The article does point to a possible solution to increase BCs productivity. We do have the resources and the labour force to transform industries into the manufacture of almost anything. But.....

We cannot effect such changes until taxation is substantially lowered and labour costs are rationalized. Presently we just cannot compete with the other parts of the world.

The other problem is that outside of the 200 mile boundary of Canada, our goods just simply are not recognized, especially in SE Asia. Sure it is fine that we export wheat and other items, but quite frankly, the average world citizen does not connect with Canada. Go to Hong Kong, Shenzen or Guanzhou PRC, or Penang, Kula Lumpur in Malaysia, or Singapore, or Indonesia, one cannot find any product made in Canada!!! We are just not a factor. So all those so called Trade trips that our politicians do really have not provided any result, except maybe to secure the export of some natural resources.

Canada, and British Columbia have relied on the natural resource thing for way too long. It is time to create our own industries but we must lower the costs of production.

It really does not matter whether the industry is publicly or privately owned. If the cost of production and final selling price is too high, we will not succeed.

Please. sdgreen, you must turn around and view this from another viewpoint. We will never be able to compete with slave or near slave labour, and I'm offended by the use of the word 'rational' to describe the attempt.

You see competition in a very limited one-directional way. What about the desire of the slaves to be free, to share in the value their labour creates? That's another view of comtetition. But one that draws the lowest paid and most highly exploited victims of this madness up, rather than dragging the rest of us down into the horrors of endemic poverty for 98% of humanity.

In it's unregulated beginnings Capitalism relied heavily on slavery as an institution to finance the wealth creation of the industrial revolution, but it never really blossomed until slavery was abolished and the wealth set into circulation by the efforts of labour organisations and the visionary manufacturing techniques of certain Capitalists.

Competition is a human activity, it can go higher as easily as lower. It just depends on who we are and how we behave.

Bailey, your point is noted. but we live in a global market. I just came back from an extensive trip to SEAsia and viewed a number of factories making textiles, electronics, and heavy industrial parts. I covered Hong Kong, Shenzen and Guanzhou PRC, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Bali Indonesia. Two key things are clearly evident. 1. the economy of all of these nations (other than Hong Kong) is advancing at a huge rate. In China, while poverty certainly does exist, the increase in wealth for both the worker and the enterprises is clearly evident at a steady pace. China does have a long way to go, but they are advancing at a significant rate. The modernization programs that China has implemented in the last decade or so are working well. Their industries are modern and well designed. Sure there are bad examples in China, but they do have strong initiatives to address most disparities. I certainly would not characterize their workers as slaves, far from it. The two nations that certainly did characterize slave labour were clearly Thailand and Indonesia there is no doubt. Malaysia and Singapore are modern nations with a highly skilled workers who are well payed relative to there economies.

The problem is, that all of these nations are increasing their standard of living while Canada's standard of living is receding. We must find a way to find the middle road.

It is never a nice thing to admit but Canada is slipping badly, and that I blame on high taxation and our failure to define economic goals. SEAsian countries have low taxation, and have set strong economic initiatives and they are reaping the benefits of those objectives.

I haven't got a lot of time right now, but the facts as stated by Mr. Pollack are essentially correct, we are an export driven economy, most of our exports are with minimal value-added in the forest, mineral, oil & gas sectors, and yes, Mr. Pollack you are correct, BC is a capitalistic economy where investment decisions are primarly made by private capital & private banks.

Yes, it is true that both Urban Futures and Professor Powers paid scant attention to the investment aspect of our economy.

Nonetheless, your view is essentially that TINA is the only dance in town, and the best we can do is to adopt Blairite perspectives and try to put a "human face on capitalism" - which I disagree with.

The manner in which you have 'framed' or 'organized' your article is discouraging - "growing the BC economy" is the singular focus in the article - and your prescription is essentially lets have more exports, more value added production, lets make conditions attractive to Investment Capital - without making it "unattractive" to British Columbians.

The point is that Private Capital puts enormous pressure on government to accept TINA, to implement International Monetary Fund types of policies, and variants of the Chicago school of neo-conservatism....Private Captial certainly seeks "conditions attractive to Investment" but it doesn't give a dam for your phrase "without making it "unattractive" to British Columbians" ---and that is where the problem of accepting TINA lies.

