Canwest reports $1.4 billion loss

Propaganda is sure shedding

Jacob Two-Two said: "You must have skipped right over my post because you're still making all the same assumptions I pointed out were incorrect."

I was being polite. Get a dictionary. And after you have read the definition of socialism, finish reading this post. To read it first would just confuse you more.

Your entire concept of worker-owned co-operatives is currently operating in Canadian society, as free market, capitalist, democratic businesses. It cannot be otherwise.

Socialist systems usually require not a distribution of money, but a distribution of goods/services in relation to a person's productive work. Such a distribution system would require a socialist government to fairly(?) distribute all the goods; and according to dictionary meaning, is one step before communism.

For a reasonable review of socialism, Google:

An In-Depth Look at Socialism by Tom Anderson

Ralph Nader had the best take on socialism:

Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out.

aka Mycroft said: "Ever hear of the Marshall Program?"

Yeah, I know the Marshall Plan (not Program). What the hell does that have to do with Canadian people wanting health insurance in1937? Canada wasn't even part of the idea, never mind implementation of the Plan, it was your favorite theme - the United States. If you are going to argue with me, at least have the decency to stick to the topic. This is rabble/babble.CA

aka Mycroft: "Nope. (ABC Computer) Developed at the government supported Iowa State University."

Yeah, grant amount in dispute - either a whopping $650 or $850. So much for government R & D

aka Mycroft: "Quote: Aiken produced the Mark I in 1944 - IBM funded his research, not the government."

"Not quite, "When World War II began, all IBM facilities were placed at the disposal of the U.S. government." I think you need to read up on state capitalism during World War II and how it worked."

Really? Facilities at the disposal of U.S. government does not equate government financing.

For the truth see:

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/markI/markI_intro.html

"By then, IBM had spent approximately $200,000 on the project and donated an additional $100,000 to Harvard to cover the ASCC's operating expenses."

Not only do I know more about your famed theme - the United States, I also know more about Canada. What are you reading - some history prof who would rather pen poetry?

remind said: "Propaganda is sure shedding" 

Yeah, shedding a lot of  bullshit!

I agree you are!

Yeah, we've noticed:

Wow. Is that your version of polite?

Read the entire post Jeeezus! Jacob was bitching because I didn't answer the first post he wrote (because I was being polite). But, then Jacob pushed it in his second post and told me I was incorrect.

"A personal attack often denotes an attacker who has weak arguments" was a warning, and I was polite in my first replies. But, after that they are fair game.

It's not a game, it's a joke. And you're the butt of it.

You can keep your warnings to yourself, along with your repulsive libertarian ideology.

Why exactly are you here?

I'm talking about the welfare state in western Europe and the role of the Marshall Plan in facilitating it in an attempt to dissuade the European working class from supporting communism or radical socialism. In regards to heath insurance in 1937 I referred to the background of the Royal Commission and the social upheaval of the Great Depression and again, the role of the New Deal and its Canadian equivalent in heading off what seemed to many in the ruling class to be a march towards revolution. You've completely ignored my point, incidentally, about mass Communist parties in France and Italy which the US and the ruling class generally were very concerned about - these were popular parties, the largest parties in their respective countries so yes, in the late 1940s and even afterwards there was a very real prospect of Communism coming to power democratically in western Europe (which is what I was referring to when I talked about the post-war welfare state as a means of heading off the appeal of communism which is the point you arrogantly dismissed in contradiction to historians across the political spectrum. 

I also referred to the reasons why the CCF was able to come to power in Saskatchewan in 1944. You ignore all these points and, indeed, you ignore social context and substitute your own arrogance. Indeed, in your earlier recitation of dates you gave no indication that you knew who Tommy Douglas was or what he stood for when you mentioned his role in health insurance. A literal reading without comprehension was also evident in your reference to the Canada Health and Social Transfer which was also made without any concept of what the CHST was, what it replaced and what direction it represented.

Hmm ... bailouts do seem to be provoking a broad, hostile response at least in the US. Not that it impedes the banks and major corporations from going into a feeding frenzy on public funds.

