Governments Need to Get Out of the Way?

"Our current slate of identical, neocon regimes in BC and Ottawa have repeatedly blocked efforts by entrepreneurs to think outside the box."

ALL "governments" have ALWAYS blocked the entrepreneurial drive of Canadians. NOT just the current idiots. Government bureaucracy is required to "pigeon hole" people/companies/enterprises so that they can be "processed". At the same time, MANY "entrepreneurial spirits" are at governments' front doors with their hands out, right?
Try this on for size: If the general population actually gave a damn, could actually take time out from their busy schedule to act and support a responsible transportation initiatives LIKE clean vehicles, would "government" still be "in the way" ? Don't think so.

Understanding Irreconcilability...

Which is the problem of the NDP view of the world of course, in part manifest here. They have that progressive impulse to change society for the better, while at the same time seeking to make peace and work within the context of the ongoing current "entrepreneurial spirit" regime. Which always puts the NDP in the lead boots position of "one step forward and one step back", going nowhere fast. They sound good, until you put the beggars in actual power... allowing even that "parliamentary power" is really only more "ritualistic" than "real" power. (Real, as in veto power never actually changes hands within capitalism. That always resides within the class ownership and control of the economy, rather than in a State parliament. Though sometimes they are and can be one. The old WW2 fascist regimes, the USSR, and much still, current Russia and China, for examples.)

The NDP have a serious problem with that need to "really" and "seriously" look outside the "current system" box. Their bare ass end is peaking out the lid, while their head is "practically" still in the dark of the box, attempting to make a peace with its class contents.

The poor NDP. I really do think they try hard, and that at least the rank and file is well meaning enough. They simply can't understand that what is irreconcilable, is actually irreconcilable.

And they've never, even the old CCF, really been any different. (Though they have been relatively "better" than they are. Which always, I think, is more than a little afraid.)

Energy (kinetic) = .5(Mass X Velocity^2)

Mr. Pollon and the Tyee Solutions Society:

Unless you start reporting on where the energy to make the electricity is going to come from, these stories are advertorials.

It takes energy to move any mass. Electricity is not made by nature and stored in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Pollon I've read your bio. There's no way you don't understand high-school science.

I know we have to pay the bills, fair enough. Mr. Beers this is Canwest quality.

peasant43

Not sure I understand your critique -- and advice to The Tyee. We have run many stories about alternative energy sources, the need to 'power down' etc. But it's not the role of The Tyee and its writers to constantly tell people they must (or could) go cold turkey tomorrow.

A bit of high school science. Electric motora are up to 80 per cent more efficient than internal combustion. So although they consume energy that must be generated, they are far more miserly with the resources that went into producing that energy.

coyoteman

I see the old noodle's still functioning.

Understanding Irreconcilability...

Well said. Makes sense to me and I like the way you framed it. The thing is; I don't want either the State or the capitalists in control. When I wake up energized I want to be able to employ that entrepreneurial spirit if it sparks inside my noodle and I want the freedom to exercise that unencumbered, understanding that I shouldn't tread on anyone's toes or spoil their enjoyment. The present set up is run by questionable managers but would another arrangement be any less buffoonish? Methinks not and methinks this game is less intrusive because it's less controlling, and don't tell me you don't appreciate that.

Economic Democracy....

"The thing is; I don't want either the State or the capitalists in control." wrote realisticman.

Hear, hear. I agree entirely.... which is what I am all about, if you have been reading me carefully over the recent years here.

I am in favour of "local", "plant by plant" worker AND "local community" control over at least the major means of production and strategic development direction. (Which does not necessarily mean, I think, every mom and pop shop or purely "individualist" economic activity. Once workers and outside financing enter into it however, all bets are off and the equation changes to the larger "public/worker" interest and control over "economic property and activity". One's "individualist" interest, unlike present capitalism, must bend to that... the public or greater common good interest. Whereas now, it must serve the capitalist.)

In short, I advocate a "democratic system" of local "worker-community ownership and control" of the commanding heights of the economy, including all "economic property", and NOT "state ownership". The concept of "State" ownership and/or control is anathema to this "economic democracy" model, no less than it is, if largely hypocritically, to current individual capitalist "entrepreneurship". It would be left to these local worker-community controlled enterprises to work out systems of co-operation, for raw material, goods and services supply, and marketing etc, with other similar enterprises on a local, regional, provincial or national basis, as needed.

