Fight for 1.5!
Fridays For Future's Greta Thunberg says: . . .
"World leaders agreed on the Paris Agreement 5 years ago."
"Now they are trying to offer us hope with distant hypothetical climate targets and empty words. But the hope comes from the people – Help us raise awareness for immediate action!"
"Join our actions, sign our Promise and share our message please!"
The video Greta Thunberg - HOPE was uploaded to the Fridays For Future YouTube channel on Friday 11 December 2020 ahead of the UN Climate Ambition Summit scheduled for the following day Saturday 12 December 2020.
This is the UN News webpage that sets out and covers the agenda of contributions from politicians and leaders from across all levels of government, as well as the private sector and, last but not least, civil society, which is where the activists are to be found:
LIVE: Climate Ambition Summit
The webpage banner shown in this screenshot offers the option to run this video:
Re:LODE Radio considers this video of new UN Climate Change Initiatives . . .
The aesthetics of this video, in conveying important information and a recognition of the present challenges, are nevertheless bound by the conventions and techniques of advertising. The professional look, production values, the high definition quality of sound and images, have a very different effect to Greta Thunberg's face to face exchange with her audience. Fight for 1.5 is a challenge to act, and to act with HOPE. The UN News video fits in to an aesthetic Re:LODE Radio would associate with a "corporate style of communication", that all participants can accommodate comfortably. But this is not a time to be reassured that world leadership has everything in hand, and carry on as if it's "business as usual".
And this not a moment where feeling "comfortable" is practical or appropriate!
At 08.00 EST (New York time) 12 December 2020, the Climate Ambition Summit begins with a welcome:
What is the Climate Ambition Summit?
"Good morning from New York, and welcome to our live blog of the UN’s Climate Ambition Summit, which is taking place five years after the adoption of the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. 2020 has been dominated by the fight against COVID-19 but, as the year comes to an end, the UN is reminding us that the climate crisis is the issue that threatens the future of the planet, and mankind."
"The event brings together leaders from across all levels of government, as well as the private sector and civil society, to present more ambitious and high-quality climate commitments, and measures to limit global warming to 1.5C."
"This morning we’ll bring you excerpts from the speeches, and put the commitments into context, starting with a handy reminder of what the Agreement is all about (you can read more here)."
Ever wondered what is . . .
This UN video information clip posted on the UN Climate Ambition Summit agenda, gives an overview of the Paris Agreement.
At 08.15 the UN Climate Ambition Summit agenda acknowledged that Greta Thunberg's position is:
‘You have failed us’
"This summit comes just over a year after the similarly-named Climate Action Summit, at which teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a stinging rebuke to politicians."
“You are failing us” she said, “but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you, and if you choose to fail us, I say, we will never forgive you."
"Ahead of today’s event, Ms. Thunberg released a new video which demonstrated that her anger is undimmed, arguing that the world is “speeding in the wrong direction”, and calling for immediate action, rather than the setting of “distant hypothetical targets”."
At 08.30 various claims were made about what was headlined as:
Welcome cuts
"Over the last year, some eye-catching commitments have been made by some of the world’s leading economies and we expect more today. On the eve of the summit, the European Union agreed to cut greenhouse gases across the bloc by at least 55 per cent by the end of the decade compared with 1990 levels, and countries representing more than 65 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than 70 per cent of the world economy, are preparing to make ambitious commitments to carbon neutrality."
"In all, around 110 countries have pledged carbon neutrality, or “net zero” by 2050; China says it will do so before 2060. There is widespread agreement that reaching carbon neutrality is essential, if we are to beat climate change, and curb the devastation it is causing."
Re:LODE Radio agrees with Greta Thunberg that these "eye catching commitments" are:
"distant hypothetical targets"
At 08:45 the agenda recorded some "encouraging signs of progress", but the WMO State of the Climate report, the Production Gap report and the Emissions Gap report show how, and as Greta Thunberg pointed out on the previous day:
"the world is speeding in the wrong direction"
. . . and with
. . . ‘Growing force and fury’
There have been some encouraging signs of progress in the fight against climate change (see 08:30 update), December has brought some sobering reminders of the scale of the problem facing world leaders.
The first two weeks of the month have seen a flurry of UN-backed climate reports, a mammoth dump of worrying data, bolstering the UN’s argument for urgent, effective and transformational action to avoid a catastrophic, irreversible rise in the Earth’s temperature.
WMO provisional report on the . . .
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its State of the Climate report, on 2 December, which showed that this decade is set to be the warmest on record, and that the relentless rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will fuel temperature rises for years to come.
2020 may be third hottest year on record, world could hit climate change milestone by 2024
On the same day, the Production Gap report (using as an illustration a photo of a cargo train, laden with coal, waiting at a railway station in India) . . .
Cut fossil fuels production to ward off ‘catastrophic’ warming: UN-backed report
. . . and its companion Emissions Gap report found that countries plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with a 1.5-degree Celsius temperature limit urged more investments in climate action as part of COVID-19 recovery plans.
Emissions Gap report 2020 . . .
The culprit, that must NOT be named, is GLOBAL CAPITALISM.
On the occasion of the publication of the latest book by Andreas Malm, Corona, Climate, chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century, Ben Ehrenreich's book review of this title, together with What Would Nature Do? A Guide for Our Uncertain Times by Ruth DeFries, for the Guardian Review, published Saturday 12 December 2020, runs under the heading:
After the wake-up call of the pandemic two contrasting responses to the destructive force of capitalism
Ben Ehrenreich's review begins with a question:
Do you remember April?
Do you remember April? It seems like decades ago, but I remember, amid the dread and claustrophobia of lockdown, an unexpected thrum of hope. Traffic had stopped. No aeroplanes crossed the sky and no pollution clogged it. Where I live we heard ambulances carrying off our neighbours almost daily but we heard birdsong too, louder than ever before. A tiny spiky ball of glycoproteins and ribonucleic acid had done what a century of dedicated revolutionaries had been unable to. It had slowed the world economy to a crawl.
It has been one of the defining accomplishments of contemporary capitalism that its totalising embrace makes it difficult to envision any other way of relating to one another and to the planet that we share. For a moment last spring, though, just as the world seemed to be ending, it was possible to glimpse the blurry outlines of another one, one far more beneficial to all non-human life. It became nakedly obvious that, among humans, the least-esteemed professions were essential and that the most prestigious were mainly parasitic. Almost overnight everything we had been told was unstoppable had stopped. It felt possible to ask questions that we might not have dared articulate before, such as how – assuming any of us survived – we might organise our societies and our minds, if the demands of profit were not all that pushed us.Four years ago, the Swedish scholar Andreas Malm offered one of the sharpest diagnoses yet of the root disease we suffer from. In a book called Fossil Capital he traced the history of the coal-powered steam engine in 19th-century England. Coal, he argued, was not cheaper or more efficient than water power, but had the unique virtue of weakening those who laboured in mills to the advantage of the men who owned them. The fossil economy, as Malm called it, has from the beginning been inseparable from the exploitation of both humans and nature. Along the way it created the illusion of self-sustaining growth that remains fundamental to the current system, this machine that can never be allowed to stop, even as it destroys everything around us.Malm’s latest book, Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency, adds the pandemic to the picture, “a global sickening to match the global heating”. More than 300 new infectious diseases have arisen since 1940: think HIV, Zika, Ebola, Sars, Mers, innumerable new strains of flu. There is little debate about their immediate origins. Previously unencountered microbes leap to human hosts from other animals in an ongoing “zoonotic spillover”. The causes are no mystery: habitat destruction – mainly deforestation – and industrialised agriculture put large numbers of humans in increasing contact with highly stressed animal populations.The real virus, Malm suggests, is capitalism, the fossil economy that subsists “solely by expanding”, gobbling up the planet as it does. Capital’s only mandate is to reproduce itself, to eternally seek out opportunities for “growth”. The Earth becomes a collection of commodities. What is not commodity is waste. In an “ecologically unequal exchange” by which the wealthy populations of the global north enjoy consumer lifestyles dependent on “scorched-earth extractivism” in poor countries out of sight, virgin forest falls to make way for palm oil plantations, cobalt mines, cattle pasture, soy. Wild lands are bulldozed to feed commodity markets continents away. Fresh consumer hungers are manufactured to keep the machine humming.The result is devastation, the entire biosphere in need of an ICU. In 1700, before the birth of industrial capitalism, Malm writes, “95% of the planet’s ice-free land was either wild” or “used so lightly as to be categorised as ‘semi-natural’”. By 2000 only 5% was left. The problem is not the wet markets of Wuhan or the high-end trade in exotic animals, but a system that sucks all of nature into globalised circuits of capital. In doing so it cannot help but summon up fresh plagues, as it heats the atmosphere and poisons the air and the oceans.Viewed from a far ideological shore – an uncannily tranquil one, sheltered from fires and floods – this is, even now, the best of all possible worlds. People live longer, more prosperous lives, some of them anyway, and democracy is thriving. Or it once did, or perhaps will again. In 2015, the 19 signers of