Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

This month marks 100 years since the founding congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened in a Shanghai girls school in July 1921. Inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution, it was an event of world historical significance, marking a critical turning point in the protracted struggle of the Chinese people against class oppression and imperialist domination.

The revolutionary conceptions that guided the founding of the CCP 100 years ago stand in stark contradiction to the hypocrisy and falsifications that characterise the official centenary celebrations, which are designed to boost the partys public standing and that of President Xi Jinping in particular.

Chinese television is being inundated with dramas depicting the history of the party. Seminars are being held in local neighbourhoods in cities and towns across the country. Red tourism is being pushed, with party branches, work units and local clubs encouraged to visit sites associated with the CCPs history, including the birthplace of Mao Zedong. Cinemas are required to screen, twice weekly, films glorifying the CCP, and theatres are staging so-called revolutionary operas. Eighty new slogans, such as Follow the Party Forever and No Force Can Stop the March of the Chinese People, are plastered everywhere.

And the list continues, all trumpeting Chinese nationalism and the role of the CCP in ending the humiliating subordination of China in the 19th and 20th centuries to the imperialist powers and in building the Chinese nation. Schoolchildren are required to write essays on Xis Chinese Dream to transform China into a great power on the international stage. Adult education classes offer discounts for essays praising Maoist ideology and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism With Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

Behind this nationalist extravaganza lies a distinct nervousness in the CCP apparatus that the centenary will lead to a critical questioning of the litany of falsehoods that comprises the official party history. On April 9, the Reporting Centre for Illegal and Unhealthy Information, a division of Chinas internet policing apparatus, added a new layer to its already extensive censorship by announcing a new facility to fight historical nihilism. Citizens are encouraged to report online posts that allegedly distort the CCPs history, attack its leadership or ideology, or slander heroic martyrs.

There is good reason for the concern, particularly under conditions where there is widespread disgust with the corrupt CCP bureaucracy, which nakedly represents the interests of the wealthiest layers of the population. The whole official celebration is built on the transparent lie that the party has remained true to its founding principles. In reality, the CCP long ago renounced the program of socialist internationalism on which it was established.

On July 23, 1921not July 1, an anomaly the CCP has never correctedthe founding congress of the Chinese Communist Party opened in a dormitory of the Bowen Womens Lycee in the French Concession of Shanghai, later shifting to a private house. Present were 12 delegatestwo each from Shanghai, Beijing, Wuhan, Changsha and Jinanas well as two representatives of the Third International or CominternHenk Sneevliet, known as Maring, and Vladimir Neiman, known in China as Nikolsky. Also present was a special representative of Chen Duxiu who could not attend but was elected as the CCPs founding chairman.

While the current CCP propaganda presents the congress as a Chinese affair, the founding of the Communist Party in China, as in other countries, reflected the enormous international impact of the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and the establishment of the first workers state by the Communist Party led by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. The manifesto of the founding congress of the Third International in March 1919 made a direct appeal to the masses in the colonial countries, declaring: Colonial slaves of Africa and Asia: the hour of proletarian dictatorship will also be the hour of your liberation.

Intellectuals and youth in China seeking a means to fight the countrys semi-colonial oppression found the message immensely attractive. The Chinese revolution of 1911 made Sun Yat-sen, who had formed the bourgeois nationalist Kuomintang (KMT), provisional president of a Republic of China but failed to unify the country or end imperialist domination. Moreover, in the aftermath of World War I, the major victorious powers at the Versailles Peace conference in 1919 endorsed the claims of Japan to Shandong Province, seized from Germany. When the decision became public, it provoked widespread protests and strikes beginning on May 4, 1919. What became known as the May 4 movement sprang from anti-imperialist sentiment but led to far broader intellectual and political ferment, in which Chen Duxiu and his close collaborator Li Dazhao played leading roles.

A recent article published by the state-owned Xinhua news agency in its Lessons of the centenary of the CCP series declares that the partys founding goal in 1921 was the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It continues: [The CCP] shoulders the historic tasks of saving the country, revitalizing it, enriching it and empowering it; will always be the vanguard of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people; will forge a historical monument, upon which its great achievements will be marked for thousands of years.

This glorification of Chinese nationalism is utterly alien to the conceptions that guided the founding of the CCP, which was bound up with the Russian Revolution and the intervention of the Third International in China. Those youth and intellectuals who emerged from the May 4 movement to form the party were won to the understanding that the fight against imperialism was inseparable from the international struggle to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. Its goal was world socialist revolution, not the reactionary nationalist conceptionthe rejuvenation of the Chinese nationthat is the central element of Xis dream.

The documents of the first congress in 1921 elaborated the partys basic principles: the overthrow of capitalism by the working class and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leading to the abolition of classes, an end to the private ownership of the means of production, and unity with the Third International.

Any objective examination of the CCP today exposes the claim that it continues to fight for these goals. The CCP is not a party of the proletariat but of the bureaucratic apparatus that rules China. Even according to its own official figures, workers make up only 7 percent of party membership, which is overwhelmingly dominated by state functionaries and includes some of Chinas wealthiest billionaires. The state-run trade unions police the working class and suppress any opposition by workers to their oppressive conditions.

The claim that China, with its huge private corporations, stock markets and wealthy multi-billionaires, where private profit and the market dominate every aspect of life, represents socialism with Chinese characteristics, is farcical. Xis dream of a powerful Chinese nation has nothing to do with socialism or communism. It represents the ambitions of the super-rich oligarchs and wealthy elites that emerged with the restoration of capitalism in China under Deng Xiaoping from 1978 onward.

In the present policy of the Chinese government, there is not a trace of the internationalism that animated the founding of the CCP in 1921. The aim of the CCP today is not the overthrow of imperialism but for a prominent place in the world capitalist order. It does not advocate or support socialist revolution anywhere in the world, including above all in China, where it uses its huge police-state apparatus to suppress any, even limited, opposition.

The critical question facing workers, youth and intellectuals in China today wanting to fight for genuine socialism is what perspective will guide this struggle. To answer this question requires coming to grips with how and why the CCP was transformed from a revolutionary party fighting to overthrow capitalism into its diametrical opposite.

Three key turning points stand out in the partys lengthy and complex history.

The first is the Second Chinese Revolution of 192527 and its tragic defeat. The chief political responsibility for the crushing of this vast revolutionary movement lay with the emerging bureaucracy in Moscow under Stalin, which, under conditions of the defeat of revolutions in Europe and the continuing isolation of the workers state, abandoned the socialist internationalism that underpinned the Russian Revolution and advanced the reactionary perspective of Socialism in One Country.

In doing so, the Stalinist apparatus transformed the Third International from the means for advancing world socialist revolution into an instrument of Soviet foreign policy in which the working class in country after country was subordinated to opportunist alliances with so-called left parties and organisations.

The impact on the young and inexperienced Chinese Communist Party was immediate. In 1923, the Comintern insisted, against the opposition of CCP leaders, that the party dissolve itself and individually enter the bourgeois KMT, claiming that it represented the only serious national revolutionary group in China.

This instruction negated the entire experience of the Russian Revolution, which was carried out in irreconcilable opposition to the liberal bourgeoisie. It was a reversion to the two-stage theory of the Mensheviks who maintained that in the struggle against the Czarist autocracy in Russia the working class could only assist the liberal Cadets in establishing a bourgeois republic, putting off the fight for socialismthe second stageto the indefinite future.

When the issue was discussed in the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in early 1923, Leon Trotsky was the only member to oppose and vote against entry into the KMT. Lenin had been incapacitated by a series of strokesthe first in May 1922. In his Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions written in 1920, Lenin had insisted that the proletariat, while supporting anti-imperialist movements, had to maintain its political independence from all factions of the national bourgeoisie.

In his Theory of Permanent Revolution, which guided the Russian Revolution, Trotsky demonstrated the organic incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry out basic democratic tasks, which could therefore be achieved only by the proletariat, as part of the struggle for socialism. He formed the Left Opposition later in 1923 to defend the principles of socialist internationalism against their renunciation by the Stalinist bureaucracy.

The subordination of the CCP, and thus the Chinese working class, to the KMT was to have devastating consequences for the mass revolutionary movement of strikes and protests that erupted in 1925, triggered by the shooting of protestors in Shanghai by British municipal police on May 30. Despite the imposition of increasingly stringent restrictions on the political activities of CCP members inside the KMTnow led by Chiang Kai-shekStalin opposed any break from the KMT and continued to paint this bourgeois party in bright revolutionary colours.

In 1927, Trotsky exposed the falsity of Stalins claim that the struggle against imperialism would compel the Chinese bourgeoisie to play a revolutionary role, explaining:

The revolutionary struggle against imperialism does not weaken, but rather strengthens the political differentiation of the classes To really arouse the workers and peasants against imperialism is possible only by connecting their basic and most profound life interests with the cause of the countrys liberation But everything that brings the oppressed and exploited masses of the toilers to their feet inevitably pushes the national bourgeoisie into an open bloc with the imperialists. The class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the masses of workers and peasants is not weakened, but, on the contrary, is sharpened by imperialist oppression, to the point of bloody civil war at every serious conflict.

