Civilizing the Economy

Great Comments Canis Latrans!

I particularly like:

"It is past the time forest dependent communities began to take control of their own forest lands and shut the global corps out, hopefully to diversify their use, including their recreational and simple aesthetic values.

But more than this, and subjecting the direction of forest land use to new concepts and forms of "democratic" worker and community control, there is a need as well for workers and communities, where mill and other production facilities are threatened with shutdowns and closures, to refuse this and their dismantling and sell-off. And if it proves necessary to occupy them in order secure this, put them under democratic worker and community control and management, and seek to create new "business models" outside of the overlong corporate ruling class dominated, controlled and prioritized model.

A new model, and the national and provincial legal and financial support framework to facilitate, supportively advise, nurture and grow it, and serve the public as opposed to global-centric corporate interest, needs to be debated in labour and progressive political circles NOW, and concrete steps taken to move the country, "

May I add that due to our 150 year old colonial governance of British Columbia - far too much authoritiy is vested in the Executive Branch of government to say what 'goes down' in this province, -who gets privileged and cut into the deals, and who amongst the regions and classes of people gets excluded, impoverished, disempowered, disentitled, etc. To empower the local we need to come to an understanding of the meaning of the word 'subsidiarity'- it is a legal principle which we do not employ in this province -and as a consequence - the centralized, harmonizing influence of the Executive runs unchecked and unbalanced. It is my belief that subsidiarity is implicit within the Canadian constitution in that certain powers are federal, others provincial - but no such 'division of powers'/'checks & balances employing subsidiarity and empowering the regions exists within the provinces. In my view there is no modern reason whatsoever that the Crown, with centralized Executive powers, should hold title (subject to First Nations interests) over all Crown lands in British Columbia - there ought to be much more political/legal space for the 'local'. That is my view, now I fully expect Luke Skywalker to take a hard right swipe at me and this idea , but nonetheless, I invite respectful comments

Check how they do it in Europe

Community forests are what they have in France, and this is why they still have a forest industry after 5000 years of logging and we don't after a mere 120 years. I suspect other countries like Germany, Austria etc also have community forests and of course, they have been cutting trees about as long as the French.

Beware of socialist hordes

And check out those other terrible countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. they are kind of into the "we" thing, not the "me" thing. How silly,eh?

Check out how they did it in Japan

Jared Diamond has an interesting discussion of Japan's issues with deforestation in his book, Collapse on pp. 294-308. They succeeded in tackling the problem so that despite having the highest population density in the First World, 80% of their land area is sparsely-populated forested mountains. Nevertheless, the Japanese have merely exported their over-exploitation of resources to other countries and the ocean.

In B.C., our problem is that we have a Third World economy in that most of the value that can be obtained from our resources is exported for others to profit from.

Romeogolf...

I agree entirely, and an interesting comment perspective overall, especially concerning Japan. Again, a correct comment, in my view.

There is no way, at the end of the day, we, and much more so true for large parts of the world, including Japan and the US itself, are going to successfully deal with these problems of over-development and exploitation of land and resources, and/or pollution of the seas or air, without addressing this issue of human over-population. China, at least for awhile, before taking its current full blown capitalist economy development course, did attempt to address this problem of over population, for which we and much of the "free market" West, so-called, heavily criticized them their One-Child Policy. They were then, however, in my view, correctly and laudably addressing a problem, which second to the problem of capitalism itself, is going to prove to be one of the must difficult problems to get at resolving, in cleaning up and creating a sustainable human population and global environment for all creatures and forms.

And resolving both problems is a must, in my view, for the way they are inter-related, that of capitalism and population, feeding off,sustaining and driving each other, to the collapse exacerbation of the environment. In this, what is happening to the global forest base, here and everywhere, is but a partial manifestation of both over-population and a never ending capitalist "free market" growth feeding frenzy.

Sustainability not just about GHGs

For true Canis Latrans. Too many people seem to think that a technofix that reduces greenhouse gas emissions is all we need; they won't have to change their criminally wasteful lifestyles. They are seriously deluded. One way or another consumption will have to decline, be it voluntarily or at the behest of war, famine, disease, pestilence, and natural disasters.

