Not a surprising article coming from thetyee.ca. Just keep pumping up the propaganda.

This report is very shocking. A successful business man making money in a strong economy. I never thought I would see the day.

JIm, what has the economy got to do with the sale of BCRail? Or the rewards that he got himself for helping instigate it? You aren't really going to try to tell me that 1 Billion for 990 yrs is a good deal for us the people? JIm that works out to a little over 1 million per year. CN made 145 million in one year alone; BCRail always put money into the provincial treasury now into GC's pals pockets....

Good reporting. This should have been published in the mainstream media before the sale. At least we now have 'The Tyee' to inform us.

I bet there are a lot more stories like this barely under the surface of their 'open and transparent' government.

You know, the Liberals keep bringing up the record of the NDP, (and an incorrect one at that) but I would like to see the NDP bring up the record of the NDP during the last four years where two petite women valiantly fought for the interests of the people of British Columbia against 77 of the rudest, incompetent trough feeders we've ever seen.
Ms Stevens and her bid for a pension a typical example.

76. Actually, Paul Nettleton is the only one with integrity. And, apaparently the only real Conservative as well.

JIm, don't you ever resent the fact that you don't personally benefit from the corrupt dealings of this government like Mr. McLean or Doug Walls, to name but two "pigs at the trough?" Or, do you?

Thank You Tyee for sharing with us news about the politicians behind the politicians. It's no secret that concentrated mainstream media chooses to stay clear of critical reporting of the real steadfast forces behind the motions of public personalities that come and go. A long, long time ago when the west was young I believed angry folks referred to this reporting as muckraking...

Me grandadee' always told me dat if deez folk be lookin to influence public policy day be responsible te own up to der actions in what folks be callin a public forum.

First off we'll start with one glaring inaccuracy. According the NDP campaign manager Gary Scott (?). Carole James is responsible for the tax cut to the film industry. According to him it was her initiative. So why is Carole helping Liberal supporters? Thetyee.ca better get to the bottom of this. I expect to see a report before the election detailing Caroles involvment in getting the tax cuts in order to support the big wigs in the film industry. After all the Liberals responded much too slowly so Carole had to jump in and put the pressure on.

Does anyone really think that GC sold BC rail so David McLean can make a little money?

That ridiculous, but not all that surprising considering the rhetoric that's often thrown around in here.

Okay, how many of you out there think that McLean only made " a little money"....How many of you think of 5 million as "a little money"? How about you throw "a little money" my way, JIm?

JIm, how did Carole James manage to dictate tax policy - are you going to tell me that Carole James is now, not only resposible for the inaccurately portrayed actions of previous NDP governments, but questionable Liberal policies as well. Does she exercise this power as an unelected NDP member, active or inactive school trustee, secret buddy of Gordon Campbell? I guess nobody needs to vote for Carole James, since she is already in charge.

JIm-BOb states incongrously:

"According the NDP campaign manager Gary Scott (?). Carole James is responsible for the tax cut to the film industry."

Carole James was not a member of the previous NDP administrations, so how could she do this? Obviously you have misquoted Scott.

"Does anyone really think that GC sold BC rail so David McLean can make a little money?"

For the party that gave us all the never-ending, bottomless Sponsorship Scandal, that might not be such a far-fetched idea.

The point is, JIm and all the rest of you pseudo-conservatives, is the rich are getting much richer while the poor suffer for it. The gap between rich and poor in BC is worthy of a third world country, not a G7 nation. I just wonder when the death squads are going to show up to cull the homeless before international television cameras arrive for the Olympics.

The NDP helped Vancouver Film Studios to create jobs in a sector that paid employees decent wages. The Liberals have no such interest, they would rather cut taxes and shift the burden on to user fees, a staple demand of the wealthy who do not want to pay for services they themselves are not using. I guess it makes sense in a heartless kind of way. What has a heart ever done but cost good money?

The selling off of BC rail is scandalous without question, probably illegal. The new port in Prince Rupert is going to make the CN railway worth many more billions of dollars, and the question that arises is, was this all known before the sale or did it just happen that way? A question I’m not holding my breath to be answered.

There must be a public inquiry into the BC Rail deal, the RCMP legislature raids and the political weight of those giving donations to the BC Liberal party. Anything less is criminal. But I guess we are getting pretty used to criminals running our affairs, after all, it is the American way.

End it here, vote yes for STV.

If it looks, walks and talks like a duck, chances are its a duck.

Why else would this lying crew have agreed to such a boondoggle to the public interest, and such a windfall to a ruling class icon, and Fiberal Party stalwart?

Perhaps he was still suffering the effects of Maui?

poor ol' JIm, makes his usual tired, predictable comment about news reports that set him off.

He get's absolutely no respect or attention so he tries to come back and offer his analysis of what the reporter wrote. It's too much. He makes Binny look wise.

JIm, why not just call it boring then piss off and we'll all get something good out of it?

Oh, yeah, to answer Jim's question, I do think GC would have sold BC Rail so David McLean could make a lot of moner. Neither of them give a shit about the public interest, save to the degree it serves their own.

With a well aimed shot into the bulls ass, errr, eye. :-)

Earlier I asked JIm-Bob if he "personally" benefited from policies of the Campbell government, more directly than all of us who, of course, are basking in the glow of the "Golden Decade." Apparently I said something wrong in that post as it was removed shortly after it went up.

As a resident of the "hurtland" that now must drive for an hour and a half to access services, medical and otherwise, that were from one and a half blocks to 20-30 minutes away four years ago, I don't share his enthusiasm for Gordo's policies.

I understand the Republican strategy to the south and how they convince so many to vote against their own interests. In Amerika almost half of the population think that they are rich (already) and the rest are convinced that they have a good shot at reaching that exalted level of wealth. Thus, enough people vote for the party of Greed and support policies that subsidize the wealthy at the expense of working families, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Of course down there the official Opposition is in the pocket of the same Corporate Elite, they just aren't so arrogantly blatant about it.

So, I apologize if something I said was considered to be libelous or in poor taste. However, I still wonder if JIm actually benefits directly (as some people obviously do) or is just one more of the many who are basically tricked into voting against their own interests.

This all out attack on the middle and working class that has always been a priorty for those who probably think feudalism was a good system can only succeed with the help of those that are left out. This attack switched into high gear under Reagan in the New World and has been so successful in Amerika that even Democrats have to act like Republicans to get elected.

The fact is that the rich don't need services provided by government, they much prefer to have government "redistribute" the wealth to them and look after their own retirement, medical services and etc. In other words I got mine (no matter how), and to hell with the rest of you.

In North America today publicly funded law enforcement officers are outnumbered by private security personnel. But hey, private security protects the interests of they who can afford to hire them to do so. Why pay taxes to support law enforcement that protects the interests of others?

But it has always been thus and the biggest theives are they who rob with a fountain pen rather than a gun, to paraphrase Woody Guthrie.

The issue of tax subsidies for the film industry needs to be kept separate from the BCRail debacle. Film capital is highly mobile, and will immediately flee to other more friendly jurisdictions without some sort of favourable tax regime. Railways, whether private or public, do not pick up and leave....

The film industry in the Lower Mainland is currently in the midst of a bumper year--a direct result of the renewed subsidy. That not only benefits McLean, it also benefits Joy MacPhail's partner, local producer James Shavick, and, (disclosure) my own partner, who works in the industry.

It's worth asking why the current pack of yahoos in Victoria were stupid enough to cancel the subsidy in the first place, when it provides so many jobs, both indie and union?

A well balanced article should include the number of jobs and payroll resulting from the Vancouver Film Studios ability to attract the $200 million in films.

On the scale of the pictures listed in the article, sure looks like some big dollars by film industry workers, actors, and a whole bunch of spin offs. Rent me a truck, make me a sandwich, sell me a light stand, build me a prop,....

Does that offset the company making some money (which no doubt puts some in David McLean's pocket)?

As I recall the whole tax credit issue, if B.C. did not get on board, it meant the jobs and payrolls were off to Eastern Canada. B.C. was set to lose something built up as a new, high tech related, and reasonable "clean" industry for a couple of decades.

There may well be fat cats to go after. Insofar as the film industry is concerned, you missed it on this one.

Thank you rkewen, you are a breath of fresh air.