This warning was tragically confirmed. By subordinating the CCP to the KMT, Stalin became the gravedigger of the revolution, facilitating the April 1927 massacre of thousands of workers and CCP members in Shanghai by Chiang Kai-shek and his armies and the subsequent slaughter of workers and peasants by the so-called left Kuomintang in May 1927. Stalin then did an abrupt about-face and, amid the waning revolutionary tide, flung the battered Chinese Communist Party into a series of disastrous adventures.

These catastrophic defeats, which were to have such a far-reaching impact on the history of the 20th century, effectively marked the end of the CCP as a mass party of the Chinese working class.

Far from drawing the necessary political lessons from this tragic experience, Stalin insisted that his policies had been correct and made CCP leader Chen Duxiu the scapegoat for the defeats. Chen and other prominent CCP leaders, seeking answers to the questions posed by the Second Chinese Revolution, were drawn to Trotskys writings and formed the Chinese Left Opposition and then a section of the Fourth International, which was established by Trotsky in 1938 in opposition to the monstrous betrayals of Stalinism in China and internationally.

Those that remained in the CCP defended Stalin and his crimes to the hilt, including the Menshevik two-stage theory, and retreated to the countryside. Mao Zedong, who was to eventually assume unchallenged CCP leadership in 1935, drew the anti-Marxist conclusion from the defeats of the 1920s that it was the peasantry, not the proletariat, that was the principal force in the Chinese revolution.

This was to have far-reaching consequences for the Third Chinese Revolution of 1949the second major turning point in the CCPs history.

While Trotsky was keenly aware of the immense revolutionary-democratic significance of the struggles of the peasantry in China and of the necessity of the working class winning the support of the peasant masses, he delivered an acutely prescient warning over the implications of the attempt to substitute the peasantry for the proletariat as the social foundation of the revolutionary socialist movement.

In a 1932 letter to Chinese supporters of the Left Opposition, Trotsky wrote:

The peasant movement is a mighty revolutionary factor insofar as it is directed against the large landowners, militarists, feudalists, and usurers. But in the peasant movement itself are very powerful proprietary and reactionary tendencies, and at a certain stage it can become hostile to the workers and sustain that hostility already equipped with arms. He who forgets about the dual nature of the peasantry is not a Marxist. The advanced workers must be taught to distinguish from among communist labels and banners the actual social processes.

The peasant armies led by Mao, Trotsky warned, could be transformed into an open enemy of the proletariat, inciting the peasantry against the workers and their Marxist vanguard represented by the Chinese Trotskyists.

The defeat of the KMT, the CCPs seizure of power and its proclamation of the Peoples Republic of China in October 1949 was the outcome of a momentous revolutionary upheaval in the worlds most populous nation. It was part of the revolutionary movements and anti-colonial struggles that erupted around the world in the aftermath of World War II, reflecting the determination of working people to put an end to the capitalist system that had produced two world wars and the Great Depression.

As a result of the CCPs political domination, the Chinese Revolution was a contradictory phenomenon that is poorly understood. Following the line dictated by Stalin that resulted in defeats of the post-war revolutionary movements in Europe in particular, Mao and the CCP maintained the opportunist alliance with the KMT, forged in 1937 against the Japanese invasion of China, and attempted to form a coalition government. Only when Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT launched military action against the CCP did Mao finally call for its overthrow in October 1947 and for the building of a New China.

The rapid collapse of the KMT regime over the subsequent two years testified to its internal rot and the bankruptcy of Chinese capitalism, which spawned widespread opposition, including a wave of strikes in the working class. The CCP, however, made no orientation to the working class and insisted that it passively wait for the entry of Maos peasant-based armies into the cities. Following the Menshevik-Stalinist two-stage theory, Maos perspective of a New China was for a bourgeois republic in which the CCP would maintain capitalist property relations and alliances with remnants of the Chinese capitalist class, which for the most part had fled with the KMT to Taiwan.

Maos program led to the deformation of the revolution. To maintain capitalist property relations meant the bureaucratic suppression of workers demands and struggles. The Stalinist state apparatus that emerged out of the leadership of the peasant armies, and rested on them, was profoundly hostile to the working class. Workers were recruited to the CCP not to provide the working class with a political voice but to tighten its control over the working class.

Mao had claimed that the revolutions supposed democratic stage would last many years. However, in less than a year the CCP faced the threat of military attack by US imperialism, which launched the Korean War in 1950. As the war proceeded and China was compelled to intervene, it faced internal sabotage from layers of the capitalist class that regarded the US-led armies in Korea as their potential liberators. Confronting a possible US invasion, the Maoist regime was compelled to rapidly make inroads into private enterprise and to institute bureaucratic Soviet-style economic planning.

At the same time, fearing a movement of the working class, the Maoist regime cracked down on the Chinese Trotskyists, arresting hundreds of members, their families and supporters in nationwide dragnets on December 22, 1952 and January 8, 1953. Many of the most prominent Trotskyists remained imprisoned without charge for decades.

In a 1955 resolution, the American Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party [1] characterised China as a deformed workers state. The nationalisation of industry and the banks, along with bureaucratic economic planning, had laid the foundations for a workers state, but it was deformed from birth by Stalinism. The Fourth International unconditionally defended the nationalised property relations established in China. At the same time, however, it recognised the bureaucratically deformed origins of the Maoist regime as its dominant feature, making its overthrow through political revolution the only way forward for the construction of socialism in China, as an integral part of the struggle for socialism internationally.

The 1949 Chinese revolution is justifiably regarded by Chinese workers and youth as an enormous advance. It ended direct imperialist domination and exploitation, and, in response to social aspirations of the revolutionary movement of workers and peasants, the CCP was compelled to eliminate much of what was socially and culturally backward in Chinese society, including polygamy, child betrothal, foot binding and concubinage. Illiteracy was largely abolished, and life expectancy increased significantly.

Nevertheless, the CCPs Stalinist perspective of Socialism in One Country led in a very short space of time to an economic dead-end and Chinas international isolation after the Sino-Soviet split of 196163. Within the framework of national autarchy, the Maoist leadership was incapable of finding a solution to the problems of China and its development.

The result was a series of bitter and destructive internal factional disputes as the CCP thrashed around for a way out of its dilemmas. This led to one disaster after another that was bound up with the partys nationalist perspective and Maos attempts to overcome the problems of Chinas development by means of subjective and pragmatic manoeuvres.

These included Maos catastrophic Great Leap Forward, which produced mass famine, and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which was neither great, proletarian nor revolutionary. Maos attempt to mobilise students, elements of the lumpen proletariat and peasants into the Red Guards as a means of settling accounts with his rivals proved an unmitigated disaster. It was brought to an end with the use of the army to suppress workers who went on strike.

Chinese workers must draw a sharp distinction between the necessary and justified revolution of 1949 and the reactionary character of the Cultural Revolution, whose turmoil only set the stage for the third major historic turning pointcapitalist restoration and the systematic dismantling of the gains of the 1949 Chinese Revolution.

Various neo-Maoist tendencies falsely seek to portray Mao as a genuine socialist and Marxist revolutionary, whose ideas were betrayed by others, particularly Deng Xiaoping, who introduced initial pro-market reforms in 1978.

In reality, it was Mao himself who opened the road to capitalist restoration. Facing mounting economic and social problems and the threat of war with the Soviet Union, Beijing forged an anti-Soviet alliance with US imperialism that laid the basis for Chinas integration into global capitalism. Maos rapprochement with US President Richard Nixon in 1972 was the essential pre-condition for foreign investment and increased trade with the West. In foreign policy, the Maoist regime lined up with some of the most reactionary US-based dictatorships, including those of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran.

Without the relations with the US providing access to foreign capital and markets, Deng would have been unable to launch his sweeping reform and opening agenda in 1978 that included special economic zones for foreign investors, private enterprise instead of communes in the countryside, and the replacement of economic planning with the market. The result was a vast expansion of private enterprise, especially in the countryside, the rapid rise of social inequality, looting and corruption by party bureaucrats, growing joblessness, and soaring inflation that led to the national wave of protests and strikes in 1989. Dengs brutal suppression of the protests, not only in Tiananmen Square but in cities throughout China, opened the door for a flood of foreign investors, who understood that the CCP could be relied on to police the working class.

The reactionary role of Maoism finds its sharpest expression in the horrific consequences internationally of its Stalinist ideology of Socialism in One Country and bloc of four classes, subordinating the working class to the national bourgeoisie. In Indonesia, these politics left the working class politically disarmed in the face of a military coup that led to the extermination of an estimated one million workers. Maoism has led to similar defeats and betrayals in South Asia, the Philippines and Latin America.

Xi and other Chinese leaders boast of the economic achievements of what is absurdly called Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

That they are compelled to still speak of socialism and even proclaim that their capitalist policies are guided by Marxism is testament to the enduring identification of the Chinese masses with gains of the 1949 revolution. Chinas staggering economic development over the past three decades reflect in a contradictory way the impact of the Chinese revolution. It would not have been possible without the far-reaching social reforms introduced by that revolution.

To understand the significance of the Chinese revolution, one only has to ask the question: Why has such development not taken place in India? The contrast between the two countries has found sharp expression in the COVID-19 pandemic, which was contained by China early on, even as it spreads uncontrollably in India, pushing its death toll past the 400,000 mark.

Chinas undeniable economic development has vastly expanded the ranks of the working class, while boosting the social conditions of significant segments of the working population.

This development notwithstanding, China today faces all the contradictions and consequences of the turn to capitalism that cannot be resolved within the framework of either Maoism or the current policies of the ruling CCP.

