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

Scott McHale wrote:

If you have any evidence that the "give all that you can, take only what you need" philosophy is workable on any scale I would ask that you provide it to me. 

Click here for evidence to the contrary 

And if you have evidence that capitalism is a natural way for people to organize society and that it can exist without a vicious nuclear powered empire and a visible state hand enforcing exclusive private property laws, then we'd be surprised all to heck.

That's too bad. Yours is another unique experience which I've never heard told before. Batistas secret police used to do the watching, and they could be very brutal by what I know. They are short of a wide range of things which just arent manufactured on the island. It's always good to check with the Cuban consulate for what they may be needing in donations. It could be anything from aspirin and insulin needles to veterinary supplies. It varies by what I understand.

I think you'll never see malnourished Cubans since the special period of the 1990s. They say that it's difficult for most Latin Americans to actually starve to death because of their lush tropical surroundings and tree fruit everywhere. But I have seen especially small children in countries like Guatemala, Mexico,and Dominican Republic. They begged me for food and spare change at every turn, and even for my knock-off brand name running shoes which were thread bare and happened to be wearing at the time. The watchers in Guatemala warned me not to give street beggars anything but a bit of food, and the local rancheros werent too happy about allowing even that apparently. I found it upsetting to be eating in a restaurant while scrawny children in Santo Domingo  oggled the food my plate from outside the window. I can say that I never experienced that in Cuba. In Guatemala, there were soldiers armed with machine guns on every other road. And there are some lonely places at some isolated road tolls along the Pan-Am highway. We were relieved of a good deal of our paper money and coins by one enterprising government worker. I never saw that same look of desperation in Cuban children's eyes that I once saw in Guatemala and Belize years ago. Their's were the eyes of a beaten people without hope. That haunted me for years. By what I've read, things havent improved much in those countries and have actually become worse in some respects.  

Some Cubans are able to sell what they produce today. Canadian David Suzuki talked about Cuba's agricultural workers and farm co-ops. He said Cuban co-op workers actually receive a larger share of the profits than same sector workers here in Canada. Cuba is a vibrant and dynamic island country. The people there are full of hope for the future. And, they are very proud of the revolution. They complain about the government the same as Canadians do. But that's what I saw in their eyes and in the way young people carried themselves walking down streets of Havana and where ever I did see them. Cubans have a lot to be proud of for sure. 

Car companies, for example, were going to receive huge amounts of money from either of the two oldest political parties in cosmetic government in Washington and Ottawa regardless. Everybody expected it. 

The question for the two-four(Libs&Cons, Dems&Repubs) old line parties now reverting to Keynesian stimulus in name only is, will it be free money without strings attached, or will Jack Layton and the NDP in Canada at least be able to insist on a conditional offer of taxpayers' money in exchange for some kind of a greener and sustainable car industry and long term investments in new equipment and factories here. It's this as opposed to paying the big three to pack up and move Canadian jobs to where wages are even lower than respect for basic workers' rights.

Of course, these are not far left policies, but they are left of those tendencies past and present for handing free money to what were once profitable corporations. Realistically, the NDP is not in full charge in Ottawa. The two oldest political parties with somewhere around 40 percent of registered Canadian voter support combined are still calling the shots after all this time.

Quote:

Will Canadians attempt to pick up the baton and create a "Made in
Canada" version with a more sustainable and more equitable pay
structure?

What does "Made in Canada" mean? Canada is an abstract. It does not exist separate and apart from the rest of the world.

Quote:

Will consumption among Canadians decline?

Quote:

By that I mean will it decline at a level greater that the decline in means?

Quote:

I've noticed that a number of the arguments in this forum seem to
suggest that capitalism is to blame for the ludicrous levels of
consumption in Canada.

Are you suggesting the industrial consumer capitalist model does not encourage conspicuous and over consumption?

Quote:

At the same time, there is also a suggestion
that more Canadians should have more ( if equalized ) disposable
income.

True. But the people making that argument often believe that consumer capitalism can be reformed (it can't).

Quote:

Is there a belief that more equitable distribution of wealth will lead to more reasonable levels of consumption?

What's a reasonable level of consumption? That we poison half our rivers instead of all? That we exhaust only 70% of fish species rather than 75%? That we achieve the joke our current government calls carbon cuts? 

I think you may have missed my point: the consumer capitalist model is a failure and it must be recognized as such. 

Fidel,

I also owe you evidence that "capitalism is a natural way for people to organize society and that
it can exist without a vicious nuclear powered empire and a visible
state hand enforcing exclusive private property laws"

I won't claim this to be evidence per se but I'll give you my thoughts.  Capitalism - at least the exchange of one's labor for something resembling "market" rates ( not fair for much of history, but that was due as much to tribal and feudal politics as the economic system of trade ) - has been around probaby since early man understood that a surplus of one commodity ( let's say meat ) could be traded for commodities in shorter supply ( tools, precious stones, etc ).  