Regional politics is just another layer of mind control designed to keep us constantly bickering and afraid of "the others". It is all so well organized to separate people and highlight their differences. Are you a red tory, a blue democrat or an orange socialist? An anarchist? Maybe a green?

We are all more alike than different, rich or poor. And yet, we all are corruptible by the drunken elation of power.

Maybe we can get a computer program to run our affairs or something as humans seem predestined to destroy themselves.

The NDP's campaign manager explicitly stated that without the pressure that Carole James put on the Liberals there would not have been the tax cut for the film industry. He was using it as an example of her vision. I don't blame you for not knowing as you don't pay attention to any other media sources than the unbiased tyee. Why go somewhere else when you can get both sides of the story here...wait, scrap that last sentence.

" staple demand of the wealthy who do not want to pay for services they themselves are not using"

The staple demand of the left is that they want everyone else to pay for what they are using. Give me, Give me, Give me.

Basically the head of every major business in BC is a Liberal supporter. This is not old news. Just like the head of every major union is a NDP supporter. Any move that the Liberals make to benefit and grow the economy can be spun as a move to make Liberals supporters rich. Just a bunch of rhetoric as usual.

JIm-BoB said:

The difference that sheeple like JIm either don't get, or insist on ignoring, is that unions and big-business are not two sides of the same coin. Unions have been under attack as a major front in the war on everyone below the the Corporate Elite, measured by tax bracket since Ronnie Raygun fired the air controllers in the eighties and before. But the fact is that unions do represent the interests of working people and the Corporate Elite represent only themselves, and have no allegience to British Columbia, Canada or any jurisdiction really. As someone pointed out recently somewhere (it must have been the tyee, as I get both sides of everything here, according to you) they consider government as support staff.

Union members and leaders don't want to destroy business, they realize that business creates jobs. Big Business, especially Big Corp on the other hand have been waging a campaign to destroy unions so they can have cheap labor. If they continue to win this war, as they have been doing, they will ultimately destroy themselves, because cheap laborers won't be able to afford to buy their services and products.

As Warren Buffet said "If this is class warfare, my side is winning." In the long run though, though they don't seem to look beyond the next quarterly report, they are cutting their own throat. Of course they may discover a planet full of rich people somewhere to replace the peons that used to be their consumer market.

JIm - I would term it: share, share, share. We live in a resource-rich province. Wealth generated here should (in my opinion) mean that every resident of BC should benefit from this. Not just the David Macleans and Jimmy Pattisons. When this Liberal government decided that $6 per hour was a reasonable wage to pay a young worker here, when they decided collective labour agreements were worthless, when they decided seniors, children, single mothers, the mentally ill, the addicted, the homeless, injured workers etc. were the people to target for cut and slash policies in order to line the pockets of already-wealthy BC and American corporations I decided that they were the wrong choice for a government.

Ok JIm and how do union leaders get rich when working people actually see benefits come their way from government?

Lay if all out here for us and explain how union leaders get filthy rich. Hey here's your chance to be a Liberal hero JImbo. Come on, we all know yu're an expert so share the wisdom.

Don't pretend you can't read this JImbo, you seem to spend at least a full shift here every day (paid job?).

Is it your belief that union leaders get profit sharing or a 10 per cent bonues when the budget is met?

No, not every business leader is a Liberal and certainly a great many of them would run if Gordon Campbell or one of his backroom guys showed up to do a deal like the one talked about above.

Remember those backroom guys who were investigated and charged with a pile of fraud and other terrible things shortly after the legislature was raided by police?

Something to do with BC Rail and CN Rail, didn't it JImbo?

Those are the type of backroom dealers business people are apt to run into if they deal with Gordo and his sneaks.

Would an ethical business person, would anyone with ethics have anything to do with them?

Just a bunch of "rhetoric as usual," JImbo?

Bravo Tommymoore, I wish I could have said it as well!

JIm said:
"The staple demand of the left is that they want everyone else to pay for what they are using."

Sort of. It's not just the lefties who access the system and it is truly everyone who pays for it, not just the rich. Any citizen, rich or poor, right or left or green, should have access to these services. And we all do need some help at some point or are close to somebody who does. But if you have money, who cares about society? I don’t know, I’m not rich and so I guess I am unable to understand. Please, JIm, help me to understand.

If we share the burden, it costs much less and provides for a stability that is not possible under a pay as you go system. Just go look at any US city. Better yet, why don’t you move there.

Has anyone else noticed that JIm doesn't ever really answer questions? He just returns to his "talking point," or throws out a new one to change the subject. Reminds me of the way a lot of politicians deal with questions, ignore them and stick to the talking points. Maybe he IS here as a paid position and has his talking points assigned each morning.

I wonder why I even respond to him, I guess because it feels so good when I quit, like banging your head against the wall.

If we ignore Jim, perhaps he will cease to exist.
It's too bad this forum isn't like Yahoo where they have an "ignore" option you can click and make tiresome post-ers disappear from your world.

Holy Prem Vinning! Desperate time....

Planted Liberal debate caller exposed
May, 09 2005 - 1:20 PM

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - After this morning's radio leaders' debate on the Bill Good Show on CKNW, Premier Gordon Campbell confessed Liberal supporters were asked to call in.
Vancouver Sun Legislative reporter Sean Holman told CKNW's Jennifer Mather he knows a caller named Steve from Prince George, who called in to grill NDP leader Carole James about her party's policy of letting teachers in the province strike.

"Steve Vanderwale is an assistant to Shirley Bond, who is the Liberal Minister of Health, and he's right now up in Prince George helping Shirley Bond out on her campaign. And you know, he doesn't have any kids either."

It was so obvious their 'people' were calling in. And, Good etal were falling all over themselves praising the callers. lol

Nice try, but a tax break for the film industry doens't compare with this article's content. The mainstream media can't not report this. They can't ignore this story and I doubt they will. Although, they'll try and temper it. If they do ignore it, their call letters will have to read,
P.R.A.V.D.A. 1 for one station and 2, for another, on down. I think they'll have to talk about this one.

JIm-BOb, from what you have said in your latest post, I gather you mean a more recent change, a few months ago, rather than the original introduction of the credit. Is that what this one means?

"The NDP's campaign manager explicitly stated that without the pressure that Carole James put on the Liberals there would not have been the tax cut for the film industry."

"I don't blame you for not knowing as you don't pay attention to any other media sources than the unbiased tyee."

Take it easy, JIm-BOb, you spend a lot of your time here too! BTW, what was your source for this Gerry Scott quote?

"The staple demand of the left is that they want everyone else to pay for what they are using. Give me, Give me, Give me."

Someone once asked the founder of the Steelworker's union John L Lewis what American labour wanted. His answer was simple. "More." And it's true that everyone, working class and plutocrat, always want more. In Canada we have had constant pressure for several years from business groups that personal and business taxes be lowered. When they are lowered, there is a short pause, and then the demand is renewed as though nothing had happened.

How low would taxes have to go before the Chamber of Commerce and ICBA types would be satisfied? I don't really know, but it looks like might finally be happy at a tax rate of zero.

"Basically the head of every major business in BC is a Liberal supporter. This is not old news."

That's probably right, except that many are staunch Tories federally, and might not be inclined to help out any Liberal Govt anywhere given what's been going on in Ottawa. In fact, when I go past Liberal campaign offices, I can't help but notice a paucity of campaign workers. A hint perhaps that the Tories are sitting this one out?

For me, the issue is not really even "to subsidize or not to subsidize",Jim. I recognize unapologetically that, in particular situations, economic assets require some "public assistance" for one reason or another to get over a special hump, or even in the case of particular "indispensible" assets that service a larger societal or economic need, that may even be more or less ongoing. Each decision re public assistance to economic sectors and enterprises being made on their individual merit, or lack thereof.

It's just that, when it suits the apologist arguments of yours, such as in this case , and that of the ruling class as a whole, we keep hearing copious volumes of whining at the same time, about the sanctity of the "free market" and letting it do its job of culling out "inefficiencies" and "inadequacies" etc., certainly when it comes to the case of workers and their jobs, for fucking sure.

The problem with capitalism and its ruling class is, like yourself, it wants its cake and eat it too.

I merely say that if capitalism, its sectoral components and its "free market" requires so much "public" state intervention to keep it afloat, to underwrite its research and development, provide it with forgivable loans and marketing assistance etc., society should concede that, and stop all this "free enterprise" and "free market" bullshit.

