Socialists and the credit crunch. Far left policies are... what?

Well, that is a question of what we want as an end goal.  It seems like me and ecopinko want to actually eliminate capitalism, while you favour a social democratic approach which is basically capitalism with some elements of socialism like healthcare, unemployment insurance, and perhaps free tuition (although you seem to point to free tuition in countries like Sweden as a positive example but oppose any lowering or even not raising of tuition in Manitoba).  I'm sure both me and ecopinko would rather live in a social-democratic society than a right-wing capitalist one, but that isn't our end goal.

And, since we have these different end goals, your end goal can be accomplished by reformism and working within our bourgeois capitalist parliamentary system and electing left of centre politicians*, roads which do not lead to the fulfillment of our end goals.

*until they betray you like a whole crop of recent politicians such as Tony Blair, Bob Rae, Gary Doer, and anyone associated with the New Zealand Labour Party in the 1980s, but these betrayals aren't just a recent phenomenon.  Heck, days after getting elected Clement Attlee called in troops to break a strike.  But that is a whole other issue...

From Solidarity  in the USA: The Financial Meltdown and a Socialist Response.

Near the end, David Finkel lists a couple of US-specific demands:

Solidarity US wrote:

Regulation in itself, however, does little to address the real
catastrophe facing tens of millions of working class families. And yet
the measures that need to be taken in this emergency are quite clear,
including these:

• * Immediate ban on foreclosures. Not only homeowners are being thrown
  on the street, but renters who didn’t even know their landlords were in
  foreclosure! Thanks to some popular struggles, the Cook County (IL)
  sheriff has suspended eviction of renters – an example that needs to
  spread. But no one should lose their home until there’s a –
• * Rewriting of mortgages to their real value. There’s no point in
  pretending that homes in today’s market are worth their paper value in
  the housing bubble. Mortgages on primary residences, not only those now
  in foreclosure, need to be written down by 30-40%, with interest
  payments reduced to abolish those subprime “adjustable-rate” schemes
  that were jammed down the throats of lower-income people and
  communities of color. (There are many cases where African-American
  women in particular could only get these extortion-rate loans even
  though their income and credit rating should have qualified for
  standard-rate mortgages.)
• * The government should take over these mortgages, paying the banks
  no more than their actual – not paper – value, and the more subprime
  lenders that go out of business in the process, the better. Further, no
  family should have to make mortgage payments exceeding 15% of household
  income. This will also have the effect of a serious “stimulus program”
  for working class America.
• * Change government priorities to what we need and eliminate what we
  can’t afford. At a time when federal, state and city budgets are choked
  by debt, “what we can’t afford” is obvious: the cost of empire. That
  means the Bush gang’s $3 trillion war in Iraq has got to go. U.S.
  military bases in 150 countries; hundreds of billions for weapons in
  space; those bloated contracts for Halliburton and private mercenary
  forces like Blackwater – all those expenses need to be zeroed out, and
  the world as well as our own society will be better for it.

What is it then that we really need? For openers, the following:

• * Guaranteed universal health care is an absolute must, especially at
  a time of growing employment insecurity. There are already at least 45
  million people in this country without health insurance, a number
  growing all the time. For all those families, the real-life threat of a
  “terrorist attack” is negligible compared to the daily terror of being
  bankrupted by an illness, or even permanent injury or death from lack
  of treatment. A single paper universal health insurance program is the
  proven, affordable method for resolving this crisis, cutting costs,
  saving lives, and protecting families from bankruptcy at the same time.
• * A jobs program on the scale of the 1930s is necessary and feasible.
  There is no lack of work to be done – especially when our
  infrastructure needs to be not only repaired but converted to the
  imperatives of a sustainable economy to avoid environmental disaster.
  Wherever corporate America won’t invest in renewable energy, massive
  recycling, mass transit and news transportation technologies, the
  government should step in with the necessary resources, creating
  literally millions of productive jobs at union wages.
• * Universal higher education can be guaranteed by supporting
  sustainable university tuition at public institutions, and by removing
  the crushing burden of student loans. This society has the resources to
  guarantee free higher education to all – but at the very least, rather
  than leaving school with tens of thousands of dollars in debts they
  can’t pay, students must have access to no-interest loans that they can
  repay after graduation with payments not exceeding 10% of their income.

There’s a great deal more that can and should be done to meet human
needs rather than corporate profit in our society – as well as
addressing the global crises of hunger, poverty and health, and the
threats of irreversible environmental catastrophe within a few short
decades. In reality, the way out of the global economic crisis lies in
a democratically controlled “sustainability revolution” as profound as
the industrial and scientific revolutions of previous centuries. That
journey has to begin with immediate human needs, and the above measures
are first steps in addressing our emergency at home. What’s needed most
urgently right now are the mass labor and social movements capable of
fighting for these demands and winning them!

From one of my old favourites:  The Labor Party Illusion

Sam Dolgoff wrote:

The record of the Labour Government which ruled Britain from 1945 to 1951
proves that it betrayed every socialist principle and violated nearly all its
pre-election pledges. These betrayals were reflected in its domestic, foreign
and colonial policies.