Peter Dimitrov

Even as a basically po-union and pro-community control person, particularly in respect to our forests, I still feel I must strongly disagree with your following advice. :

".....there is a need as well for workers and communities, where mill and other production facilities are threatened with shutdowns and closures, to refuse this and their dismantling and sell-off. And if it proves necessary to occupy them in order secure this, put them under democratic worker and community control and management, and seek to create new "business models" outside of the overlong corporate ruling class dominated, controlled and prioritized model."

There are two ideas at issue here. The first is that the sheer size of existing production facilities has determined the rate of harvest, and thus the style of forest management applied to the resource.

Since these are relatively big mills, here again we run into the recurring problem posed by the quick rate of return on investment required by commercial interests, versus the long-term and diversified (sustainability) returns sought for in public investments. (such as with BC Hydro)

As is made evident by the recent wholesale sell-offs of TFLs, there is no long-term payoffs for investors in the holding of timber lands once the cream of the Old-Growth has been cut, as compared to the returns on the same money invested elsewhere.

The reason for this is that the Old-Growth represents Capital - in the form of the time "nature" has invested in the growing of it - and all industry has done is convert those trees into money with the very least amount of investment and with no concern for their wasting of the resource. What is worse they've taken the Capital that is rightfully OURS and reinvested not a penny of it in our own country.

And THAT'S what retainment of those mills will perpetuate Peter, whether they're owned by the community or an investor.

In the Interior, millions of dollars of OUR money is going to be spent on replanting, likely on the quick-return Pl, and likely with little attention to creating a species rich, ecologically balanced forest. Beyond question, these should be given over to community control, and by the time they are ready for harvest, the existing production machinery should be out-of-date.

What to do then, with those Old Growth trees of species other than PL still remaining? We have yet to recognise that these trees find their highest value because of the qualities found in slow-growing old trees - the "capital" I mentioned above.

These should be given over to woodlots, small loggers, community drysorts, and small-scale millers. This is the ONLY way this wood will produce the value and jobs they represent, and escape being turned into 2x4s in the purely volune-oriented mills we now have.

My second issue is that the Steelworkers (the old IWA) will oppose this - with plenty of reason - and a way of protecting worker interests will have to be worked out.

ME2 and Community Power...

Actually, Peter was quoting me in the comment you have very astutely critiqued above. I did not go into the issue you raise, of the suitability of much of the especially wood "milling" enterprises with over large maws and appetite needs, as you correctly point out, because I saw it as a related but, in the context of my comment, separate issue-, for the purpose of "simplifying" the discussion at least. :-)

But you are entirely correct, of course. The same is true of much of the extractive industries, from fish to mining to forestry, and even secondary processing/manufacturing, ; their appetite capacity for efficient operation and return on investment is just too damaging over the long haul. Though keeping in mind, that it is in place to serve the never ending demand growth need of the global "free market", and so necessary to the viability of so-called "modern" corporate capitalism.

All true. But which still does not diminish one iota the critical need in these "collapsing free markets times" for working folks and other social progressive to prepare themselves to seize the "opportunity" that these times will nonetheless make available to us; over the times say, where everything is moving along tickety-boo with the system, it is stable, everyone is content, and hence no opportunity exists to begin to move society and the economy in a new direction-, away from capitalism and its over-development excesses.

A new social, political and economic arrangement will not drop down out of the sky already fully formed and in place. Kid yourself not, there will be a period of at least relative chaos, where one state of inherited affairs exist while, hopefully, social forces and pressure for enlightened progressive social change are attempting to move society and the economy into an entirely new paradigm direction.

And IF capitalism is the underpinning problem around which everything else pivots, including over population and resource exploitation, as I say it is :-), then there is a need to BEGIN to move communities and working people especially, into taking over what is and bringing it under the control of a broader societal and class interest set than just that of the corporate ruling class. And to my mind, in the case of capitalist enterprises that are in trouble, as is increasingly the case with forestry, for example, that means that first they must be seized from their corporate owners, made to serve the public/community interest,and upon that new paradigm foundation, begin to develop them in a new people and planet serving direction.

Continued next post...