We can see from Campbell's enthusiastic embrace of neo-liberalism, that is number one priority has been to make "conditions attractive to capital' by slashing corporate taxes, de-regulating public oversight of corporate behaviour, privatizing public enterprises, gutting the Labor Code, slashing social & environmental programs, fostering the reproduction of a capitalistic economy through P3 and all sorts of laws favourable to Capital, and attacking class and regions in a dreadful manner

Growing the BC economy is assumed by you to imply that growth is best measured by out-dated tools such as GDP, per capita income, employment & labor participation rates...may I suggest we need a more progressive view of 'growth' in BC, to include sustainability, social, economic, and environmental factors--may I prescriptively point you to the Oregon Progress Board, or Minnesota Shines, or concepts such as the "Genuine Wealth Index" or "Genuine Progress Index"

Finally, I thank you for clarifying publicly that big unions such as Steelworkers, and the former IWA, are essentially supportive of 'capitalistic economies', where they can negotiate fat contracts with fat private corporations, where neo-liberal capitalism is accepted as TINA (there is no alternative) - and where there is minimal interest in civilizing our economy, in democratizing our economy, in creating institutional mechanisms such that private capital doesn't control the majority of investment decisions in BC. Your prescriptive solutions make no mention of the rention of capital by regions, no mention of the possibility of democratic control of captial, or use of internally generated capital to make strategic investments in BC, no discussion of our internal pools of captal, including pooled pension funds, no mention of the possibility of government giving preferential or at least equal rights to co-operative firms versus for capitalistic firms in the securing of contracts, licences for timber, minerals, oil, gas, etc.

What these series of articles, by Dr. Powers, Urban Futures, and Kim Pollack do demonstrate however, is that there is a large need for intellectual discussion of this matter of our economy and control thereof for the sustained benefit of British Columbian.

Indeed we need a public forum---and yes, I am one who asserts that 'economic growth', setting aside our definition of how we define 'growth' for the moment ...should not be at the 'expense' of deterioration of our already low-level democracy, or the increased exploitation of regions and classes - already exploited by Captial ...with the concurrence, indeed the encouragement of the Crown---and its lackey Ministers of the Crown - who centralize politcal power for the benefit of an oligarchy of poliical & labor elites, corporations and their majority shareholders.

The production of 'wealth' is to my mind not as important as the democratic control of Capital, for if 'economic growth' is not sustainable and serves only to ravage social and ecological capital, and assist the uber-aggressive permanent war economy of the USA or the corrupt Chinese gulag that exploits workers and imprisions hundreds of thousands in labor camps - then better to export our oil/gas/minerals/ forest products elsewhere---using ethical standards - or better yet, to have more endogenous growth, more import substitution under democratic control.

Anways...let the debates roll on. bcpolitics.ca

How's about this idea. We continue to develop high quality products by high quality workers paid a living wage. We organise the Western Democracies to stop buying goods made by slaves or wage-slaves. Sorry Wal-Mart.

We send organisers into the slave and wage-slave areas to organise the workers into demanding competitive wages. We may have to expose the uses of troops and weapons in keeping these workers down.

Then the pressure on these corrupt slave states will come from above, from the markets who refuse their goods as proceeds of crimes against humanity, and from below from their own people who have learned the real facts of life.

This would be easier if an international legal system existed with the power to arrest and try heads of state for crimes against their own people, but of course as long as the Bush family holds power, I guess rule of law is pretty much out of the question.

How would this work for you as a way to 'rationalize' labour costs, sdgreen?

Bailey, your plan is just too idealist and would not work. By the time you marshalled your forces, our economy will be dead. I agree, we do need to produce high quality products by high quality workers but we also have to augment that with middleware. The living wage argument is artificial and is impossible to define. I still say that one of our major problems is high taxes at all levels and poor management by our politicians of our programs, and it really does not matter what political party one talks about. The fact is, right now, the cost of living is just too high and at the same time tax dollars are being wasted on some very dubious programs.

The lofty goals of both the Left,Centre and Right political movements are all very nice, but if we cannot translate whatever those goals are into increasing our economy, then that living wage you talk about is doomed.

So far NONE of our political forces seem to get it!

Sdgreen, Asking the posters to speak in realistic terms is impossible. Go ask all these so called slaves in China if life is better before or after capitalism. For the first time in their lives these people have hope and the prospect of a future. Although you wish the government played a larger role in peoples lives many people around the world wish for less government and a chance to create their own destiny. Although these developing countries are far from perfect, in the last 15 years they have achieved what it took us to hundreds of years to achieve. Change does not happen over night. You may not like the fact that workers in developing countries get lower wages than developed countries, but that has allowed the population in these developing countries to begin to have the freedoms and dreams we take for granted and that they have never had.

what a load of **** JIm. why is it that the ONLY way to live is the western notion of work, make money, die? your post reeks of ethnocentrism. "in the last 15 years they have achieved what it took us to hundreds of years to achieve". what have we achieved JIm? i think that it's pretty f-ing pathetic that the likes of the JIm and sdgreens of the world just throw their hands up in the air and say, "well, if you can't beat them, join them". is that the realism of your world? JIm? sdgreen? let all aspects of our society deteriorate in the name of economic growth? do you not understand the concepts of externalities? Why don't we just let our environment and work conditions go to hell all the while letting the gap between rich and poor get larger? but as long as gdp continues to grow, well good on us. Carefully re-read peter dimitrov's post (or for the first time?). "freedoms and dreams"! christ JIm, you don't really believe that now do you?