All other systems, egalitarianism, socialism, communism, and the like which have shown any success and longevity have consisted of at least a tacit agreement on trade of the fruits of one's labor.

Any mandated collectivism has elements of cohersion.  It must.  Members of the collective must maintain their status in the collective or risk at least exclusion from a society or religion and, at worst, the wrath of a visible state hand enforcing collective ownership of property.  

The nuclear bit, I don't have an answer for except to say nuclear weapons have been with us for less than a century.  

Quote:

I won't claim this to be evidence per se but I'll give you my
thoughts.  Capitalism - at least the exchange of one's labor for
something resembling "market" rates ( not fair for much of history, but
that was due as much to tribal and feudal politics as the economic
system of trade ) - has been around probaby since early man understood
that a surplus of one commodity ( let's say meat ) could be traded for
commodities in shorter supply ( tools, precious stones, etc ).  

You are confusing trade with capitalism. They are very separate and distinct concepts. 

Quote:

Any mandated collectivism has elements of cohersion.  It must.  Members
of the collective must maintain their status in the collective or risk
at least exclusion from a society or religion and, at worst, the wrath
of a visible state hand enforcing collective ownership of property. 

All modern societies are founded upon coercion. From whence do you think comes the need for a state monopoly on violence? When a Saskatchewan farmer is held responsible for his land being contaminated by Franken-seeds, do you believe that is not coercion? Or is that a more acceptable form of coercion?

When the commons is robbed of its ability to sustain life and once free people are then forced to go to the "market" or starve, is that not coercion?

Capitalism requires coercion to operate moreso than any other economic system. It is not a mere coincidence that the state that most embodies capitalism, the US, is also the most miliatarized and violent in all of human history. To maintain the capitalist requirement for cheap energy, it invaded a nation and killed up to one millon people and it maintains 720 military bases around the world from which it exports violence. 

Capitalism is inherently violent. It must be as its raw resources always belong to someone else and capitalism is not the most efficient means of allocating resources as the press release claims. It is the most brutal and efficient means of converting life to death and allocating the resulting "wealth" into the fewest hands possible.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

What does "Made in Canada" mean? Canada is an abstract. It does not exist separate and apart from the rest of the world.'

Will the Canadians who lose their jobs as a result of the failure of the 3 automakers pick up the pieces and start new businesses with a focus on equitable distribution and reasonable consumption? ( I'll come back to reasonable below )

With regards to consumption of those average Canadians, my query was whether you felt consumption would decline ( you answered yes ) and whether you thought that decline would be due to a new and enlightened world view or the fact that many more Canadians would have far less disposable income?  I would prefer the former.  I fear the latter.  I'd like to note also that I don't fear the latter because I feel Canadians are teetering on the brink of abject poverty but because, once the economy recovers and we reach similar levels of disposable income to today, the trade of iPods, Wii's, and 62 in. plasma screen TV's will return to current levels.

Quote:

Are you suggesting the industrial consumer capitalist model does not encourage conspicuous and over consumption?

Not at all.  The system definitely encourages obscene consumption but individuals ultimately make the purchase decisions.  Reform of consumer capitalism starts with the consumer.  I would encourage it.  I'm not particular optimistic about our chances though.

Quote:

What's a reasonable level of consumption? That we poison half our rivers instead of all? That we exhaust only 70% of fish species rather than 75%? That we achieve the joke our current government calls carbon cuts?

That's kind of the point.  What is reasonable?  I have a very different opinion than my neighbor.  You might have a very different opinion than I.  Which of us gets to mandate the definition of reasonable.

Quote:

I think you may have missed my point: the consumer capitalist model is a failure and it must be recognized as such.

I hope my responses suggest to you that I've not missed the point.  I recognize that the consumer capitalist model is failing us.  I just believe that whatever changes we promote have to recognize that those on the extremes of a view haven't the right to simply mandate a change to those in the middle or at the other extreme.  It's a very complex tangle of rights and responsibilities.

So, I would appreciate your thoughts on measurable, immediate steps which could be proposed which would encourage and support those behaviors you feel are beneficial.

Thankyou,

Scott.

P.S.  I'm a fan of your - I'm assuming - evolving Jesus fish.

Okay, yes, I know...

cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism

–noun an
economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of
production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained
chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to
cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

So, I am using the term capitalism  to represent the current system ( although that is also not entirely fair since the commons in Canada maintains ownership of some resources, we trade those for money from individuals and corporations ).  

I am far less interested in quibbling over how capitalist we are and who's using what terms correctly or incorrectly than in discussing actual, measurable, immediate steps we can propose to Canadians which encourage and support the behaviors we desire.

Please, make some proposals.

