Thanks Lynn

This is coming a little late to Tyee - but glad it's finally here. Perhaps you can bring readers up to date on a few other details - it you have the time.

I know you have the information.

Burma, Mr. Friedland and the BC Government

I'll post this one, G West, From The Canadian Friends of Burma:

CFOB concerned by Ivanhoe Chairman Friedland's at presence at
conference supported by BC Government

October 1st 2007

"The Canadian Friends of Burma (CFOB) is gravely concerned by the inclusion of Ivanhoe Mines founder and Executive Chairman Robert Friedland as a featured speaker at the Inaugural Asia Pacific Forum
on Mining and Minerals in Vancouver BC on Oct 1st 2007. A forum whose "founding partner" is the BC government.

In the press release announcing Mr. Friedland's luncheon speech he is
heralded as an individual who is "in the vanguard of North American natural-resource sector leaders who have pioneered business links in Greater China and the Asia Pacific region during the past 20 years."

The press release neglected to mention that Friedland's business
links included a 50/50 partnership with Burma's military dictatorship. The very same group of generals presently massacring
peaceful demonstrators in Rangoon and across Burma.

As monks, journalists and students are gunned down at point blank range Ivanhoe continues to profit from a copper mine located in Monywa, Sagaing Division operated in a fifty-fifty partnership with
the Burmese military junta.

Since February this year, Ivanhoe has claimed that it is in the process of relieving its self of its 50 percent stake in Monywa. At present they have yet to find a buyer for their share of the mine.
In preparation for an eventual sale the firm has sold its stake to an "Independent Trust" in return for a guarantee that when
the "Independent Trust" sells the stake Ivanhoe will then be paid.

While this agreement may give the impression that Ivanhoe is no longer in Burma, the firm continues to accrue profits from the mine and will do so until the "Independent Trust" sells their stake.
Ivanhoe refuses to say who operates the "Independent Trust" but asserts that the operators are independent of Ivanhoe.

Reports from the Monywa area are that the mine has caused a great deal of environmental problems and has severely affected nearby farmers. An independent environmental study commissioned by Ivanhoe
reveals a considerable portion of the land used by the operation is severely contaminated. Yet Ivanhoe's cleanup plan is vague and relies heavily on the involvement of their joint venture partner, a state owned enterprise of the Burmese Junta.

Burma's mining and environmental regulations are some the weakest in
the entire world. Furthermore Burma's extremely repressive dictatorship does not allow for the kind of climate where those
living near the mine can openly state their concerns about its operation or its cleanup. It is our believe that long after Ivanhoe has left Burma, the environmental problems caused by the Monywa mine
will remain.

contd.

"The Canadian Friends of Burma and other organizations that are concerned with the plight of Burma's people voiced their opposition to the Monywa mine when Mr. Friedland's firm first announced their
interest in the area. Little that Ivanhoe has done in the ensuing years has reassured us.

Mr. Friedland often stated that Ivanhoe's operations in Burma would
do good for the country, : "I am firmly convinced that Canadian companies going to a country like Myanmar [Burma] to engage in
business will help the average person
there. I will tell you there is no country in Asia that is a perfect democracy....... And I have no doubt that the true situation in Myanmar is improving and we can go and engage in business there,
subject to following our own code of conduct."

In reality Ivanhoe's involvement in Burma only served to enrich a brutal regime and give it more money to buy weapons to use against Burma's population. Those risking their lives in Rangoon's blood
soaked streets would certainly prefer that Mr. Friedland had pioneered somewhere else."

A good blog to follow about the present situation Burma is actually from Thailand ( the blogs inside Burma are closed).

http://jotman.blogspot.com/

The Burmese Digest is also a good source of articles and news.

Hitchens forgot about Condi's favorite company - Chevron

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/04/MNNBSIK4D.DTL

Saw Hitchens once

He took on Mother Theresa in a three rounder..it never even went the distance.
the old girl was game..tough as nails but Hitch was just too quick on his feet and packs that big right hand..it ended mercifully mid way through the first.

I'd very much appreciate

I'd very much appreciate introductions to any "unnamed third party trust" which agrees to pay me US 6.6 million in dividends from any selected nefarious enterprise.

Oh for those days at the Rangoon Club

The Japanese had advanced to Burma as her army had steamrollered all before it between 1942 and 1943. The British had surrendered at Singapore and the Americans, lead by Douglas MacArthur, had left the Philippines. As the Japanese advanced west, they came to Burma. Here their supply lines were stretched to the limit and only a minority of the Japanese Army was stationed there – the majority were in the Pacific region.