The direction of Labour Government policy was clearly formulated by a high
party official, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in February, 1946: "I take the
opportunity of making it quite clear that this Government like any Government
as an employer, would feel itself perfectly free to take disciplinary action
that any strike situation might develop demanded."

The Labour Party had pledged itself not to use troops as strike-breakers. Only
six days after coming into power the Labour Government ordered troops to break
a strike of London dock-workers. This was repeated three months later. The
Government decreed wage freezes and compulsory arbitration.

Pre-election pledges to the effect that the unions would have direct
representation in the management of state owned industries were forgotten. The
Party, once in power, reversed its traditional opposition to military
conscription in favor of permanent peacetime conscription.

In nationalizing the Bank of England, the coal mines, railways, canals and
other utilities, the Labour Government guaranteed the stockholders the same
income as before.

The principle behind these domestic policies guided Labour Party action in
foreign and colonial affairs as well. Before the dropping of the atom bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, President Truman had obtained the
agreement of the British Labour Government. The military adventures in Greece,
Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Korea and elsewhere caused an increase in the "defense"
budget from 692 million pounds in 1948 to 1032 million pounds in 1951. One
hundred and thirty six Spanish anti-fascists were deported into the arms
of Franco to certain imprisonment, torture or death.

The Labour Party's defeat in the last General Election was due primarily to the
justified disappointment of the workers with its actions when in power. In
1945, Arthur Greenwood (Labour Government Privy Seal) said: "I look around my
colleagues and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a
cross-section of the national life and this is something that has never
happened before."

it is impossible for any political party of "Labor" to reach power without
concessions to the Right--to the middle class--at the expense of basic
principles. "Labor" (or "Socialist") parties lose their identity and
eventually are found to differ only on minor points from the "conservative"
contenders for power. Labor Partyism is class-collaboration in the political
field and it is just as disastrous for the workers as class-collaboration has
been in the economic field. There is every reason to believe that the same
fate would befall an American labor party if one were established. Advocates
of a labor party in the U.S. could profit by the lessons of the British Labour
Party.

Admittedly, the Attlee government will be remembered as one of the better Labour governments (especially when compared to the likes of Blair), but even his government betrayed and let down its supporters upon taking power.  Attlee might have not been a Churchill, but he wasn't a saint either.

Fidel wrote:

genstrike wants low tuition fees and thinks Gary Doer has the political
wherewithall to make it happen at a provincial level, like social
democrats have done at the federal level in those countries. But then
again, he's not so sure that Gary Doer's authority to tax and subsidize
is equal to that of social democrats in the Nordic countries governing
at federal levels and opposing at federal levels by proportional
electoral systems.

Not that I particularly want to drag this thread back to this old issue, but if Doer has the political wherewithall to give tax cuts primarily to the rich and corporations to the tune of $800 million, he has the political wherewithall to spend around $200 million eliminating tuition.

Fidel wrote:

But then again, we're not sure about genstrike

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?  More of your asinine insinuations?

Fidel wrote:

Anyway, enough about those Liberals - I'm too hard on them. We know.

It's not that you're too hard on them, it's that you think that when backed into a corner (or when a thread drifts into the territory of criticizing the NDP), you seem to think that an appropriate counter-argument is some crazy non-sequitur rant about the Liberals.  I generally agree with your criticism of the Liberals, but not with trying to derail a serious discussion with poorly written non-sequitur rants.

And back on topic, these ideas put forward by the OP and by a couple of ecopinko's postings are all good ideas and steps forward.  To me, it is a little tricky on deciding what far left policies in response to this economic crisis should be.  Revolution now and implementing a complete anti-capitalist agenda "from below" would be nice, but sadly we need to work on building up the "below" and building prefigurations of the new society within the shell of the old before we're ready for that.

So, basically for any short term program what we wind up doing is instead of proposing a complete anti-capitalist program, we pretty much have to water it down to something that is actually possible to implement "from above" (assuming the politicians cooperate, which is very unlikely).  So, we wind up with a programs that have varying degrees of social democracy (although generally a lot more genuine than the brand proposed by the mainstream political parties) and state intervention.

Sadly, most of these programs generally don't say too much about our relationship with production.  I think some sort of workers self-management would be an important part of a program (which ecopinko touched on with coops), but then we get into a whole bunch of issues of whether true workers self-management can exist in a society that is still fundamentally capitalist (with a few socialist features) and if it can be implemented from above (methinks not)

genstrike wrote:

From one of my old favourites:  The Labor Party Illusion

Sam Dolgoff wrote:

The record of the Labour Government which ruled Britain from 1945 to 1951 proves that it betrayed every socialist principle and violated nearly all its pre-election pledges. These betrayals were reflected in its domestic, foreign and colonial policies.

Good you brought it up. England was a country struggling with Mosley's fascist party and an aging industrial base dilapidated after decades of neglect. Atlee's Labour was an earlier example of how a government had to deal with a bankrupt capitalist country owing massive debt to the premier emerging capitalist empire, the U.S. With British labour, English people won national health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, and a post-war national housing boom which saw millions of homes built for Britons, and making Canada's national housing program, which was short-lived some decades after Atlee's British Labour, pale in comparison. England knew social democracy decades before Canadians would ever come to benefit by medicare and decent rail service and unemployment insurance, decent housing etc. And Atlee handed India  their independence to the dismay of Britain's colonial aristocracy.