China faces a terrible price for its integration into the world capitalist economy and the massive influx of foreign capital and technology to exploit cheap Chinese labour. Economic growth has only exacerbated the contradictions of Chinese capitalism, generating immense social tensions and fuelling a profound political crisis.

While Chinas per capita GDP has risen, it is still well behind many other nations and is ranked only 78 in the world. This year, as the centenary celebrations loomed, Xi boasted that China had abolished absolute poverty, but the statistics, based on a very austere measure, are highly questionable and poverty remains widespread. Moreover, the gulf between rich and poor is higher than ever, with the staggering wealth of Chinas multi-billionaires continuing to grow amid the COVID-19 pandemic that has heavily impacted on the broader population.

In the final analysis, the historical questions that motivated the Chinese revolutionindependence from imperialism, national unification and breaking the grip of the comprador capitalistsremain unresolved.

Indeed, they are posed today in an even more acute form, with Chinas capitalist economy dependent upon a global capitalist market and facing military encirclement by imperialism, led by the United States. Taiwan, which is developing as an increasingly hostile national state, has emerged as the flashpoint for a potential global war. The entire perspective advanced by Maoism of independent national development is thoroughly exhausted.

Within China itself, the CCP promotes nationalism based on the Han majority. While imperialisms reactionary propaganda about a Uyghur genocide is deserving of contempt, the CCPs appeal to nationalist sentiments plays no progressive role whatsoever in what is a vast, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic society.

In all its contradictions and complexity, Chinas history has confirmed the thesis of Trotskys Theory of Permanent Revolution that in countries with a belated capitalist development, subjected to imperialist oppression, the basic democratic and national tasks can be accomplished only by means of a socialist revolution, led by the working class and supported by the peasantry, as part of the fight for world socialism.

This path of world socialist revolution is anathema to the CCP and the capitalist layers it represents.

The CCP has no solution to the sharpening social tensions and growing signs of opposition other than the repressive methods of Stalinismblanket censorship, arbitrary arrests and the violent crushing of protests and strikes. The CCP itself is riven with corruption and factional feuding that threaten to tear it apart. Xi has emerged as a Bonapartist figure, balancing between rival factions that rely on him to hold the party together. The glorification of Xi, who is routinely referred to as the centre and hailed as second only to Mao, does not stem from personal political strength, but rather reflects the deep crisis wracking the party.

All this is compounded by US imperialisms increasingly aggressive confrontation with China over the past decade, initiated by President Obama and accelerated under Trump and now Biden. Having helped fuel Chinas decades of economic growth, all factions of the American ruling class now regard China as the chief threat to US global hegemony and are preparing to use all methods, including war, to subordinate China to the international rules-based systemthat is, the post-World War II order established by Washington.

The CCPs perspective of peaceful coexistence with imperialism and Chinas peaceful rise to assume its place within the world capitalist order is in tatters. Biden, backed by both Democrats and Republicans, is marshalling US allies and pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into arming for war against China. At the same time, Washington is seeking to exploit tensions within China, fuelled by the CCPs heavy-handed suppression of ethnic separatist tendencies, in a bid to weaken and fracture the country.

Confronted with the looming danger of a catastrophic war, the CCP leadership conceives of Chinas defence in military and foreign policy terms, building up its armed forces and promoting its Belt and Road Initiative. On the one hand, it attempts to appease US imperialism and strike a new deal. On the other, it seeks to engage in a futile arms race and the whipping up of nationalism and chauvinism that can only end in disaster. Having long ago renounced the socialist internationalism on which it was founded, the CCP is organically incapable of making any appeal to the international working class to build a unified anti-war movement based on the fight for socialism.

None of the huge problems confronting humanitywar, ecological disaster, social crises or the COVID-19 pandemiccan be resolved within the framework of capitalism and its outmoded division of the world into competing nation-states. The challenge confronting workers, intellectuals and youth in China who are seeking a progressive solution is to reject the foul nationalism whipped up by the CCP apparatus and return to the path of socialist internationalism that formed the basis of the partys founding in 1921.

That means reforging the link between the Chinese working class and the world Trotskyist movement, embodied in the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). We urge workers and youth to turn to a study of the history of the Fourth International and the political lessons of its decades-long struggle for Marxist principles in opposition to Stalinism and its lies and historical falsifications. Above all, we call on you to contact the ICFI and begin the process of establishing a Chinese section to fight for its revolutionary perspective.

Endnotes:

[1] The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in the United States led the fight to form the International Committee of the Fourth International in 1953 against an opportunist tendency led by Michel Pablo and Ernest Mandel that rejected Trotskys characterisation of Stalinism as a counter-revolutionary tendency and claimed that the Stalinist bureaucracies in Moscow and Beijing could be pressured to project a revolutionary orientation. In 1963, the SWP abandoned the struggle against opportunism, broke from the ICFI and unified with the Pabloites on an unprincipled basis without any discussion of the political differences that had emerged in 1953.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Originally posted here:

100 years since the founding of the Chinese Communist Party - WSWS

Peoples Voice (PV) party chief Lim Tean took to Facebook on Monday (5 July) to share a Singaporeans disapproval and negative sentiment of the Singapore-Indian Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA).

In the post, Mr Lim said that a netizen by the name Victor Tapoh, commented on his most recent Facebook post on Friday (3 July) regarding Health Minister Ong Ye Kungs announcement of delivering a ministerial statement regarding CECA in the upcoming Parliament sitting.

Mr Tapohs comment has garnered more than 230 likes, and below is what he wrote in the post:

No matter who supports the abolition of the CECA treaty, I will fully support him. Whether it is the PAP or the opposition party. Rice bowls are more important than anything else. The imbalance between supply and demand in the job market in the past few years has led to local PEMTs being forced to lay off, lose their jobs or downgrade their wages. This is all caused by the CECA treaty.

In response to Mr Tapohs comment, Mr Lim expressed that ordinary Singaporeans have no time to entertain the nonsense that is spewing from the Peoples Action Party (PAP) about CECA.

He added that Singaporeans can see for themselves the disastrous impact that the free trade agreement has brought upon on the lives of many Singaporeans.

The social media revolution has enabled ordinary Singaporeans such as Victor Tapoh to have a voice in our Nations political discourse. No voice, no matter how small, can now be excluded. This is direct democracy at its best, said Mr Lim.

He added, Political parties ignore this phenomenon at their peril. More than a century ago, the British statesman Lord Bryce observed that public opinion has become the gant before which all tremble.

As such, Mr Lim noted that he will encourage Singaporeans to keep on expressing their views on social media as this will lead to changing Singapore for the better.

The alternative party leader also pointed out that PV is the only party who wants CECA to be abolished, adding that this is a position that the party had taken for the last three years and even included in its manifesto for GE2020.

Earlier on 2 July, Mr Ong revealed in a Facebook post that he, along with Manpower Minister Dr Tan See Leng, will be delivering Ministerial Statements in this months Parliament sitting to debate on CECA, as well as to discuss what is at stake for Singapore and shine a light on untrue statements about CECA.

Mr Ong also slammed Progress Singapore Party (PSP) for its false allegations on how CECA has allowed Indian professionals to come to here easily for work.

Responding to this, PSP released a statement refuting Mr Ongs claims that the alternative party has made false allegations regarding CECA. The Party also urged Mr Ong to withdraw his statement and apologise to PSP.

Original post:

PV chief Lim Tean shares netizen's disapproval of CECA; emphasises the Party's call to abolish CECA - The Online Citizen SG

At Uncle Bobbies Coffee and Books, a cafe, bookshop, and community meeting space in Germantown, theres a catchy slogan printed on a bench stationed outside. Its short and to the point: Cool people. Dope books. Great coffee, words that Marc Lamont Hill, the shops owner, says were chosen with intention. Cool people (a fan of Uncle Bobbies is a fan for life), dope books (by underrepresented voices on vital subjects), and great coffee because selling coffee is a big part of what gets people through the door.

We dont want to be a place that people come to out of obligation or burden. The coffee is shit, but I love Uncle Bobbies, Lamont Hill says. We wanted to make a place where you actually like coming here. Youre going to get a great latte. Youre going to get an amazing slice of sweet potato pie. Youre going to be hand-sold a book. Those things matter.

Uncle Bobbies is named for Lamont Hills uncle, who inspired his activism and interest in reading from a young age. The sign out front features an illustration of Bobbie, calling visitors into the cafe on Germantown Avenue like a beacon. When you look at the aesthetics of the place, its a decidedly Black space, Lamont Hill says. Inspired by Crimson Moon, a Black-owned coffee house on 20th and Sansom that closed after being priced out of downtown nearly 20 years ago, Lamont Hill wanted to emphasize that its possible to do coffee in a way that doesnt look like an episode of Friends. Our goal was to not make it less attractive to white people, but more attractive to Black people.

By extension, Lamont Hill opened Uncle Bobbies in Germantown, a historically Black neighborhood in the Northwest part of the city, on purpose. We could have put this in Chestnut Hill. We could have put this downtown, Lamont Hill says. We could have made it an it-spot for hipsters. But there was an idea here that this community deserves beauty. This community deserves care, and so we put it here so they would get that.

