babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Rich Poor Gap - Politics of Poverty
January 10, 2007 - 6:19am
Remember this shocker?
"By 9:46 a.m. on Jan. 2, the country's 100 highest paid chief corporate executives would make $38,010 – the same amount the average Canadian worker could expect to earn in the entire year."
Well there's more from the people that released this firecracker:
Rich Poor Gap Widens
Link to the website:What is the growing gap?
We've seen politicians in all our governments race to raise their pay to a level that only perhaps 5% of the population enjoy. How can they truly represent us? And yet we continue to grumble and re-elect them.
So why is it that we tolerate such treatment for the vast majority of us?
How are we any different than feudal times when: "He who has the gold makes the rules" (as said by the cartoon Wizard of Id)?
Are we not just indentured servants by a different name (capitalist consumers)?
With huge issues of poverty - child poverty - homelessness - hunger - working poor - etc etc, why do we let our governments off the hook to fix things?
Do you care about the rich-poor gap and what should be done about it?
[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]
- connections
- money and time to give to campaign
- speaking ability
- influence to help supporters
- intelligence(education)
Generally, these qualities are more often found with the rich, than with the poor. As a result, the people leading this country are invariably among the wealthiest people - and therefore, not truly representative of all the people.
I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off having our Senate selected the same way that the Citizen's Assembly is selected - so that we actually have one political body that is truly representative of the people - as opposed to rich intellectuals.
Still, it is WE who elect them, who have the capacity to formulate the priorities and issues...
Yet we do not.
Are we afraid of poverty, choose to ignore it, or like death - don't think it will happen to us.. ?
I disagree with this. The 'democratic' institutions in this country are controlled and operated by the economic system we implore.
Slavery (wage slavery) and the persuit of wealth and assets go hand in hand. Capitalism by definition is empire building, and empire implicitly indicates slavery.
You can't have democracy when it's funded by special interest.
Maybe.
ah, probably not.
Inequality of wealth is built right into our capitalist economic system, and it won't be mended without a radical change of the way the means of production are owned and controlled.
Well, if I'm following you correctly:
You suggest that a massive change to the means or production will fix things, but then you also state that our political system won't change anything.
So, I can only draw the conclusion that you are under the assumption that a revolution is the only thing that will bring the necessary change.
Have you not noticed what can happen when a Hugo Chavez gets into office? Massive change can happen through democracy.
Not exactly. My point is that changing the political system alone won't solve the problem unless the economic system is radically changed also.
True!
Yes, the Chavez events have not escaped my notice.
The massive change of which you speak is not brought about merely by electing a new government. In fact, there has never been a country where capitalism was abolished by a government that took power through the ballot box. If Chavez carries it out, it will be a world first.
I find both yours and M. Spector's comments agreeable at the same time. We have to remember though that all of these countries voting to the left recently are still developing countries with large populations of desperately poor people. It will require two to three generations of sustained socialism for Nicaragua and Venezuela to bring infant mortality and general health and literacy up to Cuban levels of achievement. The question is, will they be able to sustain their ambitious social reforms over time ?. Latin America has a history of U.S. influence and intervention in their affairs. Military coups are the levers used by those in Washington, and abroad, in funding the bloodshed in Central and S. America. The Pentagon announced increased funding to Latin America's militaries several months ago. In all instances, these militaries are autocratic in nature. The people who lead them are typically in there for life, and they can be influenced. Hugo Chavez is believed to have survived a U.S.-sponsored military coup just a few years ago. But the democratically-elected Jean Bertrand Aristide did not and was abducted by the CIA and warned never to go back to Haiti.
[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
The reason that they punish Cuba is not because of communism, or the fact that the people can't leave, or human rights, or terrorism - or any of those things, as clearly shown by their inconsistent policy towards much worse nations such as Saudi Arabia.
In fact, it's not even because they're bitter that Cuba took over American companies.
They are afraid, very afraid that Cuba's model will succeed. As a result, the people of other nations will say: we want what Cuba has. If that model spreads, the standard of living that we are all used to - whereby one hour or North American labour is equal to about 300 Latin American hours will come to a crashing halt.
While they have not rid themselves of Castro and his ideology, they have been succesful in containing him. By the economic terrorism (paying and training ex-Cubans to destroy factories etc), as well as the quasi-legal sanctions - the US has been able to depict Cuba as a poor nation as a result of communism - when in fact - it is clear to most observers that their poverty is largely the result of manipulated statistics and American actions against them.
Chavez poses the same problem - but one that is much harder to contain. Venezuela is not an island. Venezuela has resources that the US and the rest of the world need - and Venezuela is a democracy. How then can the US justify a war (direct or indirect) against the leader that the people elected.
What will happen if Venezuela is succesful in spreading their ideology to the rest of Latin America - as it seems to be? The Monroe doctrine is failing as the self-proclaimed monopoly to influence the Americas is ending.
Therefore, the corporotacracy in America and other nations is getting desperate. If this ideology is as succesful as it seems to be - global inequality will be dealt a death blow.
The US is no respecter of democracy. They engineered the overthrow of Allende (elected) and they won't hesitate to go to war with Iran just because Ahmadinejad was elected.
They also show up organizing 'left wing' labour unions.
The thread talks about a CANADIAN experience, and within a few posts the discussion turns to what happens in another country.
As I asked in this thread , what are the activist successes here locally - and there too it went to discussing other locale experiences.