And the working class/consumer/community public interest should tie equity interest to the monies they provide private capital in sundry volumes and forms, and themselves just move onto boards of directors, management committees, and into exercising all the other rights of ownership, even alongside private capital, if it helps the peace, through an extended period of transition.

Let's face it, and you all concede, who when it suits yourselves think it only right and fitting that corporate interests should receive public largesse, that "pure private capitalism" simply cannot function without the assistance of the publicly funded state and its public revenue. Concede that capitalism, as a stand alone entity, is a failure, and move over to a new, democratized economic systemm that is more in line with actual economic and social realities.

As is, what we have is a "socialized economy", the ownership and benefits of which accrue inequitably to "private" ruling class interests and control.

Unfettered capitalism and its free markets are a transparent failure, as the apologist likes of Jim and his brownshirt friends help make clear with their own arguments here. Time ot put this sick puppy out of its misery. ;-) (Now I'm for it.)

These right-wing governments and their corporate benefactors derive their wealth from the resources of our province whether they be in the form of minerals, energy or human labour. From this "wealth of the land" through proportional and fair taxation government and social programs are supposed to be funded to serve us all. How absolutley infuriating to see these corrupt thieves divert this collective wealth to favour the few who are already grotesquely wealthy at the expense of the common man and the most vulnerable amongst us. Truly evil.
In a nut-shell unemployed local mill workers, who once shared in the wealth of the land, now watch million dollar interfor executives who golf with gordo ride in limo's upto whistler while raw log trucks pass the other way to interfor mills in washington state. Shameful unless you're a collection of socio-pathic liars who are incapable of shame. Or any other redemptive human emotion for that matter.

Excellent writing by many, but I am especially moved by the poignant and entirely lucid piece by jestergogger. It strikes to the very heart of the matter.

coyote writes: "excellent writing by many". as long as he agrees with it, any piece of garbage b.s. will pass as such.
preaching to the converted again tyee. pump it up!

First off if you think you are getting the whole stroy from here you are sadly misinformed. You guys cannot be that naive. You must realize that this is an extremely biased site.

"Union members and leaders don't want to destroy business, they realize that business creates jobs."

Well their actions tell a different story. Big corporations are rare. Your right they can usually afford it. When unions go after smaller businesses and force owners of small compaines into offshoring or shutting down their business. Is that good for the economy? Is that good for the workers? If you say that doesn't happen you are once again naive and refuse to look at the truth because it does happen. Jim Sinclair wouldn't tell you that though so I guess it doesn't happen. And if he or thetyee doesn't confirm it must be false.

"We live in a resource-rich province. Wealth generated here should (in my opinion) mean that every resident of BC should benefit from this."

That is a fair statement, but shouldn't your return on those resources be linked to your commitment in growing those resources. If you own and run a business, working 70 hrs a week, should you not get more of that wealth than someone who sweeps floors 35hrs a week. Sweeping floors does not generate wealth for the province, but owning a business does. Not only does that business generate wealth for yourself but it also generates wealth for your employees. Oh I forgot business is bad and does nothing to generate the wealth necessary to run the social programs you covet so much.

I would be nice if any of you had any expierence in business then you would get the idea how hard it is to survive. It's not easy, but you seem to think it is. It's alot easier being a union leader than it is being a business leader/ceo/owner/president.

All of you in here slamming me spend much more time than me posting. Are you paid hacks?

Unions are a business, but their customers are their members and they want as much revenue as possible. When workers unionize how many workers get fired? It's more than zero. Don't you care about those families? What about those lost wages. Sure they have made some people better off, but they have lost jobs for others. What about the other people. Aren't the marginalized people the ones you care most about?

How do union leaders get paid? That is a good question. What are the salaries of all these protecters of the working people. My bet is that they are a lot higher than their membership.

"How low would taxes have to go before the Chamber of Commerce and ICBA types would be satisfied? I don't really know, but it looks like might finally be happy at a tax rate of zero."

How high of a tax rate would satisfy you? 90%. Or how about government controlling everything, that way we could live in a communist utopia, great. Asks Cubans how well that works for them. It seems a little wierd how Cubans risk their life to go to the US even thought they get free medicare and education in Cuba. I though that's all you need for a prosperous society.

The rich don't have a problem paying for everyone else, but the fact is you guys are never happy. All you do is whine for more. Taxes are raised and guess what the whining continues. The rich are ostracized like they didn't work for their money or they don't pay their fair share of taxes. That is an extremely ignorant view that seems to be prevalent especially in here.

"If we ignore Jim, perhaps he will cease to exist.
It's too bad this forum isn't like Yahoo where they have an "ignore" option you can click and make tiresome post-ers disappear from your world."

Heaven forbid a different view. It just shows that you cannot handle opinions different from your own. You visit a site that presents one side of the story, now you only want the posting boards to comment on one side of the story.

The reason I came here was do to the fact that I heard the tyee was a independant news source that presented unbiased reporting. Obviously that cannot be further from the truth. I was mislead, in a way, to this site and I can't stand the rhetoric passed on as news in here.

The truth is not matter what I say you'll always be jealous of someone who does better than yourself. The real fact is you can't stand to see people suceed.

Which is why you are one of the more prolific writers here, right? You and Spinny Wickette.

On the other hand, on an [U]objective[/U] site, to your mind, like say the Fiberal Party web site, or the multitude of right wing sites out there on the internet, you find a great many of us there, do you?

You too, keep coming back for more, we keep listening and responding to the arguments you advance. I'd say that was about as democratic as can be got.

Your a sad duck, Jim. Check out the balance of opinion here, you'll probably find, percentage wise, it about reflects what will be the outcome of this next election. :-D

And eh, Tyee accepts you as much as it does me or anyone else here. And I mean zero censorship, or I would have been history long ago, along with yourself. :-)

And you think that I contribute "excellent writing", do you?

I think you write garbage as well. :-D For probably about the same reasons.

On the other hand, I think Jim writes well. He just advances silly arguments that I disagree with. Sdgreen, on yet another hand, writes well,though I simply disagree with his views. In sdgreen's case, it's simply a matter that we have different ideological viewpoints, to which I respond seriously.

The Spinning Trio (Binnette, Sirjohn, and The Punisher), split personality aspects of the same entity are a special case, along with a few others that show up less frequently, who, in my view, are beyond the pale of both reason and sanity. (They are immature brownshirt twits.) They reap the contemp that they sow.

You know something, JIm-BOb? You're starting to get kind of whiney.

"How high of a tax rate would satisfy you? 90%. Or how about government controlling everything, that way we could live in a communist utopia, great. Asks Cubans how well ... The rich don't have a problem paying for everyone else, but the fact is you guys are never happy. All you do is whine for more.... The rich are ostracized ..."

The rich are ostracized, are they? It must be lonely at the top. I'll remember that next time I am driving past the Royal Vancouver Yatch club or the Shaughnessy Golf course.

By bringing up such nostrums as communism and Cuba, JIm-BOb, you're basically going overboard, tipping your hand, letting readers know that for you moderation and common sense are a sign of weakness.

Dear Jim: You state that it is easier to be a union leader than being a business leader/ceo/president. Do you speak from experience as a union leader? What makes you think that anyone opposed to Gordon Campbell is against business? What some of us are against is breaking contracts ( something that doesn`t work well in business), offshore multinationals controlling BC resources, large corporations and unions donating money to political parties for example. For many of us the "middle" is definitely not the BC Liberals.

It's hard to defend a position in a in depth way when your getting attacked from all sides. No issues are as simple as either side of the argument presents.

When i'm here I feel I need to take the extreme postion in order to make my point in the most efficient way possible. Although I do not not believe in extreme cases of capitalism i also do not believe in extreme cases of socailism. And when it's all said and done I would rather lean towards a system where it's everyman for themselves. You lean towards the we are all in this together point of view. We all fall in the middle. (sometimes i'm not sure about that) Because of this there is really no hope of ever agreeing but we can have differing points of view. That's something I feel thetyee.ca is seriously lacking.

I post in here not to change any of your minds or your ideological views, but to challenge you to look at BC from a different perspective. I can honestly say I do understand where the left comes from a lot better since I have joined thetyee.