I advocate a new form of "collective community interest democracy", which includes the individualist interests of those who make it up, decide and operate it. Outside of one's own personal, including home property however, the principle is "common ownership and democratic direction" of the economy, including share/returns distribution. More purely narrow "Individualist" serving capitalism, however it wants to wake up and feel about itself in the morning, would be simply verboten, frankly.

You have an "entrepreneurial spirit" and a good economic development concept? Great! Discuss it with your community, which would be the sole source of startup capital, and determine if there is a common interest, not much differently than you would do now with the "private" banks, and work out a deal. Then be prepared to work within the democratic framework of this new socio-economic arrangement.

How I see it, more or less. Though like I keep saying; in the end, as this new struggle against current "capitalism in crises" unfolds, the essential features and character of the economic democracy that must come to supplant it, will be shaped by more than just myself. All who participate in this new revolutionary period that is emerging, will play a part in detaining what comes to be or not. (If I'm even still around at all. :-)

Rock and a Hard Place = Capitalism and Bureauocracy

Between making a profit and imposing a tax, the present regime has it all tied up. The development of the electric vehicle was put on hold back in the 30's because the governments didn't have a way of taxing it. Even today, how could they tax the electricity used in your car separately from that used in your home. Could they outlaw solar cells and wind generators so that you could not make your own power? Rockefeller donated millions of dollars to the Women's Suffrage Movement to initiate the outlawing of alcohol production. Every farmer could run his tractors, trucks and all on untaxed (clean burning) alcohol, made from a corn field. No wonder that the government of the time backed Mr Rockefeller and his oil companies. So,what has changed? I could build a hydrogen generator in my backyard to make hydrogen for my car, I could even generate the power to do so with wind. Would I be allowed? Maybe, until it caught on, then the hammer would fall. Rules, regulations, and prohibitions would surely and quickly make this unfeasible, all to restore the balance of the established corporate profit/taxation ratio.

The Top 1%...

As I shall repeat, the hard place between capitalism and "the state" is what you have now. Though again as I say, in the history of capitalism, both can be and more and more are one and the same, which is not unknown. (WW2 fascism, the State Capitalism of the so-called Old Communism/Socialism models, current Russia, China, USA and much of the rest of the developed capitalist world. Including this country, increasingly under the ever more "fascistic Conservatives".)

The real alternative is between this current "bureaucratic" corporate capitalist/state run model and democracy, pure and simple; wherein the economy is democratized and given over to local enterprise by local enterprise, worker and community power, and made to serve the worker-local community interest. There is no other choice, save again, competing individualisms/gangsterism and the chaos wherein all roads lead back to private/corporate capitalism again and again, wherein again "real" power is ever effectively alienated from the ordinary working masses and their communities.

We have a choice: This competing, increasingly inhumane, every man and woman for him/herself, as has been across all forms of class society from the time of slavery, or a truly democratized economy that places power in a way that will serve the interests of the greatest number-, as opposed to the top 1%.

It's our collective choice.

Further wherein, given my choice, we may finally BEGIN to move away from all the religious and other obscurantisms, and endless economic growth imperatives that get in the way of our finally beginning to bring human populations and our demands into line with a sustainable "planetary" reality. In which context, how we see what is and is not clean energy etc. , for example, may also change. (For example, I think, it is not so much "carbon emissions" per se, or any other energy use form that is such a problem, as it is the sheer volume of it our current population and economic activity levels impose upon the natural and life sustaining systems of the planet. It is the sheer overwhelming "mass" of shit we are imposing upon the planet that is challenging its capacity to absorb and deal with. We need to bring our own numbers and our activity down to levels the planet and its systems can cope with... or we will eventually be shut down anyway.)

down The Road to a pure and simple democracy

Every socialists dream …pure and simple democracy; “… wherein the economy is democratized and given over to local enterprise by local enterprise, worker and community power, and made to serve the worker-local community interest.”