The main threat to the Japanese came from ‘Vinegar Joe’ Stilwell’s Chinese Army in India (CAI). The Indian Army, under the British, had lost their best men to the campaign in North Africa. The British military hierarchy was also only prepared to take on the Japanese when it felt that British troops were sufficiently trained in jungle warfare.

In January 1943, Indian troops were given the task of advancing along the Burmese coast to the port of Akyab. This was done by the 14th Indian Division. They found only light Japanese resistance and many Japanese posts were manned by just a few soldiers. The real problem for the Allies was the environment. Burma was criss-crossed with jungle, mountains, rivers and mangrove swamps. Moving equipment was a nightmare across such hazardous terrain and worse was the constant threat of disease. Malaria was a very real problem.

The Longest Civil War

The arming of the hill peoples, and vast quantities of weapons left behind by the Japanese, meant that Burma's ethnic conflicts from the very beginning turned violent. The hill peoples had the means to form their own militias and armies and the first, the Karen National Defence Organisation, was set up in 1947, a year before independence. The Mon formed a similar militia in 1948, while the most militant of the Burman nationalists, the Communist Party of Burma, dismissed independence as a sham and resorted to armed struggle in April 1948. That war continued until 1989, when the hill-tribe rank-and-file of the CPB's army mutinied against the aging Burman leadership of the party and drove them into exile in China. But the army remains under a different name, the United Wa State Army, and although it has had a ceasefire agreement with the government in Rangoon since the mutiny, it still has at least 16,000 soldiers--and they are better armed and equipped than the CPB's army ever was.

Although younger generations may view the Pacific War as something that happened in the past with little or no relevance to today's Asia, the impact of the Pacific War can not be underestimated. It paved the way for independence for countries in the region. In Burma, it also led to the world's longest-lasting civil war. Thus, the war never really ended in Burma. The leaders of the Karen rebels, Bo Mya and Tamla Baw, even began their military careers as anti-Japanese guerrillas, and they are still fighting.

Although apologists

Although apologists for ‘Imperial Britain’ throughout the subcontinent, Ceylon and the Far East might like to characterize the English as benign and civilizing influences in these areas, a somewhat more comprehensive understanding of the role of imperialism in the current unpleasantness would never suggest that the situation which has evolved there since the start of the 19th century is a result 'only' of the Japanese. On the other hand, if the Americans had listened a little more carefully to what Joe Stilwell advised and a little less attentively to what Dugout Doug had to say the current situation where nations like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Taiwan are poised precariously on a geo-political knife edge between China and the West might never have obtained. But that’s another story.

Orwell is a fine witness to the depredations and lies of the 'system' he served - I'll post a couple more examples when I have my library at hand this evening

For the moment, any attempt to hang all this on the Japanese is simple idle revisionism and historical myopia…even if it does come from a source with no citation.

Sorry you were, "sadly and deeply mistaken", Lynn

about any misreading of previous comments. Glad to see that you say that you, "don't think there is any excuse for the present brutal regime..."

BBC is on to this story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7041203.stm

The Mother network doesn't seem too interested only some chat about the nomenclature. I suppose more blood has to flow before they find it on a map.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/

still not close and no cigar

realisticman,

how very naughty of you... but not half so clever as you think -

okay, I'll cut to the chase and say it as I see it - your "historical piece" appears to be an attempt at distraction.

This Tyee article is about Canada's mining industries' ties with a brutal military junta - ties that have "earned millions for BC-based Ivanhoe."

Why not address that issue?

Context

Context can tell us much, Lynn. It's not unusual to research contentious issues and Burma certainly has an extremely interesting history that gave me more perspective after some digging, that I thought I'd share. Perhaps you're not interested in that, sorry. As Christopher Hitchens says on Slate, without China's support the thugs in Rangoon wouldn't exist for long. That's the big picture and that to is a big question. At least Friedland says he's out. Do you have other suggestions?

canadian miners? sour on burma

who writes the headlines for tyee?

is friedland, the corp exec supposed to be the miner(s)?

ey

As least Friedland says he's out

And yet,

As always, capitalists protest too much....but still manage to cash their cheques.

As to the Chinese connection, Chris Hitchens' notwithstanding, the US is not interested in offending its chief creditor - especially over a situation in Burma that is far from new. Hitchens should start criticizing the real source of much of the world's problems - and it's not China.

