Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Class struggle in NZ Health services

The NZ state under capitalist pressures (tendency for fall rate of profit and periodic crises) tries various restructuring of healthcare to shift health costs onto working people; thus reducing the proportion that the state pays. This serves the capitalist class by reducing their taxes and propping up their otherwise falling profits (which the working class produced anyway). NZ capitalism has cut health care costs in 2 main ways – cutting wages, and cutting funded services.

In mental health services ‘trusts’ were created for the purpose of providing services to ‘clients’ who were no longer provided for by public services. This occurred at the same time as institutions - hospitals were closed. Community care has always been on a tension with community dumping (neglect) and the state driving down wage bills by contracting services into private has been the underlying dynamic to this. Fortunately for the state this occurred at the same time as rising education and skill levels (% passes in education have steadily increased). So this change may have been able to be done without a noticeable loss in quality of care. However, occasional media exposure of extreme cases of rest home neglect shakes confidence in these services.

In the starting positions care giving roles “health aide” or “community support worker”, the wages are near the state’s minimum wage level; competitiveness for jobs, and lack of union organisation maintains this situation. The capitalist state runs with an unemployed “reserve army of labour”, and the Employment Contracts Act and scattered / smallness of sites allowed employers to keep unions out of many new trusts.

The access to fully funded free services has been made more difficult. Health services were not funded to meet the needs of the population and so waiting lists became a typical experience of trying to access public funded services. Increasingly emergency departments turn away patients – sending them to private 24hr GP clinics instead. A new definition of an emergency is a barrier to free health care. Currently the District Health Board covering Queenstown is proposing a deal with local doctors (GP) whereby “emergency” patients will have to see a primary health practitioner (Dr / Nurse, etc) before being passed onto the emergency service. A private health service is allowed to charge a fee to the patient, so the state’s proportion of health services decreases.

The policy of primary healthcare, was Labour government policy from 2000 – 2009. “Primary” is the frontline doctor the “General Practitioner” (GP) who most people first see for a (non emergency) health need. Government had tried to shift services from fully funded public hospital based services to GP and non-government organisation (NGO) providers. This cut costs for the state since generally NGO’s were paying frontline workers less than the equivalent public services had.

While the Labour government shifted some money (funding) to GPs they also tied GPs to contracts for their enrolled ‘patient’ population. Contracts forced GPs to provide after-hours “medical” services. GPs were grouped into larger organisations “PHOs = Primary Healthcare Organisations”. This centralised and concentrated their resources into larger organisations. PHO’s had brought forward proposals to take over some functions from the Public Health system, for example, district nursing. Maori health was also organised into Maori PHO’s and so a layer of Maori managers has been created while frontline workers remained low paid. Many Maori organisations were able to super-exploit their workforce – extolling workers into longer hours and more, while re-defining cultural values to ‘do it for the whanau’.

The working class approach to healthcare is that this is a basic human necessity and fair access for all is essential. The capitalist class has no interest in providing this. Organised workers were able to force a Labour government into providing public health services in 1935. This has steadily been undermined by the capitalist class complaining about their falling profits and the costs of providing healthcare and using the state to dismantle the welfare state. Capitalists push user pays reforms through their governments.

The fact of private healthcare still existing in NZ, points back to a failure of the first Labour government to bring all Health services under public funding. Doctors or GPs were never fully in the public system, specialists always wanted to charge their own rates. GPs in the poorer areas of the country raise less money in fees from their enrolled patients, instead relying on government for the most part of their funding. Whereas GPs in the richer areas can charge higher fees and so rely less on government funding to provide service and take profits. The danger with this de-facto introduction of “user pays” health care is the access to services is unfair and quality of service uneven (eg. more GPs per person in Remuera than in Manurewa). Primary healthcare has always been mainly user-pays because of privatisation of service providers. It is an individualistic model of healthcare where the user is forced to pay.

Under crisis capitalism, the government is rewriting the rules for entry into health services and so keeps more services out of public health sending patients out to their GPs – to pay. Each winter the District Health Boards have urged people to stay away from Hospitals’ emergency departments as they struggle with staffing shortages and winter illnesses.

