UN - Peacemakers or Peacefakers?
Impossible Reformism and National Health Insurance
Schemes The
AFL/CIO: new friend of Immigrants?
Electoral Circus or Workers Struggle?
The
United Nations, according to the popular fairytale, is an independent
organization, a neutral arbiter that somehow magically stands above the
contentious, often bloody, battlefields of international politics. Its mission
in life, the story goes, is to protect the weak from the strong and champion the
cause of human rights, thus bringing peace and harmony to an otherwise benighted
planet. Far from it! From its inception the UN was designed to be nothing but a
tool in the hands of the most powerful nations. To this end, its chief
architects, France, Britain, the USSR and the US (China was not admitted until
1971) have enshrined the principle of "might makes right" by granting
themselves "permanent member" status in the Security Council along
with the power to veto anything that conflicts with their interests. So a vote
in the UN could be 180 to 1, but if that 1 vote happens to be the US, the
measure is killed. Thus making it patently obvious that, although the members do
have to check their guns at the door, this institution is not at all independent
and is indeed merely a reflection of the very same hierarchical system of
bullying and realpolitik that characterizes international relations in the real
world.
Nevertheless,
we would have to admit that as an instrument of propaganda, the UN has proven to
be highly effective. It has provided a stage for the war-makers of the world
upon which they shamelessly dress themselves in sheep's clothing in order to
make endless proclamations of their eternal devotion to peace and human rights.
Meanwhile behind the scenes, these "apostles of peace" have been
arming themselves to the teeth as they carry out their insatiable drives for
"spheres of influence" and world domination. Under a system of
capitalism and imperialism there can be no such thing as a "community of
nations" in any humanitarian sense, but only a war of each against all as
nations are compelled to grab as much as they can for themselves while beggaring
their neighbors in the process.
Any
organization that claims to stand for peace and human rights must be judged on
the basis of what it actually does in the world and not by what it says.
Therefore, it is important that we take a look at the UN's track record. VIETNAM:
For nearly 30 years the US was involved in a bloody war of aggression against
Vietnam. It was described by the "Defense" Department in the Pentagon
Papers as a ruthless attack on civilian populations for strategic military and
economic interests (see Howard Zinn, A People's History of the U.S., p. 555).
During these three decades of mass murder the UN stood on the sidelines and
watched as the US dropped 7 million tons of bombs, dispersed millions of gallons
of assorted chemical weapons over forests and crops, killing an estimated 2-3
million people in the process. EAST TIMOR: In December 1975, on day after the
departure of President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger from Jakarta,
Indonesian troops invaded East Timor where they carried out a brutal 24 year
campaign of warfare and terror that claimed the lives of 200,000 Timorese
people. The UN "bravely" responded by issuing some paper condemnations
of the Indonesian occupation, but took NO action, because that is the way the US
wanted it. "As soon as the invasion took place the U.S. increased military
aid... the U.S. in fact was supplying 90% of the arms, and as we move into the
Carter administration the arms flow increased and was renewed in 1978 as the
slaughter reached its peak." In his memoirs, Daniel Moynihan, who was
serving as US ambassador to the UN in 1975, recalled the events in Timor:
"The US State Department desired that the UN prove utterly ineffective in
whatever measures it undertook" (Noam Chomsky, East Timor: Lessons of a
Tragedy, address given in Cambridge Mass., 10/07/93). PANAMA: In December 1989,
the US sent thousands of troops to Panama as part of an invasion force for the
admitted purpose of capturing ONLY one man, Manuel Noriega! In addition to
"getting their man," they succeeded in bombing and demolishing entire
sections of poor working-class neighborhoods, killing 220 civilians by their own
admission. The UN's own Human Rights Commission of Panama estimated that more
than 4,000 civilians were murdered as the result of this cowardly deed (see the
documentary film "The Panama Deception"). Even by bourgeois standards
of "international law" this was an outrageous act of criminality. So
what did the UN do to punish the criminal? Absolutely nothing! IRAQ: In 1991,
under the cover of UN resolutions, what where actually nothing more than a
license to kill, a US-led coalition of nations unleashed a reign of ruin on Iraq
that killed at least 100,000 people. On its face, this massacre was carried out
for no higher purpose than to reassert US dominance in this oil-rich region. In
the wake of "Desert Slaughter," as succession of cruel economic
sanctions, dictated by the US, and carried out with the blessings of the UN have
been imposed on the Iraqi people. Grotesquely, even the UN itself has admitted
that these sanctions have contributed to the deaths of more than a 1,000,000
people, including perhaps 600,000 children.
