Austerity coming to Ontario

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2012-03-05 14:17

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Nonsense.

What Laxer is saying is that the 99% is not a homogeneous, monolithic social stratum, pitted against a tiny minority "enemy". There are reactionary forces within the 99% that help to preserve and carry out the rule of the 1%, and whose material interests are therefore inextricably bound up with it.

I would have thought this was apparent to everyone — that the "99% v. 1%" dichotomy was an exaggeration for rhetorical and sloganeering purposes, but that it doesn't really correspond to the actual power structures and distribution of wealth in advanced capitalist societies. Laxer is correct that this dichotomy is false. The 99% are not all allies, and it is foolish to pretend that they are. Moreover, it glosses over and obscures real class differences.

It's not about enforcing orthodoxy at all. It's about understanding the class nature of society and knowing who your allies are and who they aren't.

Mon, 2012-03-05 14:41

#103

NDPP

M. Spector wrote:

knowing who your allies are and who they aren't.

NDPP

this continues to be a critical developmental task for many Canadians - especially 'who they aren't'..

Mon, 2012-03-05 15:51

#104

ygtbk

Unsurprisingly, Ontario is now backing off previously-scheduled corporate tax cuts: see:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/ontario-may-ha...

This will not be enough to close a $16 billion gap: CUPE has estimated that taking corporate tax rates back up to 14% would raise about $2.5 billion per year: see:

http://cupe.ca/economics/austerity-doesnt-work-ontario-balance

So it will be a challenge for the Ontario budget (due later this month) to show balance by 2017-2018, McGuinty's stated target.

Mon, 2012-03-05 23:44

#105

Grandpa_Bill

M. Spector wrote:

Nonsense.

What Laxer is saying is . . .

It's not about enforcing orthodoxy at all. It's about understanding the class nature of society and knowing who your allies are and who they aren't.

I appreciate your response and will say, at the outset, that what I wrote may well be nonsense. Let me, however, say what I know, beginning with an acknowledgment that my comment is not as clear as it might be.

Seems to me that Laxer is doing several things, two of which you point out:

(1) giving us his understanding of the class nature of society;

(2) telling us who our allies are and who they aren't.

Further, I believe that he is quite clearly cautioning us not to have anything to do . . . them! What follows is the sentence in Laxer's column that I highlighted for emphasis:

More importantly, nor does it mean that the "99 per cent" share common interests and that they can work together, in any meaningful sense, to rectify the problems as raised. (emphasis GB)

I heard a similar caution 40 years ago on a warm summer evening in a Toronto apartment at a social event of the North York Waffle. The words "Purge and Purify" were spoken as part of that caution. They were said (and you will I hope accept my opinion on this matter) with the intent of enforcing orthodoxy.

The intent of Michael Laxer's caution is the same as that caution given those many years ago: Don't have anything to do with them. It is enlightening to learn that people take that caution seriously even today. There is nothing inappropriate with his giving such a caution; nor is there anything inappropriate in my rejecting it, which I happily do.

So, YES, we speak in a walled garden. And though some of us are not entirely thrilled with the presence of (to say nothing of the remarks of) others of us, we can shoulder on together, if we choose to do so. Those of us who choose otherwise resort, on occasion, to abuse, which was the subject of my previous comment. A pity.

Tue, 2012-03-06 02:24

#106

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sounds to me like you're just grinding an axe here.

Who are you referring to by "them"? The 99%?

Laxer wrote:
More importantly, nor does it mean that the "99 per cent" share common interests and that they can work together, in any meaningful sense, to rectify the problems as raised.

I see nothing wrong with that statement. Do you think that all those below the 99th income percentile share common interests and can work together in any meaningful sense to rectify the problems as raised? If so, you should have paid more attention at those Waffle meetings.

Tue, 2012-03-06 03:04

#107

Fidel

Some historians put their numbers at anywhere from a few thousand to a few million who will remain rabidly loyal to the regime even after their overthrow by the majority. They are the next group in the hierarchical power structure who benefit by the autocracy and will defend it at all cost and to the bitter end.

Tue, 2012-03-06 06:55

#108

MegB

CFL

Pages

Topic locked