The June 21st Militant

The June 21st issue (pdf) of The Militant gets two things wrong and one thing right--which together makes for an interesting read. (The Militant is published by the Socialist Workers Party--SWP.)

A front page article by Terry Evans entitled Working people worldwide look to fight effects of rising prices leads with this howler.

Food prices and the cost of other necessities for working people are soaring worldwide, highlighting the urgent need for workers to join together to fight for jobs, higher wages and automatic cost-of-living adjustments on our wages and retirement pay. Millions face hunger, especially in the semicolonial world, because under capitalism food is produced and marketed solely to generate the highest profits for the employing class, not to meet the needs of humanity.

The last sentence is completely wrong--of course food is grown to meet the needs of humanity. Otherwise there would be no market for the stuff and the capitalists wouldn't make any money. Capitalists (aka farmers) want to sell as much food as they can to the largest number of people. There is no way that farmers are purposely causing world hunger.

But Mr. Evans is correct that world food prices are rising. That's because there is a global shortage of food, forcing the market price higher. I surmise that shortage is because of China, which is not self-sufficient in food and has had a bad crop year (flooding, swine flu). If you believe Peter Zeihan, China no longer has the workforce necessary to engage in the labor-intensive gardening that maximizes yield per acre, but instead has been forced to mechanize, reducing yields.

The financial fixes Mr. Evans lists will not increase the amount of food available. It will just distort the market and render food distribution inefficient.

He also writes,

In 2020 some 155 million people faced what the U.N. World Food Program euphemistically calls “food insecurity,” a rise of 20 million over the previous year.

This is astonishingly good news! Of a global population of nearly eight billion, fewer than 2% are food insecure. A generation or two ago that number would have been closer to 50%. So much for the notion that capitalism increases poverty. The suggestion that Mr. Evans and his ilk are gonna devise a more efficient method of food distribution is gonzo.

The photo accompanying Mr. Evans' article (below) shows some relatively well-fed Yemenis protesting high food prices. Note that Yemen is in the middle of a brutal civil war--a problem that has nothing to do with global food production or distribution.

(Source)

In a campaign statement by Joanne Kuniansky headlined Fight for workers control of production!, she claims (emphasis mine),

Under capitalist rule, production is organized with no concern for workers’ lives or limbs, on the job or for others living nearby, nor for the soil, air and water being fouled by pollution.

As written, this is just wrong. Of course capitalists have some concern for the welfare of their workers, for otherwise they would all quit or go on strike. More--capitalists are human beings, too, and share the moral and fairness impulses we all have. If she'd phrased it less strongly--too little concern or insufficient concern--then the case is arguable. But in today's environment, with labor shortages looming, especially for skilled labor, it behooves the capitalist to be extra solicitous of his employees' well-being.

Life is full of trade-offs. Any mining or manufacturing activity will incur some risks--both to workers and to the environment. Unlike what Ms. Kuniansky claims, it is impossible to eliminate that risk--only to reduce it at a higher cost. The cost the capitalist is willing to pay depends much more on the consumer than on the capitalist--for if the costs of safety are too high, then high prices make the market too small to justify the enterprise. So workers are more in conflict with consumers than with their bosses--which is why workers' control of production won't solve anything.

One has to note that labor and environmental protections in socialist societies (e.g., former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela) are awful. It's much better to be a worker in the United States.

An article by Mary Martin, entitled The working-class road forward in tackling crime and cop violence, tries to split the difference between Trotskyist boilerplate and reality. The boilerplate quotes SWP Minneapolis mayoral candidate Doug Nelson:

“Crime is defined by the capitalist rulers to maintain their power and privileges,” Nelson said. “Their laws and the way they’re enforced are designed to keep workers in line and to brand substantial layers of us as criminals, particularly those who are Black or from other oppressed nationalities. To the bosses and landlords in power, all workers are viewed as potentially dangerous. ..."

And this is at least partly true. No doubt the police exist to defend the status quo, which certainly includes capitalist property relations. But it's a stretch to suggest that laws are arbitrary artifacts designed for capitalist convenience--crimes such as murder, theft, and rape have been forbidden since the Ten Commandments, and are fundamental for any society, not just a capitalist one. The last quoted sentence is surely an exaggeration--capitalists are more likely to feel threatened by other capitalists or politicians rather than workers. It is standard Trotsky-talk to claim that cops are always and only agents of the bourgeoisie, and that's precisely what this paragraph claims. 

But the rest of Mr. Nelson's statement belies that narrow view. He says,

“What is of great concern to workers, however, is anti-social violence within working-class communities,” he said. “In addition to the immediate consequences for those affected, it breeds fear and demoralization; it saps workers’ confidence and tears at social solidarity. This in turn feeds into more anti-social behavior and spreads the infection of capitalist dog-eat-dog morality. The rulers’ cops and courts are aimed against us, but it is far better to live under their rule of law than without it, where warlords, gangs and vigilantes fill the gap.

“One of the obvious factors in the recent rise in violent crime has been the systematic withdrawal of police in certain working-class neighborhoods, particularly those with the highest crime rates,” Nelson said. “The effect was no surprise to anyone, least of all the government officials who organized it as part of the rulers’ political responses to the broad popular demonstrations that exploded across the country following the death of Floyd, as well as the unpopular and anti-social rioting and looting. They decided to sacrifice some beat cops responsible for Floyd’s death, and to have the police pull back from many of our communities. ..."

This is reality speaking: the only real alternative to a police force (what the Constitution refers to as a "well-formed militia") is a Hobbesian world of all against all. That's what life is like in today's Yemen, where there really are food shortages. So The Militant, true to its masthead, understands that working people need protection from criminals--as much or even more than folks in wealthier communities. Those who will withdraw the cops from poor neighborhoods are acting as agents for street gangs and the lumpen proletariat.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party represents all lumpens--both the lumpen proletariat and the closely aligned lumpen intelligentsia. On the other hand, a newspaper that claims to speak in the interests of working people has to realize that Black citizens (95% of whom are honest, upstanding, hardworking people) deserve to have their 911 calls answered.

So I'm down with The Militant on this one. I only wish that they'd drop all the silly Trotsky-talk.

Further Reading:

• Has the SWP Moved Right? Or the Republicans Left?
• Socialist Action Believes American Children Should Freeze to Death
• The Revenge of the Lumpen Proletariat