It is clear that capitalism will not consistently provide usable and accessible health services. Health workers (Doctors, nurses and the rest) cannot defend public health alone. We need to unite with the working class to fight effectively for full public health services. The capitalist system must be buried before it buries us. The principle for organising the new economy is, from each according to their ability to each according to their need: Socialism.

Bludger’s Budget

As we would expect from a NACT [National/ACT/Maori Party coalition government] regime backed by the Maori Party, the 2011 Bludgers’ Budget marked a further attack on workers to boost profits. The main attacks were on Kiwisaver, WFF, and plans for the ‘partial privatisation’ sale of state assets. Key boasted that he would create 170,000 new jobs, the same claim he made last year. Of course he is right - he subcontracted job provision to Australia while NZ lost jobs. Key echoed Treasury’s fraudulent claim that the NZ economy would grow at 4%, again same claim made last year, again reached by Australia, towed along by China, while NZ had negative growth. Which country does this guy think he is i: NZ, Hawaii, China or Australia? We, however, not being NACTites or LABOURites, see this budget as reinforcing NZ’s role as a cheap labour country with its assets being primed for sale to China. Welcome to the Great South Seas Islands.

Kiwisaver: State cuts back its contributions, appears to put the burden equally on workers and employers, but in fact allows employers to take it off wage increases.  Thus kiwisaver becomes like a US type worker contribution pension fund that will amount to workers saving for their pension, with companies contribution deducted from their wages, while at the same time the state will cut back on Govt Superannuation, raise the age of entitlement etc/, thus shifting the burden of paying for retirement entirely onto workers. That amounts to a real wage cut and a rise in the rate of exploitation. If Kiwisaver is privatised then workers may end up like US workers who have had their corporate based pension schemes worth billions expropriated to bail out company bankruptcies. Privatised pensions have fine print which says the bosses own your retirement as well as your working life! The only secure retirement for workers is to expropriate the expropriators, not only the pension funds but all the corporate wealth the workers created through their generations of labour.

WFF: Working for Families was a Labour Party policy to redistribute tax (actually a tax rebate like the old rebate for children) to workers who had families. So it’s part of the welfare system. The NACTs opposed it when it was introduced but then left it in place until now when they have reduced the rebates slightly for families on higher incomes probably because this is ‘middle NZ’ and potentially NACT voters. And lots of other nasty, mean cuts where it hurts.

Privatisation: NACTs propose the partial privatisation of a number of specified State-owned Enterprises – namely the four major power generators, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand. In an attempt to head off popular opposition to privatisation the NACTs propose ‘partial privatisation’ i.e. 49% private ownership 51% retained in public ownership. These are major corporations with good returns. So what the NACTs are doing here is grabbing nearly half for their own class, here and overseas. They are trying to sweeten the pill by saying ‘mum and dad’ investors will get preference and this will boost kiwi ownership and the NZX. Well, those mum and dad shares will be gobbled up by corporates damn quick. Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa [CAFCA} has a good critique form the standpoint of NZ social democracy, that state ownership implies more public control than private foreign ownership.  In fact nationalisation is a form of collective capitalist ownership since the state is the state of the capitalist class. What nationalisation does, however, is facilitate workers control as a step towards the socialisation of capitalist property. So the answer to the NACTs ‘part privatisation’ plans is to fight for nationalised property to be under workers control and for the big private corporates to be nationalised, without compensation, and under workers control.

ACC: The NACT wants to privatise Accident Compensation; another step towards destroying the working class as the only force able to stop social barbarism and human extinction. The whole point of privatising is to open up lucrative business to bosses and make the workers pay for it. It’s an ideological reform sure, but it’s driven at every level by profits. Ideas don’t exist without material roots. Bosses are looking to drive down the costs of insuring workers on the job and paying for their accidents off the job, and insurance companies are looking to make more profits from user pays. The pro-market ideology is just that. They want ACC privatised to shift the cost onto workers. Reformist complaints about the ACC meeting some noble ideal of the ‘community’ sharing the cost of accidents is a nonsense for capital which uses up the flesh and blood of workers, exhausts nature, and drives humanity towards extinction, to make a profit. Social democratic appeals to some redeeming feature of capitalism is merely avoiding the calamity and weakening our ability to stop it in time. What has the Labour Party got to say about this Bludgers’ Budget?