My mother was a war bride who came to Canada and couldn't believe Canadians were still using backhouses and had ditches running down the streets. One family my parents knew in the late 1940's were going to the toilet through a hole in the floor, and one outside wall of their house was propped up by a two by four. And just about every flimsy shack in the hood was infested by bedbugs. And no cash upfront no health care either. My old ma was appalled by the abject poverty across Canada and thought this country had actually been through a world war instead of England by the looks of things. You sneer  now at things you nothing of, genstrike.    

[/quote]

genstrike wrote:

Not that I particularly want to drag this thread back to this old issue, but if Doer has the political wherewithall to give tax cuts primarily to the rich and corporations to the tune of $800 million, he has the political wherewithall to spend around $200 million eliminating tuition.

You're full of baloney. Tuition fees are a small portion of post-secondary costs. Doer has other areas of the economy to allocate money to not just PSE, like: *health care, public works, and social services. And you dont have to bring up the abysmal failure of Paul Martin's 1995 budget to resemble a progressive government ever again. We won't mind at all. You're really too hard on those Liberals, you know.

Fidel wrote:

Anyway, enough about those Liberals - I'm too hard on them. We know.

genstrike wrote:

It's not that you're too hard on them, it's that you think that when backed into a corner (or when a thread drifts into the territory of criticizing the NDP), you seem to think that an appropriate counter-argument is some crazy non-sequitur rant about the Liberals.  I generally agree with your criticism of the Liberals, but not with trying to derail a serious discussion with poorly written non-sequitur rants.

Just genstrike deflecting criticism of those former head honchos who controlled the federal purse strings for twelve years leading up to the Harpers again. We get the picture. I remember a time when PSE was actually affordable in Canada. It wasnt so long ago that one could save the cost of a year's tuition with a summer job. Funny that was then, before Jean and Paulie Pockets ruled the roost compared...with... now and your obsession with Gary Doer and soaring PSE tuitions across Canada. Old Gary really gets around.

genstrike wrote:

Yeah, I'm all for opposing American capitalists and their machinations, but we need to be careful that we oppose them because they are capitalists, not becuase they are Americans, otherwise we are liable to simply trade American capitalists for Canadian ones, which isn't really a significant improvement.  And we also need to see free trade as not just an American constpiracy, but something that Canadian capitalists are willing partners in and not just spineless lackeys.

Except that they really have been lackeys to the neoliberal agenda emanating from the U.S.(and Ottawa) since the 1980's. Not all of Canada's billionaire family empires survived the neoliberal era. They thought they would become fabulously wealthy plus, if they were to gain access to U.S. markets through FTA and NAFTA. What happened after the scrapping of FIRA were unparalleled in the world foreign takeovers of Canadian crowns, crown assets and Canadian corporations. Over 36 sectors of Canada's economy are now majority foreign owned and controlled, and mostly by Americans. Not one other industrialized economy in the world allows a third as much foreign ownership in manufacturing as Canada does. And Canada's national energy plan is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in the U.S. Our two old line parties have demonstrated supreme stupidity with dealing for FTA and NAFTA. They are the stupidest trade agreements in the history of the solar system.

And just how many sectors of U.S. economy are under majority ownership and control by Canada's billionaires today?: zero, as in, nada. Yes, Canada's billionaire oligarchy arent the brightest bulbs on the tree either.

Jacob Richter wrote:

I apologize for not repeating my stance on worker co-ops in this thread, with all the history commentary and what not.

Well, it is just that you've put together a decent program, I just think that in a lot of the programs I have seen worker coops and self-management in industry should focus more prominently.

It isn't that I doubt any of your convictions or anything, it is just that we have difficulties when we try to take a long-term revolutionary program and try to cut it down to a package that can be implemented by the capitalist state in the short term.  We're always going to have issues with what to include, what to leave out, what the state can theoretically implement (if they are sympathetic, which they aren't) and what they can't.

And, of course, we need to be clear that this is only a temporary measure until we can organize to take the whole pie.

Fidel wrote:

You're full of baloney. Tuition fees are a small portion of
post-secondary costs. Doer has other areas of the economy to allocate
money to not just PSE, like: *health care, public works, and social
services.

Except he decided to allocate money to tax cuts for the rich and corporations.  It's only stoogeocracy when other people do it?

Fidel wrote:

You sneer  now at things you nothing of, genstrike. 

Back to personal attacks and calling me stupid again?

I have a feeling I should have stopped responding to Fidel a long time ago...

They were pretty damned poor in Venezuela before Chavez and still are. Venezuela has been a client state of the U.S. for many years. Lots of work to be done still.

The Evolution of Electoral Rules in Venezuela 

Revolutionary

I think our goals all along have been to close the democracy gap in this country. Or at least, it's been one of the many long term goals of the NDP in Canada.  When conventional oil and gas reserves run out in just over a dozen years or so, I think cash crop capitalism such as bananas and coffee would go over like screen doors in a submarine as far as Canadians are concerned. Failing all that I think we could be looking at plan b, or violent and bloody overthrow of the stoogeocracy. But we want to avoid that if we can.