To me discussions presenting only one similar view get pretty boring. I just like to add a little spice and bitterness to the fold.

Anyway your free to attack now.

"And when it's all said and done I would rather lean towards a system where it's everyman for themselves." says JIm.

Your wish has been coming true, hasn't it?

Again Jim, you have the matter standing on its head. "Owning a business", in and of itself generates absolutely NO wealth, zip, zero, zilch for the province or the capitalist.

Your view has its ass in the air, and its head nearer the floor.

It is, in fact, "the worker", be he or she a lowly floor sweeper, a production line worker or a trades person who creates, or is an indispensible part of creating, ALL wealth, in the form of material goods and/or services for not only the capitalist and society. It is merely that the "businessman" conducts the transaction and gathers up the cash which THEY generate.

Not only that, it is the worker as THE CONSUMER, who must appear later in the marketplace with his/her earnings, to purchase the product and complete the transformation of the service or product into money wealth for the capitalist.

And the difference between what the worker was paid for the creation of the consumer good or service, plus materiale costs, and what the good or service is sold for, is what we call "PROFIT" -, as if the capitalist had magically created it out of nothing.

You really need to get a better handle on elementary political and economic theory, Jim.

JIm you don't have to take an extreme position here to get atention. Most of the regulars read everything, including the "extreme" stuff you've been pounding out.

Here's the best way to get noticed. Write a short snappy opening sentence that wasn't lifted from some worn cliche.

Follow it up with a few salient statement and then some facts to back those stqatements up.

Hey, you don't have to even be polite (we like our right-wingers to froth a bit, ya know), but what-ever you do don't parrot Spinney or his echos here.

Oh and please tell me where I can better balanced coverage of news and discussion on things British Columbian. So far Tyee's the catch we all hungrily reel in each day.

Lot's of village idiots on this Tyee thread.

How stupid can a person be, who could possibly think Carole James is the answer to the world's problems? - I'm thinking of you Ghostsmachine.

Jean Binette
PS, If Liberals are so bad, how do you account for the fact that no less than four ousted past premier's are now supporters?

Lincoln said it. 'Without labour, there is no capital'. It's that simple. With labour, there is capital. Rock, scissors, paper. Labour wins.

In order for this new brand of Laissez Faire Capitalism to work , it depends on complete and total subjugation of most people. Surely, you don' t think that that will occur for long do you? It has never yet in our history.

But, then, perhaps you do. It appears your friends Cheney etal, thought it would be that way in Iraq. But, they are wrong. And, if they lose there, as it seems they very well might, that new constitution they wrote with all those rules such as the Iraqi people may never put their assets in public hands public, but must remain privatized (and owned by the Neo-Con cronies) will be null and void.

Look to history.

Gordo has today admitted to the Liberals planting callers to fill up the lines for the leaders radio debate this A.M. on CKNW. A certain "Steve from Prince George" who phoned in to direct accusatory questioning to the NDP leader, turns out to be Steve Vanderwale, assistant to Shirley Bond, Health Minister. His question concerned teachers/education and he does not even have kids.
My point though, is this : If the Liberals plant designated callers posing as Mr. Average Joe from Prince George, why should we think they aren't doing something similar at The Tyee? Possibly they're even paying some of the liberal apologist posters frequenting this site
to forward the Liberal agenda, attack Tyee articles, and lead discussion in directions they've been advised to by party strategists.
I say put them on "ignore". It's easy to scroll
right on by a post, especially if it's someone
whose "message" you've already been subjected to over and over, ad nauseum.

When the whole damn thread is taken up with swatting mosquitoes like JIm and sirjohna, it becomes a totally meaningless discussion and I resent seeing the other good minds being hijacked that way.

It's altogether too much like the Campbell Group which absorbs a whole province in trying to figure out how they could be so nuts, too.

Lot's of village idiots on this Tyee thread.

How stupid can a person be, who could possibly think Carole James is the answer to the world's problems? - I'm thinking of you Ghostsmachine.

Jean Binette
PS, If Liberals are so bad, how do you account for the fact that no less than four ousted past premier's are now supporters?

“What some of us are against is breaking contracts ( something that doesn`t work well in business), offshore multinationals controlling BC resources, large corporations and unions donating money to political parties for example. For many of us the "middle" is definitely not the BC Liberals.”

A few things about that comment. Contracts are renegotiated all the time in business, yet when the government tried for a reasoned approach to re-negotiating the contracts they go rejected. The union leader recommended the membership take a much better deal, but they refused.

One of the reasons they refused is due to the inherent flaw with unions. In order for the unskilled and lazy workers (and yes there are lazy bad workers) to get the highest possible wages some else in the union has to subsidize them. So the trained technicians didn’t want a pay cut to save the unskilled, hence the proposal was rejected.

That contract re-negotiation could have been easy and relatively painless like they are in the private sector but the union put their back against the wall and tried to fight. They lost.

The remaining members could have taken a longer work week (up to 40 hrs), less vacation (4 weeks instead of 6) and less sick days ( 3 instead of 7). That would have made up the cost savings yet the union leadership chose to take the pay cut in order to polarize the union against the government. He played political games instead of doing what was best for his membership. That is an example of how the issues aren’t as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

“If sweeping floors didn't in some way add value to something, there wouldn't be anybody doing it - would there?”

How much value does a floor sweeper add to the economy? Now compare that to a business owner. If you say the floor sweeper adds more to the economy I feel sorry for you. Yes he plays a part in the economy, but does he add value to the economy like a business owner no. Does sweeping floors pay for social programs? Sweeping floors should be a job you do when you enter the workforce not as a career goal.

China is a market champion because their economy, people and some would say more importantly their currency has been depressed for decades. Now people have the opportunity to work for themselves and build their own future. This is an example of how capitalism can bring freedom for the people. You cannot deny that Chinese people have more rights since capitalism has started to take over that country. I would say China is a example of what capitalism can do for people and their fight against government control of their lives. They can now take their fate in their own hands. Saying that, the fiscal imbalance between rich and poor is huge in most part due to government imbalance and favoritism.

You get on me for bringing up Cuba then you bring up working conditions from 200 years ago. I agree unions were useful, 50, 100 years ago, but so were ice boxes. Times change my friend.

“It is, in fact, "the worker", be he or she a lowly floor sweeper, a production line worker or a trades person who creates, or is an indispensible part of creating, ALL wealth, in the form of material goods and/or services for not only the capitalist and society. It is merely that the "businessman" conducts the transaction and gathers up the cash which THEY generate.”

Coyote, When you write statements like that I can stop reading your post because I now know you have no idea how a business operates. Those are ignorant ideological comments that are not based on reality. Although workers are important they are defiantly not as important as the owners/leaders. You seem like one of the brighter posters, but you defiantly have no idea about business.

Allen, any news source is more balanced than the tyee. If you can point out an article critical of the NDP of Labour unions then I’ll be really impressed. Any time I do present fact it’s dismissed as some bias from some other source.

How can you have a meaningful discussion if everyone is patting each other on the back? That’s a pep rally not a discussion.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear and amen! :-)

One needs to get this mythical image into their mind, which Jim would have us believe, along with himself.

The capitalist/businessman sitting in his office chair issuing memoranda and counting money, and making phone calls to his other moneyed cronies, even buying and selling paper wealth CREATES all material wealth in goods and services.

Jim, Jim, such a capitalist businessman, in and of himself, in his own lily white hands capitalist world would quickly be reduced to rags and a cardboard box hut, to say nothing of starve to death, were there not floor sweepers and other workers out there actually doing the grim, hands on, get down and dirty work, driving trucks, and swathing cattle feed ad infinitum, to actually physically create the product and provide the services for him to sell. Then, in the transaction that occurs between he and the consumer/worker, he pulls the essential "marketplace sleight of hand", acting as a kind of thief in the night, who steals or appropriates for himself, as if he/she had created it his or herself, the difference between the labour/raw material/production inputs and getting to market cost and the higher selling price he/she knows, or better bloody hope he/she will get, as profit.

The capitalist does not sit isolated and alone in the dessert creating some imaginary wealth, but in a real world, having slithered and slid via a complex human history into a position, not unlike the slave owner of old, wherein he controls the labour of others. It is these others who actually create and recreate his wealth, otherwise he would have no need of them, and would leave them to their own fates.