Taking “real” power away from the top 1% … the greedy elite and the corporate gangsters that seem to have a strangle hold on the flow of wealth … and placing it in the hands of locals and their enterprises sounds good on paper and makes for a good story line but the likelihood of that taking place on a grand scale is extremely low. Probably nil.

Not because we can’t rise up and force corporations to yeild under the pressure of public opinion, but because the distribution and abundance of resources … primarily energy, at the community level … are insufficient, or in some cases, non-existant to let that happen. In today’s world no man or village or state is an island unto itself.

That fact alone demands that before we can have an egalitarian world view that respects community interests, we require a global consensus on how resources are accessed, distributed and used. As we can see from today’s world events, global cooperation is more remote than ever and becoming increasingly unlikely.

The opportunity for a pure and simple democracy does exist, somewhere down ”The Road”, but getting there won’t be easy. It may require living a much simpler lifestyle in a world less dependant on fossil fuels and with far fewer people.

Every socialists dream

Can't have this until we get rid of specialization. As Robert Heinlein was wont to say, "Specialization is for ants." We are not ants, and were never meant to be.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100529/ZNYT01/5293004/-1/entertainment02?Title=Strike-in-China-Highlights-Gap-in-Workers-x2019-Pay
After years of being pushed to work 12-hour days, six days a week on monotonous low-wage assembly line tasks, China’s workers are starting to push back.

life in the colony

Good to hear China's low wage assembly line workers are pushing back. Now if we could only get the high wage specialists, who occaisionally work even longer hours, to do the same maybe we'd see the end of Robert Heinlein's ant hill.

Getting There Won't Be Easy 1...

"That fact alone demands that before we can have an egalitarian world view that respects community interests, we require a global consensus on how resources are accessed, distributed and used. As we can see from today’s world events, global cooperation is more remote than ever and becoming increasingly unlikely.

The opportunity for a pure and simple democracy does exist, somewhere down ”The Road”, but getting there won’t be easy. It may require living a much simpler lifestyle in a world less dependant on fossil fuels and with far fewer people." wrote KWD.

I had begun to worry that this thread, with a very important discussion just beginning to happen, had died a premature death. When suddenly along somes my old friend and brother-in-law "of a sorts", riding in like the Lone Ranger.

And he is right. Frankly. It is difficult to encompass and encapsulate the full scope of reality in any single or even multiple "comment(s)" on a Tyee thread.

I think that I have, at best, indicated the main line of development that needs to occur, in social, political and economic terms, for the current crisis period of capitalism to be resolved successfully. But reality is, of course, always more complex than any single theory. :-) From which Law of The Universe even such as I am not exempt. :-) (I will berate KWD over a good single malt soon about this. He is such a shit. :-)

But as I have already conceded, he is at least much correct. But what he is especially correct about, I think, is that this "revolutionary" change for which I advocate is of such a problematic complexity that it is unlikely to be able to occur in any one single country... for all the reasons he indicates. Which is why it is really difficult to be optimistic about outcomes to the current period.

And which is why precisely, the old, old communists of the founding ideas thereof, pre-Leninist, always thought and wrote of what would have to be a "World Revolution" against capitalism, and its impossibility within "one country", and of the importance of "Internationalism" between the revolutionary working class elements over its course. For a time after the October Revolution in Russia even, Lenin thought/hoped that this was going to happen, certainly in Europe post WW I, and prepared the Bolshevik armed forces for it, ready to roll into Europe and assist the anticipated working class risings there. Which, of course, never occurred, we now know, save sporadically and largely unsuccessfully. In fact, the failure of this to occur largely explains the rise of Stalinism upon Lenin's death. Whereup entered by the back door thereafter, the State Capitalism of the old USSR which Stalin largely ushered in.

Continued next post...

Getting There Won't Be Easy 2...

From previous post...

And the problem KWD describes largely remains, as the main problem to the rise of a new economic and political reality democracy supplanting Capitalism.

To which I can only say, in such a short frame as this especially, that we shall just have to see how the current crises of capitalism develop, and to where they lead. A "global" collapse of capitalism as is already much underway "just might" lead to a new "world revolution" opportunity, at least of sufficient breadth and scope as for a new "global working class" beachhead to be established... in which while "nationalism" may play no small part, in such as Canada, it is linked up with an "internationalist" vision in such a way as to be ultimately successful.