How is a state funded university like Iowa State University funded propaganda? It's through more than grant money for an individual project.

As for the rest, read up on "miltary industrial complex" after you read up on "state capitalism".

Sure it can. Worker owned co-operatives have functioned in communist and even feudal economic systems.

Maybe, maybe not. You could have a system of labour-as-currency which doesn't involve any redistribution at all, just exchanges of labour value (certificates) for goods - which is what Marx espoused.

He wasn't the first to express similar sentiments:

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society . . .  By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.

Marx again (obviously).

Of course, thats an entirely different form of socialism than the one that is a prelude to communism or which seeks to abolish currency in favour of centralized redistribution of goods (I'm not sure such has been seriously practiced since Robert Owen ... even the state communist economies use, and have always used, currency).

Oh, polite. You were ignoring the fact that I was pointing out how the things you say don't make sense out of politeness. And here I thought you just had no defense of your lack of understanding. Thanks for clearing that up. No wait, you didn't clear it up, becasue you still haven't responded to anything I said.

I've read plenty on socialism thanks, and I'm well aware what the dictionary definition of socialism is as well, but dictionaries are just as susceptible to ideological error as you are (which is very susceptible, in case you're wondering). The problem with defining any concept as broad as these is that we can only talk about the kinds of capitalism we see in front of us and not all kinds that could possibly exist. With socialism, it's even harder, as there are so few examples to draw from and most of these are fascist. That does not mean that all kinds of socialist systems that could exist are also fascist. That is a narrow-minded lack of imagination on your part.

You are constantly equating socialism with fascism in your posts, acting as if we are all advocating Soviet-style command economies when we support socialism, but this is not the case, so you are merely flailing your arms at shadows smugly thinking you're scoring hits while we all wonder who that lunatic is doing that spastic dance. Stop arguing with the positions you imagine we are taking and argue with the actual people you are talking to. If you are incapable of doing this then we will eventually ignore you since you're incapable of rational discourse.

Do you agree you were confusing economic systems with political systems in your posts? If not, why not?

Yes, I absolutely equate economic systems with political systems, and see very little difference between the two.  To me they go hand in hand. A socialist system is distribution oriented; a capitalism system uses (the apparently dreaded) profit system.

I disagree with your assumption that dictionaries are susceptible to ideological error. Can you clarify your statement for me please?

If  defining socialism is so difficult, then how can you explain and defend your position to others? I am very curious about your (and obviously others) definition of socialism. Perhaps it would be easier for me to understand if it were called a different name - say democratic socialism? whatever.

You said, "Stop arguing with the positions you imagine we are taking and argue with the actual people you are talking to."

I have been thoroughly trained and it's ingrained in me to debate, argue and converse strictly on concrete concepts and issues; and to be able and willing to back up what I say with data. Use of words such as "your", "you", "me" and "I" are forbidden; the logic being that one loses focus on the issues at hand and concentrates on the 'messenger', thus evoking emotional responses and irrational replies.

Whether you choose to reply or not, thanks very much for clarifying your rules.  

Socialism is a social system in which the producers produce and distribute their production efforts, as well as have a political voice along egalitarian lines.

I see you've ignored my points. I guess you prefer condescension to discussion.

Depends who writes the dictionaries doesn't it? You could argue that other reference books such as atlases are not prone to the ideological tendencies of their publishers - but I recall old school atlases from the 1960s that had a political map of the world - showing the entire so-called "Communist World" in midnight black as if it was a cancer.

They are certainly linked but it is incorrect to say that there's no difference. Why would there be different terms for them if this were the case? As I pointed out earlier, we live in a society that is (ostensibly) democratic, and also capitalist, yet there are many countries in the world that are also capitalist yet have zero democracy, so while they do influence each other heavily, clearly it is possible to separate the two.

