logo
There is hope

There is hope

Al Jazeeraa day ago
It might seem bizarre to speak of hope in these dark times. In Palestine, the horror of genocidal violence is coupled with the sickening acquiescence of Western powers to it. In Sudan, war rages, with the people of Darfur once again facing war crimes on a mass scale. While in the United States, the blitzkrieg advance of broligarchic authoritarianism has caught many by surprise and left devastation in its wake.
Yet, hope there is. For, across the icy ground of political repression and reaction, the green shoots of possibility are poking through, with movements of various sorts pointing towards a paradigm shift that places people before profit and, in so doing, charts a pathway for progressives.
The latest example is the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic Party's primary election for New York's mayoral race. Mamdani was successful because he focused on the economic difficulties faced by the poor and middle class and promised free, foundational basics, like public transport and childcare. Importantly, he proposed paying for all this by raising taxes on corporations and the rich.
In the United Kingdom, after years in the wilderness, progressives of various sorts are rallying behind Zack Polanski's bid to lead the Green Party. After he announced his intention to contest the leadership seat, party membership jumped by 8 percent in the first month alone, as people embraced his call to rein in corporate power, tax the rich, and make sure that the state serves the 99 percent instead of the 1, now and in our climate-threatened future.
In the Global South, similar trends are in evidence. In India, in the last election, the Congress party finally managed to stem the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's saffron tide by promising unconditional income support to each poor family alongside universal, cashless health insurance. This came after one of the world's largest basic income trials, conducted in Hyderabad, produced hugely exciting results that fed into Congress's thinking, with policies to be funded by more redistributive taxation.
Likewise, in South Africa, the inheritors of the country's anti-apartheid struggle have built a nationwide movement to demand extension of what was initially an emergency relief grant during the COVID-19 pandemic into a permanent basic income designed to ensure economic security for all. Aside from increasing progressive taxation, one of the more exciting ideas to emerge from this struggle for economic justice has been to frame (and fund) the basic income as a 'rightful share' due to all citizens as their portion of the country's wealth.
What unites all these various developments?
To begin to make sense of them, we first need to remind ourselves that the two fundamental questions of all politics are simply who gets what and who decides. In our present global capitalist order, the (very) rich decide, and they allocate most of the wealth that exists to themselves. In turn, like rulers throughout the ages, they pit the have-nots against those who have even less, maintaining their dominance through divide-and-rule.
At the heart of this strategy sits a foundational lie, which is repeated ad infinitum by the corporate misinformation architecture. The lie is: there is not enough to go around, because we live in a world of scarcity. From this awful premise stems the violent division of the world into 'us' and 'them', the line between one and the other determining who will and will not have access to what is needed to live a decent life. From there, it is a short step to the disciplinary notion of 'deservingness', which adds the veneer of moral justification to otherwise uncomfortable exclusions.
The contemporary rise of the far right is little more than an expression of these foundational tensions. When people struggle en masse to make ends meet, they demand more, and when they do, those who control the purse strings as well as the narrative double down on the story that in a world of scarcity, people can only have more if some other, 'less deserving', people have none.
In this historical tragedy, the far right plays a treacherous role, protecting the rich and powerful from discontent by sowing division among the dispossessed. While the centre-left – long the hapless accomplice – plays that of the useful idiot, unquestioning in its acceptance of the founding myth of scarcity and thus condemned to forever attempt the impossible: treating the symptoms of inequality without ever addressing its underlying cause.
The alternative to this doom-loop politics is obvious when you stop to think about it, and it is what distinguishes each of the exciting examples noted above. The first step is a clear, confident affirmation of what most of us intuitively know to be true – that abundant wealth exists in our world. Indeed, the numbers make clear that there is more than enough to go around. The issue, of course, is just that this wealth is poorly distributed, with the top 1 percent controlling more than 95 percent of the rest of humanity, with many corporations richer than countries, and with those trends only set to worsen as the hyper-elite write the rules and rig the political game.
The second, most vital, step is to put the question of distribution back at the centre of politics. If common people struggle to make ends meet in spite of abundant wealth, then it is only because some have too much while most do not have enough.
This is exactly what progressives in the US, the UK, India, and South Africa have been doing, evidently to great effect. And this should be no surprise – the data shows again and again that equality is popular, voters like fairness, and overwhelmingly people support limits to extreme wealth.
The third step is to frame progressive demands as policies that meet people's basic needs. What unites free childcare, healthcare, and transport? Quite simply, each of these straightforward measures will disproportionately benefit the poor, working majority and will do so precisely because they represent unavoidable everyday expenses that constrain common people's spending power. By the same token, basic income is attractive both because it is simple and because it offers the promise of foundational economic security for the majority who presently lack it.
Yet what also unites these policy proposals and the platforms they have come to represent is that they are all in important ways unconditional. It is difficult to overstate how radical this is: almost every aspect of global social policy is conditional in one sense or another. The guaranteed provision of foundational basics to all without exclusion goes against the very idea of scarcity and its craven companion, deservingness.
What it says is that we all deserve because we are all human, and because of that, we shall use the resources that exist to make sure that we all have at least the basics that make up for a decent life.
In this radical message, hope abounds. Our task now is to nurture it and help it to grow.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens tariffs in 50 days: What harm will it do to Russia?
Trump threatens tariffs in 50 days: What harm will it do to Russia?