I think debt-driven capitalism dependent on growth and maximized profit is a runaway train. Basically capitalism has to be scrapped if we are to avoid a new dark age, a proliferation of "terrorism" worldwide, and perhaps even global war.

Socialism is the only system that could save the world from ecological disaster and societal breakdown. The power of socialism is that production can be achieved at cost and labour allocated to production where necessary as resource and manpower constraints dictate. Capitalists can't compete with this model. Not without spending hundreds of billlions of dollars on a cold war. We have to eliminate the profit motive from war and overconsumption of finite resources. 

Socialism or barbarism 

Socialismo O Muerte

Scott McHale wrote:

Okay, but can we scale the goals back in scope to get to the underlying beliefs?

- Should everyone earn the same wage or should some talents/skills be considered more valueable and compensated as such?

I really have a hard time believing that workers would buck any kind of state diktat regarding pay scales. Canadians and Americans are already enjoying all-time low personal savings rates and dependent on credit for everything from housing to buying cars and nick-nacks.

As for vital services, physicians are one example of where people go into a field of study for reasons other than money. We would not see a shortage of doctors and scientists if wages were lower for those positions than they are in countries like the U.S. Cuba is a good example of this.

The Gorbachev Foundation has some things to say about remuneration for captains of industry.

Quote:

 Should the guy who just wants to party all day make and own everything that is made and owned by a doctor who heals the sick day in and day out?

The idea is to reduce inequality and live within our means. 

Quote:

- Should the changes be only Canadian or should we measure our consumption in relation to the rest of the world ( i.e. until everyone on earth has a 60 watt light bulb, no one may have two )

If we create new laws and embark on emergency rationing of finite resources, then the law has to apply to everyone, or the law will have no teeth. I would be more concerned with corporate level consumption of raw materials and fossil fuels for things people really dont need today. And there are many examples of this in our false economy today.

Fidel wrote:

I really have a hard time believing that workers would buck any kind of state diktat regarding pay scales. Canadians and Americans are already enjoying all-time low personal savings rates and dependent on credit for everything from housing to buying cars and nick-nacks.

I think it's fair to say that  those who would see their pay rise would be in favor of controls and those who would see a decline would be against.  I have no information or statistics to back this up but the conversations I have with colleagues and others I know suggest it - and I don't believe that's only because I live in Alberta.

Quote:

As for vital services, physicians are one example of where people go into a field of study for reasons other than money. We would not see a shortage of doctors and scientists if wages were lower for those positions than they are in countries like the U.S. Cuba is a good example of this.

I agree, in many instances people enter these fields for reasons other than money.  I disagree, however, if you're suggesting those people don't feel they are deserving of greater pay for their years ( and money ) invested in learning to be a doctor or scientist, than those who are unwilling or unable to muster the skill or commitment to finish high-school.

I think it's worth noting that Cubans are not free to decide and many, many Canadians have left Canada for more lucrative pay in their fields in the United States and elsewhere.

Quote:

The Gorbachev Foundation has some things to say about remuneration for captains of industry.

I'll have to look that up, I'm not familiar with their work on the topic..thanks.

Quote:

The idea is to reduce inequality and live within our means.

This is another case where my experience, however anecdotal, suggests we'd have a problem finding anything near a concensus.  I am a professed "self-limiter" and I take a good deal of flack for it.  What is wanted and what is needed has a different definition in almost every kitchen.

Quote:

 

If we create new laws and embark on emergency rationing of finite resources, then the law has to apply to everyone, or the law will have no teeth. I would be more concerned with corporate level consumption of raw materials and fossil fuels for things people really dont need today. And there are many examples of this in our false economy today.

Again, wants and needs are extremely subjective.  I do thank you though for the thoughtful responses.  I'm not trying to shoot down your responses.  I just keep running into the same issues ( I've given a lot of time to thinking along the same lines you've proposed here and I keep running into the fairness issue ).

I guess it's my turn fire up some clay ducks and let you guys take shots.

Can we look at working within the currently flawed system to develop laws ( specifically on taxation ) which reward those things people seem to desire rather than punishing those we generally seem to abhore (sp? )? 

Specifically, we need to support entreprenurialism ( we need a spell check on this site ) throughout the entire value chain of production while discouraging what some would call the looting of revenues by technocrats and managers.  These are not fully formed ideas, your shots will help me refine my thinking

The Plus-15 Corporation ( so named because I thought of it while walking in Calgary's excellent +15 system of downtown core building connections )

Canadian Corporations who meet the standards of a +15 Corporation pay no corporate tax.  Further, employees of +15 Corporations pay a preferred rate of income tax on salaries payed by the +15 Corp and no tax on profit-share revenues.

Requirements to be considered a +15 Corporation*

- Any profits ( earnings before interest, taxes, and ammortization ) exceeding 15% are paid to employees as part of a profit-share which must be evenly distributed to each working member of the corporation ( not those who are only shareholders ).  

- Salary compensation of any member of a +15 cannot be more than X times that of any other member of the corp.