Running the shop has come with its challenges. Since Uncle Bobbies opened in 2017, it has been burglarized a handful of times, most recently in March when Hill posted a disheartening Instagram of himself walking through the cafe in the early hours of the morning, taking stock of the damage. In the comments, Uncle Bobbies supporters suggested night security guards and internal gates to prevent another break-in from happening, despite the fact that they have always had an alarm system. It goes off every single time this happens Justin Moore, the shops general manager, says.

Someone asked us on social media, what can we do to prevent [the burglaries]? We can deal with economic inequality and systemic racism, Moore says. Something made these people throw rocks through our windows to try to get money from a register at a bookstore. So why cant we focus on that part? Instead of dealing with gates and hiring security guards, Moore wants to try to address those issues first. In two of the times theyve been burglarized, Lamont Hill says he eventually found out who did it.

I went looking for them to have a conversation with them, he says, adding that he did not participate in their subsequent prosecution. Let me be very clear, I dont pretend that this is easy. I begin all my work in restorative justice and abolition by asking the question, What would the world look like if everyones needs were met? One of the people who had broken in came into the shop a month later to identify themselves and ask how they could make it right. I dont think that happens at Starbucks. Starbucks calls the police if you sit down too long.

With Lamont Hills profile as a TV personality, author, and academic, a shop like his could succeed in bigger cities with more resources, but he stays in Germantown, and in Philly, because its a place where culture thrives. Its a town of hustle and grind and the underdog, much like the bookshop that has dealt with some setbacks and kept going anyway. Sometimes we like to do things the hard way.

This is the place that produced so much the Patti LaBelles, the Marian Andersons, the Gamble and Huffs. Theres a certain kind of cultural energy here, Lamont Hill says. This is where John Coltrane came to grow. This is where Luther Vandross came when he was a teenager. One of the oldest Black-owned bookstores in the country, Hakims, is right here in Philly on 52nd Street. I dont know if this energy, that push, that community support, that backdrop would have formed if we were in Delaware.

Moore stops him. Your mentions are about to be blowing up, he jokes.

Lamont Hill is quick to add, No disrespect to Delaware.

But on the point about Philly, Moore who is from New York originally agrees. One of the things Ive noticed in Philly is that theres a level of loyalty of the people here that I dont think Ive really experienced anywhere else. You have to earn that loyalty, he says. You have to be authentic. But when Philly loves you? Thats it, youre in.

Uncle Bobbies is located at 5445 Germantown Avenue. Its open 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Sundays. Website.

Sign up for our newsletter.

Read the original here:

Uncle Bobbies in Germantown Is More Than Just Dope Books and Great Coffee - Eater Philly

SOUTH BEND, Ind. The University of Notre Dame observed the conclusion of Religious Freedom Week in the U.S. with a Religious Liberty Summit June 28-29 that invited ecumenical leaders and scholars from around the nation to discuss the various challenges to religious liberty.

Religious Freedom Week is observed June 22 to June 29 each year. The annual observance, sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, always begins on the feast of two English martyrs who fought religious persecution, Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher, and ends with the feast of two apostles martyred in Rome, Sts. Peter and Paul.

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for Religious Liberty, set the tone for the Notre Dame conference in his keynote address, observing that religious freedom is a human right, "essential to the dignity of the human person and the flourishing of all that is noble in us."

He noted that defending religious freedom used to be "a nonconfrontational no-brainer," as American as "mom, apple pie, the flag and Knute Rockne." Now, he continued, defense of religious liberty has become "caricatured" as an "oppressive, partisan, unenlightened, right-wing crusade," even considered by some to be discrimination.

This false narrative must be corrected, Cardinal Dolan stressed, and he proceeded to do so by discussing the concept of religious freedom enshrined in the founding documents of the United States. He made four major points in his keynote, titled "Correcting the Narrative."

First, he said that we advocate for religious freedom not primarily because we are believers, but because we are "Americans, patriots, rational human beings." Religious freedom is a fact of the American experiment that has been cherished and defended by people of all faiths.

Second, religious liberty is not a conservative issue, but historically considered part of a movement that is "progressive and reforming." Cardinal Dolan, who has a doctorate in American church history, observed that freedom of religion is "the first line of defense of/and protection of all human rights."

Further, religious liberty has been "the driving force of almost every enlightening, unshackling, noble cause in American history," he said, including movements such as abolition of slavery and the campaigns for voting rights and civil rights.

Third, "religious freedom is enshrined not to protect the government from religion, but religion from the government," Cardinal Dolan explained.

The various religious groups who first settled in this country did not want special treatment from the government, but rather just wanted to be left alone to practice their faith, worship in their tradition and follow their consciences in the public square. Thus, freedom for religion became a keystone in the country's founding documents.

Fourth, throughout most of our history, American culture welcomed religious voices in the public square, Cardinal Dolan said. Then the culture moved to neutrality before arriving at the present moment, in which believers face "downright antagonism," he said, and the message that we must leave our conscience behind when we enter the public square.

Panelists of various faiths who spoke at the conference indicated no disagreements with Cardinal Dolan's assessment, and in fact stressed the necessity for all people of faith to work together to defend and promote religious liberty in this country and abroad.

In a panel on "Overcoming Polarization of Religious Liberty," Asma Uddin, a Muslim attorney and scholar, said that people of various faiths have to stop berating each other if believers are to move forward in obtaining and preserving religious freedom.

The author of "The Politics of Vulnerability: How to Heal Muslim-Christian Relations in a Post-Christian America", Uddin said that people will feel less threatened if we stop emphasizing our differences and focus on our common status as human beings.

A panel on "International Threats to Religious Liberty" featured international speakers, including a representative of the Aid to the Church in Need, Marcela Szymanski. She reported that 62 countries present a danger to their citizens when it comes to religious liberty, even though most of those countries have signed the International Treaty on Human Rights.

Suppressing religious freedom is always part of a "power-grabbing strategy" with no consequences to the perpetrators, she said.

A panel on "Religious Liberty and the Press" included representatives of the secular media and one Catholic spokesperson. Gretchen Crowe, editorial director for Our Sunday Visitor periodicals, explained that the Catholic press seeks to form and inform its readers to advance the mission of the church. That can include filling in gaps, correcting misinformation from the secular media and providing clarity on significant issues, she said.

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who is a member of the bishops' religious liberty committee, welcomed participants to the diocese and praised the Notre Dame Law School for establishing the Religious Liberty Initiative.

That initiative, begun by Dean G. Marcus Cole of the law school, will assemble international scholars to study the issue, train law students to defend religious freedom by pursuing claims in the courts, and organize events like the June summit. Two future summits are planned for Rome in 2022 and Jerusalem in 2023.

Bishop Rhoades told the conference that not only was the initiative a great service to the Catholic Church and to all communities of faith, but also a service to our nation at a time when not just freedom to worship is threatened, but so too is the freedom to live out our faith and bear witness to its moral truths in social services, schools and other institutions that serve the common good.

"Religious freedom allows the church and all religious communities to live out their faith in public and to serve the good of all," Bishop Rhoades said.

Go here to read the rest:

Dolan: Religious freedom is a human right and 'essential' to human dignity - Arlington Catholic Herald

SIR It was astonishing, but somehow not unexpected, to see such an unbecoming memorial to Princess Diana unveiled last week (report, July 2). It is positively Stalinist in its dreary greyness, its unsympathetic portrayal of its subject, and its consequent failure to capture a likeness or her ebullient character.

Much better would have been an even more extensive memorial planting of the Sunken Garden.

Marian WatersPebworth, Worcestershire

SIR Simon Heffer explores important issues in his lament over the poor quality of modern public statues (Features, July 3), perhaps most clearly shown in the festival of tat inflicted on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.

However, I take gentle issue with him when he says one must go back to before the Second World War to detect a public piece of art that was well-executed, dignified and inspiring. On a recent visit to Sheffield I was struck deeply by Martin Jenningss 2016 work Women of Steel a simple, dignified and compelling celebration of the women who contributed to that great citys industry in two world wars.

Neville WhiteOrpington, Kent

SIR I would urge Simon Heffer to consider the excellent works by Alexander Sandy Stoddart in Scotland and, in particular, Edinburgh. I suggest he will find they satisfy his criteria for dignity and excellence.

John MaloneyEdinburgh

SIR If Simon Heffer was disappointed by the Harold Wilson in Huyton, he might find the one of him outside Huddersfield railway station more acceptable.

Commemorative sculpture doesnt have to be cautiously dignified. Graham Ibbesons representations of William Webb Ellis at Rugby, Fred Trueman in Skipton and of the footballersCunningham, Regis and Batson (the ThreeDegrees) in West Bromwich are all are all fitting tributes to important figures. Ibbesons statues, such as Eric Morecambe in his home town and Laurel and Hardy in Ulverston, often put a smile on the face of the passing public.

John BirkbeckBarnsley, South Yorkshire

SIR Sadly, it is not only public sculpture that is a dying art. The ability to produce a beautiful and detailed coin or medal has also been lost. It is no coincidence that Benedetto Pistruccis image of St George slaying the dragon still adorns our coinage after more than 200 years.

The real or symbolic scenes once depicted on our military medals were true works of art; now they lack detail, are simplistic and largely meaningless. The effigy of the Queen on modern medal issues is quite hideous. It is totally disproportionate, with a crown so large that Her Majestys head is pushed to the bottom of the frame.