Al Jazeera

time2 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Trump threatens tariffs in 50 days: What harm will it do to Russia?

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose steep trading restrictions on Russia unless a peace deal with Ukraine is reached within 50 days, as he announced an agreement with NATO allies to send more weapons to Kyiv. The announcements on Monday marked a shift in US foreign policy as Trump's endorsement of Ukraine comes just weeks after Washington announced it would pause weapons sales to Kyiv. But Trump has expressed increasing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin and hopes that tariffs and sanctions, as well as new deals for Patriot air defence missiles, will help bring an end to Russia's more than three-year invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Telegram that he had spoken to Trump and 'thanked him for his readiness to support Ukraine and to continue working together to stop the killings and establish a lasting and just peace'. On Tuesday, Russia's top security official, Dmitry Medvedev, said the Kremlin did not care about the 'theatrical ultimatum' issued by Trump, adding that Putin will comment on the US proposals if he deems it necessary to do so. What did Trump say? Sitting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump told reporters he was disappointed in Putin and that billions of dollars of US weapons would go to Ukraine. In recent days, Russia has launched hundreds of drones to attack Ukrainian cities, angering Trump, who had accused Putin on July 8 of throwing a lot of 'b*******' at the US. Trump has said that his shift was motivated by frustration with the Russian president. 'My conversations with him [Putin] are always very pleasant… and then the missiles go off at night,' he followed up on Monday. 'We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO,' Trump said, adding that NATO would pay for them. For his part, Rutte said that Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway want to be part of the weapons deal. Trump also said that 'we're going to be doing very severe tariffs [on Russia] if we don't have a deal in 50 days'. Putin has yet to accept a proposal from Trump for an unconditional ceasefire, which was quickly endorsed by Kyiv. Trump also said US tariffs on Russian exports would be priced 'at about 100 percent' and then threatened 'secondary tariffs [otherwise known as secondary sanctions]'. Secondary sanctions, which would be far more punishing than US tariffs, would be levied on any country that trades with Moscow, targeting its commodities business in particular. What is Trump's tariff threat to Russia? Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Western countries – including the US, the United Kingdom, and European Union nations – have imposed 21,692 sanctions on Russia, most against individuals. Key sanctions on Moscow include import bans on Russian oil, a price cap on Russian fuel, and the freezing of Russian central bank assets held in European financial institutions. But the threat to impose so-called secondary sanctions, if carried out, would mark a notable shift. So far, Group of Seven (G7) member states have held back from taking steps that would restrict Russia from selling its fossil fuels elsewhere, to key buyers like China and India. Lawmakers from both US political parties are pushing for a bill – the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 – that would target other countries that buy Russian oil and gas. The bill would give Trump the authority to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that helps Russia. US senators are reportedly waiting on Trump's OK to move the bill forward. Trump could also impose secondary tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which lets the president restrict trade in the event of a national emergency. Elsewhere, EU countries are close to reaching an agreement on a new package of sanctions against Russia, the bloc's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Tuesday. 'We hope to reach a political agreement on the 18th sanctions package,' Kallas said before a meeting with foreign affairs ministers from the 27 EU countries in Brussels. How dependent is Russia's economy on fossil fuels? Fossil fuel sales still generate substantial revenue for the Kremlin. Seaborne oil revenues, for instance, dropped modestly in 2024 but stayed at near pre-war levels. This is due to Russia's 'shadow fleet' – ships with opaque ownership structures and no Western ties in terms of finance or insurance, allowing them to bypass Western sanctions. So, while G7 sanctions have reduced Moscow's margins and increased export costs, they haven't cut volumes to importing nations. From 2022 to 2025, China has purchased almost half of Russia's total crude oil exports (roughly 5 million barrels per day), with India following closely behind at nearly 40 percent. Both countries also import a large amount of Russian coal. Other importing nations include Brazil, Turkiye and Egypt. The EU, meanwhile, continues to consume large amounts of Russian natural gas, though Brussels has stated it wants to terminate all its contracts by 2027. As for the US itself, higher tariffs on Russian goods would have little impact – exports to the US totalled just $3bn in 2024, or 0.7 percent of Russia's total exports. While fossil fuels now contribute less to Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) than pre-invasion, Moscow's dependence on energy products remains high. Estimates vary, but fossil fuels still make up 55 percent of Russian export revenues and 16 percent of its GDP (roughly $280bn) That compares with 60 percent and 18 percent, respectively, before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 – a small drop. How much could Trump's sanctions threat hurt Moscow? A sharp decline in Russian energy flows from secondary sanctions would almost certainly lead to higher global prices, particularly for natural gas. 'The impact would probably be greater on natural gas prices than oil,' said Kieran Tompkins, senior climate and commodities economist at Capital Economics, in a note. He pointed out that 'the oil market appears to have sufficient spare capacity to more or less offset a loss of Russian exports', owing to untapped OPEC supplies. However, he pointed out that 'knocking out half of Russia's crude and petroleum exports [on the back of Trump's threat] could reduce export revenues by $75bn or so.' In turn, Tompkins said that could induce a 'fiscal crisis' in Russia, leading to 'debt issuance ramping up, bond yields spiking and pressure for widespread fiscal tightening.' Looking ahead, Trump's 50-day proposal will give Moscow some time to come up with counterproposals and delay the implementation of sanctions. But Trump will be hoping that the threat of sanctions will influence Putin to put an end to hostilities.