Labour’s shadow Budget

Labour opposes the cuts in the Bludgers’ Budget but has not committed itself to restoring them. It has made a point of saying that some cuts would still be necessary given the worsening debt situation. It has promised a small tax increase for high income families and to impose the Environmental Trading Scheme [ETS] on farmers in 2013 to raise $800 million over the next four years for R&D. It committed to raising the minimum wage from $13 to $15 on hour. NACT and big business hit back with claim that this would lose 5000 jobs unless Youth rates were reintroduced. Labourites have countered with research that showed that raising the minimum wage in the US and in NZ did not see rising youth unemployment as hours worked by youth increased (see Tapu Misa).  These research findings prove the Marxist view that rising wages are the spur to growth in economic productivity as employers are pressured to introduce new technology and raise labour productivity to increase profits. The immense growth of capitalism over the last 150 years arises from this pressure.

The Labour Party recognises the importance of labour productivity growth but but does not see this as increased exploitation of labour and limits itself to strengthening organised labour to win a larger share of income. Yet the statistics show that in NZ the productivity share of workers has declined to the point that even real wages have fallen. While Labour’s reformist perspective of maximising workers income shares in the imperialist epoch of capitalism in decline cannot stop mass poverty, at least it is not openly complicit like the Maori Party in the NACTs bosses’ agenda of NZ as a low-wage-asset-stripping country competing directly with other low wage countries!

A Workers’ Budget

For the NACTs a ‘workers budget’ is what they have to produce at the WINZ office to prove they are not ‘bludgers’ and can qualify for a benefit. Enough! The real Bludgers’ Budget is part of the NACTs attack on workers to create a cheap labour force and smash resistance to privatisation and asset sales to China. Labour has yet to take a stand on a Budget that puts workers needs before profits. The Green’s 5 point alternative budget has some immediate aims but spoiled by its dream of managing capitalism as a “sustainable, prosperous and fair economy” when it has to be overthrown as a precondition to our survival.

The closest we got to a Workers Budget in Parliament was when Hone Harawira of Te Mana Party described the Bludgers’ Budget as the “Key / Turia / Brash “Watch me clap while my people get shafted again” Budget. I have seen GST go up, food prices go up, petrol prices go up, house prices go up, unemployment go up, while the only thing to come down is taxes for the rich, and I intend to propose a radical way forward that will: • ease the plight of the poor • scare the shit out of the rich • and give Maori hope for a better future.

We say Enough! Tumeke! Outrage! Indignity!

 Reverse the  cuts! Occupy the foreshore and seabed! 
Occupy all workplaces that close or sack workers! 
Nationalise all corporate assets without compensation and under workers control! 
Build workers councils everywhere!
For a general strike against the system that is destroying us all in the name of profit! 
We say outrage > revolution > expropriation > socialism!

Zionism: A road map to Hell

 A Zionist Youth

Having been raised in a Zionist household, going to Hebrew school, buying memorial trees in Israel as a youth for my grandparents as they passed away, being taught that the whole world hates us and that Israel is our only safe refuge, being hated as a Jew-boy by my Catholic home town co-youth for "killing their lord", being finally accepted in 1967 when Israel showed it "had some balls" (meaning mine must also be hanging to the floor) . I have experience with anti-Semitism in the concrete form of boots in the ribs and a metal lunch box smashed against this "faggot-Jew-boy's" face, so the Zionist claim that Israel was our last refuge and that the world hates us was my experience as a youth growing up in 1960's American suburbia. Since then I have seen and fought with American flag waving swastika wearing jackbooted Nazi thugs in the streets of San Francisco, Walnut Creek, Boston and Berkeley so I know in a way only bruised knuckles and the taste of blood can teach one of what I speak.

A seminal part of my training as a Zionist youth was that Israel was "a land without people-for a people without land" we could point to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) who visited the area and claimed it empty barren, unclean and uninhabited. So why shouldn't it be ours?

And just this last weekend, as we listened to and discussed the Prime Minister's tongue lashing of Obama for stepping out of line on the 1967 borders issue, my father reminded me of Mark Twain's observations in Innocents Abroad. But what is rarely mentioned about Mark Twains trip is: “ Palestine’s arable land is only 17% of its total area”, that “Mark Twain visited in the middle of the hot Mediterranean summer”, and that “Mark Twain’s visit was brief by all accounts, and only encompassed the areas that were cited in the Bible.” Indeed Twain’s comments about Greece were quite similar to those about the Holy Land; one could get an impression that Greece also was abandoned to the ghosts of Zeus and Hera.