Nicholas YoungLondon W13

SIR I fully concur with General Lord Dannatts article (Our success in Afghanistan was squandered, Comment, July 2).

In my recent book, I too pointed to the deleterious impact of the fatal 2003 Iraq War strategic diversion and the abject failure of both Britain and the US to supply sufficient military resources to contain the Taliban and thereby successfully nation build in Afghanistan. In addition I highlighted Britains specific political failure in view of her longer experience in Afghan political and military affairs to harnessfully the support of regional allies (notably India and Pakistan) and indigenous allies/collaborators (notably the Hazara) in stabilising this unfortunate nation.

We were far too complacent after our Christmas 2001 premature claims of victory and sacrificed far too many of our brave soldiers by failing to manage a country of which Sir Olaf Caroe, Britains last governor of the North West Province of India, said in 1947: Unlike other wars, Afghan wars only become serious when they are over.

Dr Edmund YorkeVisiting Research FellowUniversity of Reading

SIR Of course the emphasis post-lockdown should be on personal protection (report, July 4). I would agree that the wearing of face coverings and social distancing can be optional in most situations, but control should remain in some. I would include essential shops (easy to determine those that were allowed to open in the first lockdown) and public transport.

Personal protection is dependent upon the actions of others.

Dr Frank BoothExmouth, Devon

SIR On the same day that Cambridge University reported that they were resuming in-person graduation ceremonies for the first time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, my daughter, who graduated from Bishop Grosseteste University last year, received a message from that establishment stating that the deferred graduation ceremony, arranged for July 20, has been cancelled. Given that all restrictions are set to be lifted on July 19, this is another slap in the face for a group of young people who have already suffered greatly over the past 15 months.

Graduations are an important rite of passage, both for the graduates and for their families. There has been little enough to celebrate recently, and by this action Bishop Grosseteste has removed the opportunity for a family celebration that has long been anticipated.

Tony GreenHigh Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

SIR Your report on Britains reliance on electricity is very worrying (Power cuts will become more severe as electricity use explodes, June 16). To put all our eggs in one basket is crazy. Would it not be better also to use and concentrate development on alternative power sources such as hydrogen and biofuels?

John HeywoodKingsbridge, Devon

SIR Perhaps Cornelia van der Poll and her colleagues (Letters, July 2) and any other readers who are concerned about the direction of travel of the National Trust might like to consider joining the National Trust for Scotland.

My wife and I, despite being English and living in England, did this many years ago and we have not regretted it. It is an excellent and friendly organisation; it produces a splendid magazine, and it is not run by the woke brigade. Annual charges are less than the English version. We dont get the comprehensive printed guide to properties, but all the information we need is readily available online.

Give it a thought. A mass exodus of members to the National Trust for Scotland might concentrate a few minds in England.

David PoundDaventry, Northamptonshire

SIR Roger Bootle (Business, June 28) calls for downsizing to be encouraged through the abolition of stamp duty for the the many moving from properties that are under-occupied. The bigger problem for those seeking to downsize, however, is where to go next.

The Government and planners all seem wedded to the idea, sold to them by developers, that anyone over pension age is a last-time seller and thus ready to go straight into a granny flat. Most people in their sixties whose families have flown the nest can look forward to 20 years of good health. There are many who would happily downsize, but who are not ready to part with either a garden or with most of their possessions in order to squeeze into a flat 20 years too soon. They just want a smaller house.

The problem would seem to be that developers are allowed to build the houses they want to build, rather than the ones needed to complement and make best use of the existing housing stock.

Mike BussellYeovil, Somerset

SIR The ongoing overdevelopment of housing estates in the county has seen a huge increase in roadkill. The developers idea of landscaping is to plant token trees namely cherry, almond and birch.

These give no shelter to nesting birds and provide no autumn fruits for feed. Hedgehogs and birds die on the roads as they have to travel greater distances to forage for food.

Maggie SichelWellington, Shropshire

See the rest here:

Letters: Diana, Princess of Wales, deserved better than this unbecoming statue - Telegraph.co.uk

"In most circles prison abolition is simply unthinkable and implausible. Prison abolitionists are dismissed as utopians and idealists whose ideas are at best unrealistic and impracticable, and, at worst, mystifying and foolish. This is a measure of how difficult it is to envision a social order that does not rely on the threat of sequestering people in dreadful places designed to separate them from their communities and families. The prison is considered so 'natural' that it is extremely hard to imagine life without it." Angela Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete?

Scalawag founded Abolition Week in 2020 to spotlight incarcerated writers, reflect on our values as an abolitionist organization, and encourage fellow media to join us. As the national media is shifting its attention away from demands to restructure, defund, and abolish the police, Scalawag's Abolition Week is an appeal to keep these conversations at the forefront. Learn more.

Last summer, in the wake of the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and countless others, we wanted to tear the world down and build anew.

Violent crackdowns by police on protesters showed us what we already knew to be true: The state's never-ending reliance on dehumanizing tactics doesn't just cause harm in our streets or prisons, but everywhereour schools, our statehouses, our borders.

Black ancestors in the South long ago began this work of building a world without the horror of state-sanctioned violence and bondage. This is the legacy we've inherited. This is our work as abolitioniststo radically imagine and build toward a liberated world. As prison scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore said, "Abolition is about presence, not absence. It's about building life-affirming institutions."

We wanted to tear the world down. But what are we building in its place?

For our partas parents, partners, children, friends, neighbors, writers, and artistswe're committed to rejecting retribution as a way of life. We try not to shun our loved ones or shame our colleagues.

We do this imperfectly. We do this with devotion. We understand that punishing others in our personal lives makes it easy to uphold unjust systems of punishment everywhere.

For our part as journalists, this work also means shining a light on ongoing abolitionist efforts right now, lending our platform to those who are actively harmed by carceral systems as many newsrooms remain silent and complicit.

Each day this week, Scalawag will be publishing stories, hosting events, and engaging in conversations around abolition with incarcerated people, abolitionist scholars, artists, organizersand you. If you've been doing this work, thank you. If you're new to abolition, welcome.

Abolition is an unwillingness to accept that the conditions of the South's origin storyfrom slavery, to segregation and Jim Crow, to policing and prisonsare unchangeable, and a commitment to adapt in response even as they continue to regenerate.

Abolition is the strategic reallocation of resources, funding, and responsibility away from oppressive systemsincluding the policetoward community-based, life-affirming models of safety, support, and prevention. We're here to imagine and support the life-affirming movements, organizations, and ways of being that serve as the building blocks for the liberated world we all deserve.

In a liberated world, instead of armed agents of the state arriving during a mental health crisis, a trained counselor arrives. Instead of tax dollars funneled into anti-bias cop training and the militarization of small-town police departments, community money goes to Black- and brown-owned food cooperatives, free health care clinics, and accessible housing.

We believe this liberated world will come to us, in part, through abolition.

Abolition is the dismantling of oppressive institutions and the systems that keep folks in bondage.

The liberated world we're building is one in which all people are free from prisons and cages, where the state has no power to seize or control our bodies, where people address harm through restorative justice rather than punitive consequences, where we are free to be our whole selves in communities built around a shared ethical agreement to support and love one another, and where we never use violence as a means to enforce safety.

Abolition asks us to take a long view, to stop repeating harms done long ago that echo through our country, communities, families, and bodies. It's the work of unraveling the very roots of this country.

Abolition is the eradication of the state being able to control or seize your body, the creation of community accountability measures in place of our punitive systems, including police, prisons, and jails.

And we know something about that in the South. The home of slavery is also the birthplace of slave revolts. People who call this place home sparked the fights for civil rights, labor organizing, and almost every other movement rooted in dismantling oppressive systems. For too long, though, white southerners have been unwilling to accept the real history of the South. For generations, steeped in the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and "states' rights," they've refused the reality of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregationwhich makes easy work of ignoring the ongoing horrors of racial violence.

Meanwhile, Black Southerners have time and again envisioned our future. Abolition is the continuation of the work Black ancestors in the South did to radically imagine, seek, and take back their freedom from chattel slavery. That work is not done as long as police and prisons live on to uphold legal enslavement on this land.

Abolition is an imaginative tool for redefining and refining our existing reality. Abolition believes in healing our ways of connecting to one another preceding, during, and after instances of harm and severed bonds.

This week, you'll meet abolitionist artists, organizers, thinkers, and fighters radically imagining a world where racism, extraction, and domination are outdated modes of our collective past. We can't understand what life-affirming institutions are until we understand the institutions that are life-destroying, by design.

People in power over incarcerated folks silence those on the inside to make sure those of us on the outside never hear their stories. We are not meant to know the harsh conditions inside our prisons or the conditions that brought people there in the first place. And hard as these stories are to hear, we must hear them to begin advocating for the dignity of those who have experienced these conditions firsthand.

So, this week, you'll meet formerly incarcerated folks and those still on the inside whose insights are more revelatory, more worthy than anything we as scholars, artists, and journalists might offer. Once you understand the reality of prisons, you'll see why the need for abolition is immediate.

Abolition is necessary for liberation. And it's necessary for our dignity, our sanity, our wholeness. None of us are free in a society that profits off the imprisonment and dishenfrachiment of its people.

Abolition is not easy. For most of us, it's hard to imagine upending what we know of how society functions, to imagine our communities wholly free of our deepest-rooted, most powerful systems. But just as abolition is about presence, it's also about willingness.