We shall just have to see. Though I think it is looking, at least, more promising than my brother KWD, who is really such a negativist fellow, might indicate. He is just too, too intellectual, and not visceral or passionate enough. :-)

Mr. Beers (et al) your high school science fails....

A litre of gasoline contains about 8.8KWH of energy, the per capital gasoline consumption in BC is about 18 litres per WEEK. That's 8.236 MHh per person, or roughly 37TWh, which is almost 1000 times BC's current electric generating capacity.

The point peasant49 was trying to make is there is no fuel source for even a small percentage of electric vehicles, regardless of the comparison of ICE .vs. electric motor efficiency.

The only possible replacement for the gasoline powered automobile is the bicycle.

You can muddy this issue with politics, ideaology or psuedo science, or solve it by riding your bike.

EV's can readily replace most Fossil Fueled Vehicles

Avg. domestic vehicle travel is about 50 km per day. An EV gets typically 6 km per utility kwh, City Driving Profile. So that's 8.3 kwh per day, to supply the avg vehicle energy consumption. The average domestic power consumption per household is about 36 kwh per day.

So EV use would only increase an avg household's electricity consumption by 23%. Since per capita electricity consumption is 3X the domestic amount, per capita, that would only increase per capita share by 8%.

Realistically, EV's will only gradually start replacing Fossil Fuel vehicles, so increasing supply to power EV's is easy to do. What’s more EV's are predominantly City Vehicles, those who want a vehicle for intercity or country travel will still opt for a fossil fuel powered vehicle.

EV's replacing Fossil Fuel powered vehicles? Should be no problem.

Get on the e bus

All this hype about battery electric cars verges on greenwash. They are so expensive and environmentally damaging to build that they mainly make sense for intensive fleet use such as taxis and delivery vans or as car share / rental cars. (And that only really works with interchangeable batter packs).

On the other hand, grid tied transit vehicles are cost-effective and environmentally sound right now, just like in 1910 when the interurban started running through Surrey.

I can go out and get on an electric bus for $2.10; I don't need to spend $50,000 for an electric car. People in many communities in BC including Surrey, Langley, Nelson and Victoria had electric transit almost a century ago. Why not now?

Maybe The Tyee could devote some time to writing about the history and potential of electric transit in BC? I can read about electric cars in The Province.

high-speed rail

It's interesting to hear high-speed rail discounted as unfeasible in North America when it was high-speed rail (for its time) that actually made it possible for both Canada and the U.S to expand and build the urban centers that now house the majority of the population. Esp. as that urbanization is increasing. I guess we have to be thankful that the Fathers of Confederation had a bit more vision than the current crop of politicians... who spend our money on spectacles and corporate bail-outs instead of the forward-thinking solutions our kids need. Makes them akin to deadbeat Dads who blow the baby bonus on a big night out on the town and paying off their bookie, instead of new shoes and school supplies.

Coyoteman

I certainly agree that the current form of market economy is primitive and predisposed to staying the old world power course.
But…
Once your workers unite and expel the bad guys, what would you do for power and industry?
How would it work?
Consuming the elite would only last so long before the new elite would need tax revenue. I bet they would have human nature also. What power source next; nuclear, draft horses, what?
The revolution will probably end up with me guillotined, but it would be nice to know what the new elite has in mind since you have an inside track and a clear idea of what a "pure democracy" is.

Fast and efficient, or high speed

Chris Keam wrote :"It's interesting to hear high-speed rail discounted as unfeasible in North America when it was high-speed rail (for its time) that actually made it possible for both Canada and the U.S to expand and build the urban centers that now house the majority of the population."

Jargon alert! 'High Speed' is used in all sorts of ways, but policy wonks usually say if it is not over 220 km/h or so it is not high speed. A train that only goes 200 km/h is 'fast', but not 'high speed'.

Give me fast, comfortable electric trains for a reasonable price. I will even settle for 160 km/hr if I get a sleeper berth, which I guess is a slow train these days.

'High speed' equals high cost and high energy use, save it for the highest density corridors.