Voting win for Labour grassroots

[borders]

in reply to your last sentence .............crisis throws
1 billion into starvation

BY DOUG NELSON
The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations projects that for the first time in history more than 1 billion people worldwide will face chronic hunger this year.
Drawing on an analysis from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the FAO projects world hunger will increase by 11 percent this year. The number of malnourished has risen steadily since the mid-1990s.

The growing social crisis of world starvation, afflicting one-sixth of humanity, “is not the consequence of poor global harvests but is caused by the world economic crisis,” said a June 19 FAO press release.

In other words the 100 million more workers and farmers being pushed into starvation this year is primarily because they can’t afford to buy food in the market.

Working people in the semicolonial world are being squeezed particularly hard between high food prices and falling income.

Food prices shot up between 2006 and mid-2008, with many basic staples doubling in price. The average world food prices in real terms remain 24 percent higher than they were in 2006 and 33 percent higher than 2005, according to the report.

In semicolonial countries, prices are higher and the decline from last year’s highest levels lag far behind the price drops in the imperialist countries. For example, the price of wheat in Peru peaked at about $680 per ton in August 2008, but declined less than 15 percent by April 2009. However, U.S. wheat export prices peaked at about $470 in March 2008, then fell to under $250 per ton by December—a nearly 50 percent drop.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that direct foreign investment in “developing” countries will decline by 32 percent this year. The FAO report says, “Reduced employment will have economy-wide ripple effects,” as a result. In addition, loans for the least developed countries are exceedingly more expensive or unavailable.

Money sent to family members in these countries from individuals working abroad, known as remittances, will drop this year by 5 percent to 8 percent, according to the World Bank.

The report says the IMF projects foreign aid, which had also increased in recent years, will decline in the 71 poorest countries by about 25 percent.

The increase in hunger will hit every corner of the globe. The smallest increase this year is expected to be in Asia and the Pacific, the world’s most populous region and home to most of the world’s hungry—642 million. There the rate is projected to increase by 10.5 percent this year.

The highest prevalence of hunger is in Sub-Saharan Africa where 32 percent of the population is starving. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the only region where there had been any decline in pervasive hunger in recent years, the number of undernourished is expected to increase by 13 percent.

The percentage of hungry in the Near East and North Africa is projected to rise by 13.5 percent, the largest percentage increase in the semicolonial world.

About 1.5 percent of the world’s hungry live in the “developed” countries. However, it is in these countries where the greatest percentage increase is projected—15.4 percent.

As usual, the report outlines policy recommendations to address the social crisis of hunger. The fact that the root of the problem is systemic, rather than one of bad policy, is illustrated by the fact that the UN organization’s “work” over the years has amounted to nothing. The number of hungry and all the “targets” set by the UN World Food Summit (WFS) have run in opposite directions since its inception in 1995. The more than 1 billion people facing chronic hunger is double the WFS “target” for 2009.

The report warns that “unless concrete steps are taken” the current economic crisis “can have long-term adverse impacts, particularly on the economies of the poor countries even after the wave of the global recession has passed”—whenever that may be.

[borders]

maybe you would like to explain this one away then Mr Tman ? all quoted from the UN. kenya and afghanistan are having a particular bad time of it at the moment. how would Communism look like now in the year 2009 ? its easy to compare russia in 1917 with us in the year 2009 but as those figures show plenty of people are having a bad time of it here and now .

[Tman]

What's to compare? I was making a comment on the paradox (some would say nonsense) in IWW's post regarding the communist attitude to business and natural resources.
Sadly there's been no shortage of famines before or since the (entirely avoidable and manufactured) famine in 1930s USSR, but that wasn't the point under discussion.

So here it is again-

Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

Can you explain or justify this in any way, or are you going to attempt to divert the thread off again...?

[dvbuk55]

maybe you would like to explain this one away then Mr Tman ? all quoted from the UN. kenya and afghanistan are having a particular bad time of it at the moment. how would Communism look like now in the year 2009 ? its easy to compare russia in 1917 with us in the year 2009 but as those figures show plenty of people are having a bad time of it here and now .

I don't know the reason for the crisis in Kenya, though it may be drought but as for Afghanistan if they tried growing corn instead of opium poppies they'd have something to eat OR if they spent the drugs money on food instead of Kalashnikovs they might be better off. In all my years and even as a boy at primary school, more than 55 years ago, we collected money via the St Vincent DePaul Society, Christian Aid, Famine Relief and God knows whatever else, ordinary people like we were, and by no means wealthy, gave money to these poor countries - this in addition to overseas aid from the Government. It gets to the point where I don't care how many starve, drink bad water or die through poor health - whenever you see these countries they always seem to be armed and in some sort of conflict and the refugee camps are full of people each of whom seem to have half a dozen kids. It may seem brutal but I've seen it all before, nothing changes no matter how much aid is poured in to these places.

[borders]

What's to compare? I was making a comment on the paradox (some would say nonsense) in IWW's post regarding the communist attitude to business and natural resources.
Sadly there's been no shortage of famines before or since the (entirely avoidable and manufactured) famine in 1930s USSR, but that wasn't the point under discussion.

So here it is again-

Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

Can you explain or justify this in any way, or are you going to attempt to divert the thread off again...?

check the first line in my other reply... "in reply to your last sentence .............crisis throws
1 billion into starvation " my point being that maybe capitalism has a problem with organising farming and the food supply ?

