialism, and total and absolute distrust of the Government, have all taken shape in new ways during the Global Pandemic. It remains to be seen how this will affect the 2020 election cycle.

Takeaways
 
The Covid pandemic gives us a deeper glimpse into the nature of capitalism and US imperialism. The United States is a country which generally only carries out large scale production for the sake of profit. Not since World War 2 has the US seen a mass mobilization of industry for the sake of human good. During the war, the government demanded that private firms began producing weapons to aid in the fight against the Nazi death machine. Now after nearly 40 years of neoliberal hegemony, with the United States as the world's largest imperial superpower, the country no longer has the power to mobilize production for the sake of fighting the enemy that is Covid-19.
 
Covid has enhanced the contradictions which are inherent in the Capitalist system. Those who own stock have massively increased their wealth, while workers struggle to buy food, and are threatened with eviction by their profiteering landlords. Once again, the Federal Reserve has bailed out the richest in society as the economy threatens to tank. Neoliberal news outlets praise the countries so called “economic experts” for managing to save the stock market. It is entirely irrational to praise the economic response of an administration, at a time when record numbers of people are facing the prospect of being thrown out of their homes.
 
Imperialism has not diminished, or been put on hold during the pandemic, but has instead increased. The US has increased public pressure and economic sanctions on State enemies Iran and Venezuela. In addition, China, the number two economy in the world, and sole competitor to US global domination, has seen wide scale attacks from the Trump Administration, the private US media, and the Biden campaign, which promises to be tougher on China than Trump. This shows the sheer brutality of imperialism, that even in a time of Global Pandemic which threatens the whole of human society, the United States chooses to increase their efforts to starve out and destabilize countries like Venezuela. The US will stop at nothing to obtain the world's largest oil reserves, which remain in the possession of the Venezuelan Government.
 
The response of the US populace is perhaps the most telling phenomenon of all. Rather than organize to demand change to the systemic issues which have plagued our country for years, Americans have become even more polarized. While racial justice protests are welcome, they have made no effort to demand the US prison system be radically reformed. Even though this system holds 25% of the world’s prison population; many for nonviolent drug offenses with a disproportionate amount of these being people of color. There is also the less welcomed Anti Mask protest, who either believe the virus is a hoax, or that a mask mandate infringes on their freedom. Clearly there is no left-wing vehicle or organization which people can throw their effort into, that threatens the current power structure, or gets to the root of the systemic issues plaguing the country.
 
Rioting, looting, and mask protests may be seen on the surface as responses to the George Floyd killing, or the mask mandates. However, I would argue that we must make a deeper analysis. Capitalism is not broken, it is working exactly how it is supposed to; leaving workers in poverty, while a few elite Americans acquire incomprehensible amounts of wealth. Imperialism, which is the highest stage of capitalism, continues to increase, as the US war machine continues to expand, and tactics such as sanctions are used to destabilize foreign countries.
 
It is these contradictions which are leaving the American people angry with seemingly no solution for their problems. Therefore, the burden falls on us to show Americans the systemic issues within the society they live in. We must create a left-wing vehicle against wealth inequality, imperialism, and production only for the sake of profit. People are enraged but have few productive places to use their rage as a force for good. In addition, our society lacks the ability at this point to see the systemic issues which exist within it. A hegemonic corporate media keeps people blind to the real systemic issues which have always existed. Let's organize, let’s read, and let’s fight. The contradictions of capitalism are becoming greater and greater. It is well past time that we organize and fight for a new system that focuses development in terms of humanity and not profit.

​





Works Cited


[1] Wren, A. (2020). China Stopped the coronavirus. Your Country Wont. Medium.

[2] Zhang, A., Tsoi, V., & Pang, C. (2020, May 02). COVID-19: Chinese Government Financial Assistance Measures. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/covid-19-chinese-government-financial-assistance-measures

[3] Ibid.

[4] Wang, J., Zhu, E., & Umlauf, T. (2020, February 06). How China Built Two Coronavirus Hospitals in Just Over a Week. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-china-can-build-a-coronavirus-hospital-in-10-days-11580397751

[5] Hamaguchi Kay Negishi Masaya Higuchi Masafumi Funato June-Ho Kim, R. (2020, July 22). A Regionalized Public Health Model To Combat COVID-19: Lessons From Japan. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200721.404992/full/

[6] Rich, M., & Hayashi, N. (2020, June 06). Is the Secret to Japan's Virus Success Right in Front of Its Face? Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/world/asia/japan-coronavirus-masks.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Disis, J. (2020, April 06). The global economy just got a $1 trillion infusion from Japan. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/economy/japan-economic-stimulus-coronavirus/index.html
 

[9] Fiore, K. (2020, July 29). How Did Sweden Flatten Its Curve Without a Lockdown? Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812

[10] Doctors, 2. (2020, July 27). Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb COVID-19. Don't do what we did. It's not working. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/21/coronavirus-swedish-herd-immunity-drove-up-death-toll-column/5472100002/

[11] Ibid.

[12] Perper, R. (2020, July 09). Sweden's controversial anti-lockdown strategy resulted in a high death toll and no real economic gain, data shows. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-coronavirus-strategy-high-death-toll-no-economic-gain-data-2020-7

[13] Augustin, E. (2020, June 07). Cuba sets example with successful programme to contain coronavirus. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/cuba-coronavirus-success-contact-tracing-isolation

[14] Ibid.

[15] Steve SweeneyThursday, M. (2020, March 26). US pressures countries to reject Cuban aid during coronavirus pandemic. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/us-pressures-countries-reject-cuban-aid-during-coronavirus-pandemic

[16] Nova, A. (2020, August 17). Congress fails to reach stimulus deal, leaving tens of millions of Americans desperate for relief. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/14/with-no-stimulus-deal-millions-of-americans-are-desperate-for-relief.html

[17] Schiff, P. (2020, February 26). The Economy Is a Bubble, Coronavirus Is the Pin. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://moneyandmarkets.com/peter-schiff-economy-bubble-coronavirus-pin/

[18] Van Dam, A. (2020, April 15). Analysis | The U.S. has thrown more than $6 trillion at the coronavirus crisis. That number could grow. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/15/coronavirus-economy-6-trillion/

[19] Wile, R. (2017). The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://money.com/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/

[20] Koerner, R. (2020, April 16). [UPDATED] Venezuela Confirms Coronavirus Cases as US Slaps New Sanctions. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14811

[21] Holland, K. (2046, July 02). Obesity Facts in America. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.healthline.com/health/obesity-facts

[22] Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html

Additional Sources

Langton, K. (2020, May 30). China lockdown: How long was China on lockdown? Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1257717/china-lockdown-how-long-was-china-lockdown-timeframe-wuhan
 
Wu, J., Cai, W., Watkins, D., & Glanz, J. (2020, March 22). How the Virus Got Out. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-spread.html
 
CDC.Gov, Cases in the U.S. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html


*Additional thanks to Logan Moore for aiding with research means.