a document called “An Ecomodernist Manifesto” argued in favour of abandoning the goal of “sustainable development”. If there are any “fixed physical boundaries to human consumption”, they reassured, “they are so theoretical as to be functionally irrelevant”. We can still gobble all we want. More intensive industrial agriculture and resource exploitation will ultimately, via as yet undiscovered technological advances, “interfere less with the natural world”, or so the manifesto promised. Capitalism’s tendency towards unrelenting ecological wreckage could be “decoupled” from the benefits of growth so that we all might look forward to a “good, or even great, Anthropocene”.Keep the champagne corked. The manifesto has not stood up well, particularly in its confidence that humanity has “made extraordinary progress in reducing the incidence and effects of infectious diseases, and … has become more resilient to extreme weather”. The ideas behind it, though, don’t differ much from the programmes of centrist governments the world over. This is the path we’re on, backed by a climate denialism at least as pernicious as the Trumpian sort. It respects science, if somewhat selectively, avoids disreputable associations with radicals, and speaks in tones that would disturb no one at Davos. Its message – that nothing fundamental has to change – is comforting, polite, and extremely dangerous.The environmental geographer Ruth DeFries, one of the manifesto’s signers, concedes in her latest book What Would Nature Do? that “our hyperconnected, complex civilisation” – with minor variations, the phrase recurs like a tic – has a few downsides. The “modern, ultra-connected world” is “capricious”, “uncertain”, “unpredictable”. Indeed, though she doesn’t mention it, its temperatures are approaching a threshold not seen in 34 million years. “The modern, interconnected world” – it would be so much easier if she would only say “capitalism” – has a tendency, DeFries argues, to overlook the benefits of diversity and to “smooth over the rugged richness of cultures”. Agreed: 1 million species now face extinction, and drought and hunger will probably force between 50 and 300 million people to abandon their homelands within our children’s lifetimes.What Would Nature Do? is written for those who feel certain that their own children will not be among the refugees. Poor, abused nature, having surrendered so many of her riches, is here mined mercilessly for bromides. DeFries looks for life lessons in plate tectonics, entomology, the stock market. Her range is broad and her anecdotes often entertaining, but the truths she wrings from them are the banal stuff of Silicon Valley corporatese: strategic redundancy can avert disaster; flexible networks absorb shocks better than rigid hierarchies.The evasions, though, gall the most. “Bulldozers and pavement are eliminating the storehouse of biological diversity”, DeFries frets, as if engines and asphalt had agency and no human beings were profiting from the destruction they wreak and – knowing the cost – continuing to profit. Then there’s that first-person plural, always good for diverting blame: DeFries writes again and again of “our dynamic, interconnected, complex world” as if it belonged to all of us and were not a system of ingrained inequalities for which this book functions as an unfortunate but forgettable alibi.The slender thread of hope that some of us felt last spring slipped quickly out of our grasp. The moment passed. With more clarity than they usually permit themselves, the guardians of the status quo announced that mere human lives could not be allowed to impede the flow of profits. The economy, a god hungrier than any Baal or Moloch, demanded sacrifice. As always it would not be the high priests whose lives were offered up, but those already rendered vulnerable by the economy’s predations: the aged and infirm, prisoners, migrants, and workers who had no choice but to labour on despite the dangers. They have died by the hundreds of thousands.So here we are again, in a situation that years of extinctions and climate crisis have already made familiar: watching a real-time catastrophe unfold, knowing exactly what needs to be done to stop it but knowing also that we can’t because the very structures underpinning our societies are the ones pushing the disasters onward. Perhaps, if we survive the winter ahead and are not lulled into somnolence by the arrival of a vaccine – big pharma on a wheezing white horse – we will remember precisely who told us not to worry and who told us that our lives matter less than their dividends do. And perhaps in our anger and our grief we will find the strength to build something new. “The way out,” writes the evolutionary biologist Rob Wallace, on whose work much of Malm’s analysis rests, “is nothing short of birthing a world.” It won’t be easy, but neither are the alternatives.Capitalocene NOT Anthropocene!
Re:LODE, Cargo of Questions and Re:LODE Radio, as evidenced by many references, citations etc included and found on these pages, are significantly informed by the work of Jason W. Moore and Raj Patel and their book A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things, A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. See also:
The Capitalocene - Part I: On the Nature & Origins of Our Ecological Crisis by Jason W. Moore
The ongoing plunder of the Earth's resources by capitalist interests in the extraction industries, and the catastrophic consequential environmental impact, includes the exploitation of the "greening of the economy" agenda.
This article in The long read series, published by the Guardian (Tue 8 Dec 2020), by Oliver Balch, on the race . . .
"to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale."
The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles dirty secret
Here is an extract from this article, that Re:LODE Radio considers, foregrounds the ongoing and damaging impact of the capitalist way of doing things. Even in the necessary drive to reduce carbon emissions by replacing diesel and petrol driven vehicles with electric alternatives, the downsides can be ignored in the interests of short term profit:
Electrifying transport has become a top priority in the move to a lower-carbon future. In Europe, car travel accounts for around 12% of all the continent’s carbon emissions. To keep in line with the Paris agreement, emissions from cars and vans will need to drop by more than a third (37.5%) by 2030. The EU has set an ambitious goal of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by the same date. To that end, Brussels and individual member states are pouring millions of euros into incentivising car owners to switch to electric. Some countries are going even further, proposing to ban sales of diesel and petrol vehicles in the near future (as early as 2025 in the case of Norway). If all goes to plan, European electric vehicle ownership could jump from around 2m today to 40m by 2030.
Lithium is key to this energy transition. Lithium-ion batteries are used to power electric cars, as well as to store grid-scale electricity. (They are also used in smartphones and laptops.) But Europe has a problem. At present, almost every ounce of battery-grade lithium is imported. More than half (55%) of global lithium production last year originated in just one country: Australia. Other principal suppliers, such as Chile (23%), China (10%) and Argentina (8%), are equally far-flung.
Lithium deposits have been discovered in Austria, Serbia and Finland, but it is in Portugal that Europe’s largest lithium hopes lie. The Portuguese government is preparing to offer licences for lithium mining to international companies in a bid to exploit its “white oil” reserves. Sourcing lithium in its own back yard not only offers Europe simpler logistics and lower prices, but fewer transport-related emissions. It also promises Europe security of supply – an issue given greater urgency by the coronavirus pandemic’s disruption of global trade.
Even before the pandemic, alarm was mounting about sourcing lithium. Dr Thea Riofrancos, a political economist at Providence College in Rhode Island, pointed to growing trade protectionism and the recent US-China trade spat. (And that was before the trade row between China and Australia.) Whatever worries EU policymakers might have had before the pandemic, she said, “now they must be a million times higher”.
The urgency in getting a lithium supply has unleashed a mining boom, and the race for “white oil” threatens to cause damage to the natural environment wherever it is found. But because they are helping to drive down emissions, the mining companies have EU environmental policy on their side.
“There’s a fundamental question behind all this about the model of consumption and production that we now have, which is simply not sustainable,” said Riofrancos. “Everyone having an electric vehicle means an enormous amount of mining, refining and all the polluting activities that come with it.”
This article published on WIRED by Amit Katwala looks at the devastation caused by the demand for rare-earth metals through the lens of the artist David Maisel (Sunday 27 October 2019):
The devastating environmental impact of technological progress
“So much destruction”
“And for what? So eco-minded urbanites in Paris and Berlin can feel good about driving around in zero-emission cars.”
Are you enjoying your electric vehicle?
Even the oceans are not "off limits" to extraction industry mining firms and arms companies
Jonathan Watts reports on this story in the Guardian print edition Thursday 10 December 2020 under the headline:
Concern over push to mine minerals from the deep sea
Jonathan Watts writes (Wed 9 Dec 2020):
Private mining firms and arms companies are exerting a hidden and unhealthy influence on the fate of the deep-sea bed, according to a new report highlighting the threats facing the world’s biggest intact ecosystem.
An investigation by Greenpeace found a handful of corporations in Europe and North America are increasingly dominating exploration contracts, mainly in search of cobalt and nickel, and have at times taken the place of government representatives at meetings of the oversight body, the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA).Greenpeace said this undermines effective environmental management and fair distribution of risks and rewards from the ocean floor, which some states and companies want to open up for exploitation next year.Given the potential risks of fisheries disturbance, water contamination, sound pollution and habitat destruction for dumbo octopuses, sea pangolins and other species, the campaign group said no new licences should be approved. It has said governments should instead implement an ocean treaty, to ensure adequate protections.
Monster machines intended for use in deep-sea mining off the coast of Papua New Guinea.
Mining firms see the deep-sea bed as the last frontier for a mineral extraction boom. Technological hurdles have been overcome, and the ISA’s recently re-appointed secretary-general Michael Lodge – from the UK – wants member states to agree on a rulebook next year that would set standards for working practices and allow commercial mining to begin.