.....it would be great if this number worked out to be 15 but something in the area of 6 or 7 might be more reasonable.  I realize that still sounds large to anti-capitalists but we can't escape the fact that these companies would have to compete for qualified people against other companies which would not have such controls( I also personally believe that people with talents in greater demand should be paid more than those without those talents ).

-  Non-salary compenstation, as a % of salary, of any member of the corp cannot be more than 15% above the mean non-salary compensation.

*A formula, preferably a simple one, to determine the % of inputs from non-plus15 companies would be needed to determine the 'status' as a +15.  This is to prevent a cadre of managers paying themselves wildly and avoiding taxation within the rules while simply outsourcing everything that is dilutive to their compensation.

I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

Scott McHale wrote:

I have a problem with parts of this argument.  I agree it's not reasonable in my opinion for someone to make 100 times that of someone else engaged in the work of the same company.

Especially those banksters and Wall Street fraudsters who "create wealth" out of thin air and speculating on rising prices in markets - markets ranging from actual money markets to near money markets and iou's on near money several times removed. There are markets in rare postage stamps - bits of paper that will never be used to post so much as a letter. Linda McQuaig pointed out that there are even markets in racial slurs. Shouldnt these people just work real jobs like so many other people do? The rich will invest and salt their money away in the dumbest things. But it's generally thought among neoliberal ideologues that governments don't know how to spend money. We have a $130 billion dollar infrastructure deficit across Canada, and cities and municipalities dont have the money to upgrade aging water and sewers, and Toronto and Ottawa cant afford world class transit systems. And never mind investing in green economy and infrastructure needed ASAP. Neoliberal capitalism lurches from one crisis to the next it seems.

Quote:

The fact that Buffet and Gates make the choice to give away their money doesn't necessarily suggest they don't beleive they should have been compensated for the skills they have and the risks they'd taken.  I'm certain they would not suggest that, not having the skills or taken the risks they have, I should make as much money as they do.

But without workers to manufacture and deliver their products on one end and buy their products and services on the other, where would they be? Surely they can't do everything themselves?

And besides, Gates did not invent the computer or anything so important. The beginnings of the computer and computing technology were made by people educated in universities funded with public money. Brian Kernighan, a Canadian no less, was a co-developer of C programming, a much more advanced PL than MS-BASIC. DARPA engineers and scientists practically invented the internet along with a few publicly funded researchers in the U.S. military and academy. In fact, a few hundred of them were responsible for a range of technologies, including: lasers, satellite tech in the west, important metallurgical advances, slant oil well drilling technology(Can-Am), parallel computing, RAID drive technology and so on. I think we would have personal computers today regardless of whether Bill Gates was a master of marketing and business. AES: a Canadian cautionary tale

[/quote] [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]

Fidel,

Are we in agreement though that, since the beginning of time, man has been involved in a form of capitalism - this definition is crude and there have are a litany of arguments regarding whether the trade has been fair, but nevertheless - that being the trade of something a person has an in abundance for something that is more scarce.  

Your points about Bill Gates and the fact that others, performing their jobs in the value chain, were required for him to make the enormous amount of money he's made are not incorrect but they miss the point in my opinion.  At the root of the issue, those workers traded what they had in skill, talent, strength, time for what he had; that being money or the promise of money.  

When I engage in the 'down-with-capitalism' rant ( and, believe me, I've had my fair share ) I always am left wondering who will decide what is fair or unfair.  One could pretty simply argue that if someone's willing to pay it and someone's willing to accept it, it is fair. 

If you are smarter, harder working, more focused, or simply apply your talents to efforts which others are willing to pay you well for, would you not want to make more than someone who doesn't have your skills and engages in basket-weaving all day because that's their personal preference in activities?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying the system is not currently slanted ( although I don't have solid examples at the ready ) toward those in a better starting position.  I'm not suggesting there aren't many people - I would take exception if you're suggesting this trait is exclusively found in the rich - who place their efforts, money, and personal value in vacuous (sp?) and maybe harmful pursuits. ( I don't know the ratings that shows like CRIBS get, but I do know it's still on the air and I would guess neither Gates or Buffet are avid viewers ) 

So I can better understand your position, can you comment on two points from examples I've given in the most recent posts?

1) Should everyone have to buy one beer?

1a ) Should everyone engaged in the creation, marketing, distribution of beer be paid the same wage?

2) Do you expect to make more money than those you feel provide less value to whatever organization(s) you work in?

You'll just have to have faith that I'm not attempting to work you into a corner or call you a hypocrite 'cause you happily make more money than others in your organization.  I'm not here for that.  I truly am not here for that.  

On another note, any thoughts on the +15 Corporation idea?  It doesn't address a lot of the problems folks in this particular forum have discussed ( the lack of sustainability in the development of the world economy is one but there are a host of others ) but the thinking was on ways to promote and reward entrepreneurs, creation, invention along with more equitable distribution of those rewards.

Scott McHale wrote:

Are we in agreement though that, since the beginning of time, man has been involved in a form of capitalism - this definition is crude and there have are a litany of arguments regarding whether the trade has been fair, but nevertheless - that being the trade of something a person has an in abundance for something that is more scarce.