The behavior of the military in Burma is, and has been, every bit as appalling as anything Saddam Hussein was up to in 2003.

No more excuses for corporate sniveling and dissembling and pretenses about caring. They care about their bottom line - until shareholders and others (as happened in the case of Talisman) start complaining - nothing happens.

The reputation of the Canadian mining sector was tarnished long before its involvment in the current situation in Burma.

Context can tell us much, Lynn.

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. PLEASE TRY AGAIN WITHOUT THE PERSONAL INVECTIVE. -TYEE EDITOR.]

Legs?

Not much to presume with you bobbie. Think it's got legs?

blow it

DELETED FOR PERSONAL INSULTS -- TYEE MODERATOR

Tuchman

Oh I think we can't just dismiss the British and their important role from the not-so-very distant past r'man - Hitchens and other apologists for American ‘power’ to the contrary.

Britain's main concern at the Japanese expansion began was to use Burma as a buffer against Japanese incursions into India - and not much else. They were little interested, until the Americans became engaged, in keeping Burma open as a supply route to China.

The Chinese were already suspicious of Britain as the dominant Imperial power in the first third of the 20th century and they were more than aware that Britain was using Burma (over which the Chinese felt they had a long-standing claim) for its own purposes - as it had done with every single part of its eastern empire since the earliest days.

Ironically, it was the United States, not Britain, that was interested in creating a strong and independent China after the war anyway. You have to be careful what you wish for.

If the junta behaves with bad manners today, it learned them at the knee of both American and British teachers. These monsters are, in essence, just another holdover of an earlier era where 'who' one supported was always more important than 'how' one behaved toward their own citizens.

In my view.

Don't confuse Bobbie

with too many facts and context West, otherwise he might be calling you a posterior too. Then I'll be able to call you a maudite cul too, as you are now me.

This story is about Canadian mining companies and since Canada has great expertise and capability in mining controversial issues will arise. Mining is not going to stop, unless civilization ends. The big issue that should be addressed is whether or not Canada, the UN or NATO should be sending in troops to overthrow a brutal government.

Ultimately, the business morals of one Canadian businessman will pale into insignificance.

Short-sighted thinking without considering context is exactly what landed the USA in trouble in Viet-Nam and cost the lives of thousands of Americans and many more lives of others. North Viet-Nam was run by communists, so, "let's saddle up!" led to a disaster.

sorry r'man..not guilty

You're the fellow who posted these comments:

Hitch is right
Oh for those days at the Rangoon Club
The Longest Civil War

Therefore, I think I'm perfectly justified in taking this situation back to its pathetic British Colonial roots and not pretending that Christopher Hitchens’s highly selective memory has much to teach anyone.

Nobody gets a free pass.

As for that little bit of information about North Vietnam...who do you think 'runs' Vietnam today?

Every time I hear someone say we should invade and not use sanctions and non-lethal pressure I like to refer them to South Africa and the 1980s. Now why didn’t we invade there to punish the white racists of Joburg?

As for the results of saddling up - have you checked Iraq lately?

How many Iraqis would still be alive today if George had stuck with sanctions and left his six-shooter at home?

As for confusion

You might find this little item in today's Vancouver Sun interesting:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c7f1c119-0ac3-45b0-adaa-a89612379328&k=15467

Seems as if Graham Bruce, former Campbell minister and now undeclared lobbyist - (who does pay his monthly salary anyway?) for what I've heard is $10,000 per month - is a little 'confused' about the rules too.

This should be a nice 'contra' indication about the way Campbell and his friends really operate - wouldn't you think?

'Confusion reigns.'

You just don't get it, do you?

You just don't get it, do you?

Or you don't want to.

Yeah, the Chinese, the Thais, the British, the Americans, the Japanese - all have played their part.

But this important Tyee article is about our own Canadian culpability in the dictatorial horror that is now Burma.

As ME2 suggests perhaps we should develop policies that block investments in the worst of these regimes.

So instead of distracting, and continuously and slyly pointing the finger conveniently elsewhere....so you can absolve yourself of all guilt and.... don't actually have to do anything about - ( the Bad Guys "are all over there" - trick # 341) try actually dealing with this article - you know the one above about Canadian mines that are propping up a barbarous military junta while pocketing millions for themselves....halos all aglow.

And just to be clear, this

And just to be clear, this is realisticman's ******* quote, not mine:

Why indeed?