He/she is not especially known for doing things out of the goodness of his/her heart, such as taking on people, even floor sweepers, into his business as charity cases.

Which statement I offer back to you.

We could sit here all night and exchange our qualifications for what we know about business, and I do have my own set of credentials, and still get nowhere, Jim, because you are not really prepared to concede rational points. You are a true believer, and you have bought into capitalism with your belief system.

I have arrived at another analysis and conclusion, after starting out as a "believer" in capitalism-, which I shed very young, I concede-, even though I did, for a time, play the "business" game in a number of incarnations.

Which is about where certainly I should leave it, accepting that we are unlikely to convince each other, whilst having an interesting and even useful discussion, for certainly myself, and possibly others here. (You also, are obviously getting something out of it, or it is unlikely you would continue coming back here as you do.)

And Jim, we are NOT talking about the small business person, who effectively acts as his own worker. For where he does, by himself or in concert with a few hired workers, he actually has more in common with workers than he does big corporate capitalists.

Analysis always has to include a few ifs, ands, or buts-, and is seldom entirely straight forward, I concede again.

JIm,you say the gov't tried to re negotiate but the membership wouldn't? Try the gov't had a historical all night session tore up the rights of the workers' THEN tried to negotiate.Some, most really, didn't have too much trust left of the Libs and it didn't matter much what classification they were.
As for the union took the paycut to "polarize" the membership from the gov't, try again. The union asked for time to poll the membership as to what they'd prefer to lose but gov't refused to allow it. And JIm you are way off on what you quote about benefits and you seem to believe those benefits are "free" to get from day one; to get those benefits you need a regular position P/T or F/T and it is added "income" so you pay taxes for them. As a "causal" you pay for them and you are not garuanteed any work.It took years to get the positions, the Libs called "unskilled" and "over paid". The housekeepers were required to have a three month certificate because the MANAGEMENT demanded it saying the job was too complex to just walk into. Food Services IS NOT the same as running a public eatery or supplying a meal tray on some flight.
While you, as others have said, are better to debate with than other right winged posters here you seem to be unable to retain/learn anything other than Liberal Lies and you tends to re hash the same defeated information over and over. Making you, too, somewhat tiring to deal with. Don't worry though, unlike some "lefties", and I'm not totally certain that I actually qualifiy for that title, I still "enjoy" reading your contributions on this site....

JIm, also, the HEU contract raise that you all seem to believe was excessive, in fact, was $60 p/month for the first year (that's less than $0.50 p/hr more) 2% for the scond yr and COL or minimum 1.5% for third. That's what the NDP signed HEU to. However, GC and the "financially gifted" puppets gave out 23% raises to them selves (then took back 5% to make themselves look good),23% raises to nursing and HSA and lets not forget the ever generous 25% tax cut. He must have been drunk while this was going on because he as most of us knew the U.S. was threatening increased tariffs.It should be common knowledge to a politician of his years how much we depend on resources for income. There simply is no excuse for the past four years' misery at their hands.....

I much enjoyed your comments, blonde pitbull, addressing some of those issues of HEU workers. Thanks for that.

And that last piece of yours, ghostmachine, I thought was quite outstanding, from my perspective. A good read and "on the money" :-), I'd say.

Especially:

There is much that is powerful in Western thinking, though certainly far from in an entirely constructive way. Indeed, while it is powerful in many ways, on the one hand, it has been extremely destructive on the other, especially our relationship with the natural order. And Jim does reflect most powerfully, I think, as a byproduct of the kind of value system he and the other apologists for "unfettered capitalism" espouse here, what it is that is wrong in that regard: the Culture of Obsessive Greed, and Endless Quantitative Growth and Development.

Indeed, in many important material/economic and population/market growth regards, we need to be restraining ourselves. And it is that reality that capitalism is MOST incompatible with.

The rapacious economic system, its need for endless and limitless growth and expansion, that lies at the beating heart of Western culture is that which leads to the end of the parasite that consumes its host.

Jim said "I can honestly say I do understand where the left comes from a lot better since I have joined thetyee."

I wish I could say the same about FreeDominion. But you know what? you're not allowed to be anti-conservative on that site or they kick you out. Same with a few other right-wing forums I've tried. If you know a right-wing site where I can argue with right-wingers without losing my posting priveleges please point it out.

This is not a left wing site Jimbo.If you want left wing I would be happy to sugggest some sights for you.This is about free press my friend instead of those hacks you read at and listen to, truth hurts hey Jimbo

I received this from the Community Business and Professional Association of Canada with instructions to pass it on to anyone who might benefit.

Dear NDP supporter:

We wish to inform you that the Community Business and Professional Association of Canada (CBPA) are looking for new members and supporters. The CBPA is a federally chartered non-profit association representing the broad spectrum of professional and small business people. In British Columbia, small businesses employ almost 45% of the labour force and are responsible for 70% of all new jobs.

We believe in fair enterprise and a free market economy, not one so heavily dominated by foreign multinationals. We also believe that businesses must be ethical and demonstrate decency, integrity and concern for the greater community. For these reasons, we support the NDP. In this upcoming election, we need your help to get the message to the voters of British Columbia that, contrary to some press reports, reveal that small business people DO support the NDP in large numbers.

The CBPA believes the following that:

Fair enterprise should be governed by fair and ethical business practices;
Fair and free competition between business enterprises, both large and small is essential in a democracy;
All workers must be treated with respect, and working unions are a vital part of our economy;
People in every community need an adequate level of income to support small business prosperity;
We must all support adequate social services for those less fortunate than ourselves;
We have a duty to influence government policy in support of these objectives at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.
Making a profit is not wrong. Failure to consider the needs of others in our communities is wrong.
The CBPA will involve itself actively in the upcoming provincial election. We hope to help in as many constituencies as possible to bring home the message that many small businesses support the NDP. We also ask for your help to encourage businesses and professionals to join our association and assist us in the upcoming election campaign. Please distribute this letter to anyone you think would benefit from this information.

For more information, contact Dave Myles at (604) 612-4688 or e-mail at

Yours truly,

Dave Myles, President, CBPA

There is a growing movement in the US started by very wealthy Americans which is for fair taxation. In other words higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Many business people are against this government.

I could have read this incorrectly, but in the second term of the Harris gov't a similar group including Conservatives like Bill Davis, got together to speak out against Neo-Conservatism.

It will destroy our province and our community if it isn't stopped. There is no doubt about it. And, more than a few small business are suffering because of less disposable income in the pockets of everyday people.

Kudos to Ghostsmachine. I really don't know what else to say. You speak to my heart :)

By the way- you can give a guy how much money?? (McLean) and he still... looks... bad.

J1M, let me let you in on a little secret; unions only happen to companies that deserve them.

One of the few things you're right about is that unions are a bitch to belong to. You've got meetings, union dues, and you're giving up a substantial portion of your autonomy. People only join unions when they realize the alternative is worse. Therefore, if you treat your employees well, they won't unionize. If you pay them "market" wages (i.e. you're screwing them as much as possible), they probably will unionize and then start screwing you back.

You see, J1m, you can't have the super-rich without having the super-poor to build them things that they can sell at a huge profit. Rockefeller understood this, which is why he had the wives and children of union members machine-gunned at Ludlow. Echlin understood this, which is why they hired a mob of 300 thugs to beat up the workers at their Mexico City plant when the UAW started messing around in 1998. I have plenty of other examples of union officials getting shot, stabbed, disappeared, etc., if you'd like me to continue.

Exactly, SMitchell.
Somewhere up there up there some scribe-- thoroughly dipped in deep Friedmania-- wrote that some businessman "made" money. Made? Took, you mean. Only governments and counterfeiters make money. Workers/employees and business people who actually work (and not dream that they do) earn their money. CEOs "earn" $20 million a year? I don't think so! Some people are just in the right place at the right time, with just enough luck and intelligence to do some things right once in awhile. Mostly it's how much loot your parents had, and whom they knew they could ingratiate you with. Unions are necessary only because most employers are skanks.

And redriver girl nails the perspective that needs to be understood, about the natural relationship that needs to exist between working people, (who are NOT AGAINST the consumer, but are in fact themselves the actual much mystified consumer), AND especially, small business. "Business" IS NOT an entirely monolithic creation as the Chamber of Commerce/Corporatist view would have us believe, but a rather schozophrenic one, along the divide line between large multi-national corporations and the big Mall corporate chains on the one side, and the small shops, stores, professional services and restaurants etc which still make up important elements of our communities.