The new Greenpeace report, released on Wednesday, suggests this would be premature, because the industry is secretive and inadequately regulated. Among its findings are:
- Deep sea mining is deeply destructive. Excavation of mineral nodes, for example, is done by giant tractors that chew through the sea bed
- The oversight organisation, ISA, has no environmental or scientific assessment group. Instead, applications are vetted by a legal and technical commission, which is dominated by lawyers and geologists. Only three of the 30 members of the commission are biologists or environmental specialists
- ISA has not rejected any of the 30 exploration applications it has received. It has potential conflict of interest because it receives $500,000 (£374,000) for each licence
- Seabed resources are supposed to benefit all of humanity and promote sustainable development, but just three companies from wealthy nations have a hand in eight of the nine contracts to explore for minerals in the Pacific Clarion-Clipperton zone that have been awarded since 2010: Canadian-registered DeepGreen, Belgian corporate Dredging Environmental and Marine Engineering NV (Deme), and a UK-based subsidiary of the US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin
- The role of these companies is opaque. None of these parent companies are listed by the ISA in its list of contractors. Many operate through subsidiaries or by taking shares in partners in small island states, often in conjunction with national governments. This leads to concerns about accountability in the event of an accident – the subsidiaries are often small, which could leave poor nations with huge liabilities
- Corporate influence on some governments is so great at ISA that DeepGreen executives temporarily stood in for Nauru delegates in a February 2019 session of the ISA council, where Deme executives also spoke on behalf of Belgium
- Ties between the UK government and the industry have also been unhealthily cosy. Cabinet-office officials have worked for Lockheed Martin after retirement. Former prime minister David Cameron used Lockheed Martin estimates of the potential value of the deep-sea mining industry, rather than independent analysis
The government of the tiny island nation of Nauru, known for its diverse marine life, has formed a partnership with deep-sea mining company DeepGreen.
The dangers of this system were apparent in 2019, when the deep-sea mining firm Nautilus went bankrupt, leaving its partner state, Papua New Guinea, with substantial clean-up losses. Papua New Guinea is now among a growing number of nations calling for a moratorium on the industry, along with conservationists including David Attenborough and Chris Packham.
But exploration permits for the international seabed already cover an area equivalent in size to France and Germany combined, and that area is likely to expand rapidly, despite the risks to biodiversity and ocean carbon deposits.Greenpeace said the biggest problem was the lack of transparency and oversight. “We need to shine a light on the industry at this gold-rush moment because most people don’t realise this is going on,” said the report’s author, Louisa Casson, from the Protect the Oceans campaign.Rather than open up a whole new field of resource extraction, nations should focus more on reusing and recycling existing supplies of minerals, she said.“We think the deep sea ocean should be off limits because it not possible to have good enough environmental rules, especially now that scientists are warning of irreversible harm and potential extinctions. The ISA is supposed to be protecting the oceans and it’s not doing its job.”
Climate-impacted communities vowed to seek ‘climate justice’ at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference.
In a response to Greenpeace, DeepGreen Metals Inc said deep sea mining could supply “critical minerals for the global transition off fossil fuels at a fraction of environmental and social costs associated with metal production from conventional land ores”.
It added: “Without investment in this industry from private sector companies such as ours, Pacific island nations like Nauru, Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga would not otherwise have an opportunity to participate in the benefits of this new resource opportunity to diversify and develop their economies. Until recently, deep-sea exploration was carried out only by the rich industrialised countries, further increasing the potential for global wealth disparity.”Peter Ruddock, director of UK Seabed Resources Ltd and chief executive of Lockheed Martin UK, said in a statement to Greenpeace: “UK Seabed Resources has been, and continues to be, entirely transparent with Greenpeace, the wider NGO and stakeholder community, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and the public, about its structure and relationships with the UK government and Ocean Minerals Singapore (OMS), and indeed all our partners and stakeholders.“Seabed minerals have a potentially critical role to play in the decarbonisation of the planet by providing a vital and reliable alternative source of critical minerals for, among other things, clean energy including battery technologies. We intend to continue to work towards the realisation of this potential opportunity with our valued stakeholders and partners.”In a letter to Greenpeace, Deme said: “20 countries are now actively engaged in deep-sea mining exploration. All have an interest in a clear and settled regulatory regime to govern exploitation, as indeed does humankind as a whole.”Who has an interest?
Humankind or the shareholders of mining firms and arms manufacturers?
Jason W. Moore's, The Capitalocene - Part I: On the Nature & Origins of Our Ecological Crisis, already referenced, includes a quote at the top of the paper, pointing to, and on behalf of a wider constituency:
The creatures, too, must become free
– Thomas Münzer, 1524.
And that includes the Dumbo octopus!
A culture war recently launched by the UK government, and guidance warning, backed by legislation, against anything that might be considered anti-capitalist content in schools, merely highlights a surprising degree of vulnerability and defensiveness on the part of those who strive to maintain a status quo of:
capitalism and business as usual!
But! Lo and behold! This bullying tactic is under review, because it's against the law!
In the print edition of the Guardian on Wednesday 16 December 2020, this report by Aamna Mohdin was headlined:
Rules on anti-capitalist views in schools to be reconsidered
Aamna Mohdin writes:Guidance warning schools against using resources from organisations that have expressed a desire to end capitalism will be reviewed by the Department for Education (DfE) following the threat of legal action.The guidance, published in September, was criticised by teachers, MPs and human rights groups over the risk it could impinge on freedom of belief, speech and expression in the classroom.In a pre-action letter sent in October, the Coalition of Anti-Racist Educators (Care) and Black Educators Alliance (BEA) said the guidance would prevent teachers using material from groups including Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, limiting anti-racism teaching.On Monday, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, notified the group’s lawyers that “the wording of the guidance is being reviewed in light of issues which your clients have raised”.In the guidance issued for school leaders and teachers in England, the DfE categorised anti-capitalism as an “extreme political stance” and compared it with opposition to freedom of speech, antisemitism and endorsement of illegal activity.The guidance said schools should not “under any circumstances” work with or use material from groups that do not “condemn illegal activities done in their name or in support of their cause” or promote “victim narratives that are harmful to British society”.A letter sent to Williamson in early October by the law firm Bindmans on behalf of Care and BEA claimed the guidance failed to properly account for issues of discrimination, and that it was vague and poorly written. The groups launched a crowdfunding page to proceed with a judicial review if the department refused to withdraw the guidance.The announcement of a review was welcomed. “Within the process of evidence collection, we have heard from many students, teaching staff and parents of the impact of the guidance, which would see conversations on injustice and inequality outlawed from the classroom,” a spokesperson for Care said.Rachel Harger, of Bindmans, said: “We hope that given the obvious failures and shortcomings of the current guidance the secretary of state will accept that, as part of this review, a broad consultation with teachers, parents and trade unionists is not just desirable but entirely necessary. We will now stand by our clients as they anxiously await the outcome of this review.”A DfE spokesperson said: “We have provided schools with the materials that will give them the confidence to construct a curriculum that reflects diversity of views and backgrounds, including how to offer a balanced presentation of opposing views where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils.“We are clear that schools should not under any circumstances work with external agencies that take or promote extreme positions or use materials produced by such agencies and have set out a non-exclusive list of extreme political positions in the guidance.“We are reviewing wording of the guidance to explore where we can provide further clarity on these points.”Are de-schooling society and anarchism viable challenges to the status quo?
This somewhat heavy handed approach of the UK government fits with other regressive and reactionary governments and their culture wars to try and make sure things stay the way they are in Europe, Asia and the Americas. But, this bullying approach only draws attention to an area of the state's activity, that is significantly more effective at maintaining the status quo, if it remains more or less unidentifiable or, even better, invisible.
The Wikipedia article on Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, the influential essay by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, first published in 1970, sets out the two kinds of state apparatuses that Althusser presents.
The ruling class uses the repressive state apparatuses (RSA) to dominate the working class. The basic, social function of the RSA (government, courts, police and armed forces, etc.) is timely intervention to politics in favour of the interests of the ruling class, by repressing the subordinate social classes as required, either by violent or non-violent coercive means. The ruling class controls the RSA, because they also control the powers of the state (political, legislative, armed).
And along the LODE Zone Line, is recent legislation in Poland against abortion an example of a repressive state apparatus?