The Israeli hero in 1967 was General Moshe Dayan a man of impeccable Zionist credentials. Lets hear what he has to say about how Israel was settled. “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.”

Well that contradicts the rhetoric (and the Zionist youth training received at Hebrew school and Hebrew summer camp where we sang the Hatikva); so there were people there? Who the hell were they and what were they doing there? How did we get rid of them? Could this be true? Not possible, we are the dispossessed coming home not them. So I found the book Righteous Victims by Benny Morris a highly regarded Zionist historian.

Morris draws his own subjective pro-Israel conclusions but his book is full of powerful historic observations:

"Most of the settlers who came in the First and Second Aliyot lived, at least for a time, as illegal residents. They entered as tourists or pilgrims and overstayed their permits, or they entered illegally." p.41

"A land without people for a people without a land" was the Zionist slogan-originating, curiously, not with Herzl or one of the forebears, but in Lord Shaftebury's memoirs, in 1854, and recycled by the Zionist writer Israel Zangwill in an article in 1901. Ahad Ha'Am, a leading Eastern European essayist, opened many Jewish eyes when he wrote in 1891, after a three month visit to Palestine: "We abroad are used to believing that Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed....But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains...are not cultivated." p.42

But the arriving Jews had multiple problems as the Zionist project commenced. Yitzhak Epstein a Palestinian Jew came to Basel to address a Zionist gathering in 1905: "He had been troubled by the eviction of the Druze tenant farmers at Medulla in 1896. For the time, he said, there was no "Arab movement in the national or political sense in Palestine," but, he implied, one might develop in the not-so-distant future: "Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs... We have forgotten one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it"" (p. 57 Morris)

How did the newly arriving Jews (the olim) see the local population? "...as primitive, dishonest, fatalistic, lazy, savage-much as European colonists viewed the natives elsewhere in Asia or Africa." (pg43 Morris)

Not to belabor the point but even today's historians of Zionism cannot deny the primary source documentation. The founding of Israel was based on a lie sold to Jews across Europe who were being persecuted and the land of milk and honey sounded like heaven in the face of pogroms of the East and the Nazi onslaught and genocide that would follow; even if the concept of a land of “milk and honey” contradicts the concept of a barren, desolate untended expanse.

Were there people there? Yes. The McCarthy (Columbia U. press 1990 The Population of Palestine) showed the Non Jewish population in 1877 to have been 426,908 or 97% of the population at the time 13,942 or 3% were Jewish by 1946, 60 some odd years after the Zionist project began there were 1,339,763 Non-Jewish Palestinians or 69% of the population and 602,586 or 31% were Jews. In the post 1949 era the Jewish population in the area swelled immediately outnumbering the Palestinian.

Who owned the land?

At first the Jewish National fund bought up land from the Ottoman land lords from whom the local Palestinians rented eking out a serf like existence. Of course some land was wholly owned by the locals. But we know that land ownership is really just a question of power relations over property distribution. The Ottoman empire had no more right to the land of the local people whom they controlled than say the Tsar had to the land on which the serfs worked or the Southern Slave Plantation owners had to "their" land. Those working the land and dispossessed are the fountain from which the democratic revolution for land redistribution springs, just as it upset the ancien regime across Europe the land question is the national question and it had yet to be resolved in the land which the Zionists were buying from the landlord empire which (if it were to remain) would have faced the wrath of the rising Arab national revolution. Instead the Jewish National Fund bought the problem of the unresolved tasks of the democratic revolution in Palestine which would ultimately be directed at who ever got left holding the bag, the Ottoman were defeated, the English knew when it was time to release the hot potato and the Zionist project outpaced the advance of the nationalist consciousness and organization of the Arabs. Thus the juggernaut!