Why would you expect Canadian mining companies or the Canadian government to give a damn about what they do 'for' and 'to' people in Burma or Mexico or Indonesia?

They don't care about what they do to the environment, the indigenous peoples and/or the ordinary citizens right here in Canada.

I think you are the one who is 'new' here, by the way. These are old issues going back generations - stretching back, as it were, to our colonial British past...deeply seated in the institutions and habits of a government that can't seem to overcome the past and is breathlessly anxious (often at the same time) to adopt the equally-malignant global vision of America and her billionaire boondoggle of phony market economics.

Spare us the crocodile tears.

Orwell has a list of, as I remember, 6 things that he thought was necessary to create a decent society in England. I’ll dig them out and post them for you.

Orwell's List

(and please, excuse the atrocious syntax in the last para above)

I had intended to provide Orwell's list, which I will do at some future date, but, since the subject here is Burma and, at least as I see it, commercial colonialism and its bedfellows I think I'll find a better place to use that than here.

Instead, I'll just quote a very short letter Orwell wrote to the author of a 'flawed' book about Burma.

I think it sums up the issues quite nicely.

14 March 1946

Dear Miss Tennyson Jesse,

I am ill in bed, which is why I haven’t answered earlier, and even now I cannot write a proper letter.

I think you have missed my point. It isn’t what you did say about the British in Burma, but what you didn’t say. No one would infer from your book that the British had done anything worse than be a little stupid and sometimes follow mistaken policies. Nothing about the economic milching of the country via such concerns as the Burma Oil Company, nor about the disgusting social behaviour of the British till very recently. I do know something about this. Apart from my own time there I have family connexions with the country over three generations. My grandmother lived forty years in Burma and at the end could not speak a word of Burmese – typical of the ordinary Englishwoman’s attitude.

Yours sincerely,

George Orwell

[collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell: Vol. 4]

STRIKE A COMMITTEE Lynn

If you must. Work on laws at the Federal and then the Provincial levels, if that's what turns you on. Got it in for 'one mining exec." perhaps. Good for you. Some people have trouble multitasking. Stick to what you know best and avoid any context. I'll try to not confuse you with any facts.

Meanwhile, back in Burma...

Safe and sound on Howe Street

realisticman, you're a big boy now....leave the games behind.

We have perhaps thousands of undeniably brave people, against great odds, standing up against a ruthless dictatorship....who are being tortured, shot, burned and buried alive.

But far far...far away from the danger of the firing line, it's that poor ol' mining exec safely ensconced and waiting in line to deposit his big "bloody" cheque from overseas who ultimately gets your real sympathy.

It's a strange kind of logic, realisticman. Has it served you well?

who ultimately gets your real sympathy.

What a line. Do you absolutely have to be so despicable, Lynn? Got it in for me too, eh? Were all you shouting posts just Junta-like torture hoping I might squeal some gem you could nail me with? Ultimately is big word for a little girl to use. Think.

My philosophy has served me well, since you ask. My studies of Buddhism are more towards the Zen form, not the Theravada style predominant in Burma, combined with the concepts of relativity both Eastern and Western. That's where my logic comes from, again, since you ask. From this I have learned that all actions are the result of other actions; that is why, much to your and your side-kick the Pastor's chagrin, context in all is paramount.

all actions are the result of other actions

Glad you didn't miss that point at least.

Perhaps you'll like this little gem too:

"Not everything has made money," said Richard E. Salomon, who has been Mr. Rockefeller's financial adviser for 30 years. "But I don't remember a single instance of second-guessing. And believe me, that is not the norm."

For Mr. Rockefeller, the $100 million gifts cap a lifetime of philanthropy. He has served as chairman of both Rockefeller University, which his grandfather founded more than a century ago, and the Museum of Modern Art, which his mother helped to found in 1929. He has already given the museum $100 million and the university $64 million.

He said that his family had been well taken care of through a variety of trusts. "That enables me to pay less attention to leaving money for the children and more for leaving money for institutions," he said.

Over his lifetime, he said, he has donated about $350 million. The two new gifts will bring the total to more than half a billion dollars.

Mr. Rockefeller has a home on the East Side of Manhattan, another on the family estate at Pocantico Hills in Tarrytown, and yet another in Maine. His art collection numbers more than 15,000 pieces, among them several hundred paintings, but also brightly colored glass, porcelain, petrified wood and furniture. And he is still passionate about collecting.