Me2 and Community Power...

From previous post...

And kid yourself not about two things around this enterprise of creating a new paradigm. First, the old order is unlikely to go easily or willingly. Certainly it is potentially very dangerous to presume it. Secondly, even after that is accomplished, presuming a lot :-), even while it is, in my view, the first thing that must be done, the creation of a new kind of political and economic democracy power, everything thereafter that will need to occur to create a more lower class people friendly world, AND a greener more sustainable one, will not still automatically or without struggle fall into place. :-)

But it starts, in my view, not with "green" corporate products simply designed to bamboozle and in fact change nothing in the societal and environmental power arrangement, but with people, ordinary folks and their broader communities, taking power and control over especially the economy. Thereafter the politics will follow and, of necessity, be made to step into line with the new economic power paradigm-, the needs of people and the planet upon which they and all life absolutely depend.

People still might not succeed, of course, but the course we are currently on leads certainly to economic and environmental collapse and war. All the not so early warning sign elements are already there in place, save for the US Empire Loyalists amongst us, who will not see it.

Sweet dreams, brother/sister. Us old men need our rest. :-) That horse of mine wore me out today. :-)

Final comment...

I agree with one other issue you allude to, Me2. The so-called Labour Movement that is today, is NOT the labour movement that was-, in very many cases. Many are and will be a serious problem-, because of the class-collaborative way they are integrated into capitalism's labour management system.

Canis L.

Well said Canis, it looks like we are almost in total agreement, and I would only differ with you only in noting that we don't need to wait for some future time for things to get ad enough to set the stage for radical change.

It won't get much worse for forest industry dependant towns than it is now becoming, and the only forces keeping things from blowing up are a soothing press and forestry-friendly town councils. And no doubt the Fed/Prov money for tree-planting will help.

Barring a complete financial burn-out, there will never be a better time to demand restructuring in the forest industry than right now, and so now is the time for us to put pressure on Fed, Prov and local politicians, and demand change. Maybe if the Tinworkers didn't object, perhaps even the NDP might say something positive?

Bravi, Canis Latrans!

Canis Latrans, that was one of the best off the shelf pieces of leftist dogma I have seen in years. The Maoists in my university days don't hold a candle to you.

Bravo!

Snitty City Person... :-)

You have something you want to say? Some relevant idea or criticism you want to advance as a counter to my comments?

By all means, let's hear it. :-)

Relax!

Relax, Canis, it was just a compliment. I am sure you have many people in your circle who hold the exact same beliefs and since everybody you know agrees with said opinions, they must be correct.

Radical talk

City Person,

I think the world is just beginning to catch up with the thoughts expressed here by Canis Latrans. ;-)

The impact of a faltering and failing world has more people than you think, City Person, hearing the sad notes of Adagio for Strings now being played for planet Earth. Perhaps...could it possibly be....surely not, ;-) that it is you that is living in the past?

Just as an example, I was watching Craig Ferguson, the other night, nothing radical about that, pretty mainstream stuff, and the actor John Cusack was on as a guest talking about his new movie, War Inc., a satire based on a Naomi Klein article.

The discussion between the two of them revolved around the often held misconception that capitalism is often equated with democracy....and whether capitalism, in the end, necessitates a policy of endless war. Then they got into a discussion about how all ideologies are a history of man exploiting man. ( Much like Ed Deak often states here).

I thought that was a pretty good (and unexpected) discussion for a late night mainstream entertainment talk show.

As Canis writes:

foggy me

sorry, that was unclear, brain fog on my part, I'll put it this way:

"The discussion between the two of them revolved around the oft held misconception that democracy and capitalism ride together."

The Bart Simpson Method

"Relax, Canis, it was just a compliment. I am sure you have many people in your circle who hold the exact same beliefs and since everybody you know agrees with said opinions, they must be correct."

The Bart Simpson method of critique. Don't actually challenge anything written, just sneer. (Any 9 year-old knows how to sneer.)

Lynn

Lynn, Capitalism, which is only an economic system, can "ride" with any political system. Democracy, which is a political system, can "ride" with any economic system.