First, no one, not even trade unionists should be surprised that a resources dependant union of workers, here the amalgam of the old US steel union, given a constitutional Canadian facelift in recent years, earlier absorbing a number of miners unions such as Mine Mill etc., if I recall rightly, and most recently the old IWA of Jack Munro and Solidarity fame, and also now including the much resource export dependant rail unions, is anxious to rush to the defence of resource exports. ( I watch the near endless stream of rail cars laden with coal, sulphur and lumber etc going by here everyday, bound for the coast and Asia, or for the U.S., and returning with automobiles and other transformed “resource products”, that result from “value added” jobs in those places.) Even I understand and actually agree that, in the current almost neo-colonial dependant capitalist economy of current Canada, there is little value in immediately rushing out to advocate that we cut off our noses to spite our face, which seems to be Kim’s “primary” concern here, underlying his reaction to the work of Prof. Thomas Powers. Unions, like capital, not infrequently have their clashing “sectoral interests” as well as capital. That’s just another fact of life in class competitive society; intra-class conflict also occurs.

And obviously, he is right again in his observation, which I haven’t actually heard anyone here advocating, that neither the Neocon Libs or the NDP are likely about to expropriate / nationalize the means of production. That was very much a mantra of an earlier left, and as the experience of the USSR and China has demonstrated, did not actually result in any liberation of the working class or extension of their democratic rights of participation in the affairs of the economy, let alone into the management, direction or strategic planning spheres of individual enterprises or the economy as a whole. It resulted more, as has become obvious in both the old Soviet and current “socialist capitalism” Chinese states and economies, in a kind of state run capitalism, that still marginalizes workers interests and participation..

So again, I say, those concerned with the problems of “decline and dislocation” within the neoconservative/ corporate economy, our natural and living environments, and the prevailing political institutions of society, and coming to desire the creation of a future that allows ordinary workers and citizens to have a greater degree of control over these aspects of their own lives, are generally arriving at a quite different understanding of how to equalize and democratize the distribution of wealth and power, than mere “state nationalization” per se, especially within large scale enterprises and throughout the economy and state, more or less, as a whole. At which point it is, the restricted economic and political vision of such trade union leadership and resource people as Kim becomes most apparent. They cannot yet, or for their own reasons, refuse to see beyond current Neocon economic and political reality, as pointed out in a very excellent article by Peter Dimitrov above,

There is more to the well being of workers, their families, communities, and indeed, whole national societies, than the mere regurgitation of the ruling class’s GNP measure of it. And that is the part of it these kinds of labour movement leaderships “conditioned” economic and political reflexes do not or adamantly refuse to get. And it is the roles and leadership of these very people in the trade union movement, in all that has unfolded and gone on in society and the economy since the late ‘70s, especially the widespread deunionization and minimum wage devolution within the economy, the acceptance of rollbacks, wage cuts and the “restructuring”-, that has gone on since the failure of Solidarity in the early ‘80s, that especially needs to come under critical scrutiny over the coming period, especially by those alarmed with the diminished and declining state of the labour movement.

There is still too much of an “old boys” bargaining table view of the body economic and politic, and a failure of vision and willingness to take the system on, in defence of a greater working class interest.

Coyote, 3/15/2005 4:27:01 PM, writes:
China has demonstrated, did not actually result in any liberation of the working class or extension of their democratic rights of participation in the affairs of the economy, let alone into the management, direction or strategic planning spheres of individual enterprises or the economy as a whole. It resulted more, as has become obvious in both the old Soviet and current “socialist capitalism” Chinese states and economies, in a kind of state run capitalism, that still marginalizes workers interests and participation.. "

... and that is so far from the truth that such defies the imagination!! While it may be true for the past USSR and the present Russian Confederation, such a statement is NOT valid for the new Chinese economic model. The workers and achieving significant advances in their economic freedoms and indeed those in the economic zones are doing quite well. True, the Chinese still have a long way to go, but they have built their new work force through solid education programs and continue to import western "teachers" to further strengthen their system.