Do even social justice left winger types want to ignore the issues of wealth inequality, homelessness, and hunger right here at home?
No wonder we continually elect governments who do not seem to care and do nothing to effectively address the situation.
While, all this is true - the US can not operate the way that they once did. The age of information is upon us, and people are now becoming aware of the covert actions that nations take against eachother.
They can not act with complete impunity any longer as it has a backlash against them. Look at world opinion - trust and like of the US is the lowest it has ever been - and this is in the 'friendly nations'.
Of course, it would help if the pathetic Western governments of the world - would actually take a stand against the US instead of their policy of constant appeasement due to the economic might of the US.
I used to think Chavez was crazy for always talking about the US trying to kill him - but I know now he does it out of protection. If they kill him - exactly as he predicted - the world will know and the US will never again be able to act as a champion of democracy.
[ 11 January 2007: Message edited by: Palamedes ]
Palemedes, I like you more and more with every post. But the US had already led a failed coup to kidnap Chavez, and they will stop at nothing to ensure is is dead or disabled enough to not run a country. Of that I have no doubt.
As long as we call various types of poor people by their politically correct name of the week, everything is okey dokey.
Yes, but even in that - the US could not go in directly. They could fund, train and encourage - but not intervene directly. Even the funding was hidden as best as it could be.
This is not like the US support for the Contras and other right-wing paramilitary organizations that they made no pretense of not supporting.
The US knows it is acting contrary to what the world believes to be just. And, they hide it as best they can still - but they are getting caught more and more frequently - and they need to be very careful.
An interesting story is at the time of the coup, Castro called Chavez - and said " don't do what Allende did - we will get you out of this". Together with Chavez's daughter - they were able to communicate to the military that Chavez had not resigned and was being imprisoned and secured is release.
If this was 40 years ago, Chavez would have just been killed mysteriously - like Arbenz and Torrijos.
Still, I have to think that if it were not for Iraq, the US would have been trying harder to figure out a way to eliminate Chavez - he is a huge threat to our Western way of life (treating Latin Americans like slaves - and bribing corrupt leaders for onerous trading concessions).
Your problem is that you think the United States actually cares if the rest of the world hates them. They don't. Care, that is.
First, as has already been pointed out here, the US government already tried to knock out Chavez via a goofy coup that fell flat on its face.
Second, the US government/Corporate America has NEVER championed democracy anywhere. The only times it has accepted any level of democracy is when working class and public interest forces were well organized and supported enough to force it to accept it as a condition of maintain an imperialistic presence or order (like in Western Europe after World War II).
Obviously it can--as has been done, especially in many European countries particularly in Scandinavia.
However, simply changing the government is nowhere near enough. As history has shown, democratizing our economy, one of the key fundamentals historically of the socialist movement, is what it really needed to change things for the better on a fundamental level.
The fact is, in regions of the world where we have seen some pretty fundamental and innovative changes for the better are places where, at least marginally, there have been some efforts made to democratize the economy in various regions and sectors, as well as democratizing the government (again like in places in Europe).
That’s what Chavez in Venezuela, and, to varying degrees, other center-left governments throughout South America, has campaigned on.
So far, a democratized socialistic economy has not yet become dominant in any country (despite what some governments have claimed). Capitalism in various forms is still pretty much the dominant practice.
But there are many positive efforts in communities across the globe, both via the political and business processes, to develop these democratic and sustainable economic practices.
But not the same capitalism described by Lenin pre-1924. In fact, we'd be hard-pressed to find a successful example of laissez-faire capitalism anywhere in the world post-1929. The most important economies in the world are mixed-market with significant public sector economy and strong central governments intervening in market outcomes. This is important, because we're now faced with losing many of the middle class gains made since the New Deal era and social welfare governments in copy-cat Canada since laissez-faire capitalism died in the 1930's.
Neo-Liberalism, since Milton Friedman's time and of which the genesis for was 1970's-85 Chile, is a global effort to resuscitate failed laissez-faire capitalism. Keynes saved capitalism from itself with socialist ideas, and that's important wrt to where we are right now.
Read all of Thomas Walkom's column
Good article, M. Marx was right about capitalists stealing our unpaid overtime. It's happening, and they've got workers right they want them.
When is a person "rich" and when is a person "poor"?
No. What it will do is help people understand who is being referred to when someone talks about "the rich" (is it someone making $100,000 per year?) and "the poor" (I doubt anyone will offer one of the two U.N. definitions of "poor" or "poverty", which is, alternatively, $1 per day or $2 per day).
Sven, what do you call it when poor people work for a rented roof over their heads and a few rags on their backs ?. And forget about colour TV's and stereos. Those things can be had for five bucks at a flee market in any developed country and doesn't constitute making anybody free.
People are poor if their kids don't have basic reading and writing materials and don't know their ABC's before kindergarten.
They're poor if they can't afford bus fare to go the library. They're poor if the cupboards are bare at the end of the month, and the kids go through schoolhouse doors in the morning hungry.
You're poor if your kids can't afford to participate in extra-curricular learning activities and school field trips with the rest of the class.
You're po' in Minnesota if the building where you lined up for government cheese burns down, and the state doesn't have the money to build another one.
And you're poor in North America when you believe there is a banquet happening all around you, so to speak, and you've come to the realization that you and yours are not invited.
This isn't just the third world, it's ours in North America for tens of millions of people.Your country and this one own appalling rates of child poverty, and there are other rich countries that have done a lot better job of reducing their child poverty than we have.
[ 01 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]