While all small businesses MAY contain within them, especially those with that certain innate "growth" potential to become a conglomerate of the future, as a result of a particular niche occupation or product element, the reality is, most do NOT. These businesses are less able to exploit the whole world and wield the political and economic influence that raises them to a special level and category that causes them to "objectify" people, in the way large corporations do. These small businesses need/desire, by and large, a prosperous community of working people in which to survive and prosper as well. (And an impoverished working class, with exceptions, impoverishes them as well, again, for the most part.)

So we need to see the particular complexity of this world we function in, that has evolved to be increasingly dominated by a particular "class set" of large multi-national corporations and a parallel class of international financiers that is driving this particular anti-human neoconservative agenda, wiggling its way into control of virtually every part of hitherto Western capitalist "democracy" (Another discussion.).

There are, on the other hand, three major social class elements coming into increasing friction with this "ruling class" of international conglomerates and financiers. They are first the working class, organized and unorganized (into unions), the mainstream of those who work the land, farmers and ranchers, outside the purview of increasingly ascendant corporate farming, often called the "family farmers and/or farm", and that small business sector that suffers when their consumer-workers and families are likewise suffering.

It is important to see that natural alliance because, it is the potential force that can develop the "power" to circumscribe, in turn, the power of Big Capital, as I've described, and facilitate its democratization, in ways seldom dreamed of today, though more in the past, such as to have a profound impact on the character of current society-, taking "democracy" to a whole new level, within the economy itself, and political society.

Without that overall understanding, the resistance to this current neo-conservative period will fail to develop a really powerful voice, capable of articulating and formulating a way out of the current social and economic morass.

And I tip my hat to an important contribution to this discussion as well, from Gina, who helps make clear that there are at least some in the small business community themselves, who are coming to see beyond the narrow Chamber of Commerce/ Fiberal Party framework. Positive.

A good day to you Fii. Nice to see your byline here.

And yes, again I agree with redrivergirl. There are always exceptions to every rule. There ARE "liberal", even some rare "radical" very wealthy and powerful people, part of corporate capitalism, like Soros (I think is his name), in the United States, who understand how neoconservatism is driving the destruction of capitalism itself. So, as this current period evolves, it is entirely possible that some seemingly "strange" alliances may evolve.

Whilst one should certainly not rely on such, and even be wary of them to a prudent degree, it is all indicative that many are coming to understand, along a broad social front, that this period of capitalusm, and capitalism itself, is unsustainable and destined to undergo a radical transformation-, I suggest, as to make it unrecognizable. Elements of the old, like aspects of the monarchy carried over into capitalism after the formers defeat, are likely, like the small business sector, to carry over into the new "democratized" economic period, but much, indeed the very character and substance of Corporate Capitalism needs to be unreconizably altered, made subject to altered power relationships, and serve quite different social ends.

Thanks,Coyote. You know what's truly very sad about it is that they did it to just about every group of the civil service that they could and all the while saying that they wanted to "improve" our service from the province. Doesn't make much sense to me,really. ICBC is about the only one I can think of that has myoptically improved. We pay more, get less, but the company makes a buck and that's okay, better a well run public agency putting funds into the provincial budget than our money flowing out of the province.Yes? But as for improving the services, well, we wait longer at less hospitals with questionable services, Legal aid slashed, daycare slaughtered,the list goes on. They have picked fights with doctors, nurses, prosecutors, Ferries, social workers etc. It's now routine to have security guards and glassed in Welfare Offices.I can't relay how much it saddens and baffles me.....

I FORGOT TEACHERS!!!How could I forget the Teachers? HEU and BCTF are the top two on the Liberal hit list.....I also happen to agree somewhat with SMitchell...unions are a bitch to work in but.....

the 'teachers', or rather the spaced-out bctf executive, are doing the liberals a favour by remaining front and center during this campaign. it's quite beautiful really. $5 million bucks to help their 'enemies' get re-elected. my hero mordecai richler would love this one.

Yes, yes, yes. For damn sure! :-)

A long time trade unionist myself, I agree with S. Mitchell and yourself.

There's a lot of work that needs to go on within the trade union movement in my view, to update their leadership view of the current, neo-conservative and post prosperity period capitalist society, to revamp and strengthen day to day democracy within many, if not most unions, and to wean it away from, what I consider, inappropriate political influence from ANY party. (Unions need to maintain a position not "apolitical", but independantly capable of criticizing ALL political parties.)

While I agree with change/ prgress within union leadership I don't think it will happen until management is willing to change /progress with it....and I don't think that the gov't as an employer should have the right to change contracts that regular employers don't have....

"The rich don't have a problem paying for everyone else, but the fact is you guys are never happy. All you do is whine for more." Writes JIm. The mill owner in my family does mind. He thinks he pays too much to saw our trees. He only acknowledges those who hack wood or dig rocks as creators of wealth. He genuinely considers everyone else as a leech on society and this includes school teachers, policemen, firemen, health professionals, and oddly even the people who maintain our highways that his logging trucks use to transport our forests to his mill. His is a very selfish view of society that many of his business buds share and I find myself reminding him whenever I visit that we all use wood in our day to day lives so it is us who actually support him.

From ghostsmachine:

"Let it slide".
"Career comes first".
"Don't rock the boat".

That same "Society", like their ever increasing patients, not daring to ask why, not daring to get to the roots of it, instead too content to take the money and work with the broken parts - but NEVER EVER EVER looking into or asking how all these things became broken, damaged and f***ed up in the first damned place.

Your wonderful rant reminded me that (before I had accommodation on campus at SFU) I rented a place in Coquitlam. Didn't dare open the bedroom window at night because of the toxic clouds from the oil refineries there.

Later, when Terry Fox began his famous appeal for cancer research, I wasn't surprised to learn that he had lived in Coquitlam. But I doubt that anybody has yet joined the dots, asked why. Is that refinery still at it?

Great rant, ghostsmachine. Your eloquence begins to make this space feel like a real Irish pub. <>

Agreed, hands down.

And good story Ed Haskell. Anyone who has lived in a logging community has met this guy. (Not that ALL loggers are this way, by a long bloody shot.)

I'd like to add to that comment someone made 'way back there: it's not just that capital needs labour, but that labour DOESN'T need capital. Worker's co-operatives and employee-owned businesses would work just fine if the greed factor didn't sabotage them. Look at what's happening in Argentina right now.

Again, Anne and Ghostsmachine, there are more of us who agree on this issue than I might originally of guessed, it appears.

If "labour" and its allies can ever really get their shit together, the DO NOT need Capital.

There does seem to be a bit of a resurgance of this understanding just beginning to happen again, under the influence of negative pressure from resurgent Neo-conservatism/fascism, and positive examples happening in Latin America, in such places as Venezuala, and especially Argentina.

This concept of a "democratized economy" seems to me, to be the next wave to break, when and as people's faith in social democracy becomes either disillusioned, or that party is transformed into a quite different movement than it is currently. (The key, however, is clearly "labour" itself, regardless of unions or the ndp.)

I just want to add, sounding like a broken record, its not a province of Venezuela or a province of Argentina where real change happens in a vaccuum. Real, as opposed to experimental, economic change can only happen at the federal level with control of the Bank of Canada, dept of Finance and rules of foreign trade.

ghostmachine: Thanks for the book suggestion. Will try to see if our library or local bookstore has a copy.

I really like the idea of worker ownership and control of our own labour and product but
I am curious as to how the author deals with the element of "greed" entering the co-operative picture as Anne alludes to above.

On the coast here we have been involved with a number of co-operatives and they all seem to end the same way. Usually the guy who ironically seems the most egalitarian, friend to all.. singing the all for one, one for all tune that is always appealing...ends up the main organizer and it all begins so well but before long the old power games emerge and information starts to get hidden from the rest of us and every thing starts to derail.

My husband and I attended one meeting where one of our friends was removed as a director because she was asking too many questions. They were insulted she was doubting them. It got very personal and mean-spirited as things sometimes do in a small town and was one of the most raucous heated meetings we have ever attended. A bunch of us screamed back in her defense...and walked, cut our losses which included long hours of volunteer labour to build the buildings themselves, lost a few "friends" in the process... and called it a day.