Remember Epstein at the Basel meeting in 1905, he "...took the Zionists severely to task for purchasing land from effendis and then pushing out the poor tenants, and he asserted, provocatively , that Palestine in fact belonged to both peoples: "We are making a great psychological error with regard to a great, assertive and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land and our forefathers, we forget that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and a loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds." (Morris, p. 57)

Either this was a "land without people - for a people without land" or as the numbers and the land transfer records show, the land was colonized by many illegal immigrants who then found a way to bring in their families and friends buying up land from the landlord class of a dying and soon to be vanquished empire, you can't have it both ways.

The record will show that in the early years the Jewish immigrants were not fit or capable of doing the strenuous work in the land they came to own. Even on the early socialist kibbutz much of the manual work would be done by hiring the very Arab workers who had lost their land. Has it occurred to the Zionist that the modern conflict between the Jew and the Arab in historic Palestine/Erez Yisrael has a material basis in the dispossession of the land, first by purchase then by driving a people off their land? Of course not, it is impossible for one who derives the benefit of an oppressive act of annexation and subjugation to see it as anything other than justified.

What the Zionists did not want to see is the universal truth that when an entire people progressively loose their land, are changed from a self sustaining farming people into a class of workers for hire with nothing to sell but their labor power, when their families are driven apart and half are forced into refugee status for generations, human beings will resist, fight back and will continue to do so until they are treated justly or you can terrorize them into total submission. These are the objective facts, one can go into subjective apoplexy reading this but all rational people agree on what the historic record is. Over sixty years ago some 600-700,000 Palestinians, by no fault of their own, became refugees when they lost their land, and as General Dayan reminded us, their villages were bulldozed right off the map. Historic maps with demarcated Jewish and Palestinian Territories are exactly what Dayan wanted to erase from history. I guarantee if you went to Hebrew school like I did you were never shown maps like these.

The question of the occupied territory

For Zionists like my father there are no Palestinians, the land was empty when "we" arrived; there is already a Palestinian State which is Jordan; the early Jewish fighters were not illegal immigrants and terrorists illegally attacking the British mandate, they were freedom fighters; if there are refugees it is the fault of the other Arab nations for goading the refugees into voluntarily fleeing; we bought the land fair and square and when they attacked us we created defensive boarders (it just happens that we control the water, and have cut up the Palestinian contiguous areas into Bantustans); the wall is necessary and when they stop sending over bombers there will be no need for it and all the defensive border checks, road blocks and such. That these population control mechanisms take place all over the West Bank can not be denied yet the true Zionist denies that this is an occupation.

So the question is who is actually terrorizing whom, what are the real consequences of the armed conflict between the occupied and the occupier.

Looking at statistics on the death of civilians the numbers from B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group and and Remember These Children, examining fatal violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis has shown it has been disproportionate. Since Sept 29, 2000 until Oct 2010 at least 6,430 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis have been killed. Among children 124 killed were Israeli while 1,452 were Palestinian. Of the civilians killed 731 are Israeli while 3,535+ are the cited as Palestinian dead. Where did the people die? 54.1% of the Israelis killed were killed on their own territory while 98.9% of the Palestinians killed were killed in their own area, the occupied territories. Conversely 45.9% of the Israelis who were killed were killed on others' land while 1.1% of the Palestinians killed were killed on others' land. These numbers are revealing of the nature of the conflict and the brutality under which the Palestinian people suffer and other innocents suffer. Until the rights of the Palestinian people are attained there can be no peace. You can not dispossess a people and keep them in refugee camps on your borders, oppressed, exploited, and expect there to be peace.

After saying all this to close without pointing to a solution would be disrespectful to the reader. So although that is a major discussion in and of it self what follows is the short version.

What is to be Done?

There can be no peace while historic Palestine is occupied and the refugees are denied the right of return. Democracy can not exist for the Jews in the area and be denied the Arabs. The Zionist state is a dependent state and sub imperialist acting as a foot hold in the middle east for Western/US/UK imperialism. It is not the much touted “Democracy” that we (US Imperialism) love; it is the real estate as it applies to military security in particular of oil routes. The entire power of imperialism is thus arrayed at keeping the Palestinian subjugated hence the annual billions of tax funding going to the Zionist military.