Peter J. Johnson, one of Mr. Rockefeller's associates, recalled a trip to Burma two years ago, when they visited small towns with markets. At each stop, Mr. Rockefeller would dart ahead to explore the offerings and to reserve his favorites.

"He was just fascinated," Mr. Johnson said. "And he loves to bargain."

this is from a piece about David Rockefeller's 90th birthday bash (2005).

Do you suppose he was observing the US sanctions on the Burmese?

Yes, r'man, actions do have consequences.

Let's pay MORE attention to context shall we?

perhaps a little bit of information from the CIA - for 'context'

Perhaps we can discuss 'that' and how it has all just popped into existence since 2003 when capitalist icon David Rockefeller was enjoying himself famously bargaining in the small town markets of Burma.

What do you suppose HE was buying? Are you sure you want to hang with that statement about context being 'everything'?

I feel your pain

Cry me a river, realisticman.....yup, everything's all about you......that whole tragedy unfolding in Burma, I'm sure, is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to your own angst over the situation.... and of course that of Mr. Mining Exec's as well.

Ohhhh......the humanity!

hang in there.....

....a fruit basket is on the way.

We are wrong, I think, to

We are wrong, I think, to Blame Capitalism and Western greed for the conditions we see in third-world countries like Burma. It is just too eay to forget that these countries have a history of millennia of unconcern for human rights.

We are too quick to forget that our own culture has been at least one thousand years developing the human rights concerns we now share and which we are still in the process of refining.

Our culture has been fortunate to have seen such rapid change that challenges to the power of our ruling elites - both in terms of economics and mores - have been mostly successful. This is because of our rapidly developing technologies, one of which is Capitalism, which have permitted economic freedom to the "common man" for the first time that we know of.

Enough of the riches of the "New World" have filtered down to have speeded up that process, since the poor and oppressed have no power to pressure for change.

While that's been happening for us, most third-world countries have been mired down by centuries-old traditions and immovable ruling elites.

But in China, the Revolution changed all that, destroying old traditions and totally disempowering its old ruling class. Now, 58 years later it is poised to become the worlds foremost superpower, and its citizens - for better or worse - seeking economic freedom for the first time. You can bet the personal freedoms will not be far behind. And so too India.

All of which has been to say, don't single out Capitalism or our culture for doing what has been routine in other countries long before we or Capitalism came on the scene.

If you want to lay blame, lay it on those greedy bastards like our mining CEOs who know better and who only perpetuate the corruption. So if we don't cooperate with the Junta, someone else will? Ok, let them, and refuse to do business with them too.

The Many Faces of Capitalist Eve

While that's been happening for us, most third-world countries have been mired down by centuries-old traditions and immovable ruling elites.

I understand your point in referencing "those centuries-old traditions and immovable elites"...Burma had a very short period of independence under Buddhist rule many centuries ago - then a series of overlords: China, France, Britain and later coming under the control of the British raj in India.

But I disagree that Capitalism is somehow a more refined and progressive influence that has freed the "common man".

In the end, it all really amounts to the same thing....the many faces of power...and the ugly face generated by the fear of losing that power.

"The immovable ruling elites" have operated under different guises throughout time. Capitalists wearing crowns presently abound here and around the world - a certain premier comes to mind.

And the robes of the capitalist cowboy emperor to the south of us swish with a cruel arrogance around the world.

It has always been about the quest for absolute rule, whether they be kings, emperors, church or CEO's.

What is capitalism but corporate colonialism? .... and because capitalism is now all about creating an insatiable global climate of greed...the hunger for more and more - what we are really talking about is the corporate colonization of the world.

And the saving grace that technology could have been becomes a threat - rather than serving mankind as it should.... it now holds all the potential to destroy it instead.

Burma's Flag of Convenience

Just to advise readers that Burma also derives significant foreign currency through the registration of foreign ships under "Myanmar" flag and also deploys more than 10,000 seafarers to the global supply.

This deployment is managed by the Seafarers Employment Control Division. If that sounds like a nasty name beleive me it is a nasty department.

Why do foreign shipowners recruit Burmese and fly that Flag of Convenience? Because its cheap!!! And because it affords control. You see, a Burmese seafarer is unlike most of the global seafarers. If a seafarer is being cheated or abused, and believe me, there have been many cases of abuse, the seaman has no right to complain to foreign labour unions. In fact if he does complain, then its a quick trip through the city of Rangoon to Insien Prison for him.