We must be willing to refuse that the conditions of the South are as unchangeable as many who hold power here and many who've never stepped foot here would have us imagine.

We must be willing to bend time, to look honestly at our history, ourselves, and our roles in upholding systems where people are not free. We must be willing to dream our wildest dreams.

Realizing Abolition is an opportunity to gather together with others committed to challenging the existence of prisons in our society

Illustrations for this piece are by E.L. Tedana. Active with A.B.O. Comix since 2017, they plan on working with A.B.O. Comix once released as well. They have been incarcerated for 20 years and are currently seeking post conviction relief. E.L. is eligible for parole in 2 years.

Artwork for Scalawag's Abolition Week 2021 is provided by A.B.O. Comix, a small press and advocacy collective that works in solidarity with currently/formerly incarcerated LGBTQ people to amplify their voices and publish their creative endeavors.

Read more from the original source:

Welcome to Abolition Week Scalawag - scalawagmagazine.org

As the United States celebrated Juneteenth as a national holiday for the first time this year, a number of major cities in the Netherlands have asked the Dutch government to recognise the abolition of slavery with a national holiday here as well.

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden passed legislation officially recognising the anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the United States on June 19, and the public holiday was celebrated on Friday, June 18 for the first time, as the official holiday fell on a Saturday this year.

Linda Nooitmeer, chair of the National Institute of Dutch Slavery History and Legacy (NiNsee), praised the US decision to recognise the significant day in history, calling it a real step towards worldwide recognition of the history of slavery.

To further this recognition, Nooitmeer said she would like to see Keti Koti (broken chains) recognised as a national holiday in the Netherlands to celebrate the abolition of slavery in Suriname and the Dutch Antilles on July 1, 1863, and honour the lives lost. When we commemorate the victims together, we recognisethat the history of slavery has had an impact and continues to have an impact, Nooitmeer explained. Then you can also ask what we are going to do to nullify its effects."

A number of Dutch cities have supported Nooitmeers call, as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht urged the cabinet to make Keti Koti(July 1) a national holiday. Councillor for Amsterdam,Nenita La Rose from the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), believes the holiday can aid national reflection on the Netherlands history and the ongoing impact of slavery.

In a letter to the cabinet, the cities call for the hidden and inconvenient history of slavery to be brought out of the shadows, allowing for the stories of the slavery past and colonial history [to] be discussed openly. In addition to making Keti Koti a holiday, the cities would like to see a national survey conducted into the role the Netherlandsplayed in the slave trade, and would like a National Bureau of Racism and Discrimination to be established.

Nooitmeer has, however, said that the holiday can only work if it operates as a first step towards taking further action to combat the long-term effects of slavery. Concrete measures must follow, she says. Investments in Afro-Dutch communities in the Netherlands and in the former colonies, combating abuses in the housing and labour market. Something must be done, otherwise, such a day will remain symbolic."

Thumb: National Monument to Slavery, viaStadsarchief Amsterdam / Martin Alberts.

By clicking subscribe, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with our privacy policy. For more information, please visit this page.

Continue reading here:

Dutch cities ask government to recognise abolition of slavery with national holiday - IamExpat in the Netherlands

While the 13th Amendment abolished chattel slavery, an often ignored clause still allows for slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. This slavery clause is now the target of #EndTheException, a new campaign launched this year on Juneteenth weekend. #EndTheException is pushing for the passage of the Abolition Amendment, a joint resolution cosponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Nikema Williams, which would strike the slavery clause from the 13th Amendment making it so that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude may be imposed as a punishment for a crime.

On Saturday, June 19, as communities across the country celebrated Juneteenth a long celebrated holiday by Black Americans, particularly Black Texans Merkley and Williams joined advocates from groups including WorthRises, LatinoJustice PRLDF, JustLeadershipUSA, and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition for an online discussion about the #EndTheException campaign and to explain how the promise of freedom has yet to be unfulfilled.

The average incarcerated worker earns 86 cents per hour, and yet in five states Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas laborers inside earn nothing. Jorge Renaud, the national criminal justice director for LatinoJustice PRLDF, was incarcerated in Texas for 27 years. For 13 years, he experienced not just the painful labor of fieldwork chopping trees and picking cotton, sorghum, and corn but also retaliation when refusing to work.

[It was] two years into my last sentence I had a 60-year sentence, Renaud said, I thought I was going to die in prison and I drew a line. I said, There are some things Im not going to do for you all. I dont care what you do to me. So Im working out in the fields and I threw my aggy [grubbing hoe] up in the air and I was lucky they didnt shoot me. They said, Youre not going to work? and I said, Im not going out in the fields for yall, and they put me in solitary for a couple of years.

Renaud spoke of how prisons force incarcerated laborers to work any type of job assigned to them, and how protesting such work will inevitably lead to being assigned more brutal jobs, more degrading jobs until you finally end up in solitary confinement. [Then] you dont have to work but now youre in there with nothing: no privileges, no commissary, no visitation, no nothing.

The inclusion of the slavery clause made the passage of restrictions targeting Black people like the Black Codes possible as well as convict leasing of the late 19th century. Its important not to erase the unique horrors faced by those who were enslaved and those who are currently or formerly incarcerated, but the fact is that the slavery clause helped enable the current system of prison labor where incarcerated people are forced to work for both the state as well as private companies for little to no pay.

Recent years have brought more attention to how private companies make up a small portion of those who benefit from incarcerated labor only roughly 1% of incarcerated laborers are employed by private companies and about 6% of imprisoned workers are employed by state agencies who task them with jobs including manufacturing furniture for public colleges, making hand sanitizer, or washing scrubs and linens for state hospitals. In truth, the overwhelming majority of work performed by incarcerated laborers involves facility maintenance a fact that panelist Deanna Hoskins, president and CEO of JustLeadership USA, came to understand years after her own incarceration in Ohio where she was not paid at all for her labor.

I thought it was an incentive, Hoskins said. We take these jobs thinking, Ill work in the kitchen to get extra food, or Ill work in the laundry to get out of the current pod and not be in the chaos.

It wasnt until Hoskins went to work for a Department of Corrections that she understood whose labor was actually keeping the facilities operating. The state was effectively undercutting their employee budget by having incarcerated individuals staff services like laundry, landscaping, working in the kitchen, custodial work, janitorial work, gardening, and so on.

Even down to state departments actually used womens prisons as their call centers to alleviate them from having to pay for that, Hoskins said.

In Texas, Renaud pointed out, the type of work provided to those inside also varies tremendously based on race. Black and Latinx people are often assigned to these more custodial positions while their white peers are more likely to get jobs that enable them to acquire more technical skills.

I once took a tour about five years ago, Renaud said. I took some legislators down to a prison in TDCJ where they [offered] computer refurbishing. They had some 47 people in there [working on computers] and there were two Black individuals and like three Latinos. That job at least could give you some technical expertise [so that] when you got out there would be a prestigious job or maybe a well-paid job, [but it] was reserved still for white people.

The phenomenon reminded Renaud of the separation between enslaved people working in the house versus the field. It also serves as a reminder that in addition to the loss of wages and the strain that places on families who are now tasked with financially supporting their incarcerated loved ones, prison labor also fails to provide jobs that can translate into careers upon release.

Even jobs that could lead to fruitful careers, such as positions in Californias Conservation Camps where incarcerated people fight fires alongside local and state fire departments, are rife with inequity. In addition to not earning anything close to the wages enjoyed by their free world counterparts, incarcerated firefighters are often barred from continuing this work upon their release because of restrictions in getting their license due to their past conviction. For Michael Mendoza, director of national advocacy for the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, this profoundly stifles peoples ability to reshape their lives.

When we talk about jobs in prison, Mendoza said, Were talking about jobs that dont lead to actual careers because of these exceptions and these laws that we desperately need to change.

In addition to advocating for The Abolition Amendment at the federal level, movements to end prison slavery are being made on the state level as well. Thus far, Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska have abolished prison slavery in their state constitutions and groups like the Abolish Slavery National Network are working with grassroots organizers in 24 other states to help works towards the same goal.

Writers, historians, and activists have warned about the dangers of overconflating chattel slavery and mass incarceration arguing that doing so ignores the unique horrors faced by those who were enslaved and those who are currently or formerly incarcerated but the slavery clause is an important tie between the two oppressive systems that must be addressed. As the country winds down Juneteenth celebrations for the yearthe first in which the day was commemorated as a federal holiday #EndTheException organizers are tasking the public with not just memorializing the past but also considering our responsibility in the present to create a more free future.

This fight is deeply important to the soul of our nation, said Kamau Allen, lead organizer with the Abolish Slavery National Network. We find ourselves at a crossroads to decide who we want to be as a society moving forward. We must win and we can win because weve done this before.

Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people, places and issues currently underreported by national media.

See the article here:

Organizers Are Calling on Congress to Close Loophole That Enables Prison Slavery - Truthout

Senator Bernie Sanders appears to have changed his mind on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT). Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sanders previously has come out quite strongly against lifting the cap, saying in May: It sends a terrible, terrible messageyou cant be on the side of the wealthy and powerful if youre going to really fight for working families.

But the Senators draft budget document includes money for partially lifting the SALT cap. No further details are available at this point, but Sen. Sanders has also said in a TV interview: There are middle-class families in states where property taxes are very high, that are paying a whole lot in state and local taxes. And I think we have to support them. On the other hand, if you got some billionaires who own a massive mansion, should they be able to write off their state and local taxes? The answer is no, they should not.