Actually, that is not correct.  First, capitalism is a relatively new phenomenon, only going back up to about a few hundred years ago depending on which part of the world you are in.  Prior to capitalism, we had other forms of heirarchical relationships dominating society (such as master/slave systems and feudalism), but these were clearly distinct from capitalism.  Also, there are many examples of relatively egalitarian societies which did not practice systems of exploitation until they were targeted by imperialism.

Furthermore, in order to implement capitalism, the state needed to drive the people off the common lands and force them to sell their labour by cutting off any other opportunity.  It happened in England first, and then it happened here.  Capitalism is not natural, we only think it is because we are living in a capitalist society and (for almost all of us) it is all we have known.

Scott McHale wrote:

At the root of the issue, those workers traded what they had in skill,
talent, strength, time for what he had; that being money or the promise
of money.

But these trades are not fair.  Workers are (despite the inane protestations of Fidel, who apparently thinks capitalism ended in 1930 and only started coming back in the late 1970s, except in provinces with NDP governments which are all socialist paradises) generally forced to sell their labour to a capitalist, who then exploits it.  This can not be a fair trade, because to the worker, she has no alternative but to sell her labour to a capitalist (aside from starvation).  To the capitalist, he can generally take his pick from a good-sized reserve army of labour, so he has plenty of alternatives, and is thus in an excellent position to exploit the worker.

Scott McHale wrote:

1) Should everyone have to buy one beer? 

A. Define "buy" in our future society

B. No, that's just stupid.

Scott McHale wrote:

1a ) Should everyone engaged in the creation, marketing, distribution of beer be paid the same wage? 

Ideally, a single wage and some sort of balanced job complexes should be what to strive for, but there are cases where the "each according to his need" is taken into account, such as when a worker has dependents.

Scott McHale wrote:

2) Do you expect to make more money than those you feel provide less value to whatever organization(s) you work in?

Define "provide less value".  I could design a building and stuff the blueprints in my desk, and it would be of zero value.  A worker could try building a building without a plan, and it would be a total clusterfuck and the end result would be something of zero value.

Perhaps as an engineering student I shouldn't be saying this, but we need to get away from these notions that mental labour is superior to and more valuable than physical labour.

Also, it depends on how this person is "providing less value".  People can tell if someone is working slower because they are slacking off or because they don't have the same level of skill.  Those situations would be dealt with by the self-managed worker cooperatives in a democratic manner...

Scott McHale wrote:

On another note, any thoughts on the +15 Corporation idea?  

Sounds corporatist.  It definitely isn't a socialist or far left response to the credit crisis.

Also, if I'm a capitalist, why the would I want to be a +15 and why would the workers benefit?  If I'm making more than 15% I'm going to stay as a regular corporation because that way I don't have restrictions on my salary and don't have to give up excess profits, and if I'm making less, I'm not going to give any up to the workers because I only need to give up that which exceeds 15%.

A real far left response would be to say screw this +15 crap and go for self-managed worker cooperatives.

Pay no attention to anything the above poster says about anything.  He is crazy and likes to pretend to be a revolutionary socialist by naming himself after one but is in reality just a fanatical NDP hack and slightly reformist centrist social democrat*.  He also enjoys telling me to leave the country, ageism, long walks on the beach**, inconsistent beliefs on tuition, a sheep-like obedience to the NDP, and thinks I'm a Liberal secret agent sent to infiltrate babble by talking about anti-capitalist ideas and revolution for some reason.  Did I mention paranoia?

*provided reformist social democracy is still the NDP's platform, and they haven't switched to third way ideologies, in which case the above poster will support third way ideologies

**if you replace "walks on the beach" with "non-sequitur rants about Liberals and other 'stoogeocrats'"

... if by "suggest", Fidel means "rant in order to attempt to derail thread"

seriously, this is fucking ridiculous.  Why is Fidel coming out of nowhere to tell new posters to ignore me?  What the fuck?  Why is he allowed to get away with all this bullshit towards me all the time?  I'm sorry if I haven't been perfect either, I've tried to be nice, but it gets really fucking difficult when you're dealing with someone who constantly makes false accusations and insinuations against me, uses ageism to act patronizing and/or insulting, tells me to leave the country and tries to derail any thread that either isn't going well for him or criticizes the NDP, even if said criticism is constructive.

I like being able to talk to fellow people on the left, but I swear, Fidel and tag lines are the only really unpleasant parts of rabble.

You brought your sssssstupid bloody argument with me about the NDP from another thread to this one in post#3(NDP baiting...again!) & then #6., where you began being combative and attempting to derail this one before it even got started with a dog and pony about how capitalists are all ready to revert back to previous forms of failed kapitalism as a backup plan to the currently onrushing failed financial kapitalism, or some hooey.

And FYI:

This thread is NOT about Gary Doer

This thread is NOT about Manitoba

This thread is NOT specifically about the PSE tuition and student debt fiasco (or how the CFS rates the NDP's political plan numero uno for tackling that issue at the federal level, the same governmental level of authority which gutted the social transfer to provinces and territories from 1995 forward and root cause of skyrocketing tuitions, as well as soaring overall PSE costs across Canada ever since)

It's about the "credit-crunch" and socialist alternatives, aka the current global meltdown of neo bllllloody liberal kapitalism, Stop derailing this thread, or I'll complain to the mods.

 the 15 thing will help a bit but I cannot help thinking it is a diversion.