Scott McHale wrote:

I am far less interested in quibbling over how capitalist we are and who's using what terms correctly or incorrectly than in discussing actual, measurable, immediate steps we can propose to Canadians which encourage and support the behaviors we desire.

Please, make some proposals.

Well, there have been some proposals so far in this thread.  They have included:

Shortening the work week and increasing minimum wage to a living wage

Scrap NAFTA

Nationalize the banks, the auto industry, and a public works industry expanded to include not just infrastructure mega-projects but also fixing up neighborhoods.  Place them under workers control.

Engourage the growth of cooperatives and recovered factories

Establish local organizing committees to help people who need it

Basically, this system is broken and public money should be going to building an alternative system, not propping this one up.

I think frustrated got to the heart of the problem with humanity in that answer.  Scott is always argueing and trying to "bargain" to get a better deal. But the earth is ruled by mathematicis, and physics.  You cannot make a bargain with them.  THEY make the rules and we live within those rules or die out. If you want capatilism to survive you must change the rules of capitalism. You cannot change the rules of nature.  In the real world, Canadians cannot continually have 5% economic growth, or 2% economic growth or 0.0005% economic growth. It is impossible.  It is a central lie in capatilism.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

 

 

Quote:

Which of us gets to mandate the definition of reasonable.

The planet does.

Quote:

The challenge is to begin creating honest dialogue on the goods and
ills of the current system and our proposed systems and move people
forward in ways that can demonstrate to them that a more collective
system will be better.  

That may be your challenge, it is not mine. Planetary realities in the very near future will produce a wake up call that will be catastrophic. Our civil sociey will enter, I think has entered (witness the many on-going resource wars), a very long period of precipitous decline. The constraints of the planet and our purposeful and criminal vandalism of our natural systems will become abundantly clear and our debt will come due. All species have a life span and we have greatly accelerated our own for entirely trivial purposes or for entirely evil purposes  (how many dollars were spent on war or planning for war last year as compared to renewable energies and climate mitigation?). That too is capitalism where even the weapons of destruction can be a consumer item.

In any case, as always, my advice is don't have children. 

Quote:

That can't be done by simply placing a hand-grenade in the cogs of the
current system and telling everyone hurt by the explosion that it's for
their own good and in the end they'll thank us.  They won't thank us. 
They'll stop us.  Frankly, when we talk about simply doing away with
everything they've known because whether they realise it or not we're right and we know what`s best and we`re going to decide what the right pay is, the right projects are, the right rights are, I`m not sure I`d blame them.

It is true. But to use an analogy, the kids are all stoned smoking crack and they won't listen to you telling them to put down the pipes and get out because the house is on fire. So they will perish. So did the dinosaurs. Next!

 McHale:

"Unfortunately, I work and live with many intelligent people who cannot or will not buy the arguments you're putting forward.  That's the issue you're going to need to face first.  I'd mistakenly said earlier that "reform of consumer capitalism starts with the consumer".  FMess had correctly pointed out that there is a collosal machine promoting the current model.  So, the reform of consumer capitalism ends with the consumer.  Either way, it's those consumers that you need to get your - I'll point out that in a lot of the thread it's actually our - message to."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim to be among "intelligent people" who "will  not buy the arguments"  advanced by FM. May I suggest that anyone of supposed Scottish origins who begins by avoiding any pretense of acquaintance with David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature is challenging belief . Heck, a quick peek at the old Scot and you know that you and FM are speaking from the same materialist assumptions about human motivation. It seems to me that your project aimed at re-inventing the system is indeed the product of smoke.

Yes, and mirrors.

You say:

"I fully comprehend the fact that our current philosophy on economics is woefully lacking in that it does not factor the finite nature of, well, nature."

But it's "human" nature that we have to control, laddie.  

Mr Victor,

Humans just aren`t well controlled.  When you punish for one undesierable behavior, you often incite others.  We can work to enlighten the discussion and hopefully provide ourselves and others better means by which to make better decisions. 

If you have information on the nature of humans with regards to self-interest please provide them.   I am interested in understanding as much as possible.  I accept that my assumptions are just that, assumptions.  Many of them have, with many hours of arguing more than one side in my head, changed over the years.

I believe I`m familiar with the title of Hume`s treatise but, unless I`ve forgotten it, I can honestly say I`ve not read it.

Thank you,

Scott.

By the way, if you were suggesting I`m of Scottish heritage, you may be right - but the only documentation of lineage I`ve ever seen was one my sister had done in a mall somewhere.  It said we were Irish.  I`m a Canadian.

Of Scots-Irish descent. A pugnacious breed with a wide influence, as I've learned lately.

But please, I try for humour at this awful hour. Too late to think but too early to retire with a couple of hours of heavy-duty  thought and coffee behind one. Just passin' the time.

(But you really should peek into Hume and see the assumptions that capitalism is based on. He regularly got drunk at dinner parties with Adam Smith. A bad pair).