Shaun Walker and Anna Koslerova in Prague report for the Guardian (Sun 11 Dec 2020) and write under the headline and subheading:
Polish women travel abroad for abortions ahead of law change
Support services in Poland and abroad say numbers increasing even before legislation is tightenedPolish women are increasingly being forced to travel abroad to seek abortions even though a court ruling to tighten the country’s already strict laws has not yet coming into force, activists have said.The constitutional court ruled in October that abortion was illegal even in cases where there were severe foetal abnormalities. Around 1,000 abortions a year – almost all of the country’s legal abortion procedures – are carried out for this reason.Justyna Wydrzyńska, of the NGO Abortion Dream Team, which runs an advice hotline, said the group could already feel the chilling effect of the ruling. Calls to the hotline have increased, including from women who awaiting the results of tests on foetal abnormalities, and from many who are not pregnant yet but are alarmed by the ruling.“They want to find out what choices they would have if they do get pregnant and find themselves in a situation of foetal abnormalities,” she said. The number of calls has gone up from 20 or 30 per day to around 100, with confusion over the ruling and the logistical difficulties of travelling during the coronavirus pandemic on people’s minds.Surveys show that few Poles support tighter abortion restrictions, but ultra-conservative elements in the ruling coalition have long wanted such a move. The chairman of the Law and Justice party (PiS), Jarosław Kaczyński, said in 2016: “We will strive to ensure that even cases of very difficult pregnancies, when the child is certain to die, very deformed, still end up in a birth, so that the child can be baptised, buried, have a name.”The ruling prompted huge protests in Warsaw and other cities, the scale of which surprised the government and possibly made it think twice about implementing the ruling of the tribunal, which has fallen under political influence under the PiS. The government is meant to publish tribunal rulings and pass them into law immediately, but nearly two months after the abortion ruling, this has not yet happened.This uncertainty has also caused a headache for medical professionals. Many hospitals were already unwilling to perform even those abortions that were legal, and now access has become even harder.“I heard a story about a medical doctor who was performing an abortion, and he was checking during the day whether the judgment had been published or not. The moment the judgment is published, you are committing a crime if you perform an abortion,” said Adam Bodnar, Poland’s human rights ombudsman.The Abortion Dream Team together with several other NGOs launched a fund last year to help Polish women travel abroad, and since then it has helped more than 250 women travel to receive abortions, mainly to Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, where second trimester abortions are possible.The recent tribunal decision has also prompted people in other neighbouring countries to take action.“There was this energy in the air, we wanted to transform it into something real instead of just complaining by writing messages on cardboard,” said Jolanta Nowaczyk, a 28-year-old artist based in Prague. Nowaczyk and 10 others founded an organisation to provide safe abortion access to Polish women, inspired by the atmosphere at protests outside the country’s embassies.
Dutch women show their support outside the Polish embassy in The Hague.
Taking inspiration from Ciocia Basia, a Berlin-based collective helping Polish women access abortions in Germany, Ciocia Czesia has already provided access to 10 Poles in the five weeks since its founding, and more arrangements are being made every day.
Besides cooperating with clinics, the organisation also offers translation services, general funding, and transport across the border. “Each case is different: someone might need advice about which clinic to turn to, while others need financing and help with arranging the entire procedure,” said Nowaczyk.Taking pills for a medical abortion, which can be done during the first trimester of pregnancy, is legal in Poland and is often seen as a better option than travelling for a surgical procedure. But this option is not always available. “Many do not have a safe place to take the pill, and for some the pill does not work,” said Nowaczyk.Clinics in the Czech Republic have reported an increase in phone calls from Polish women enquiring about the logistics of receiving abortions there, despite the logistical difficulties of travelling at the moment. Some clinics reject Poles based on a law dating back to the communist period which states that only permanent residents can receive abortions, even though the government has said EU citizens should have the same rights.At clinics that do provide the services to Polish women, most employees did not wish to speak publicly, both because of the legal ambiguity and for security reasons. “We have heard rumours about Polish pro-life groups attacking clinics which enable Poles to get abortions,” said a nurse from one such facility.“Those who come to us are people who are often scared to undergo this procedure in Poland, and often don’t even tell their family. Some have already been rejected from Polish hospitals,” said Nowaczyk.. . . and what about muslim men being targeted under Indian state's 'love jihad' ban?
Hannah Ellis-Petersen, South Asia correspondent for the Guardian reports (Mon 14 Dec 2020):
Police in India have rounded up Muslim men and disrupted interfaith marriage ceremonies under new laws prohibiting so-called “love jihad”.In the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, police have begun cracking down on marriages between Muslims and Hindus and have arrested at least 10 Muslim men under a law that prohibits forced religious conversions.“Love jihad” is a Hindu rightwing conspiracy theory claiming that Muslim men lure Hindu women into marriage in order to force their conversion to Islam. Though the central government admitted in February it had no official records of any incidents of the practice, the theory has gained so much traction in India under the right wing ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that it has been used to justify legislation enacted in Uttar Pradesh. It is now proposed in four other BJP-controlled Indian states.This week a marriage between two Muslims was stopped by police in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, after a tipoff by a Hindu rightwing group. The police stormed the ceremony and arrested Haider Ali, 39, who was kept in custody overnight and alleged that the police tortured him for hours using a leather belt. It was only after the family produced evidence that his bride was Muslim by birth that they released Ali.The Uttar Pradesh crackdown has fuelled fears that the “love jihad” law is being used to target Muslims and outlaw consensual interfaith marriage in Uttar Pradesh. No Hindus have been arrested under the new law.A day after the law was enacted in early December, police in the city of Lucknow violently halted a wedding ceremony between a Hindu woman, Raina Gupta, and a Muslim man, Mohammad Asif, that was to include both Hindu and Muslim rituals. The families, who supported the union, said neither was going to convert religion, but the wedding was still prevented from going ahead.In another case, a Muslim man, Owais Ahmad, was arrested last week and sentenced to 14 days judicial custody for allegedly trying to pressure a Hindu woman into converting to Islam and eloping in 2019, following a case filed by her father. The woman is now married to a Hindu man, and Ahmad said he had “no link with the woman”.A 27-year-old Muslim man, Rashid, and his brother were arrested last week in Moradabad. They had been attempting to register Rashid’s marriage to a 22-year-old Hindu woman, Muskan Jahan, who had converted to Islam prior to the wedding. As the trio visited a lawyer, they were surrounded by members of a rightwing Hindu group, Bajrang Dal, who accosted them and brought them to the police station.Rashid remains in jail in Uttar Pradesh on charges of forcible conversion of his wife, while Jahan was taken to a shelter by the police. Addressing the Bajrang Dal members as they surrounded her, Jahan denied any coercion. “I am an adult, I am 22 years old. I got married of my own free will,” she said.
So, it looks like the aim, and the real "target", is the control of women and maintaining "their place" in society!
This politically inspired, repressive and unwarranted victimisation of muslim men, reflects right wing religious prejudice, but also, as in Poland, a highly functional ideology based in patriarchy (and misogyny), designed to bolster the populist politics of the BJP in India and PiS in Poland respectively.
Patriarchy is the archetypal ideological apparatus of capitalism, providing, as it does if continuously preserved, all the unpaid work from women that the capitalist system requires in order to create a surplus, and consequent profit, a grand theft on the basis of gender, that's NO surplus at all!
Gender roles are exemplified in how we play in games, like this . . .
Human rights day!
The last seven days have, just like every week in fact, been very busy at the United Nations.
Human Rights Day is observed every year on 10 December — the day the United Nations General Assembly adopted, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR is a milestone document that proclaims the inalienable rights which everyone is entitled to as a human being - regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Available in more than 500 languages, it is the most translated document in the world.2020 Theme: Recover Better - Stand Up for Human RightsThis year’s Human Rights Day theme relates to the COVID-19 pandemic and focuses on the need to build back better by ensuring Human Rights are central to recovery efforts. We will reach our common global goals only if we are able to create equal opportunities for all, address the failures exposed and exploited by COVID-19, and apply human rights standards to tackle entrenched, systematic, and intergenerational inequalities, exclusion and discrimination.10 December is an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of human rights in re-building the world we want, the need for global solidarity as well as our interconnectedness and shared humanity.Under UN Human Rights’ generic call to action “Stand Up for Human rights”, we aim to engage the general public, our partners and the UN family to bolster transformative action and showcase practical and inspirational examples that can contribute to recovering better and fostering more resilient and just societies.Human Rights and the Sustainable Development GoalsHuman rights are at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as in the absence of human dignity we cannot hope to drive sustainable development. Human Rights are driven by progress on all SDGs, and the SDGs are driven by advancements on human rights. Find out how UN agencies strive to put human rights at the centre of their work.
2020 Campaign materials are available here
The COVID-19 crisis has been fuelled by deepening poverty, rising inequalities, structural and entrenched discrimination and other gaps in human rights protection. Only measures to close these gaps and advance human rights can ensure we fully recover and build back a world that is better, more resilient, just, and sustainable.
- End discrimination of any kind: Structural discrimination and racism have fuelled the COVID-19 crisis. Equality and non-discrimination are core requirements for a post-COVID world.
- Address inequalities: To recover from the crisis, we must also address the inequality pandemic. For that, we need to promote and protect economic, social, and cultural rights. We need a new social contract for a new era.