Later we found out just how much all of us had been screwed.

We found this to be just as true in union meetings, (and I believe in unions) where some union leaders fall in love with the power of their own position and basically isolate themselves from the workers' concerns.

I'm not saying this to be negative, maybe just a little cynical which I generally try not to be, because this seems like one of the best ways to overcome the inequalities of power structures... only I'm curious as to how we prevent imbalanced structures from arising when we are dealing with the very human qualities of power and greed.

If the book you suggest, ghostmachine, provides a more imaginative and fair approach to the above power inequities I would gladly embrace them.

sorry, should read "embrace it"

And that is the question, Lynn- is it even POSSIBLE to take a desire for power and "the sin" of greed out of the equation? I look around the world we live in and I'm leaning towards "No", bigtime. Are we living in a world where we are just humouring (dangerously so) a select needy, insecure and completely out of control group of people who think, by some totally outrageous stretch of the imagination, they are entitled to "earn" $2.5 million (or what have you) a year? I mean, what the hell IS that?? What are they attaining? It's not happiness because I'm as happy as it gets (minus the dough), most days, so what are they after? I think we need to pick the brains of these people (like the guy, Lynn, who swindled you all)... hey Jim, where are ya? Help me out here... what do you do with all that money?

This is very interesting. Fii's question about human frailty is very pertinent, and arises out of the inequities of compensation. If we equate money with status and honour, as we seem to do regardless of the real personal qualities of the wealthy, we will wind up with very odd people exerting inordinate influence over all sorts of things.

This has always seemed like a poor idea to me, putting power in the hands of people based on their success at swindling other people out of the fruits of their labour.

The theoretical place of capital in Capitalism is organizational. To produce goods in an industrial paradigm land must be acquired, products and processes designed, machine tools and production equipment set up, markets accessed, transport arranged, payment managed. All very expensive.

Frank's example of Argentina came of the collapse of their system under the weight of it's own corruption. The workers there inherited factories and warehouses, processes that were already operating in place.

My question is, without those accesses to capital that built those facilities, how would labour proceed to begin production?

I mean, in the whole labour doesn't need capital idea, where does labour get the means of production?

Bailey, I would say you need the old Credit Union idea. A community savings and loan that provides capital for community and projects and housing. Where profit coming in to the credit union stays in the community and is recircled through new projects and not sent back to Toronto.

Fii, you raise one of the profound issues of our ever-increasing consumer oriented age.

It is greed, it's all about greed. The budding consumer is conditioned to appreciate only the type of wealth that will get you baubles and trinkets.

And no lay-away plans for our generation who insist on immediate gratification because TV tells us not to settle for anything less right now.

It's the carrot part of the carrot and the stick. The stick is also part of the learning or conditioning process, none-too-subtley implying that if you don't chase the chrome and the cream, you'll end up a loser.

The closest this capitalist chase-the-buck approach gets to a real human appreciation is in the manipulative impact of advertizing, best displayed by the bizarre spending orgy called Christmas.

Our mainstream Canadian culture once banned west coast Indians from holding their traditional potlatch ceremonies because giving things away was deemed savage, evil or a dangerous practice and no doubt worrisome to white traders.

One difference between the potlatch and our capitalist-oriented Christmas event is that in the former the wealthy gave things away while in the latter the poor are socially forced into debt to avoid the social guilt of not giving.

Good health is wealth as is happiness, a sense of safety and security, friends, family and the ability to take time to enjoy art, nature or whatever without having to juggle a tiny pleasure while trying to please a boss and ignore the bill collector.

Frank, I wasn't clear, let me explain. Your answer is good structurally, but doesn't address my point.

In your answer the subject of the sentence was "you". 'You need the old credit union idea' I take that to mean 'one' rather than me personally. So workers could access capital for setup from pooled community funds. Is that it?

But these funds are finite, while people's ambitions aren't. So who decides which project gets built? Committees? Every horse will be a camel.

Salaried functionaries cannot make such decisions. History proves this. The dynamics of a decision pivot around risk vs. advantage analyses, and both the risks and the advantages that inform a beaurocrat are incompatible with the requirements of spending somebody else's money.

So, who? How? By what criteria?

One strength of Capitalism has been the fact that once somebody gets money, any crazy thing they want to try becomes possible. Most of these idiotic schemes fail, but they often lead to other crazy schemes which also fail and so on until somebody hits a crazy scheme which turns out to be not crazy after all, and society advances.

I don't know the odds, but the failure rate of new businesses could serve for that. Most never really take off, but some few do. Spectacularly.

Venture Capitalists are always bemoaning the scarcity of good crazy schemes. They wander around searching for inventors without patents to rip off, or ones with patents they can exploit, and presto, we get the George Forman grill, or reverse osmosis, or modular condominiums.

Who would be the guy, if labour takes on that role? Who will say, those are great ideas guys, but just do your job? Who will control and direct process, and decide, when decision is essential to success?

Lynn, I could really relate to your posting about co-operative ventures going sour. Been there. What I can't figure out is why the majority of the group generally supports the corrupt "leader" (or leadership clique) and doesn't see what is really happening until too late. I'm usually the one (or one of a small minority) who sees what is going wrong first and is then labelled "negative", "not a team player", "confrontational",etc. Greed plays a part, but I think that hierarchy is so inculcated in most people in our culture that people who don't consciously realize they are being hierarichal will follow and protect a corrupt leader, as if mesmerized.

Bailey, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. Are you saying the projects funded by capital are more effective because anything created by a committee is going to be banal? There is some truth in that. However, maybe we
need a few "banal" projects that support people's needs. I understand that the Basque community at Mondragon has had some success with co-operative ventures. The left wing faction during the Spanish Civil War also set up grass-roots co-operative projects that were working until they were sold out and then crushed. That's the trouble. There is always an element that will sell these things out in order to gain some advantage for themselves.

I don't know how to get around that.

I'm not sure how to be clearer. If labour doesn't need capital, who provides vision and passion and inspiration and decisiveness and all those personal qualities that make some projects so magnificent?

Who decides what to do, and how much to spend on it?

Hi Fii, it was great to read your comment - my gut feeling is much like yours - it seems it would be very difficult to remove greed from the equation - that it will take more than a few evolutionary steps forward to conquer that one ...but as I write that I realize allan's potlatch example is revealing as to how possible it really is. That it exists but our culture is now blind to it... our consumer-driven economy of worshipping things, in comparison, seems one of decline, of devolution.

In all honesty, like Anne, I have no real answer, how we get around our human frailities...maybe that's how we learn... through our very human but necessary flaws...I agree with allan that it is the little things that often bring us the most pleasure, that somehow we always seem to remember and carry us through the years.

Is it possible? is a good question though, Fii ...trouble is as I get older, I have a lot less answers, and way too many questions. :-)

Bailey- the people, the workers- together. I know several brilliant people with brilliant ideas- most of them live at or below the poverty line, ironically enough. They're "too nice". They help others, give too much of themselves and get left behind. They don't have "things" or a title/status, or perhaps they aren't imposing-looking so people don't listen to them. Don't take them seriously. But they definitely have those qualities you mentioned. I guess it may boil down to the way we judge/treat one another. We need to take the time to listen to everyone equally and treat everyone equally. Nobody listens. Our society is so fractured I have no idea how to fix that one.

Today there was a note under my windshield wiper from my neighbour (who I've said hi to maybe 3 times in nearly 4 years). It read: "You ARE NOT a resident here. Park your car somewhere else." That was it. I'm not a resident here? Where am I a resident then? Oh, yes, in THAT little squared off area there, not here. HUH! Co-operation?? Can this person and I sit down together and share our visions and make decisions together, without one of us wanting to dominate and control? She can't handle my car being parked in "her spot" for a few hours. This is the mindset we are up against.

Why can't I make paragraphs anymore? :(

Fii: For paragraphs, just use your "enter" key for spacing the paragraphs and then type normally. Good luck with your "neighbour" and "her spot"...

Bailey, I'm not sure I understand you either...though I could just be sleepy...Couldn't the workers themselves provide the vision, imagination, and make the decisions by some kind of agreed upon consensus? ...With full realization that it is the design of the structure that again becomes most important or we are back to those same issues of hierarchal power and yup, once again good ol'greed.