I agree, though, as Coyote indicates that the "old Boys" of both Unions and Management in Canada, and particularily of British Columbia are doing way more harm than good!

However, one must note that the PRC allows the economic leaders, their managers and workers a totally free hand in the enterprise they are in and that has produced outstanding results! These factory states are advancing in both social and economic terms at an incredible speed all supported by modern infrastructure.

Again, the politics of the day really does not matter, non of the policies, certainly of the NDP here nor of the Unions or indeed of the others really have done anything. It is the ground level Owners, Managers and workers that get things done. Rules and other red tape bars advancement.

We definitely need to get back to basics with a national/provincial economic vision that works, and damn the politics and unions!!!

Michael obviously you live in a dream world. One cannot maintain the status quo if we are not producing anything of note, if we cannot compete, if the economic environment is not conducive to investment and industrial expansion. Clearly Canada is failing very badly. We are not agressively looking at other markets other than those in the US. We need to establish markets in other nations, but our stuff just costs too much, we cannot compete. If we stay as we are in a dream world as we certainly are at present, then we are dead.

We simply need to be realistic and indeed modify the way we do things, and that will be shocking to a lot of folk!

Around and around we go on this. The article is well written but the discussion is reverting to old right left in politics, not in economics. The question, it seems to me, is not what are we?, but rather, what will we be? We can not be in the long run, as the article alludes to, a high wage, lower skill producer of raw materials for the chinese economy-like it or not, that is what we are now. The article is correct, we can not sustain this. We can increase our productivity in commodity production, and in an acceptable environmentally sustainable fashion only through hugh increases in capital. Power's article points in a different direction, one that is not as export drive, certainly not commodity driven however in order to achieve either of these futures, we need a highly skilled and competent workforce or investment & consumer spending in the province will drop like a rock. In international comparisons, the % of high school leavers in this province who pursue further education is woefully low and the propensity for industry to capitalize on what skilled labour exists remains quite poor. (look at the situation in Ireland, Finland, Singapore, Japan or even Britain for comparison) If we are to either remain as high wage and increasingly capital intensive hewers of wood and drawers of water (or oil) or to develop an innovation knowledge based economy public policy must turn toward remedying these issues first.

"It is the ground level Owners, Managers and workers that get things done. Rules and other red tape bars advancement. We definitely need to get back to basics with a national/provincial economic vision that works, and damn the politics and unions!!!' writes sdgreen, playing the "populist" role from the extreme right again.

This has been Chamber of Commerce, National Business Affairs Association et al , and every right wing organization ideological mantra for at least as long as I've been alive. It didn't work in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s or now-, it being current BC Liberal policy. We laughed at it then, during the greatest period of "regulated capitalism" prosperity the world has ever known. Only now, in the decline period of New Order, Lean and Mean Capitalism, evolving backwards to the 1930s, is it being taken seriously, and failing abyssmally. It is a measure of political and economic fools.

You are just such a right wing nutter fool, sdgreen. Even The Spectre has it more together than you, and he's pretty damned hopeless.

Coyote, 3/15/2005 5:38:46 PM, writes:
This has been Chamber of Commerce, National Business Affairs Association et al , and every right wing organization ideological mantra for at least as long as I've been alive. It didn't work in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s or now-, it being current BC Liberal policy.

Well Coyote, perhaps you should go on a trip and see how the real world operates rather than to expound on the stupidity of the past!!!

Our current socialized economy is in complete tatters and will not succeed until we completely change to goals of outcomes. Neither the left, center or right thinkers have come to terms with the new reality. We have built a stone wall around ourselves thinking we are immune, we are not!!!

"Our current socialized economy is in complete tatters..." !!!!

Our current socialized economy!!!! Where have you been since 1980? Frozen beneath the tundra?

We have anything but a "socialized" capitalist economy, which is the reason everything has gone for such a shit, man. Capitalism never worked so well, at any time in its history from the time of the industrial revolution, as when it succumbed in part to so-called "socialist" influence and conceded to regulation during and after the last great war. (At least for ordinary folks.) It has been the dismantling of that socialized "regulation" of capitalism in fact, its deregulation and the allowance of increasingly unfettered capitalism, from the time of Reagan and Thatcher, that has so hastened its coming unglued in our time, and made it so harmful to the interests of ordinary folks.

The fact is, and you can swallow this pill or not, it mattering a twaddle to me, but the best thing that has happened within capitalism, hastening its decline, from the point of view of those of us hostile to it and wanting an entirely new kind of "people friendly" democracy, politically and economically, than has been the rise of the extreme right everywhere, including Gordon Campbell. What it has done and is doing to capitalist society, excites me more, frankly, than any other single social development that has occurred within my lifetime.