Attacks on Palestinians intensifying in occupied West Bank: UN rights body
Attacks on Palestinians intensifying in occupied West Bank: UN rights body

Al Jazeera

time5 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Attacks on Palestinians intensifying in occupied West Bank: UN rights body

Israeli settlers and security forces have intensified their killings, attacks and harassment of Palestinians in recent weeks in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the United Nations human rights office warns. The violence also includes the demolitions of hundreds of homes and forced mass displacement of Palestinians as well as annexations of more land in violation of international law, Thameen Al-Kheetan, spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), told reporters in Geneva on Tuesday. The UN body's warning came as the Palestinian death toll in the West Bank inches closer to 1,000 since October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel and Israeli forces launched their genocidal campaign in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have been killed. At least 964 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank since that day, according to the UN. At least 2,907 home demolitions were also carried out by Israel during the same period. The UN issued its warning on Tuesday on the heels of the killing of 20-year-old United States citizen Sayfollah Mussallet, who was beaten to death by Israeli settlers in Sinjil town, northeast of Ramallah, on Friday. 'Israel must immediately stop these killings, harassment and home demolitions across the occupied Palestinian territory,' Al-Kheetan said in a separate statement published on the OHCHR website. 'As the occupying power, Israel must take all feasible measures to ensure public order and safety in the West Bank.' Since January, there have been 757 settler attacks on Palestinians or their properties, which is a 13 percent increase over the same period last year, the OHCHR said. In January, Israel also launched a major military operation called 'Iron Wall', forcibly displacing 30,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, the agency added. The OHCHR also accused Israeli forces of firing 'live ammunition at unarmed Palestinians', including those trying to go back to their homes in the refugee camps of Jenin, Tulkarem and Nur Shams. The intensity of violence by settlers and Israeli forces has so alarmed Palestinians that many, including residents in the Old City of Hebron, have been forced to turn their homes into cages, putting up barbed wire on their windows to protect themselves. Hebron resident Areej Jabari told Al Jazeera that despite the protective wire, her family still feels unsafe. 'Barbed wire can't protect from all the wire that settlers throw at us and from bullets and tear gas often fired by Israeli forces,' she said. Parts of Hebron, where about 35,000 Palestinians and 700 Israeli settlers live, are under Israeli military control. Jabari said that when she tried to document one of the attacks, Israeli forces broke into her residence, broke the glass windows, and seized her camera and its memory card. The OHCHR said Israeli forces have often used unnecessary or disproportionate force, including lethal force, against Palestinians 'who did not pose an imminent threat to life'. The youngest of the victims has been two-year-old Laila al-Khatib, who was shot in the head by Israeli forces in January while she was inside her house in Ash-Shuhada village in Jenin governorate. On July 3, 61-year-old Walid Badir was shot and killed by Israeli forces, reportedly while he was cycling home from prayers and passing through the outskirts of the Nur Shams camp. In June, the UN said it recorded the highest monthly injury toll of Palestinians in more than two decades with 96 Palestinians injured in Israeli settler attacks. Al-Kheetan said Israel is obligated as an occupying force to protect Palestinians from settler attacks. He called for an 'independent and transparent' investigation into the killings. 'Those responsible must be held to account,' Al-Kheetan said. On Monday, top church leaders and diplomats from more than 20 countries also called on Israeli settlers to be held accountable during a visit to the predominantly Christian town of Taybeh after recent attacks in the West Bank village.

Netanyahu is the 'most dangerous thing' for Jews
Netanyahu is the 'most dangerous thing' for Jews

Al Jazeera

time9 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Netanyahu is the 'most dangerous thing' for Jews

Netanyahu is the 'most dangerous thing' for Jews Quotable American Jewish actor and singer Mandy Patinkin passionately condemns Israel's leadership, calling Benjamin Netanyahu dangerous for Jews globally and denounces Israel's war on Gaza. Video Duration 01 minutes 37 seconds 01:37 Video Duration 01 minutes 10 seconds 01:10 Video Duration 01 minutes 02 seconds 01:02 Video Duration 01 minutes 00 seconds 01:00 Video Duration 01 minutes 47 seconds 01:47 Video Duration 01 minutes 00 seconds 01:00 Video Duration 00 minutes 50 seconds 00:50

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store