If
the UN were at all serious about ridding the planet of weapons of mass
destruction, it would have no better deploying its UNSCOM inspectors than the
numerous military bases and weapons facilities scattered all over the globe.
RWANDA:
In January 1994, Kofi Annan, who was then in charge of UN "peacekeeping"
operations, was informed the the UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire,
had information that led him to suspect that the Kigali government was planning
to exterminate Tutsis. Despite being forewarned, Annan ordered UN peacekeepers
not to intervene. In a letter to the Belgian government Annan refused to permit
Dallaire to testify before a panel investigating the massacre because he thought
it would not be in the "interests of the organization" (AP report,
5/98. Also see PBS Frontline report, "The Triumph of Evil"). General
Dallaire later said he could have prevented the genocide in Kigali with 5,000
troops and thus would have prevented its spreading. There was no shortage of
soldiers available (The Guardian, 1/2/00).
It
must be said, however that Annan did express remorse, saying he would work hard
to ensure the UN would never again fail to protect civilians from genocide (KPFK
Radio News, 12/16/99). Now that's some cold comfort for the 800,000 dead victims
and for the survivors of the Rwandan massacre, as well as the thousands of
Iraqis who continue to die each month as a direct result of the UN approved
sanctions. Are there no limits to UN generated hypocrisy? Clearly what unites
this imperialist den of thieves is not any feigned concern for peace and human
rights, but rather it is their universal embrace of the "right" of
capital to rob, exploit and kill the workers of the world. As much as they try,
no amount of phony peace proclamations delivered up on a powder blue UN shield
could possibly conceal their bloody tracks. S
As
another election looms the chosen Democratic Party candidate, Al Gore, has made
a familiar promise to those who still take voting seriously. He has promised
health care for uninsured children. These promises have always been in vain,
particularly in light of the economic impossibility of these proposed reforms.
Given that these "reforms" of the health care system will not take
place, the very fact that they are proposed is disingenuous. It is yet another
promise of impossible reformism that serves only as an attempt to gain the
support of the undifferentiated masses of citizen voters. It is in this light
that it is necessary to explain a little of the background of national health
care schemes as conceived by the various national factions of the ruling class.
Many
see Universal Health Care as a political Shangri-La. That somehow all problems
with profits interfering with the availability and cost of health care would
somehow disappear. In the current era however such a program, even though it
would most likely benefit millions of workers whose access to health care is
limited to visits to the emergency room, is not economically feasible the
government will never pay for it and the health care industry will never
tolerate it. As good as a single payer health care plan might sound real
universal health care will most likely never be available for all regardless of
ability to pay.
The
history of National Health Insurance programs demonstrates the fact that when
something is done that benefits workers it is never done out of the kindness of
the hearts of those in power. There was a time when medical costs were not so
high that such a program could have functioned but with the end of "welfare
as we know it", with the era of small government even hoping for such
programs is foolish and utopian.
The
very first national health care programs were carried out in Germany under the
hand of Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. A series of legislative reforms made
starting in 1883 with the Sickness Insurance Law, the Accident Insurance Laws of
1884 and 1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889. These laws were based on a
previous precedent set in Prussia as far back as 1854 when a "principle of
compulsion was introduced into the sick insurance legislation of Prussia" (Dawson
109). In fact the earliest proposals for mandatory health care insurance go back
to 1850, when a manufacturer in Chemnitz proposed at the Frankfort Parliament
that the state should levy a tax upon all employers for the benefit of workers
who through old age or disability were caused to be unable to perform
efficiently (Dawson 109). It is notable that such proposals to establish
national health insurance came from both the Conservatives on the right and the
Social-Democrats on the left.
Chancellor
Bismarck in his speech at the opening of the Reichstag in 1879 stated in direct
reference to the Anti-Socialist Law (outlawing the Social-Democratic Party) of
1878 that he hoped the legislature would pass such legislation in order "that
it will be welcomed by the Reichstag as a compliment of the legislation
affording protection against Social-Democratic movements. Past institutions
intended to insure working people against the danger of falling into a condition
of helplessness owing to the incapacity resulting from accident or age have
proved inadequate, and their insufficiency has to no small extent contributed to
cause the working classes to seek help by participating in Social-Democratic
movements." (Dawson 110-11) This legislation was not introduced simply for
the benefit of ailing uninsured workers. It was politically calculated to take
support away from the political opposition of the Social-Democrats. Health
insurance, or rather the lack of health insurance, was a burning issue in the
late 1800s.