Lots of times the directors are in on the scam too. I question the prices set by the holy free market. I question how the price is set up and I see no reason why a random citizens assembly or economic wages jury could not do a better job of setting price. If it is good enough to send people to jaol, surely a jury could be convened to set the wages of MP's and directors of companys.  I mean who is doing the trade that sets up CEO compensation?

The holy free market only works properly if the participants in a transaction have perfect info on the trade. So who are the participants?  The CEO and HIS board of directors?!  It just does not seem adversarial enough to work properly  in the holy free market. It is just out in the open insider trading, isnt it. And the whole thing of directors making a fortune as their company sinks in price and profitability, Does it make sense in the holy free market?
My contension is that I am a participant too and if i shout lowd enough and if the ndp shouts loud enough it will change the wages set for the thieves at the top. Less for them, more to go around the rest of the economy.

 The holy free market is not some magical machine where you cannot tinker with it.  You HAVE to tinker with it. Otherwise it will blow up or blow down. People say shit like "let the market find its bottom" or there is a financial "bubble" or a housing "bubble" and there will be a "correction".

Socalists should say things like "hey man there is a house price bubble" Lets gently prick the bubble" (with higher interest rates or with regulation to have more social housing as devellopers build). I think socalists should be pointing out the crappy inconsistancys in the holy free market and using this as excuses to regulate it in ways that provide more equality.

Scott McHale wrote:

Brian White wrote:

Well scott, it is the holy free market and the aggregate of all opinions count in restraining the vagabonds and thieves. Just as we have laws to stop punks from walking into a bank with a gun, we can have laws to prevent punks from robbing the bank or company with a pen.

(The pen is mightier than the sword and with the type of white collar crime perpetrated by CEO's they have pens that are equivalent to platoons of armed punks).

How are pay rates currently set for CEO's, Scott? 

You know that if they meet as a group and just set their own rates, it might be a major flaw in the capatilist system.  One that needs to be fixed urgently.

Publicly traded corporations have a board of directors who seek out, hire, and compensate CEOs.  The Board of Directors are beholden to shareholders and there are a great many regulations regarding the reporting of their decisions to shareholders.  When these boards grant compensation to CEO's, it is information that is made public to shareholders and those shareholders have a number of options avialable to them.  The most obvious is simply to sell their stock but there are other legal routes - this is my understanding and I'll admit I'm not intimately familiar with these routes - which can be pursued if shareholders ( owners ) feel the board is not working in the best interest of the company.  

I'm not suggesting for a second that the investigations and prosecutions of crimes against shareholders are pursued with enough vigor, but the laws exist and sometimes are enforced ( that's why you can refer to them as white-collar criminals - my own preference being to just refer to them as criminals )

 

So, stepping back, does the suggestion of a +15 Corporation ( admitedly, it's only a starting point ) and what I've proposed look like, with a lot of work, it could begin aiming us in the right direction?

I think "credit-crunch" in the title should be changed to something that reflects the globalizing crisis of kaputalism. What's happening now is not just another S&L bailout in the U.S. or another bailout of our deregulated chartered banks in Canada. This one's gonna leave some bruises.

Gen, Brian, Jacob, Fidel,

thanks for your responses.  I find the quoting process tiresome ( maybe I'm doing it wrong ) and, since we're all in the conversation - with one annoying side conversation between Gen and Fidel - I'll just use this one post.

First off, right....on my incorrect use of the term capitalism.  I guess I was just thinking of trade in general and probably should have thought that wording through more clearly.  I do believe any proposal should protect the right of people to trade their efforts for whatever compensation they can garner.  Some people might take years of schooling to perform jobs which the vast majority of people simply could not.  They might want a huge salary. They might want a 6 hour work week.  I do believe their talents and efforts should entitle them to those options.  Alternatively, someone with talents in less demand should need to adjust their capabilities or their expectations.  I'm not arguing against compassion but we all know someone who had the capabilities and didn't put in the effort.  I don't believe they should have what other, harder working people have.  I also don't believe the "give all that you can, take only what you need" proposal can be achieved. 

I'm not trying to create a response to the current economic crisis.  While I believe this is an opportunity for people of the world to re-think the underpinnings of the current system, I fear this opportunity will fade as people who live a life of luxury ( that's us - all of us...the poorest North Americans are the envy of many around the world ) see the light at the end of the tunnel and can once again focus on needing our wants rather than wanting our needs.  

What I'm looking to propose is something that can be done now, not to fix absolutely the problems in the current system, but improve the situation.  I agree that there is some reliance in the best of human nature ( Gen, I'm speaking specifically to your question as to why corporations would move to +15 ) in the proposal but I believe there is a school of management afoot in some sectors which would recognize that the combination of preferred tax status for their company, increased employee engagement, and a recruiting advantage through preferred employee salary tax treatment ( your $1 looks better to a potential hire than that of your non +15 competition ) would ultimately lead to a more profitable enterprise in the long term. 