Behind the Palestinian conundrum is what is facing imperialism today across the Near and Middle East, the unresolved tasks of the national revolution of the Arab people issues of national independence from imperialist (IMF/World Bank, JP Morgan) control, land distribution, democracy, freedom, the right to a job, and other economic rights are today inspiring the Arab people more than Al-Qaeda ever could. But the national capitalist class of these countries and in Palestine are too weak and too dependent on imperialism’s finance and market to carry out the tasks which in Europe and North America were carried out by an emerging and growing capitalist class between 1680’s and 1880’s. Therefore the tasks of the Democratic-Bourgeois revolution will fall to the working class to resolve.

It is the workers’ revolution which can secure freedom for Palestine and ensure the Jewish workers and the Jewish people safety within and integrated and multi-ethnic secular democratic workers’ state. Jews who accept the Palestinians’ right to return and who join in making the workers’ revolution will build a democratic workers’ state which recognizes the cultural and religious rights of all while providing economic planning by the working classes to assure economic justice which is the only way to end the blood between the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael; a family broken asunder by first slave relations then the Roman imperium and ultimately by today’s super power US imperialism. If the Jewish workers in historic Palestine cannot break from their capitalist overlords and ally themselves with the Palestinian right to Self Determination and fight for a democratic workers state they allow the continuation of the siege mentality of Zionist colonialism, and peace will not be possible.

Charles Rachlis

Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism

A Living Earth

Bill McKibben's 2010 book is Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet. Earth is our only home. Global warming is real . And it’s not conducive to better holidays. We fight it or we die with no time for holidays. Our enemy? Fact: 6 of the 12 biggest corporates build cars or pump oil to run them. Either we disable these corporates or fossil fuels will kill us. Not just a collapsing climate but all the destructive wars fought over hydrocarbons that plague us. It’s only a question of what will kill us first. It looks like the weather is already having a go.

Unfortunately McKibben’s solutions fall short of the mark. He lists usual ‘sustainable’ growth, of thinking slower, smaller, local, human scale, solutions. It’s a matter of convincing the enemy to change course by working ‘close to home’. Small, not big: dispersed, not centralised.” (120) But first we have to convince ourselves.

So what to do? McKibben’s vision fits well with broad Green activism; educating ourselves about all aspects of Global Warming and then dedicating ourselves to home-grown solutions to build sustainable alternatives for our survival. So we have to conserve water, food supplies and find new sources of energy. This reads like a Hollywood dystopia movie were a few survivalists start civilisation again after a doomsday event. There is no talk of challenging and overthrowing the capitalist system that relies on oil-driven expansion to make its profits.

What about the solutions put up by James Hansen the pioneer global warming advocate currently touring Aotearoa? He has done more than any other scientist to discover and map the “fast feedback effects” that may cause a sudden climate meltdown? Hansen says the "Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at 200 km3/y (cubic kilometres a year!), the Antarctic ice sheet at 100 km3." And "Last time climate was 2 deg warmer, the sea level was 25m higher". Here is a very bright guy who surely knows that such a risk means that a revolution is needed to avoid the end of Earth and Humanity as we know it.

Back in January, 2009, Hansen said, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead." Yet Hansen is an activist only in the sense of calling for the Courts to charge fossil fuel corporates or Congress to outlaw coal mining - though he has been arrested protesting open cast coal mining. But none of this has the urgency or the potential to avoid his famous ‘tipping point’. Obama’s four years will soon be up and CO2 emissions continue to build up at alarming rates.

Clearly the solutions put up by global warming publicists and activists are no way near what is needed to stop a meltdown. The solution must be the overthrow of the social system that has created the problem - production for profit and not need. Our big need is to survive, but that is not profitable. So we have to eliminate profits to survive. Capitalism must die or we die. Climate change activists have to be anti-capitalists.

Fortunately a new generation has made the connections. Look to the Arab revolution and the educated youth coming up against the moribund profit system that starves and represses them. They revolt for ‘freedom’ and form democratic organs to fight for it. Dictators shoot down unarmed protesters, yet the revolution strengthens. They have nothing to lose but a lost generation and a lost planet.

Capitalist barbarism has finally met its match. The educated, unemployed youth rise up against total system dysfunction and breakdown. This is the only road to human survival. The masses mobilise across borders to form regional, continental and ultimately global socialist society in which allocation of resources to meet basic needs are met. The necessary by-product of this social revolution will be the living Earth.