- Encourage participation and solidarity: We are all in this together. From individuals to governments, from civil society and grass-roots communities to the private sector, everyone has a role in building a post-COVID world that is better for present and future generations. We need to ensure the voices of the most affected and vulnerable inform the recovery efforts.
- Promote sustainable development: We need sustainable development for people and planet. Human rights, the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement are the cornerstone of a recovery that leaves no one behind.
Covid exposes the world-wide health impact of the inequality caused by the economic system that must NOT be named - CAPITALISM!
Michael Marmot, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London has a special interest in inequalities in health and their causes, and has been a UK government advisor in seeking to identify ways to mitigate them. He served on the Scientific Advisory Group of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health chaired by Sir Donald Acheson, the former UK chief medical officer. This reported in November 1998
In The Status Syndrome: How your social standing directly affects your health and life expectancy, he argues that socio-economic position is an important determinant for health outcomes. This result holds even if we control for the effects of income, education and risk factors (such as smoking) on health. The causal pathway Marmot identifies concerns the psychic benefits of "being in control" of one's life. Autonomy in this sense is related to our socio-economic position. Based on comparative studies, Marmot argues that we can make our society more participatory and inclusive to increase overall public health.
In 2008, Marmot appeared in Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making Us Sick?, an American documentary series examining the social determinants of health that drew heavily from Marmot's work on the Whitehall Studies.
On 6 November 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the Secretary of State for Health Alan Johnson had asked Sir Michael Marmot to chair a Review of Health Inequalities in England to inform policy making to address health inequalities from 2010. The Review was announced at the launch of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health report Closing the Gap in a Generation.
In 2020 the review was published.
Sarah Bosley, Health editor for the Guardian reported on the publication of the review earlier this year (Tue 25 Feb 2020).
The report found that life expectancy is falling among the poorest people and particularly amongst women in certain English regions. Real cuts to people's incomes are damaging the nation's health for the long term; lifespans are stalling,and people are living for more years in poor health.
Sarah Boseley writes:
Life expectancy has stalled for the first time in more than 100 years and even reversed for the most deprived women in society, according to a landmark review which shows the gap in health inequalities is yawning even wider than it did a decade ago, in large part due to the impact of cuts linked to the government’s austerity policies.
Sir Michael Marmot’s review, 10 years after he warned that growing inequalities in society would lead to worse health, reveals a shocking picture across England, which he says is no different to the rest of the UK and could have been prevented.
The government has not taken the opportunity to improve people’s lives and life chances over the last 10 years, the report says. Real cuts to people’s incomes are damaging the nation’s health for the long term. Not only are lifespans stalling, but people are living for more years in poor health.
“This damage to the nation’s health need not have happened. It is shocking,” said Marmot, who is the director of the UCL Institute of Health Equity.“The UK has been seen as a world leader in identifying and addressing health inequalities but something dramatic is happening. This report is concerned with England, but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the damage to health and wellbeing is similarly unprecedented.“Austerity has taken a significant toll on equity and health, and it is likely to continue to do so. If you ask me if that is the reason for the worsening health picture, I’d say it is highly likely that is responsible for the life expectancy flat-lining, people’s health deteriorating and the widening of health inequalities.“Poverty has a grip on our nation’s health – it limits the options families have available to live a healthy life. Government health policies that focus on individual behaviours are not effective. Something has gone badly wrong.”
The report shows that health has worsened in many of the “red wall” constituencies that backed Brexit and returned Boris Johnson’s government to power by voting Conservative for the first time. Voters in the new Tory-held seats can expect to live for 60.9 years in good health life, fewer than in both the long-held Tory seats (65 years) and the Labour seats (61.4 years).
Boris Johnson’s government has promised to “level up” those areas. To do that, says review, they will need to take immediate action to stop the deterioration in health.Responding to the report, Downing Street reiterated its promises, but would not be drawn on whether Johnson felt any sense of responsibility given the period covered took place under Conservative rule.The PM’s spokesman said: “Every single person deserves to lead a long and healthy life, no matter who they are, where they live or their social circumstances.“The prime minister has been very clear from his very first day in office that he is committed to levelling up the whole country. While life expectancy is increasing we know that it isn’t for everyone, and so we must tackle the gaps that exist.”Jennifer Dixon, the chief executive of the Health Foundation, which commissioned the review, said this levelling up “will require the government to go further than investment in infrastructure – building bridges, train lines and new hospitals. It must also invest in the circumstances in which people live that have powerful impacts on their health and wellbeing, such as poverty, employment, housing and education. The evidence is clear and the solutions are there – what is needed is the will to act.”
Marmot says the worsening of our health cannot be written off as the fault of individuals for living unhealthy lives. Their straitened circumstances and poor life chances are to blame. His institute’s work has established that healthy lives depend on early child development, education, employment and working conditions, an adequate income, and a healthy and sustainable community in which to live and work.
Austerity has taken its toll over the last 10 years in all of these areas, says Marmot in a foreword to the report. “From rising child poverty and the closure of children’s centres, to declines in education funding, an increase in precarious work and zero hours contracts, to a housing affordability crisis and a rise in homelessness, to people with insufficient money to lead a healthy life and resorting to food banks in large numbers, to ignored communities with poor conditions and little reason for hope … Austerity will cast a long shadow over the lives of the children born and growing up under its effects.”
He dismisses the argument made by government in the past that stalling life expectancy was about more severe winters or flu. It impacts the poorest more than the most affluent. It is also more marked in the UK than it is in most high-income countries, except for the US.
Life expectancy is also actually falling among the poorest 10% of women in Yorkshire and the Humber region, and in the north-east of England. There are no easy answers, says Marmot, but benefit cuts that push single mothers into poorly-paid, part-time jobs – in which they have to juggle families and work– may take their toll.“If you go back 100 years, from the end of the 19th century, life expectancy just kept increasing by about one year every four years,” Marmot told the Guardian. The dramatic change in the curve began around 2010, he said. “It’s not due to a winter effect, because the slowdown was seven-eighths as big in the non-winter quarters.”Public funding cuts have had most impact on the most deprived communities outside of London and the south-east, and accentuated the north-south divide. Public sector spending on services went from 42% of GDP in 2009-10 to 35% in 2018-19. Some of the most deprived 20% of authorities, such as Liverpool, suffered the biggest funding cuts.“You talk to local authority after local authority around the country, and they say, ‘We can’t do any more.’ We are closing youth centres, we’re closing Sure Start children’s centres and we are closing libraries, and parks and recreation centres. We can scarcely do what we have to do to fulfil our statutory duty,” said Marmot.The report calls on the government to reduce child poverty to 10%, reduce “poor quality, low-paid and insecure” work, make sure the national living wage and benefits give people the minimum needed for a healthy life, and invest more in the most deprived areas.The president of the Royal College of Physicians, Prof Andrew Goddard, said the review painted “a stark picture”, adding: “We agree with Sir Michael that there is a need for a national strategy to tackle health inequalities, as the solutions needed cut across many government departments including education, business and housing. This is a wake-up call for the government to act quickly and strategically to improve the health of people in deprived areas.”Councillor Ian Hudspeth, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, also called the report a wake-up call: “Councils want to work with government on closing this gap by focusing on the social causes of ill-health, such as early years development, education and employment opportunities and improving services for older people. Sustainable, long-term investment in councils’ public health services is also needed.”
Imran Hussain of Action for Children said the report “delivers a devastating judgment on a decade of crippling cuts to lifeline services like Sure Start and benefits for families fighting to keep their heads above water."
The government claimed it was working to reduce health inequalities. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, said: “I thank Professor Sir Michael Marmot for his dedicated work to shine a light on this vital issue. His findings show just how important this agenda is, and renew my determination to level up health life expectancy across our country. After all, levelling up health is the most important levelling up of all.“There is still much more to do, and our bold prevention agenda, record £33.9bn a year investment in the NHS, and world-leading plans to improve children’s health will help ensure every person can lead a long and healthy life.”Prof Andrew Goddard, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: “We think we are at a time of opportunity. This is a government that has a strong majority. It seems to have an appetite and a rhetoric that they want to do something about the challenges in parts of the country they haven’t previously had to think about.“They have constituencies that have a wide difference in healthy life expectancy in the north and the south of the country. I would hope they are looking at that and thinking what can we do to improve the lives of our population.”Goddard said he was struck by the government’s industrial strategy, which aimed to increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. “That’s a really tough target,” he said. “If they don’t start to do stuff now and focus on the most at need populations, they won’t achieve that.”The colleges and faculties are forming a group called Inequalities in Health Alliance.That was then! This is NOW!
Yesterday (Tue 15 Dec 2020) Michael Marmot published an Opinion piece for the Guardian under this headline:
Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'
Michael Marmot begins his piece reflecting on the consequences and health impact of Hurricane Maria upon the population of Puerto Rico, the Caribbean island situated along the LODE Zone Line.