Capitalism is to date the only economic system which can free the landless from economic servitude, primarily those in the urban areas.

No matter what the economic system, it always happens that the wealthy become uncontrollable and parasitise their host countries, exactly as we are seeing today.

Clearly, a means of controlling the excesses of wealth must be found, and that can only be through a political system. There is only one - Democracy - which appears to satisfy the need for protecting the freedoms we have only so recently gained.

Under the general heading of Democracy, there are three management subsets we can choose from : Fascism, Socialism and Communism. Of the three, only Socialism offers a genuine attempt to incorporate realistic Democratic practice into governance, especially with respect to controlling economic elites, private or governmental.

Because it is so efficient in manipulating money, Capitalism, like Oil, will be with us for a long time to come. It's excesses, such as unearned wealth though the creation of the fiat money Ed rightly hates so much, is partially controlled by states like Norway, but will never be fully controlled by anyone unless more Socialistic countries come into being, such as in South America or in the mid-east - once the Yanks are booted out.

It's not Capitalism, Lynn, but rather the Capitalists who we've got to take on.

Just call me economically-challenged ;-)

No, I agree ME2, and see the distinction between capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a political one but wouldn't you say that capitalism all too easily perverts anything it infiltrates creating a kind of hybrid, creating asocial systems that extol price ( and capital) over the real value or worth of things. Wouldn't all political systems eventually dis-integrate under the economic kind of de-humanization that literally makes us "count" and measure and compare (numerically) everything.... while ironically making fewer and fewer things really matter or count with us in a meaningful way - ultimately a system based on the creation of more and more addictions, and dependent on that addictive behavior for the sole purpose to sell more things - from shoes to ipods.

Okay, economics is definitely not my strong suit as you can see ;-) and I know you are going to ask me what then would replace it (capitalism)?.... what would work in the global world we are now operating in that involves and revolves around the endless counting and pricing of things for exchange ...foreign trade etc.

I'm not sure but I think all economic and political systems should always be based on the recognition of the reverence for and the temporality of life itself. Sounds flaky - but I don't mean to be...but that is the direction where I think the real revolution in thinking must come from.

That's where the privateers are really in denial, about the temporality of life and about death, really. Nothing is private property for very long, nothing is really owned, everything is just being borrowed.... and we, too live on borrowed time...and a very short time at that. So I'd like an economic/political system that reflects that. Much like a library card confers generous access but not ownership.

I think this needs more work. ;-)

Hey "Hurtland"... Bend Over!

Priorities, schmiorities, let's sell the bakery so we can buy tickets to the circus!

all apologies

I don't think you should be apologizing for having your head screwed on right and a healthy perspective/priorities Lynn.

The flakes are the fools who think our biosphere is some kind of perpetual motion machine with free energy to be spent and an endless capacity for abuse.

Like the motto on a building in downtown Vancouver says... "unlimited growth increases the divide."

Perhaps you are correct, Lynn!

I think you are completely correct, Lynn; forcible expropriation of private property by unelected revolutionaries has proven itself an excellent remediation for social injustice.

Just ask any of the citizens of said countries and I am sure they will agree with you.

Because if they don't........

Bananas

Thank you for your kind words, Stump.

City Person,

Who said anything about "unelected" revolutionaries?

It's amazing that you think it's quite alright for an elite few to control and exert power over the economy but not ordinary people themselves. Why is it so revolutionary to demand that people and communities have a right to power and control their own lives, their working lives as well?

And what about the expropriation of public property that is now taking place in the banana republic that is now BC, led by a generalissimo and his unquestioning cadre of elected officials quite content, eager in fact, to betray the public who elected them in order to represent and favour the special "private" interests of their friends?

As this article point out:

Cameron says the group was averaging $2.5 billion in sales in 2003, which has decreased about 30 per cent. The two biggest problems, he says, are conditions of the softwood lumber agreement that penalize domestic remanufacturing, and the fact that most timber is tied to a few major license holders.

Isn't that "forcible expropriation" of the worst kind, City Person - to cause what had been successful for the many to fail - in order that a few may prosper?

Lynn

Geeez, Lynn, that's logic, not ideology. Why do you expect CP will know the difference?