[borders]

maybe you would like to explain this one away then Mr Tman ? all quoted from the UN. kenya and afghanistan are having a particular bad time of it at the moment. how would Communism look like now in the year 2009 ? its easy to compare russia in 1917 with us in the year 2009 but as those figures show plenty of people are having a bad time of it here and now .

I don't know the reason for the crisis in Kenya, though it may be drought but as for Afghanistan if they tried growing corn instead of opium poppies they'd have something to eat OR if they spent the drugs money on food instead of Kalashnikovs they might be better off. In all my years and even as a boy at primary school, more than 55 years ago, we collected money via the St Vincent DePaul Society, Christian Aid, Famine Relief and God knows whatever else, ordinary people like we were, and by no means wealthy, gave money to these poor countries - this in addition to overseas aid from the Government. It gets to the point where I don't care how many starve, drink bad water or die through poor health - whenever you see these countries they always seem to be armed and in some sort of conflict and the refugee camps are full of people each of whom seem to have half a dozen kids. It may seem brutal but I've seen it all before, nothing changes no matter how much aid is poured in to these places.

point taken , but as i have just posted in my reply to Mr Tman my comment was aimed at his last sentence which was ........ "Then again, the history books show how well communism in the USSR in the 1930s could organise farming and the food supply. Only a concept as "fatally flawed" as communism could manage to achieve a famine of catastrophic proportions in a country as fertile as the Ukraine".

[Tman]

crisis throws
1 billion into starvation " my point being that maybe capitalism has a problem with organising farming and the food supply ?

Possibly it does, but we were discussing this--


Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

The last line you keep referring to was an example of poor inefficient communism rather than anything to do with the various causes of food shortages. Do you have any answers to the paragraph in italics, or are you just going to continue with "ah yeah but...." type posts?

[IWW Fellow Worker]

nice post IWW, from what i understand , Lenin said Communism would only work if it was adopted worldwide , Lenin and Marx were Internationlists.

I believe they did say that, although I'm not a fan of either man. As for T*** Man, he's coming at it from the angle of a right-wing authoritarian who confuses the statism of Stalin with communism. Typical Sun reader I suppose.

[Tman]

nice post IWW, from what i understand , Lenin said Communism would only work if it was adopted worldwide , Lenin and Marx were Internationlists.

I believe they did say that, although I'm not a fan of either man. As for T*** Man, he's coming at it from the angle of a right-wing authoritarian who confuses the statism of Stalin with communism. Typical Sun reader I suppose.

I haven't confused anything yet. I'm just asking you or your mate to expand and explain on the post of yours which has been quoted.
I would have thought you'd be only too pleased to give your views on something you appear to hold dear, especially as you've already quoted it once and all I was asking for is more explanation.

Can you elucidate on the example I quoted above, or will you just continue to rely on infantile abuse to fudge the issue?

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Just a thought but maybe capitalism does not have a problem with organising farming and the food supply but would much rather invent shortages as a way of maintaining profits for the few and so what if a few million people go without and starve? Those that are left will see daily what can happen in the media they control and pay the price asked. Health care and education would be other examples that capitalism do such a wonderful job of controlling. Looking at the financial world they created and control, 18 months ago it was in melt down and now record breaking profits! Well cant speak for anyone else but what a turn around or was this just an exercise in control of the consumer? How about power? Oil Gas ect a contrived problem followed by huge price rises the elite getting richer and profits for the fat cat city crooks going through the roof and add you have a population to scared to do anything about it. Some would say i might be cynical but NOTHING i have seen in my short life or learned from history has taught me anything other than that a few want nothing but power and riches beyond belief and will see the destruction of everything decent to get them for themselves.

Good points my friend! Meltzer mentions this sort of thing in his book 'Anarchism. Arguments for and Against'. Some people have come to think recessions and depressions are unavoidable just like natutal disasters. Although, thanks to capitalism's mis-use of natural resources, disasters such as floods are sometimes no longer natural. Meltzer also has something to say of the more easily fooled members of society who seem to think Stalinism and libertarian socialism are the same thing. Meltzer has more grace than I can muster when dealing with these bosses dupes.

[BELIAL]

Starting from basics All property is theft Step 2 from each according to his ability ,to each according to his needs Q the rat men

[Tman]

Meltzer has more grace than I can muster when dealing with these bosses dupes.

Perhaps dear old Metzler had the intelligence to understand and the ability to argue his case though?
Here's a reminder for you--


Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

So, how about it? Any attempt?

[NB save the old cliches, they're way past thier sell-by's ]

[IWW Fellow Worker]

I dont want one person or even a small set of people deciding our lives but that we all have a say and those that insure our wishes get NO more than us and to me that would be PURE democracy?

Nicely said mate! It's good to look things up. That way, the debate can continue when it has left those whose definition of communism comes from the pages of right-wing tabloids and that exploitation is desirable far behind.

[Tman]

the debate can continue when it has left those whose definition of communism comes from the pages of right-wing tabloids

They didn't define it, you did, see....



Also if someone was able to build a company up, he or she would not be able to do so without exploiting other people, or natural rescources which in reality belong to all. What we then have is capitalism, not socialism of any kind

Any chance yet........

and that exploitation is desirable far behind.

Errr, what?

[Fred B]

I don't think I'm doing Marxists an injustice in saying they evisage a stage where the state becomes unecessary and withers away, hence Marxists (except for Stalinists) did not recognise the USSR as a communist country.

Marx did believe that. What many of us question is the need for an 'interim period' between revolution and the death of the state. This is where we part company with most Marxists. An interesting debate which I have missed due to a spot of annual leave. Glad to see you giving the fascist the cold shoulder in the No Platform tradition.