Sure. Let's pull a textbook definition of socialism off the internet:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

None of these are incorrect, per se, but, just like you, they prusume that Soviet-style centralised management is the dominant model of socialist thought. The essential element of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. This does not have to be governmental or collective. If we had an economy where everyone produced everything they used themselves in their own back yard, it would a shitty economy but it would still be socialist, though it wouldn't fit into the above definitions. Of course, dictionaries deal in general overviews by their very nature. My point was that a dictionary is a poor starting point for an in-depth dicussion, as it glides over many nuances.

Whatever? That part of that training you were talking about? Propaganda, your rebuttal? "Whatever"

I didn't mean that I couldn't define socialism, just that it is hard for a dictionary to define such a broad concept for us in a way that would be useful for our discussion. In fact, I have already given you my two-cent definition of socialism in an earlier post, posts which you are apparently not reading even as you're pulling quotes out of them. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. It's all about ownership. See,in capitalism, capitalists own the means of production which is why they own the surplus value of the wealth that others create (don't thank me, I'm here to help). If the workers own the means of production, there is no surplus. All the wealth the workers create goes directly to them and not to capitalist parasites. This is the essential difference between them. How that ownership happens is possibly endless in variety of actual structure, but as long as this is satisfied, it's still socialism.

Yeah, this is just stupid, in my opinion. You aren't debating on some world stage from some lofty viewpoint. You're debating with real people. Your supposed "detached" attitude led you into error by coming into a discussion with your pre-conceived notions of the definiton of the terms you were using, leading to you talking past everyone. Maybe you should come back to earth a little and that won't happen again. just sayin'.

What? My rules? What are you talking about? Maybe it's your debating training impeding your ability to communicate but nothing you say ever seems to make any sense. Take this for instance.

Are you saying that an economy where all industries were democratic and worker-owned would not be any different from the one we have? Or that it would be different but still be capitalism? I'm not sure but either way you're dead wrong. It would totally transform our economy and it wouldn't be even slightly capitalist. As I said, if workers own their own labour then there is no surplus value for capitalists to steal. So capitalists disappear. There are only workers and citizens.

Thread drift anyone?

This is a full-on thread hijack, I think. :)

Yeah, I'd agree with that J22.

Meanwhile, the Canadian tv scene is starting to feel some repercussions on this -- Canwest owns a number of specialty channels as well as Global Television, and nobody knows how this is all going to shake out.  Lots of independent producers and production companies (and the crews they hire) are feeling a little precarious these days.

Much like the rest of the working world then I guess. Too bad they are impacted by Canwest's karma and desire for a media hegemony, too though.

I don't think "karma" has anything to do with it...  Didn't you just say something about superstition in another thread?  Anyway, Canwest doesn't have any different "karma" than any other large media company -- they've all been buying up specialty channels for years.  Even CBC has specialties.  Between restructuring the CTF to the benefit of the cable companies, Canwest's current difficulties, cuts to CBC and other areas of this particular cultural industry, we stand to see the voices of Canadians on your tv screen pretty much decimated.

This statement is less than meaningless.

Specifically, this 75 million is "operating profit", not "net profit"---it is Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT)--
and even if one does not include the writedowns in the equation, insolvency is a reality; the enormous interest due on the various debt vehicles has put CanW in critical red--with debtors demanding cash that isn't there unless assets are liquidated--or agree to a CanW restructuring of debt.

Read here some recent speculation in the Globe on possible scenarios that could unfold (not including Government intervention):

Let's help that Canwest's newspapers aren't sold en bloc to a single buyer. It would be healthier for the country if the chain were broken up into two or three entities.

Great point. In fact, as media consolidation has proven so problematic, all of their holdings should be sold as singular units - one newspaper at a time. If the Harperites were truly dedicated to a free press, liberty, and free markets (rather than corporatist control), they would legislate that it be so.

I do not see karma as superstition, I see it as your own energy that goes out from you in waves, it also returns to you as you own it, or it is of you. Actions are just like pebbles thrown into a pond, the pebble hitting the water creates ripples threw the water that travel out from point of entry and then return to said point.