Michael Marmot writes:
In 2017, Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico. The official number of casualties as a result of the storm is 64. But take into account the longer-term consequences – devastated infrastructure, overwhelmed hospitals – and the death toll rises to the thousands. When we look closely at these figures, we see something else too: two months afterwards, mortality had risen sharply for the lowest socioeconomic group, somewhat for the middle group, and least for the highest group. A huge external shock had thrust the underlying inequalities in society into sharp relief.So it has been with Covid-19. Inequalities in health, and in the social conditions that lead to ill health, have been revealed and amplified by the pandemic and the response to it. Now, with vaccines coming onstream, there is talk of Britain getting back to “normal”. But the “normal” that existed in February 2020 is not acceptable. The Covid-19 pandemic must be taken as an opportunity to build a fairer society.A new report that my colleagues and I at UCL have published today uses evidence to suggest how we go about doing this.In February 2020, just one month before the UK entered a national lockdown, we published a review of what had happened to Britain’s health and health inequalities in the 10 years since 2010. The picture was bleak: stalling life expectancy and rising inequalities between socioeconomic groups and regions. Most remarkable was the bucking of a long-term trend of health improving year on year: a woman living in the most deprived area in north-east England, or other areas outside London, had less chance of living a long and healthy life in 2019 than she would have had 10 years ago. We made a series of recommendations, addressing the social determinants of health, for how things could and should improve.Then, Covid-19 changed the world dramatically. But in England the changes have been entirely consistent with its state before the pandemic hit. England’s comparatively poor management of the pandemic was of a piece with its health improvement falling behind that of other rich countries in the previous decade.There are four possible explanations: the quality of governance and political culture, which did not prioritise the conditions for good health; continuing increases in economic and social inequalities, including a rise in poverty among families with children; a policy of austerity and consequent cuts to funding of public services that were sharply regressive; and a poor state of the nation’s health.Addressing all four of these is at the heart of what needs to be done to bring about change.A striking feature of the pandemic is the way the risk of fatal Covid-19 is distributed unevenly across the country: the more deprived the area, the higher the mortality rate. This looks rather similar to the picture for all causes of death. Another is the high mortality rate of members of black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Much of this excess risk can be attributed to living in more deprived areas, working in high-risk occupations, living in overcrowded conditions and, in the case of Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, a greater prevalence of relevant pre-existing conditions.Structural racism means that some ethnic groups are more likely to be exposed to adverse social and economic conditions, in addition to the everyday experiences of discrimination – causing a “robbery of resilience”, as Marvin Rees, the mayor of Bristol, put it. The spreading of the Black Lives Matter protests to the UK has raised the visibility of these issues.Building a fairer society will entail addressing this fundamental cause of social injustice, in addition to the social and economic inequalities that are so pervasive. We also must accept the growing recognition, worldwide, that economic growth is a limited measure of society’s success. We would do well to learn from the example of the New Zealand Treasury, which in 2019 put wellbeing at the heart of the government’s mission.Our new report is called Build Back Fairer. One objection to our proposals is about money. Reversing the cuts to children’s centres, to per-student funding in schools, to local government, to adult social care, to the health service, will take public spending. So too will paying care workers a living wage and having more generous safety nets that do not consign families to dire poverty. At a time of huge national debt, can the country afford it?Britain has tried the austerity experiment. It did not work, if health and wellbeing are the markers of success. Phrases such as “maxing out the nation’s credit card” are neither helpful nor based on sound economics. At a time of zero interest rates, with a tax rate that is at the low end among European countries, and with control of its own currency, a nation can borrow and it can tax for the purpose of building a fairer society – it can even print money (quantitative easing).We should not be asking if we can afford for our children’s wellbeing to rank better than 27th out of 38 rich countries, or to pay for free school meals during holidays so that eligible children do not go to bed hungry. Social justice requires it.The problems we lay out are not unique to England. In the US, for example, the widening economic inequalities and the high mortality associated with race and ethnicity are also much in evidence. It was estimated that, from March to September 2020, the wealth of the 643 billionaires in the US increased by 29%, a staggering $845bn (£630bn). Over the same period the hourly pay of the bottom 80% of the workforce declined by 4%. Inequalities in Britain may be less dramatic, but it’s clear that our own level of inequality is not compatible with a fair and healthy society.To emerge from this pandemic in a healthier state, we need commitment at two levels. First, to social justice and putting equity of health and wellbeing at the heart of all policymaking. Cutting spending in a regressive way – the poorer the area, the steeper the cut – is unfair and is likely to make health inequalities worse.The pandemic has shown that when the health of the public is severely threatened, other considerations become secondary. Enduring social and economic inequalities mean that the health of the public was threatened before the pandemic and during it, and will be after it. Just as we needed better management of the nation’s health during the pandemic, we also need national attention to health inequalities and their causes.The second level is to take the specific actions to create healthier lives for all throughout life: from reducing levels of child poverty to 10%, to ensuring wages (or benefits for those who cannot work) are sufficient to lead a healthy life, to creating the conditions for older people to lead meaningful lives.The evidence is clear. There is so much that can be done to improve the quality of people’s lives. Inequality in health is a solvable problem. It is in all our interests to build back fairer.
Human Rights Day 2020
If "awareness" amongst "the people" is a key to change then Re:LODE Radio considers a return to Louis Althusser, and his theoretical approach to ideology will help in developing an understanding of the role of "education" in society!
Althusser enhanced the Marxist theory of the state, by distinguishing the repressive apparatuses of the state from the ideological apparatuses of the state (ISA), which are an array of social institutions and multiple, political realities that propagate many ideologies — the religious ISA, the educational ISA, the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA, the communications ISA, the cultural ISA, etc.
The differences between the RSA and the ISA are:
- The repressive state apparatus (RSA) functions as a unified entity (an institution), unlike the ideological state apparatus (ISA), which is diverse in nature and plural in function. What unites the disparate ISA however is their ultimate control by the ruling ideology.
- The apparatuses of the state, repressive and ideological, each perform the double functions of violence and ideology. A state apparatus cannot be exclusively repressive or exclusively ideological. The distinction between an RSA and an ISA is its primary function in society, respectively, the administration of violent repression and the dissemination of ideology. In practice, the RSA is the means of repression and violence, and, secondarily, a means of ideology; whereas, the primary, practical function of the ISA is as the means for the dissemination of ideology, and, secondarily, as a means of political violence and repression. The secondary functions of the ISA are affected in a concealed and a symbolic manner.
Moreover, when individual persons and political groups threaten the social order established by the dominant social class, the state invokes the stabilising functions of the repressive state apparatus. As such, the benign forms of social repression affect the judicial system, where ostensibly public contractual language is invoked in order to govern individual and collective behaviour in society. As internal threats (social, political, economic) to the dominant order appear, the state applies the proportionate social repression: police suppression, incarceration, and, military intervention.
Ideological state apparatuses (ISA), according to Althusser, use methods other than physical violence to achieve the same objectives as RSA. They may include educational institutions (e.g. schools), media outlets, churches, social and sports clubs and the family. These formations are ostensibly apolitical and part of civil society, rather than a formal part of the state (i.e. as is the case in an RSA). In terms of psychology they could be described as psychosocial, because they aim to inculcate ways of seeing and evaluating things, events and class relations. Instead of expressing and imposing order, through violent repression, ISA disseminate ideologies that reinforce the control of a dominant class. People tend to be co-opted by fear of social rejection, e.g. ostracisation, ridicule and isolation. In Althusser's view, a social class cannot hold state power unless, and until, it simultaneously exercises hegemony (domination) over and through ISA.
Educational ISA, in particular, assume a dominant role in a capitalist economy, and conceal and mask the ideology of the ruling class behind the "liberating qualities" of education, so that the hidden agendas of the ruling class are inconspicuous to most teachers, students, parents and other interested members of society. Althusser said that the school has supplanted the church as the crucial ISA for indoctrination, which augments the reproduction of the relations of production (i.e. the capitalist relations of exploitation) by training the students to become sources of labour power, who work for and under capitalists.
However, because ISA cannot dominate as obviously or readily as RSA, ideological state apparatuses may themselves become a site of class struggle. That is, subordinate social classes are able to find the means and occasions to express class struggle politically and in so doing counter the dominant class, either by utilizing ideological contradictions inherent in ISA, or by campaigns to take control of positions within the ISA. This, nevertheless, will not in itself prevent the dominant class from retaining its position in control of RSA.
In 1971, the year following the publication of Althusser's essay, the book Deschooling Society by Austrian author Ivan Illich was published, that critiques the role and practice of education in the modern world. There are many aspects of Ivan Illich's critique that resonate in the creative work, part of everyday life, in generating knowledge for those who have access to the technology instrumental to the contemporary information environment.
Illich's approach was, to some extent, influenced by his friendship with Paul Goodman. While Illich never referred to himself as an anarchist in print, he was closely associated with major figures in left-anarchist circles, notably Paul Goodman and unschooling advocate John Holt. Goodman is credited in Deschooling Society with having "radically obliged" Illich to revise his thinking, and is described with great affection in Illich's 1990s interviews with David Cayley (Cayley, David (1992). Ivan Illich in Conversation. House of Anansi Press. pp. 200–201.)