Fidel, I am trying very hard to work through all of my arguments while
giving most people the benefit of the doubt.  Some don't deserve it and
I don't offer that benefit when I have evidence to the contrary but I
think it's a mistake to harden a view against a system or philosophy by
attaching the philosophy itself to only the most aggregious((sp?) - is
there a spell check here somewhere? ) examples of abuse.  There are
strident capitalists who truly believe in the importance of free and
fair conduct.

Brian,

On the point about the CEO compensation, I believe it's an enormous issue but ultimately I believe the world view on investing needs to be returned to individuals investing in companies.  There was a time when people invested in companies they knew, trusted, and wished to succeed in the long term.  Today, people are 'playing' the market without any shared responsibility regarding what the companies who they bankrolling are doing.  We're also moving our money around in search of returns without any thought as to how our moves might undermine those engaged in the work of the company.  I certainly don't have a solution but I do note that people have the option of not investing.  Yes, I realize the growth economy renders our hard earned dollars less valuable every year that it's not invested in some of that growth and, no, I don't have a solution on my mind.

Again, thanks to all of you for your responses.  Please let me know if this format ( not quoting you each individually ) is too much of a pain.  I'll go back to the other format if that makes it easier for you to contribute.

P.S.  I always us "man" and "he".  I'm not a sexist and I'm not a mysoginist.  I just know that you know what I mean.

Merry Christmas,

Scott

Fidel,

I like that you've seperated capitalism from predatory capitalism.  To be sure, we've not arrived at a system which is truly sustainable.  Feudalism can easily be considered much less of an option for far more of the people.  Socialism is a wonderful idea.  Unfortunately, we've not seen it work as an economic system because our economic systems cannot be seperated from our political ones.  I'm a believer that there is greatness in human beings.  There is capacity for compassion and selflessness.  I also believe, though, that there is little tolerance in the human heart and mind for a system which mandates the exercise of these capacities.

I believe capitalism, with all of it's flaws, offers the greatest opportunity to the greatest number of people to work towards development of our knowledge and technology in the pursuit of a sustainable path forward for the whole without subjugating the inherent right of individuals to also pursue their self interest.  

I'm a believer in common goals and I certainly do feel the indirect rights of the many, to a healthy environment and peaceful justice as examples,  are fundamental to any working economic system.  Even in this belief I feel capitalism - this shouldn't be taken to mean lassez-faire capitalism - offers the greatest balance of the indirect shared rights and the direct individual rights.

Do you mind if I ask whether you're schooled officially in these matters or just someone with an interest?  I'm the latter, although I am considering engaging in a more rigorous course of study.  That may or may not mean a formal education.

Thanks,

Scott.

Fidel,

Can you direct me towards examples of socialist success which were or are sustainable and don't have a measure of capitalism in them?  The conundrum I find myself in is that one system is great for the whole at its extreme but has in it inherent difficulties which mean it cannot be fully achieved while one is awful at it's extreme but has in it absolutely necessary protection of individuals and therefore cannot be escaped.

I'm working very hard to keep my responses anchored to my core beliefs; one of those being the seeking of constructive dialogue.  I've come to accept that the fact there is good to do in the world is in itself the good in the world.  Most of the time, I'm not optimistic about our chances.

In my opinon, and for what it's worth, Ive found that few people with respected non-partisan and educated opinions will say that either model, state capitalism or state socialism, have proven to be perfect in real world implementations. But keep in mind that the Soviets never really made pie in the sky promises for what we might refer to as mini-me rich guy lifestyles for everyone in general. You might find yourself wondering whether another system based on something other than consumption of oil and its byproducts is even possible. The Americans made that decision in the 1950s, and president Bush did say in recent years that the American way of life is not open to negotiation, nor will they be recognizing anytime soon the majority international consensus agreement wrt the UN declaration of basic human rights to food and other necessities of life. As far as I'm concerned, this is an example of the divide between richest and poorest countries.

The UN needs democratizing.

Our international monetary system needs democratizing and oppressive levels of thirdworld debt forgiven.

And most importantly, the richest and most militarized countries in the world, the English speaking ones, need to deal with democratic deficits in our own backyards and to make an effort to end plutocratic rule. We should refuse to allow ourselves to be ruled by the diktats of Bay Street and Wall Street and global money speculators. You didnt vote for them, and neither did I. 

This is probably one of the most crucial points in human history. The past creates the present, and the present leads to the future. That's simple enough that I and you and many others can comprehend it without misinterpreting, deliberate or otherwise. And there are those in higher places who are rewarded handsomely for doing just that.

~ We can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or democracy, but we can not have both. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]

Just a note that the carlyle group is trying to buy up an irish bank in this depression. Thats the group that had (has) ties to j major, bush the first and bush the second and probably some the upper crust in canada too.

Its the old aristrocratic class in control of the world.  

No doubt the group is investing their gains all across the world. Power over banks can destabalize economys pretty easily. Seems they are using this crisis to get in position to create further mayhem. 

 "The private global investment firm Carlyle Group is seeking to buy a majority stake in Bank of Ireland, the countrys oldest bank.
Labour TD Sean Sherlock stressed in the Dail this week that the Goverment should be "very careful" about who it does business with.
Tim Shorrock, author of the new book Spies for Hire, estimates that of the $50bn US intelligence budget, 70% goes to private contractors like Carlyle."