Though I do agree about every other large media company having negative waves coming back to them too, they all  have willfully deceived and used negative propaganda against Canadians, as well as interferred with democratic functioning of Canada.

We have not heard the voices of Canadian on our TV screens for a long time, we have seen a select group of voices telling us what to believe, and nothing more, so really is it any great loss?

I am sure those in the industry are feeling  trepidation and uncertain about their future, but no more so than millions of other Canadians are currently.

Um, yes you do get Canadian voices on tv...  Ever hear of Corner Gas?  Little Mosque?  They may or may not be to your taste, but I assure you they are most definitely Canadian shows made by Canadians for Canadians.

Personally, I've been making Canadian tv, mostly documentary, for about a decade now.  It's there if you look for it.  But hey, thanks for noticing.  I hope you can be all ke sera sera when it's your living we're talking about.

Yeah, that doesn't sound superstitious at all...

Yes, I know what you have been doing, and would like to see your most recent documentary, sounds very interesting, as was your small town big business one. And I believe that no matter who takes over the TV stations across Canada  your documentaries will be desired, perhaps even more than they are now. But you must realize that what  you produce, good content though it is,  is viewed by few, as they are too consumed by the propaganda shows.

Not going to debate whether Corner Gas and Little Mosque is the voice of Canadians, or not. It is subjective to indiviuals. And yes, I know you were involved in the early episodes of it.

No superstition, karma is actually laws of physics applied timebandit, I simply call it karma for lack of a better word that is readily understandable. Everyone has their own vibrational frequency, just as every other thing does, on this planet. And it is that individual frequency which causes organ and tissue transplant rejections, even if the blood types of donar and recipient are the same, or even if it comes from the same family with the same blood type. Our individual  thoughts and actions are our energy in motion specific to us, by the laws of physics pertaining to energy in motion, and thus come back to us, just like throwing a bomerrang does, or dropping a pebble into a pond.

Everyone across Canada was all ke sera when it was our living here in BC  that was yanked out, and still BC happens to be shedding the most jobs of all, across Canada. But I guess you  all were too busy being all ke sara and too self involved to notice, but yet now you apparently still expect others to care when it is happening to you.  Having said that, I do care, actually, I know personally how it feels, but I believe you have a market niche with a bright future ahead, even though  the way got, or is getting, a bit bumpy for the moment, so I am a bit less concerned about you in partiicular, than I am for blue collar janes and joes.

deleted

Canwest has been journalistically bankrupt for years.  The Black-Radler business model was to reduce costs and maximize revenues.  Since reporting the news costs money, you fire the expense-account journalists, promote the best writers to columnists and the most loyal sycophants to editors.  That way you can pull all the news you need off the wire, and entertain readers with witty columnists who specialize in reading their own newpapers and feel no need to verify the source of their information, or even disclose it, before rendering an analysis.

Is it any wonder that readership is declining?  The media seem to have forgotten that people pay for both good writing and good reporting.  The internet is much better at reporting news now than Canada's mainstream media.  At least on the internet you can find both sides of the story.

The recent one-side reporting and editorializing on George Galloway by Canwest was the most blatant example of manufactured consent I have witnessed. I hope Canwest goes bankrupt.  No other newspaper chain deserves it more than they do.

Hope this comment does some thread drift correction.

No, I wasn't involved in either Corner Gas (although we produce the web site) or Little Mosque, but I know the producers for both series fairly well, which is probably why they popped into my head.  Again, they are Canadian voices - Brent Butt and Zarqa Nawaz are both very much Canadian and there is no foreign involvement in the writing or production of either series.  That would absolutely make them Canadian.  There is no debate to be had.

My point about Canadian content is that what is there is in some jeopardy right now - Canwest being one of the factors.  And it's the blue collar joes and janes, the crew folks, who will be out of work first if the season opens without enough green-lit projects.  And no, I don't recall making any uncaring comments in any discussion about BC workers losing their livlihoods.

Another deadline today (21st).
Deadlines come and go as CanWest tries to restructure debt, but so far its not looking brighter (for them).