Illich gained public attention with his 1971 book Deschooling Society, that even today presents a radical critique of educational practice in "modern" economies. Claiming examples of institutionalised education's ineffectiveness, Illich endorses self-directed education, supported by intentional social relations, in fluid informal arrangements:
Universal education through schooling is not feasible. It would be no more feasible if it were attempted by means of alternative institutions built on the style of present schools. Neither new attitudes of teachers toward their pupils nor the proliferation of educational hardware or software (in classroom or bedroom), nor finally the attempt to expand the pedagogue's responsibility until it engulfs his pupils' lifetimes will deliver universal education. The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring. We hope to contribute concepts needed by those who conduct such counterfoil research on education—and also to those who seek alternatives to other established service industries.
The final sentence, above, clarifies Illich's view that education's institutionalisation fosters society's institutionalisation, and so de-institutionalising education may help de-institutionalize society. Further, Illich suggests reinventing learning and expanding it throughout society and across persons' lifespans. Particularly striking in 1971 was his call for advanced technology to support "learning webs":
The operation of a peer-matching network would be simple. The user would identify himself by name and address and describe the activity for which he sought a peer. A computer would send him back the names and addresses of all those who had inserted the same description. It is amazing that such a simple utility has never been used on a broad scale for publicly valued activity.
According to a contemporary review in the Libertarian Forum, "Illich's advocacy of the free market in education is the bone in the throat that is choking the public educators." Yet, unlike libertarians, Illich opposes not merely publicly funded schooling, but schools as such. Thus, Illich's envisioned disestablishment of schools aimed not to establish a free market in educational services, but to attain a fundamental shift: a deschooled society. In his 1973 book After Deschooling, What?, he asserted, "We can disestablish schools, or we can deschool culture." In fact, he called advocates of free-market education "the most dangerous category of educational reformers."
Tools for Conviviality was published in 1973, two years after Deschooling Society. In this newer work, Illich generalizes the themes that he had previously applied to the educational field: the institutionalization of specialized knowledge, the dominant role of technocratic elites in industrial society, and the need to develop new instruments for the reconquest of practical knowledge by the average citizen. He wrote that;
"[e]lite professional groups ... have come to exert a 'radical monopoly' on such basic human activities as health, agriculture, home-building, and learning, leading to a 'war on subsistence' that robs peasant societies of their vital skills and know-how. The result of much economic development is very often not human flourishing but 'modernized poverty', dependency, and an out-of-control system in which the humans become worn-down mechanical parts."
- The People’s Priest
Illich proposed that we should "invert the present deep structure of tools" in order to "give people tools that guarantee their right to work with independent efficiency."
Tools for Conviviality attracted worldwide attention. A résumé of it was published by French social philosopher André Gorz in Les Temps Modernes, under the title "Freeing the Future". The book's vision of tools that would be developed and maintained by a community of users had a significant influence on the first developers of the personal computer, notably Lee Felsenstein.
On being truly educated, the "Loony Left" and Noam Chomsky
At this point Re:LODE Radio chooses to include this short video of Noam Chomsky speaking on the subject of being truly educated.
Avram Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928, in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His parents, Ze'ev "William" Chomsky and Elsie Simonofsky, were Jewish immigrants. William had fled the Russian Empire in 1913 to escape conscription and worked in Baltimore sweatshops and Hebrew elementary schools before attending university. After moving to Philadelphia, William became principal of the Congregation Mikveh Israel religious school and joined the Gratz College faculty. He placed great emphasis on educating people so that they would be "well integrated, free and independent in their thinking, concerned about improving and enhancing the world, and eager to participate in making life more meaningful and worthwhile for all", a mission that shaped and was subsequently adopted by his son. Elsie was a teacher and activist born in Belarus.
Chomsky has described his parents as "normal Roosevelt Democrats" with center-left politics, but relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics. He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs. Chomsky himself often visited left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature. He wrote his first article at age 10 on the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War and, from the age of 12 or 13, identified with anarchist politics. He later described his discovery of anarchism as "a lucky accident" that made him critical of Stalinism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism.
At this point Re:LODE Radio chooses to include this short video of Noam Chomsky speaking on the subject of being truly educated.
This is the true version of "becoming educated".
Re:LODE Radio considers that the kind of art practice that attempts to understand the social function of art, and rather than decorate the world acknowledges the realities of the world, as framed by the electric information environment, is itself a learning "application".
Comparing the anarchist philosophy of Noam Chomsky with . . .
. . . the madness of economic reason . . .
. . . and the possibility of knowledge-based work devoid of alienation, and of the development of real communities . . .
. . . leads to either "the palace of wisdom" or LOONEY TUNES!
If the UK government attempts to portray anti-capitalist activism as a form of extremism then it reveals on the one hand its vulnerability and on the other its tactical ineptitude. And anyway, it is right wing ideological inspired and funded denial of the truth that is the most dangerous and extreme form of contemporary politics.
Re:LODE Radio refers to the last chapter in David Harvey's book, Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason, to see how the "madness" of "economic reason" is leading to . . .
. . . the insane and deeply troubling world in which we live . . .
. . . in this extract from the Economism article from the Re:LODE project in 2017, that includes a book review by by Stuart Jeffries in the Guardian 1 November 2017.
Is this the "look" of "the madness of economic reason"?
Paul Trevor's photo of the TV screen with "mad eyes Thatcher" is the intellectual property of Paul Trevor.
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.
Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both original and derivative works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivative works and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author.
For the LODE project of 1992, the use of newspaper pages was integral to the artwork, as was the information contained within the artwork, and also published in the LODE Artliner leaflets that were distributed free to the public audience.
For the Re:LODE project of 2017 the electric information environment itself becomes the frame for the 22 artworks (the LODE cargo of 22 crates + the Super8 to video material) that are conceptually "located" through an artistic process of documentation.
This blog, as well as the Re:LODE Cargo of Questions blog, and the Re:LODE blog, reference pages and images accessible on the internet. Links are made available so that references can be examined, and questioned.
Re:LODE in 2017 necessarily works with hypertext in the creation of an artistic space that is, essentially, a matrix;
"a cultural, social, or political environment in which something develops."
For Re:LODE the Information Wrap and Hypertext is the new deal, and potentially transforms our relationship to work - artistic method becomes an everyday method for all kinds of explorations necessary in an electric communication environment.
The technologies of language and communication
The Hungarian philosopher J.C.Nyiri (Krystof Nyiri) has, since the late 1980's, according to Ferenc L Lendvai in "The Loneliness of the Philosopher" (Essays on Wittgenstein and Austrian Philosophy - In Honour of J.C.Nyiri, Edited by Tamas Demeter, Rodopi - Amsterdam - New York 2004), moved from considering tradition and conservatism in Wittgenstein's philosophy to more general enquiries, most notably in his "Tradition and Practical Knowledge", 1988.
Lendvai writes:
Also, the problem of tradition led Nyiri to questions arising around communities, and more specifically, national communities. This also signifies that the emphases had changed slightly in Nyiri's thought: ideology-critique, that had been already present in his interpretations, becomes dominant over the outlook inspired by the sociology of knowledge. Nyiri's "Collective Reason: Roots of a Sociological Theory of Knowledge" (1989) may perhaps be considered as the final synthesis of this strand of his interests.From the late 1980's another shift of emphasis takes place in Nyiri's thought when he turns toward the problems pertaining to communications and the Internet. Of course, his earlier explorations in the philosophy of language, and especially Wittgenstein's 'language-game theory', can be seen as precursors of this shift, and also ensure continuity with Nyiri's previous interests. But the approach is radically new.
This is why it is relevant to bring Nyiri's thought to the question of LODE methodologies, as he recognises the need to consider the matters so brilliantly addressed by McLuhan but in a philosophical, language-game context. In other words considering technology, or technologies on different levels and of different character, and then;
"focuses on the determining effects of historically consecutive technologies of communication (i.e. primary orality, writing, and early alphabetical writing, book printing and electronic communication): technologies of communication shape our thought directly, and does not determine merely indirectly."
- Postscript to the 4th edition: A filozófia rövid története (1995)
In Nyiri's two papers "Wittgenstein and the Problem of Machine Consciousness" and "Some Marxian Themes in the Age of Information" (both 1989), Lendvai identifies a very useful distinction in Nyiri's thought regarding Marxism and an approach in the application of the method of historical materialism that is not at the same time accepting the political consequences of the Marxist movement.
For Re:LODE this second paper is important because, as Lendvai point out, that Nyiri identifies:
certain utopian-eschatological features of Marx's theory supports some timely conclusions: namely, that the computer and the Internet provides at least the theoretical possibility of knowledge-based work devoid of alienation, and of the development of real communities - in ways that Marx suggested only vaguely.