The
year 1929 saw the beginning of the first modern health insurance company, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield. Justin Ford Kimball, established his health insurance
plan at Baylor University Hospital. He created this plan on discovering that
Dallas schoolteachers on an average had 15 cents worth of hospital bills per
month each. So a safe margin was assured when the rate teachers were to pay a
month was set at 50 cents per month. The model proved to be such a success that
it subsequently spread across the country. At one time most state governments
carried Blue Cross-Blue Shield insurance for their employees (Raffel 243).
In
1965 the US congress passed the Medicare and Medicaid programs as amendments to
the Social Security Act of 1935. Medicare Part A was the Johnson Administration
proposal and Medicare Part B was the Republican Party proposal. Other smaller
health care programs were signed into law such as the Maternal and Infant Care
program, the Children Supplemental Feeding Program and the creation of community
health centers were all created as a part of the Johnson Administration's
"War of Poverty". The principal stated objective of these programs was
to provide health care for the poor and the elderly. By the 1970s health care
costs had risen dramatically from a total national health care expenditure of
$27.1 billion in 1960 to $74.3 billion in 1970. These figures continued to climb
throughout the 70s and 80s. By 1993 national health expenditures stood at $884.2
billion (Patel 37-9).
Despite
the reputation of the Reagan Administration for budget cuts it expanded the
Medicare program, the proposal passed the US congress in 1988 as the Medicare
catastrophic Coverage Act. The more affluent elderly were opposed to these
changes as it meant that the increase would be paid for through an increase in
their own taxes. In November of 1989, opposition to the act caused the law to be
repealed (Patel 44-5).
Since
the 1920s organizations such as the American Medical Association and the
powerful insurance companies succeeded in defeating every proposal for a
comprehensive National Health Insurance program by raising the specter of "socialized
medicine", which they argue would lower the quality of health care (Patel
48-9).
By
1995 the fiscal problems within the Medicare system became even more apparent.
In response the Republican controlled congress proposed to reduce Medicare
spending by $250 billion. The counter-proposal of the Clinton administration was
that the Medicare program's funding be reduced by $124 billion by the year 2002.
The total number of insured in the US in 1980 stood at 86.3 percent by 1991 that
total number had dropped to 84.1 percent. Between 1985 and 1992 the rate of job
creation 7.4 percent despite the fact that health insurance coverage through
employers continued to decrease. In 1987, 64.1% of all children were covered
under some employer-based insurance. By 1992 that number decreased to 59.6%.
This has
occurred because of the major restructuring that took place and is taking place
in the economy, it is a tendency that can even be seen today even in countries
with National Health Insurance programs (Patel 102-8). Using 1993 data most of
the uninsured, some 53%, either worked for small firms or were self-employed,
with younger workers and low wage workers also tending to be uninsured (Patel
110-1).
The
owners of capital helped put health care on the political agenda in the 90s.
Companies that faced international competition were more likely to be upset with
the costs of their health insurance programs when their international
competition was more likely to be spending less on their own health insurance
programs due to the existence of National Health Care programs that exist in
most of the rest of the industrialized world outside of the US. The big private
insurance firms were opposed to any National Health Insurance scheme for obvious
reasons (Andrews 84).
To
give an idea of the scope of the problem of the lack of health care, as of 1997
some 43,448,000 or 16.11% of the population go uninsured.
Of these
10,743,000 are children (US Census Bureau 129). Average health care expenditures
per consumer climbed from $1,108 in 1985 to $1,841 in 1997 (US Census Bureau
126). According to Andrews, every time the debate over health care reform is on
the political agenda in Washington health care cost increases tend to stabilize,
when the debate over health care reform ends, the price increases continue (95).
A
Single Payer Health Care plan is seen by many as the final answer to the
problems of the health care system in the US. Even this plan would almost
certainly involve a struggle over how much funding to give to such a program and
as experience shows one military aircraft would take greater precedence than
access to medical care for all. Even in countries shown as examples for free
universal health care for all such as in Germany, Sweden or Canada have the
political pressures within those countries to reduce spending on health care.
Neither would it keep medical costs from increasing, the increases in medical
costs would subsequently have to be absorbed by the state and passed on to
workers through payroll taxes (Andrews 98-9).