No doubt there are political considerations at play here. But from a policy perspective, Sen. Sanders was right in May and is wrong now. Any relaxation of the cap will necessarily benefit people towards the top of the income ladder. If the cap was lifted to $20,000, for example, over 95 percent of the benefit would flow to the top income quintile. Not billionaires, perhaps but hardly the neediest in our society.

We have argued against lifting the $10,000 cap in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in a short analysis for Brookings. Our case is quite straightforward: the benefits of repeal would flow to the rich and affluent, who now have a disproportionate influence on the Democratic Party. To be specific, the top 1 percent would get an average tax cut of over $35,000. The middle class would get an average tax cut of about $37 (note that our analyses here relate to full repeal, since we do not know yet what alternative Sen. Sanders has in mind):

This is not a good way to spend $70 billion each year, especially for politicians committed to fighting inequality. Over the past several decades, the top of the income distribution has dramatically pulled away from everyone else. The top one percents income more than tripled from 1979 to 2017. They do not need a tax cut.

Arguments have ensued. Emails have been received. Tweets have been tweeted. A SALT caucus has formed. And many questions have been asked. Here we set out, as fairly as possible, what we think are the strongest counters to our position, perhaps some of which have influenced Sen. Sanders and why we dont find them persuasive.

We dont deny the politics here. But good policy is good policy even if the political motivations behind it were questionable. The motivation of legislators is not a good measure of the quality of the policy itself. Good policies can result from bad motivations, as well as the other way around. One of the casualties of political polarization is to adopt a stance towards policy based largely on its provenance. The view that a policy must be good or bad because it was pursued by Obama or Trump is a dangerous one indeed. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The idea of a donor stateor even a moocher stateoften emerges in arguments over SALT. The impression given is that the Treasurer of New York State writes a big check to the Secretary of the Treasury. But of course, that is not what is happening. The IRS taxes people, not states. And rich people pay more taxes. So, a donor state is just a state with lots of rich people living it. If there is an unequal geographic distribution of income, then a progressive tax and transfer system will have so-called donor states by designit means the system is working.

Further, there is no strong argument that rich people living together in a place with high taxes should be taxed less by the federal government than equally rich people in another state. Why should a New York millionaire contribute less than a Las Vegas millionaire towards national goods from which they derive equal benefit, for example national defense, or infrastructure, or AmeriCorps? The argument sometimes made here is that the New Yorker is contributing more to government services overall (through the New York tax system), and that some of the benefits of this spending might spill over to the residents of other states. This is an empirical question, however, and to our knowledge, there is not a definitive answer. These spillovers are almost certainly second-order effects in any case. Given the strong first-order distributional effects, that $70 billion a year does not look justified in the least.

This is not a case of double taxation. Citizens receive government services at the local, state, and federal levels. Sure, some functions overlap, but the separate levels of government often provide different types of services. As a citizen, you benefit from all three levels, thus you should fund all three. People are not being taxed on the same money twice, they are simply funding different entities out of their income. To call this double taxation is like complaining about paying for a burger from one store and paying for a muffin from a different one. And as Josh McCabe has pointed out: other countries with federal systems do not have anything like a SALT deduction. Of course, we might be getting it right, while Canada, Germany, and Australia are screwing it up: but we do not think so.

This is a reasonable argument. It raises two questions: 1) What is the empirical evidence for this? 2) If the concern is valid, is SALT the best policy to address it?

Leaving the cap on the SALT deduction may result in state and local governments moving away from income taxes and towards sales taxes. The evidence here is mixed, but the shift in revenue is plausible, especially in the long run. Frank Sammartino and Kim Rueben, our colleagues at the Tax Policy Center, summarized the literature thus: Several empirical studies have found a measurable effect of the SALT deduction on the mix of state and local taxes, but only a few of them also have found an effect of the deduction on either total state and local revenues or expenditures. Regardless, these effects are almost certainly small, which means that on net, the SALT cap is still a progressive reform. As Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama, puts it, I like calling SALT [cap] repeal the Democratic version of trickle-down economics. It is *slightly better* trickle down but slightly better than terrible is, well, pretty bad.

Even if the SALT deduction does slightly increase the fiscal space for states to raise revenue, it is then hardly the optimal approach. If the goal is to support state spending that hopefully helps the disadvantaged, trying to increase that spending by giving the rich and affluent a federal tax break is, to put it kindly, a convoluted policy design. It is like entering your house by climbing over the back fence, onto the garage roof and through the upstairs bathroom window. It can be done, but it is easier to walk through the front door. Similarly, it is far more efficient for the federal government to support states through direct spending. As Josh Bivens at EPI puts it:

The SALT deduction is one tool for redistributing tax revenue, but most working people dont have access to it, because they dont itemize their tax deductions to be able to qualify for it. We should transfer federal aid directly to states to allow them to use the money on targeted healthcare, infrastructure, and education spending, which would more progressively distribute the money and allow states to be more responsive to recessions.

We have pointed to some alternatives to lifting the SALT cap. One is to establish a State Macroeconomic Insurance Fund (SMIF), as proposed by Len Burman, Tracy Gordon, and Nikhita Airi. This fund would act as an automatic stabilizer for state revenues during downturns. Another idea is to restructure the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to be more generous and equitable. Josh McCabe thinks we should look to Canada as an example, where the funding formula is on a per capita basis and includes automatic annual increases. While the specifics of any of these plans can be debated, there are multiple alternatives to help state spending without reverting to a regressive tax break.

A related question involves the political feasibility of federal support for state spending. In other words, even if we are right in theory, in practice politics may require a second-best solutionthe SALT deduction. Since the other policy options are not currently on the table, the argument goes, lets restore the full SALT deduction as a least-worst option. To follow this line of argument is to treat public policy as a truly dismal science, and to adopt a deeply pessimistic view of political possibilityespecially given the big shifts in policy over the past year and a half. Keeping the cap on the SALT deduction is an opportunity to put better alternatives in place, even if these cannot be enacted immediately. But we should be clear. Even if the deduction was not going to be replaced, ever, with an alternative form of state support, we would still oppose lifting the cap. Even if the goal is worthy, the policy approach is so shoddy that it does not deserve the $70 billion annual price tagespecially when there are so many better candidates for that spending.

This is the purely political argument, and likely the one really driving the policy agenda here. The thinking goes: even if lifting the cap is bad and regressive policy, it is a small price to pay if it helps the Democrats to hold on to the Senate and/or House in 2022, or the White House in 2024. Perhaps lifting the SALT cap will in fact win some votes for Democrats in affluent suburbs of expensive citiesbut of course it is impossible to know for sure how big a political factor this one issue will really be.

These are partisan political calculations that are of course well outside our scope here, though it would be nave to assume that bad policy can never be good politics. Our role here is simply to point out that lifting the SALT cap is really bad policy, and against the stated progressive goals of many of those proposing it and leave it to others to judge what kind of politics we want.

This concern is overstated. The most recent data suggests no discernable change in the net migration of adjusted gross income from high-tax to low-tax states due to the SALT cap. Of course, the data is yet to be subject to rigorous causal analysis, but based on the descriptive trends and previous studies, we think the conclusion is likely to hold.

The literature is very mixed on how responsive rich taxpayers are to state taxes. Several papers find small migration effects. Two papers examine top tax rate increases in New Jersey and California, respectively, and each find small migration effects with substantial net revenue gains. Another paper looks at administrative tax data of millionaires across states and finds that higher state taxes have small effects on migration. This paper emphasizes the theory of social embeddedness of elites over the transitory millionaire hypothesis. In other words, even the richest among us choose where to live based on more than just the tax codesocial networks matter too.

Several papers find larger migration effects but come with important caveats. One study finds that state estate taxes have a large effect on migration, but in almost every case, states benefit on net from having an estate tax. In other words, the revenue collected from the estate tax exceeds the missed remaining lifetime income tax revenue from the movers. Two prominent papers that find large mobility effects are based on specific populations: European soccer stars and star scientists. These are likely upper-bound estimates on migration effects and are unrepresentative populations anyways.

Wellyes and no. This is more a problem of what one of us has called the Me? Im not Rich! problem, consisting of people failing to understand their relative affluenceoften by pointing to their considerable outgoings. But according to the Census Bureau, only 16 percent of households have incomes of at least $200,000 in the New York City area. In the San Francisco area, 26 percent of households do. Even by comparison to the other people living in these cities, these folks are squarely upper middle class.

The point here is that the income distributions of these cities are different to the U.S. as a wholebut not wildly so. Of course, it is more expensive to live in the New York City or San Francisco metro areas than in most other parts of the U.S. But this is in no small part because these are desirable places to live with robust public services, cultural amenities, rich labor markets, etc. And of course, wages are higher too. It is not clear why high demand is a sufficient reason for lifting the SALT cap. There is also something of a vicious cycle at work here. The high cost of living (especially in the Bay area) is driven in part by exclusionary zoning, too: but policymakers have repeatedly failed to make more progress on that front. The basic point here is that most of the people who would benefit most from lifting the SALT cap are rich, even by New York and San Francisco standards.