- "The Loneliness of the Philosopher" Essays on Wittgenstein and Austrian Philosophy - In Honour of J.C.Nyiri, Edited by Tamas Demeter, Rodopi - Amsterdam - New York (Page X 2004)
The Climate Ambition Summit Agenda (continued) . . .
On Saturday 12 December, at 09:15 the UN Secretary-General kicked off proceedings at the Climate Ambition Summit, with a speech that echoed many of the themes he covered earlier in the month, and declaring a State of Climate Emergency, until carbon neutrality has been reached worldwide. The central objective of the UN in 2021, he said, will be to build a truly global coalition for carbon neutrality by the middle of the century.
‘State of Climate Emergency’
Young people are taking on responsibility . . .
Ending on a positive note, Mr. Guterres noted that more countries are committing to zero emissions, cities are becoming more liveable, and mindsets are shifting in the right way. “Let’s stop the assault on our planet”, he implored, “and do what we need to guarantee the future of our children and grandchildren”.
When it comes to the credibility test . . .
. . . look no further than the PM of the United Kingdom! If there's anyone with power and responsibility during 2020 who has promised much but delivered little, it is, tragically, the present British PM, and Donald Trump.
Steve Bell on Donald Trump's dismissal of coronavirus – cartoon
Steve Bell (Wed 28 Oct 2020)
Promises, promises . . .
Martin Rowson on Boris Johnson dramatically easing lockdown — cartoon
Martin Rowson (Wed 24 Jun 2020).
It has been nearly half a year since Martin Rowson's take on Da Vinci's Last Supper clearly presents his prediction and vision of a future that we find ourselves in today. Just two weeks after the end of a second lockdown in England ITV News tells us:
Covid: More than 25,000 new cases confirmed in UK as death toll rises by 612
More than 25,000 new cases of coronavirus have been confirmed in the UK and a further 612 deaths recorded, a significant jump from recent days.
The number of new deaths is more than 100 higher than those recorded on Tuesday and more than twice as high as Mondays.The 25,161 new cases is more than 6,000 higher than Tuesday and the highest since November 14.The prime minister warned today at a Downing Street press conference cases were rising steadily across the country, two weeks after England left lockdown.There was some confusion over whether the rules for Christmas had changed after leaders from the four nations discussed the current situation.The rules in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have remained the same with three households allowed to mix over Christmas for five days, but Wales’s two-household limit for mixing during Christmas will be made into law.However all nations have tightened their advice and asked people to think hard about what is necessary over the festive period.
Don't expect answers at Prime Minister's Questions in parliament today!
There is NO accountability, just . . .
Given that the United Kingdom is the host nation for the postponed COP26 in 2021, the British PM's contribution to the UN Climate Ambition Summit had added significance. The Summit agenda for 09:45 records Boris Johnson's offering under the heading:
A ‘Green Industrial Revolution’
"The co-convener of this event is the UK, which is hosting the 2021 UN Climate Conference. The country’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said that this difficult year ends with a note of optimism, thanks to the unprecedented speed with which a vaccine has been produced, thanks to international efforts."
"This shows, said Mr. Johnson, that science can be used to protect the entire planet against climate change, by the “promethean power of invention” against the disaster of global warming. The Prime Minister declared that a “green industrial revolution” will create millions of high-skilled, high-quality jobs, and that the country is planning to become the “Saudi Arabia of wind power”."
Wind power and/or windbag?
In something of a "spoof" of the spoof Gone with the Wind poster, contrived during the cold war Reagan and Thatcher RomCom era, Dave Brown of the Independent came up with this cartoon that features in The Print's the best cartoons of the week (14 June 2020). The article also includes Christian Adams taking a jibe at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson wanting to ‘keep distance’ from all things bad during his tenure.
So, while some political leaders like to make promises, but want to distance themselves from the processs of accountability, it's the younger generations, who will inherit the future state of the Earth, that are demanding effective action NOW!
Youth activists were invited to speak at the Summit, including Selina Neirok Leem, who, five years ago, was the youngest delegate to address the 2015 UN Climate Conference, COP21, where the landmark Paris Climate Agreement was adopted. Back then, Ms. Leem, from the Marshall Islands, which are bearing the brunt of climate change, made a passionate plea to global leaders for stronger action on climate change.
Selina Neirok Leem speaks . . .
Selina Neirok Leem has created . . .
This voice is a powerful force, an impressive rhetorical style, a combination of politics and poetry, and a spoken word delivery that adds a level of quiet passion in her communications as a climate campaign "warrior":
Fighting for 1.5!
At today’s event, Ms. Leem, described as a climate warrior, noted that the very survival of her home is threatened by climate change and that, since Paris, temperatures have continued to rise, forest fires have continued to rage, and glaciers are still melting.
Ms. Leem said that, even though she successfully fought for the 1.5C “lifeline” to be included in the Paris Agreement, she remains angry and disappointed at the slow pace of change.
Ms. Leem is not alone!
Greta Thunberg is also tired of . . .
Damian Carrington Environment editor, reporting exclusively for the Guardian (Thu 10 Dec 2020), on Greta Thunberg's castigation of world leaders. Greta Thunberg sound the alarm on their lack of concerted action on the urgent measures necessary to avoid the potential environmental catastrophe, if global heating rises above 1.5 degrees. He writes under the headline:
Greta Thunberg: 'We are speeding in the wrong direction' on climate crisis
The world is speeding in the wrong direction in tackling the climate emergency, Greta Thunberg has said, before a UN event at which national leaders have been asked to increase their pledges for emissions cuts.
Thunberg, whose solo school strike in 2018 has snowballed into a global youth movement, said there was a state of complete denial when it came to the immediate action needed, with leaders giving only distant promises and empty words.
The fifth anniversary of the Paris climate accord is on Saturday and should have seen countries set out new plans to keep global heating below 2C and close to 1.5C. Current pledges would mean a catastrophic 3C rise in temperatures.
But the planned summit has been postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic until next November and a virtual one-day UN meeting will take place instead, involving up to 70 world leaders. The European Union will also try to agree a new 2030 emissions target on Friday at a Brussels summit.
Thunberg has released a video which calls leaders to account for failing to reverse rising carbon emissions. “We are still speeding in the wrong direction,” she said. “The five years following the Paris agreement have been the five hottest years ever recorded and, during that time, the world has emitted more than 200bn tonnes of CO2.
“Distant hypothetical targets are being set, and big speeches are being given,” she said. “Yet, when it comes to the immediate action we need, we are still in a state of complete denial, as we waste our time, creating new loopholes with empty words and creative accounting.”
She told the Guardian: “Leaders should be telling the truth: that we are facing an emergency and we are not doing nearly enough. We need to prioritise the action that needs to be taken right here and right now, because it is right now that the carbon budget is being used up.
“We need to stop focusing on goals and targets for 2030 or 2050,” she said. “We need to implement annual binding carbon budgets today.”
Thunberg said recent pledges by the UK – to cut carbon emissions by 68% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels – and by China, Japan and South Korea to become net carbon zero were creating a sense of progress, and she added: “That is a very dangerous narrative because of course we’re not going in the right direction. We need to call this out.”
But Thunberg, who has given speeches at previous UN climate summits, concludes her video message by saying:
“There is hope … we are the hope – we, the people.”
She said: “For me, the hope lies in democracy – it is the people who have the power. If enough people stand up together and repeat the same message, then there are no limits to what we can achieve.”
The Fridays for Future movement of youth climate strikers expects more than 2,500 protests to take place on Friday, though like Thunberg’s, many will be online due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Adélaïde Charlier, from Fridays for Future Belgium, said: “All decisions not taken now will fall back on our generation’s shoulders. [Coronavirus] has had a huge impact, we cannot deny that. But what’s incredible is seeing the energy inside a movement that does not want to die, but wants to continue to push through.”
Vanessa Nakate, from Fridays for Future Uganda, also had a stark message for leaders: “You have already determined our present, which is obviously catastrophic. Now fix the future, and start now. You have everything you need to stop this war against the planet and the people. But you just won’t do it. We want deep cuts from you right now.”
“I see the hope in the young people who are speaking out from different parts of the world,” Nakate said. “But the only way we can strengthen that hope is to continuously create awareness about the challenge that we are facing, so that we get everyone involved.”
Parents’ climate action groups are also targeting leaders in the run-up to the UN and EU summits. At the latter, Poland and Hungary are threatening to block a deal.
Marzena Wichniarz, from Parents for Future Poland, said: “I was pregnant with my daughter when the Paris agreement was signed. It was an amazing message to the world: leaders pledged to fight for a better future for all our children. But we are disappointed, in fact furious, with the Polish government now.”
Agnes Imgart, from Parents For Future Global, said:
“Our children have changed so much in the last five years, but the Paris agreement is still crawling.”
Time for action! BUT we're in denial!
No comments:
Post a Comment