The
lack of national health insurance in the US only highlights the anachronistic
impossibility of advancing such reforms as goals for which the workers should
struggle. The trends of the left-wing of capital; anarchists, ex-stalinists,
ex-maoists, trotskyists and social-advance such pipe-dreams as goals to be
fought for because they have no other perspective. Although they may have
slightly differing rationalizations as to why they claim it is possible and
desirable for workers to attempt to win such reforms.
There
is an alternative to these tactics. It is not easy nor is it convenient and
neither does it sacrifice all for the sake of so-called.
The
pragmatism of the left-wing of capital is to call for workers to fight for
reforms that will never come. Implied in their message is that workers must
fight for these reforms because a revolution is impossible. History shows us, to
the contrary that revolutions are possible especially when coherent
revolutionary thought is present in the midst of the working class. An
international revolutionary party is a goal far more tangible than the
impossible reformism that flourishes on the fringes of the rule of capital.
ASm
Works
Cited
Andrews,
Charles. Profit Fever: the Drive to Corporatize Health Care and How to Stop it.
Monroe, Maine; Common Courage Press, 1995 Dawson, William H. Bismarck and State
Socialism. London, 1891. Patel, Kant. Health Care Politics and Policy in
America. New York; M. E. Sharpe Inc, 1995. Raffel, Marshall W. The U.S. Health
Care System: Origins and Functions. 3rd ed.
Albany;
Delmar Publishers Inc., 1989 US Census Bureau: Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1999. 119th ed
After
supporting most all repressive US government anti-immigrant regulations and
actions for many decades, the AFL/CIO trade union federation's executive council
is seemingly doing a 180 degree turn and now will support "regulated legal
immigration", an amnesty for all undocumented workers inside US borders and
as well claims it will no longer co-operate with the regular round-ups and other
US Immigration and Naturalization actions against immigrants.
If
the AFL's new positions were sincere, it would mean it is turning over a new
leaf. The federation now says, " the AFL/CIO proudly stands on the side of
immigrant workers." Is the AFL sincere in dumping overboard its experienced
massed political artillery of anti-immigrant chauvinism? How does this change
fit into the present needs of the US bosses/government whom the AFL is so loyal
to? What is the actual track record? It is almost common knowledge that for
decades the AFL/CIO stance on immigrants was in line with some of the most
racist and ultra-nationalist forces of our capitalist rulers. Part of this was
the old lying saw that "illegals are taking jobs away from American workers,
driving wages down, and making conditions of work deteriorate." And "
Immigrant Aliens" were also said to be used by companies to break strikes
and weaken AFL union organizing drives. Time and again, the AFL backed
reactionary legislation in state legislatures and in Congress. Obviously , it
was the AFL itself that was making the rounds parroting the bosses divide and
rule lies. It could have exposed/fought this reactionary drivel if it really
wanted to Build workers unity and struggle against the attacks of the rich. But
the AFL-CIO is basically a big labor merchandizing organization that backs the
wages system and the rule of capital, lock, stock and barrel.
Bona-fide
workers organizations expose poverty, unemployment, and anti-immigrant
chauvinism as the product of the domination of capitalist social relations, wage
slavery, class rule and production not for human needs, but instead for sales
and profits.
The
AFL, in its long history of hostility to the undocumented workers was driven
mainly by its interests as a negotiator of the price of the commodity
labor-power. In the past the AFL considered the undocumented workers almost like
lepers. It thought it had more fertile and profitable fields for its "organizing"
in industries that did not have significant numbers of immigrant labor. But in
the last 20 years there have been big changes in the world capitalist economy.
There has been enormous privatization of industries, contracting-out to small
non-union shops by huge previously unionized firms. Now there is vast
globalization of capitalist production and the movement of big companies to
other capitalist and state capitalist countries where the costs of labor-power
are much cheaper, raw materials close by & available to plunder, and workers
controlled in even more slave-like conditions than in the "free" USA.
The
unions have pleaded poverty for the bosses and have shoved many concession
contracts down their own member's throats. Unions accepting concessions to
maintain a dues base and competitive profits for business has led many workers
to become demoralized concerning the fight for the liberation of the working
class. The AFL/CIO new immigrant resolution shows it is really after new
dues-payers and assures the bosses that immigrants should be made docile and
subservient. Its resolution states "Labor and business should work together
to design co-operative mechanisms that allow law-abiding employers to satisfy
legitimate needs for new workers in a timely manner without compromising the
rights and liberties of workers already here." It also asks that workers
should have upgraded skill levels that enhance our " shared economic
prosperity." (The People, Apr. 2000, Vol. 110, #1) But under capitalism,
law-abiding capitalists violate workers liberty and their pursuit of happiness
every day. It is also just so much twaddle that workers have "shared
economic prosperity" with their exploiters. The capitalist employers rob
the workers of near 80% of the wealth their labor-power alone creates.