This is a bad argument for at least two reasons. First, and most fundamentally, there is only so much revenue the government can feasibly raise and a long list of important social problems that need to be addressed. We should prioritize scarce resources to pay for far more important policies, like making the expanded child tax credit permanent and addressing the racial wealth gap, among many others. Of course, raising marginal rates should be on the tablebut lets not waste our limited tax dollars by simultaneously giving a handout to the rich and affluent.

Second, lifting the SALT cap and paying for it with marginal rate increases would actually make the SALT deduction even more regressive. Deductions get more valuable as marginal rates increase. If someone is in the top marginal tax bracket under current law (37 percent) and the SALT cap is lifted, the marginal dollar deducted is worth 37 cents. If the SALT cap was lifted and the top rate is raised to, say, 40 percent, then that marginal dollar deducted is worth 40 cents. This approach puts SALT deduction advocates in the awkward position of paying for a regressive tax change by making that same tax change even more regressive; the fiscal equivalent of going round in circles.

So, there are some arguments for lifting the SALT cap, and not all of them are silly or specious. But even the best arguments for raising the cap are weak. Any of the goals listed by those arguing for its removal could be reached more efficiently and equitably in other ways. Far from seeking to restore the deduction, even if only in part, Congress should be moving towards its abolition.

Read more from the original source:

Note to Bernie: The 8 arguments for restoring the SALT deduction, and why theyre all wrong - Brookings Institution

Hajar Press is the new house setting an exciting precedent for the future of print publishing. The press aims to platform writers of colour, creating space within publishing for these writers where theres little. Founded by Brekhna Aftab and Farhaana Arefin, Hajar Press responds to the widespread commercialisation of diversity, by giving its writers room to produce transformative and urgent writing, fearlessly unpicking and critiquing systematic inequality, and encouraging readers to imagine a world beyond.

We are political, in that we dont take a neutral stance on issues like Palestine, abolition, capitalism, etc. co-founders Brekhna and Farhaana tell me. We ask our writers, What would you want to write if you could write anything you wanted? This boundary-less, free approach to writing means that Hajar Press has a line-up of some of the timeliest, fluid writing that the UK has to offer being published by them this year.

Jamal Mehmood provides the Houses latest offering with The Leaf of the Neem Tree, with gentle reflections on loss. It follows Fovea/Ages Ago by Sarah Lasoye, a careful, tender rumination on childhood, growth and time. Both books set the precedent for the talented writers releasing projects on Hajar later this year. Lola Olufemi, Heba Hayek, Yara Hawari, and Cradle Community are all releasing writing with the press, each their own fascinating explorations of worlds yet to exist, how to build those worlds, and the conflicts of our current state of living.

Most importantly, the press is tied incredibly close to the anti-racist struggle.

Anti-racism is embedded in the fabric of everything Hajar publishes. The mainstream publishing industry perpetuates at best a constrained and at worst a racist imaginary. Weve seen how successful publishers talk about diversity only when it serves the bottom line, or how free speech and publishing a plurality of voices is invoked to publish racists or bigots instead of building trust with marginalised communities (which would mean actually doing the work to publish a plurality of voices!).

Hajar instead makes very clear that we are not cynically using the cloak of impartiality to publish sellable but harmful works. Instead, we want to actively engage with our communities to archive our stories and create beautiful experiments in the process.

We caught up with the Hajar Presss co-founders to hear about the exciting work they have in the pipeline, their aim to reject mainstream understandings of diversity, and creating a pocket for themselves within a predominantly white independent publishing scene.

What are you planning to publish this year?

Fovea / Ages Ago by Sarah Lasoye

Sarahs collection takes primary school as its landscape, showing how those formative first experiences, with their patterns and emotional contours, are often very impactful and can stay with us in later life. We love the energy in her poetry its full of sharp movement and acute insight as well as how the work is full of reverence, for childhood, for friends, for the world around us, for artistic predecessors.

The Leaf of the Neem Tree by Jamal Mehmood

Bittersweetness makes up the very fabric of this collection tales of migration and heritage weave into a tapestry that is soulful and quietly spiritual. There is a slow unravelling of grief and vulnerability in a work that otherwise feels quiet and still, a sort of grief that becomes magnified through time and across different continents. Yet, meditations on the mundane aspects of life give the reader gentle reassurance, and the sea is an ever-present source of catharsis.

Sambac Beneath Unlikely Skies by Heba Hayek

This is a beautiful collection of flash fiction stories, or short vignettes, reflecting on the narrators childhood in Gaza, Palestine, and on the echoes of these memories in adulthood, lived painfully far away from home. Hebas writing is sensory, full, honest and brilliantly deft traces of the past subtly mirror or layer over the present, and behind the longing and chaotic devastation is an overarching, comforting sense that everything fits together.

The Stone House by Yara Hawari

Yara has a distinctive style of writing that is quite striking: thoroughly measured, almost laconic, darkly humorous and deeply chilling. This novel not only tells the story of a family surviving trauma, but it also provides a careful and rigorous history of Palestine. The perspectives of three characters a grandmother, a mother and a son piece together the dystopian horror of settler-colonialism and the risks people will take to reclaim their homes.

Brick by Brick: How We Build a World Without Prisons by Cradle Community

This is an accessible introduction to prison abolition, written for anyone impacted by state violence and capitalism not just seasoned activists. Its hugely collaborative, drawing on the collective knowledge and experiences of many people organising across different movements for justice, like housing, climate change, feminism and migration. Cradle honours and shares examples of abolitionist work being done in the UK context, as well as in the Global South, demonstrating very powerfully how all of our struggles for liberation are interconnected.

Experiments in Imagining Otherwise by Lola Olufemi

For Lola, every turn against this world towards another is also a turning back to face the histories that precede us. People call books groundbreaking all the time, but when we read Lolas proposal, we sensed the radical potentiality in every line. Lola builds upon the collective work of black feminists and community organising to present radical literature as a living body of work. Formally ambitious and politically arousing, this is a book that invites us to experiment with the possibility of imagining otherwise.

How did you go about recruiting the selection of writers you are currently publishing?

Were both so proud to be publishing each one of our six 2021 authors. We feel that they all embody the values of Hajar, and their writing harnesses the spirit of freedom were trying to encourage. Early last year, we started reaching out to writers whose work we were interested in, introducing our project and values, and asking what they would write if they could write anything the only guide being a general min and max word count. Some were writers whose work wed heard at live poetry readings; some we knew from activist networks; some were known for nonfiction writing and journalism but wanted to foray into fiction. It was so exciting to start developing ideas with people, albeit kind of weird having all these crucial conversations during lockdown there were a lot of Zooms!

This has been a tough year, but working with our writers has been truly inspirational. All of our writers have such a vivid political understanding of the world, but they take that understanding and experience and show that things dont have to be this way. We feel so lucky to be working with writers who are carving out a new world with their words. Weve had wonderful conversations with them, and sharing stories with each other has been cathartic. We hope we can create spaces where others can have those conversations too, because they have been healing. Thats what we want Hajar to be about: carving out new worlds and creating healing spaces for people of colour.

Do you feel there is an urgency to platform newer writers of colour, if so, why?

Absolutely. Most of our writers are publishing their first books with us. We want to give a platform to new (which doesnt need to mean young) writers, but also to writers who may have published before but want to experiment with different forms of writing. We aim to build long relationships with writers at all stages in their careers, to help them to develop their work over their lives and give them space to keep trying new things.

Most publishers arent keen to take risks, particularly in times like these when its mainly backlists and bigger names driving sales. A shift to buying books through online retailers also means that readers are less spontaneous in selecting works, browsing to find what they are looking for specifically, or choosing books based on algorithms. For this reason, its important that publishers give a lot of attention to newer writers, help them develop their craft and put energy into marketing and publicising their books in creative ways.

Its also important that we dont do the classic publishing thing of putting newer writers in restrictive boxes, asking them to write books about oppressive parents, or salacious memoirs just because theyre POC. Newer writers should be given the space to write about what they want!

Where do you see the press in the coming years?

Our dream for Hajar is to connect with readers and writers, to open up a sense of possibility politically and creatively for people of colour. In the future, we would love to grow our community of subscribers and start exciting reading groups and conversations around our books. Were also looking forward to collaborations with other comrades and groups, like our friends at Maslaha and Shubbak. And we cant wait to publish more beautiful, revolutionary writing. Weve recently launched a short story competition as part of MFest, open to unpublished Muslim writers of colour.In an industry known for its hierarchies and exclusivity, initiatives like this give marginalised writers the opportunity and platform to develop their work.

Were also both very committed to making Hajar sustainable, to building something that will last. To do that we know we have to be attentive to our capacity and resources, so that we dont overstretch ourselves and can continue giving each of our authors the attention and care they deserve. This year weve been working for Hajar for free, but thanks to the overwhelming support we received from our communities through last years crowdfunder, we do have enough money to be able to publish our first list of books. Were not sure yet how were going to raise the funds for our 2022 list, so unfortunately a lot of what we do will depend on funding.

As long as we can continue publishing works that archive our stories and experiment with possibilities of radically changing the world, while looking after each other, well consider Hajar to be a success.

Fovea/Ages Ago by Sarah Lasoye and he Leaf of the Neem Tree by Jamal Mehmood are both published by Hajar Press

Read the original:

Features | Tome On The Range | Hajar Press: The Indie Publisher With Anti-Racism At Its Core - The Quietus