It's true enough, those are unpleasant qualities, but they become a great focusing mechanism that makes some enterprises shine.

I've sat on boards and seen how communal farms try to regulate themselves.

When ownership and gain are motivators, people keep working toward the single well defined end.

When everybody feels equally able to express their own visions things deteriorate until it becomes impossible to decide to feed the grasshoppers to the chickens. Eventually one person will try in frustration to just provide some direction someplace just once fer heavenssake, and it will result in a meeting where tears are shed, names are called and everything falls apart.

I think the kinds of projects that require capital amounts of money also require a single unifying vision to direct them. Somebody with something big to gain and something big to lose. With reason to focus, and limit the scope to the defined goals, and provide supervision.

Big human efforts are like art, they need an artist. I can't quite visualise a painting painted by a comittee.

So, Bailey, you are saying that the mess this planet is in (mostly created by capitalist greed) is a good thing? That it has anything to do with "art and artists" and creativity? I guess that Hitler saw his Third Reich as a "unifying vision" too!

All that aside, I concede that meetings such as you describe do occurr. That is the dark side of the collective vision. But the capitalist side has a dark side as well! And we are all suffering right now from that dark side. And what about the positive examples of collectivism I have mentioned. You say nothing about them.

As to the capitalists being required to supply the land and resources, where do you think the land and resources came from in the first place? The captitalists stole them from the ordinary people. Some think that the ordinary people were "wasting" these resources by just using them for self-sustaining activities. But those activities weren't killing the planet, were they?

Anne, I don't think I said that.

And I do like collectivist activities. Hell, I could do you a whole lecture about the role co-operative housing schemes could play in eliminating poverty and bringing the poor and their children back into the bosom of their communities, so to speak. Where they belong.

I know I haven't been very clear, and I'm pretty far off topic here. I think what I'm getting at is that everything is a continuous spectrum, and some things that are bad in the extreme are positive in moderate well controlled doses.

Take this greed and avarice that's got us all into so much trouble. In it's less psychotic form, it's the wish of a person to improve, to provide better for his family, to leave something to protect the next generation and help them prosper.

See? A positive virtue taken to a psychotic extreme becomes a vice and a sin and a character defect. Well regulated and controlled, moderate Capitalism is a good way to scatter the risks and amplify the creativity in a society, provided it never becomes overly concentrated.

It randomizes to some extent the ability of different kinds of people to make a run at realizing their dreams. That is a very good and very evolutionary idea for a society which is so culturally divergent as they tend to be in these days of dense population growth.

But putting ALL that power into the realm of a beaurocratic mindset would be worse than leaving it all in the hands of sociopaths who have no goals for society other than becoming richer than God.

Except why can't we just all BE. Why do we have to improve? Who needs to improve? Why do we think we are not good enough the way we are? Who teaches us that? Are we born "knowing" that or are we conditioned to believe we need to "improve"?

I "realized my dream" today. I worked for six hours this morning, had a couple decent cups of coffee, got a dog walk in before work when all was quiet and the world was still (5:30 am) and after work spent two hours at Kitts beach playing fetch with my dog. Is there something more I should be madly pursuing? I didn't say an unkind word to another human nor did I hurt anyone. The less psychotic form of greed you speak about Bailey, was passed a while back. People are waaaaaaaaay beyond that point. "Leave something to protect the next generation and help them prosper"??! Maybe I'm just pessimistic these days but I see sweet innocent children's faces and I feel soooo bad for them. I can only hope they have many quiet early mornings and simple days full of peace and contentment.

I was going to congratulate you on your achievement, Fii. Not many come to peace through perfect contentment, though I believe it's true that the only path to that peace is by giving up all desire and expectation, coming to rest in the center of things.

Then I heard your heart cry for those sweet children and I had to wonder whether you're describing peace or despair.

I think it's also possible to reach a point like contentment by giving up all hope.

But that isn't the same as peace.

All people seek and struggle. All in different ways take different paths. I think it's best if they are free to pursue whatever they seek by whatever path their destinies permit.

We all swim in the same waters, what you lose, I lose. What you create, I can touch. Your aspirations and dreams flavour the lives of all whose lives touch yours.

Aspire to something good. Dream well. Don't feel too bad for the children, Your life will add qualities to theirs, and if you live well that will be a good thing for them.

You make some good points Bailey, though I still don't believe we need capitalists in order to forge ahead.

I thought of another thing last evening. These collectivist efforts that fail and become corrupted--sometimes that happens because they weren't very serious in the first place. Sometimes the people running them are more into radical chic than they are into getting things done. They are posers; they feel threatened by those members of the group who actually want to get some hands-on work done and so those more serious members become excluded or disaffected.

I think there are many groups like this in our society because the situation hasn't become bad
enough yet. When collective action becomes a matter of survival then more people will get serious and more serious people will be listened to.

That's a great thought, Anne. There's a feeling out of things that has to happen when there's no beaten path to follow.

But it isn't nesessary to think in all or nothing terms. Collective actions also succeed all the time. They tend to be small, limited to a well defined purpose.

Personally, I think the world might be ready for real, practical housing co-operatives. Groups of people with a need in common can pool their resources and talents and skills to reach a common goal. God knows nobody official can be trusted to do anything real useful about it.

That way people can take control of their own lives and design their own solutions. Plus I've noticed that when somebody is pursuing a worthy goal with good intentions, the rest of the universe just falls in place. Everybody wants to help when the time is right.

If small, beautiful collective schemes can be seen dotting the landscape, succeeding and thriving, it could be an example others could follow. It could lead almost anywhere. It could persuade the world.

I know, I know. I meant one has to feel one's way when one can't see the path. Not that you need to feel 'out of it'.

Sorry.

My friend and I were heading to the beach today (after a hike at Deep Cove) and we were driving behind a minivan and there was a tv- I'm not kidding, a mini tv- hooked up behind the driver's seat (Sponge pants- something was on? My friend knew, anyway; he works with children), and we both found it so odd. This is what I mean, Bailey. Kids are unundated at SUCH a young age with crap, all the time, is it any wonder they can't wade through it all? What happened to good old "count the punch buggies" game my little bro and I used to play on road trips? What happened to BOOKS? At least we weren't staring blankly at a tv screen. How do they have a shot at finding contentment?

Children are being raised as drones. And the ones that aren't yet, I think "How long before you become a drone?"

But that is, perhaps, another topic entirely. Well, it is. I've really gone off topic on this thread. So maybe you're right, Bailey, that "all people seek and struggle", and it will all work out- but I think more people need to learn that they don't need to seek endlessly for something they can find right now, today. Hope IS "an expectation of something desired." Peace is simply "tranquility/quietness", and contentment "placidly happy." So if the way to peace, as you stated above, is through giving up desire and expectation (hope), then it IS the same thing. What is your definition of peace? Peace is not some HUGE thing. These are merely words we are throwing around, Bailey. Defined by man. Of course I have desires- and future ones, too... but I can enjoy TODAY for free, without needing stuff. That is something I don't see in the younger generation, in general.

This will probably be incomprehensible, Fii. I apologise in advance.

I know three meanings for 'drone'. A kind of remote controlled aircraft, a sounding reed on a bagpipe and it's sound, (I think you don't mean those) And the males in a honeybee hive. I guess that's what you mean the kids will become. I know something interesting about those.

In most species, the male and female mate to produce offspring from the contribution of both. In honeybees, all the females (workers) are like that. A new queen mates with several drones, and fertilizes worker eggs from those contributions.

The drones (males) are not fertilized. Genetically, they are identical to the queen. No other contribution at all. They can't work, they can't forage, they can't tend the hive. They can only fly very fast, catch flying queens, and give them the genetic material of their own queen.

It's essentially a mating between queens. Through the drone. He carries a message, a deeply spiritual offer. The substance of his creator, his mother.

It is so bound up with his life that to give it, he must give his own life. They seem to give it willingly, even eagerly.

Being a drone is a more complicated and meaningful thing than it looks, at a glance. It is, however, a life absolutely bound up in duty.

Bailey, sometimes you just blow me away. How do you know all these things? I have a son who is always curious, fascinated by everything, like you. A wonderful quality to have and a really wonderful piece you have written above.