Our
rich rulers also want to use more new "legal" immigrant workers as
cannon fodder to be dragooned and conscripted into the bosses armed forces to
defend and expand US capitalists markets, raw material monopolies and business
enterprises in other lands. Military enlistments are down but the AFL/CIO, a top
recruiting sergeant that supports the bosses militarism, is happy to be of
service to indoctrinate workers into being loyal to the bosses "democratic"
rule and have military "service" performed for the State, i.e. the
ruling class.
Workers,
immigrant and non-immigrant, need organization, industrial and political, but
not organs based on class collaboration a la the AFL.
We need
to build new workers groups and other mass organs of struggle against waged
slavery and exploitation. Rank-and-file workers can build this, but we will have
to go forward against the unions, opposing the lying tricks of both the
Democratic and Republican Parties as well.
LAWV
Another
electoral circus is upon us. The corporate dominated mass media, TV, newspapers,
radio, etc. are trying as hard as ever to herd the workers back into the voting
booths. But who really benefits from this "booming
economy"? How does the "democratic" system really work? A
recent example in Los Angeles shows how adept the local Democrats and
Republicans are at working their big political con games. Anne Murphy writes in
the LA Times Voices, 2/5/00, that when LA County voters were asked to approve
Proposition A in 1992 and 1996, they were told that not only would this bond
measure improve neighborhood parks but also that LA inner city youths would be
hired to work on the projects within their local communities.
The
LA City Council even went through the motion of 'imposing' a requirement that
15% of Proposition A funds be spent for "at-risk" youth jobs. The LA
County Board of Supervisors postured that it would set up a "Youth
Employment Plan" where at least 10% of county bond funds would be used to
employ and train at-risk youths. But in spite of the politicians "promises",
less than 1/10th of 1% of the millions spent and earmarked for public park
improvements throughout the county has gone to employ at-risk teens and young
adults. Youths swindled out of needed jobs/training are left to
fester and forage in blighted areas
more susceptible than ever to the lure of gang and drug lifestyles.
Politicians Promise - Things Get Worse Why does the LA City Council and the County Board of Supervisors engage in these shenanigans? It is because they are beholden to corporate contractors for their campaign contributions (read-bribery!). The capitalist contractors must gain the fattest profits possible. Their profit maximizing interests leave little or no time for dealing with special programs for at-risk inner city youths. The Democrats and Republicans administer the political state for the bosses. They also have the task of painting up this plutocracy by donning their "democracy" masks to keep the workers tied to wage slavery - and its boss controlled election circuses.
Lest
there be any mistake about it, Ms. Murphy's article also informs us that she is
a director of a program that "is committing significant time, money and
other resources to recruit at-risk youth from the Venice and Mar Vista areas for
comprehensive education and training in construction related jobs." But the
Democratic and Republican Parties have other priorities, serving corporations,
looking the other way when the city and county governments are over-billed,
lying to the people about their alleged concern for inner city youth. There is
always plenty of funds for their "booming" prison industry economy,
but little or nothing for at-risk youth, even when they strive to get education
and training/work.
Now
we have a huge rise of at-risk inner city youths caught up in gangs/murders
where drug turf has to be defended to keep the profits at necessary levels to
compete. Inner city areas have larger numbers of youths unemployed now mainly
because of big budget cuts in summer jobs programs. These rip-offs are but the
tip of the iceberg. The City Council's emergency appropriation of $2 million for
one month of summer jobs at $5.75/hr minimum wage (+ administrative fat) is only
a fraction
of the monies cut previously.
It is a petty sop to help the City Council and their corporate masters
cover their own asses. Notice that the job program will be cut off a week
after the Democratic Party Convention ends. The bosses' liberal parasites have
"partied" it up. At your expense! Legally stealing $10 millions from
the city coffers that could have been better spent to provide thousands of youth
jobs and up-dated skills.
The
real criminals are the ruling class and their political henchmen. These are not
as we are told over and over, "Our elected officials" or "Friends
of Labor", etc. They are the bosses elected officials and that is why the
elections are financed by 90-95% of corporate and other
money from the "business community." Just follow the money
trail! It is a big lie that capitalist politicians can serve the working class.
So
leave the voting booths empty! Organize the class struggles and build new mass
political and industrial movements from below.
LAWV