On any given day you will find conections to Burma washing up on our shores through vessel arrivals in B.C.s ports.

Just because the generals of Burma say we can't intervene, we often do so nonetheless. We have assisted in wage claims, ensured medical attention that was being denied and even convinced a certain company to take Burmese nationals off their ships calling at our ports and stop putting money in the pockets of Burma's criminal generals.

We have to find ways to make a difference, finding ways to do more than stand in protest.

We need to insist that our government envoke strict sanactions on Burma. So that Burmese ships and crew are not allowed to visit our ports and take away our valuable commodities on sweatships putting foriegn currency into the pockets of the junta.

chevron

When I think of Burma, I think of UNOCAL.

In 2005, Chevron took over from the infamous UNOCAL. Check out the Yadana pipeline, the subject of a video about terrible human rights abuses, and the law suit which was actually won by American lawyers on behalf of people who suffered.

I'm sure Chevron execs could have a useful word or two with the generals.

"Toxic Bob" Friedland

has, in the past, been willing to do just about anything for a buck. So he met Rio Tinto's conditions, but is still getting paid...

My bet is that things in Burma are so bad that nobody from outside wants to buy said assets. And the 'boys' are eventually going to take them away from him without paying.

That could really create quite a bit of moral outrage.... but Burma isn't the only state where foreign miners are getting done over and where human rights really don't carry that much weight: Russia and a couple of the 'stans come to mind, and there are others...

toxic bob

A major cyanide spill in Guyana? The Summitville mine spill in Colorado?

I didn't attach the name, but remember the Vancouver "news" report featuring a diamond mogul bragging that a huge sum of money spent on mercenaries in an African country (Angola?) netted him much more indeed in diamonds.

For a good time google "toxic bob".

Thanks for this Ed - couldn't have put it better myself

In short, democracy and capitalism can not exist under the same roof, they are totally opposing concepts. When an economic system is based on the legalized power of elites, it is no longer a democracy.

Democracy ≠ Capitalism

And that's why capitalism is so frequently associated with non-democratic governance in places like Burma, China, and the UNITED STATES - to mention just three; sadly, if Harper manages to bully his way to power here in Canada, we won't be much better...

Technology is often little more than the 'means' of keeping the levers of power in the hands of elites like the Burmese Generals...

Citizen Suu Kyi?

I note our Prime Minister wishes to bestow Honourary Citizenship to Aung San Suu Kyi.

I think most understand the motivation here, but so what.

But will we put our money where our mouth is?

If the House doesn't fall, its time for a comprehensive sanctions bill. I hope those who care about this issue will be communicating with their MP regardless of party affiliation.

Lotsa Questions

I have no intention of championing capitalism.... I think its "gone loco", and as I wrote above to ME2: "I disagree that Capitalism is somehow a more refined and progressive influence that has freed the "common man". In the end the many guises and the truly ugly face behind all "immovable ruling elites" is generated, I think by the fear of losing power." Still, I found that ME2's comment posed some real depth and some interesting questions and considerations to take on....and I liked the directness and the honesty of his/her approach.

I don't think ME2 is saying democracy equals capitalism. Precisely the opposite- apples and oranges - that they are in fact, different kinds of systems. Anyway, that's ME2's view, not mine, so I will let ME2 defend that. And I understand when Ed says they cannot exist under the same roof as they are opposing concepts...but co-ops involve the sharing of profit, are not elitist (supposedly), and yet exist in capitalist systems. Though my experiences with co-ops is that eventually they become elitist as well....someone always think they are the cream that must rise to the top.

So this morning on our grocery run to town I was thinking the real question is more about democracy itself. What do all our "isms", political or economic, do to the state of (or our chance at) real democracy?

They corrupt it would be my answer.

So what is the next step? What really works, if anything?

Even Bhutan, with its royal appointed government, with its Buddhist heart, with its emphasis on "gross national happiness", with its pristine environment is about to embark on a "democratic" course and I have been reading some comments by the people in Bhutan who are not sure they will actually be as happy as before....as they are already encircled by corrupt and violent...yup, good ol'... "democracies." Suddenly and ironically the creation of political parties, elections, that sound so good ...have an almost ominous ring to them.... complex baggage for what was once more simple.... the beginning of the end for "happy" Bhutan?

So what is wrong with all this worldwide democratic mess... that is not at all really democratic...just posing as such? Is it our unenlightened systems? Is it just unenlightened us? And should we really be thinking in a whole new way?

Because to be really honest none of this makes much sense to me because it is not effective. But I freely admit it could just be me and my lack of understanding of economics - and what is clear to some of you is not to me.

not quite correctomundo

sorry...should read "had real depth and "posed some interesting questions".

....went clamdigging through the night tide 'til early this morning...I'm lucky I'm still breathing - let alone able to write a coherent sentence.

Who's Capitalism?

ED, I have no trouble at all with your first two paragraphs. The body of your letter only rephrases those ideas.

I take issue, though, with your statement:

"In short, democracy and capitalism can not exist under the same roof, they are totally opposing concepts."

But in your second paragraph, you were careful to qualify capitalism with "Laissez faire", which is Fascism and is exactly my point - that uncontrolled capitalism will cannibalise the system it lives in.

But just like money itself, Capitalism is not inherently bad, it is how some people use it that is bad. And so GWest quotes ED, and retains the last sentence in the quote above which also only rephrases my point:

"When an economic system is based on the legalized power of elites, it is no longer a democracy."

And so, Gwest ten recites a list of countries ruined by Capitalism. Where, pray tell, is there a country today which doesn’t employ Capitalism ?? Are there acceptable Democracies which do use Capitalism?

I’ve yet to hear from Ed what economic system he would institute in place of Capitalism – back to the Barter system??

Every culture, every system, becomes prey to ruling elites. As I've made quite clear, in our case it this has resulted in Fascism, which mocks Democracy.

Our task then, is to somehow repair our Democratic system so that it becomes responsive to our wishes, for today it clearly is not.

Bhutan

LYNN, Many years ago during a discussion of our admittedly clumsy Democratic process, I learned that the best, most efficient political system of all can be a benevolent dictatorship. OTOH, because it all depends upon the whim of one man, it can also be the very worst of all systems (eg, Stalinism)

A benevolent dictatorship would be pretty much the Bhutan situation you described. If its religious administration had been educated in the Western traditions of Capitalism and Democracy, and then been able to regulate them with Buddhist precepts, it may have produced very pleasant results.

Unfortunately, Bhutan must modernise or become prey to greedy neighbours. But maybe the buddhist philosophies will mediate positively, Let us hope so.

ME2

I'll post Orwell's six point program now ME2; seems about the right time for it:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.

2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free (by this he means 'after tax') income does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.

3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines.

4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over. (Orwell was writing in Feb of 1941)

5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented. (again he's addressing the treatment of Indians, Burmese, Africans and others who found themselves under British hegemony at the time)

6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of Fascist powers.

Orwell goes on:

"The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy."

His object was to create a nation where the common people can feel that the state is themselves - and will hence be willing to make the necessary sacrifices whether there is war or no war ahead of them.

5 and 6 are more or less self-explanatory if they are understood in the context of war-time Britain.

However, it is not difficult to understand how (in respect of First Nations Canadians and immigrants who are not European) similar ideas of inclusive openness might be more approriate than, for example, the kind of thing that we heard from Stephen Harper in the throne speech today. (I refer specifically to promised changes to the election act addressed toward Muslims and which are patently racist).

Also, point one needs to be understood in the context Orwell meant it - that is, to eliminate the..."class of mere owners who live not by virtue of anything they produce but by the possession of title-deeds and share certificates. State ownership implies, therefore, that nobody shall live without working."

For anyone interested, the quotes are taken from Orwell's long essay called : The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius.

re Orwell

Thanks for that, GWest. Like yourself, I think Socialism is the only means by which we can benefit from the efficiencies of Capitalism while at the same time keeping it from becoming our oppressor, as is now underway.

Since the value of money and the power of such as the Corporations are both entirely dependant upon the structure of favourable laws enacted by Government, the remediation of that structure can be legislated by government.

The only other way that can happen is through Revolution, which nobody in their right mind would want to experience.

But that is unlikely to happen anyway, since it would be forestalled by the the Gov't's manipulations as "Big Brother", which Orwell so chillingly portrayed in the novel1984

The War against Drugs, The War against Tobacco, The failed War against Alcohol, our excessive Gun Laws, The US' Homeland Security Act and Patriot Act - both of which Canadians are slowly being drawn into, are all examples of coercive social manipulation by Big Brother Gov't and our captive media, and IMO are just harbingers of more to come.

IMO, Orwell's 1984 should be required reading in Grade 8 and further discussed in succeeding grades.