I had actually resigned myself to capitalism outliving me, and perhaps lasting another few hundred years. Now, let's face it, at my advanced years, it may still outlast me, which would be no startling feat, but its prospects are looking considerably more dim and unlikely that it will last even another decade, than at any time since the last Great Depression of the 1930s.

You right wing nut jobs keep it up, please. Like I say, you have opened Pandora's box, in a way we could not have done or imagined ourselves, and raised my hopes of the system's early demise, along with that of probably one or two other folks :-)such as I had given up dreaming.

I ain't never felt so hopeful since Jane Claymore traded me kisses for eating her mudpies.

"We definitely need to get back to basics with a national/provincial economic vision that works, and damn the politics and unions!!!" writes sdgreen. What basic are you talking about sdgreen? Back to the basics of 50 years ago? 100 years? When forest were clear cut, rivers were polluted, workers toiled in the most unsafe of conditions? What's going on sdgreen, is far from progress - a very few select individuals will make a lot of money, but i don't anticipate things getting much better for the average joe. you want lower taxes? for what again? where will our social safety net go sdgreen? oh i know, the market will take care of that right? we all know how well the market provide public services. i'm not the one living in the dream world sdgreen. i'm not dreaming of a big ass suv or a big ass moster home; nor do i require dolce & gabbana whatchemachallits or vallentino whosits. but i guess in your DREAM world, it's ok to decimate the environment, throw away labour standards, ignore the necessities provided as public goods, because, we need to compete dammit!

Remember folks ---the title of this article is "How to Really Grow the Economy...without making it unattractive to British Columbians."

...let me tell you a story or two.

Once upon the time the Nechako River ran wild and free. Then came Alcan -they got perpetual rights to significant flows of the Nechako River -so that Alcan could channel water through a mountain near Kemano - thereby producing a hell'va lot of ultra -cheap electricity. ...and the contract made with the Province of BC and us residents who call BC our home--is that Alcan would use the electricity generated to produce aluminum. Are they doing that? Yes and No - but the point is that - Alcan is exporting signifcant quantities of electricity, retaining the profits, and ask Kitimat, and the families and workers who reside there, how many hundreds of manufacturing jobs have been lost - too f**king many! ...

.and King Campbell and the Fiberals who are making BC safe and attractive for Private investment in BC...have down diddly squat to remedy that situation, legally or otherwise. ---yes, that's making BC "atttractive" for investment. Yes, a private corporation benefits from our water, and takes the profits and invests it not just out of the Kitimat region, but likely in some "capital friendly" - location outside of Canada..where we can't and should never have to compete. The Kitimat region and its people, as well as the people of BC have simply been exploited. Ask the question---out of the billions of capital privately accumulated by Alcan as profits, and the billions accumulated by the Provincial Crown..how much has remained in Kitimat and environs....barely a "wooden nickel" in comparision. That what the private ownership of Capital has done with the concurrance of the centalized Crown and her Ministers.

Then we have the West Kootenays and the Columbia River Treaty. Basically, the same story, where the Kootenay region, workers and families have seen, with the exception of the relatively recent innovation of the Columbia Basin Trust - enormous sums of profit from the hydro-electric resource leave their region --while Kootenay residents reaped significant environmental, social and economic "costs".

Then, the East Kootenays. I remember the days when I used to work for the CPR railway, watching several mile long coal trains leaving the region - they still are by the way!

Noticing too the ore from the Sullivan Mine in Kimberly. Yes, Private Capital is still making mega-bucks there, yes, the centralized Crown treasury controlled by the political elites on the coast...has collected tens -perhaps hundreds of billions over the last 30 years --and where is it invested, a pittance only in the region where it derives. Growth yes- equity no!

Then there is North East BC --the region where BC gets much of its oil & gas. Big profits for Private Capital who have less taxes and lower resource rents/royalties to pay under the Fiberals, and once again the Centralized Crown treasury - under the control of political elites such as Campbell---grant pittance back to the region & people from the whence the wealth derives. This story is repeated again and again in each of the regions of BC, in each of the economic sectors

Growing the BC economy without tackling these inequities will only perpetuate more private accumulation of capital and power, will only embolden centralized political parties and their leaders who seek the almost dictatorial power that goes with 'taking' the Premier's chair.

I, lament, along with Coyote, about this situation, yet, watch as Captial ultimately will destroy itself by its own stupid, greedy excesses.

In my mind, the answer to our woes -is not more of the 'hidden hand of the market' and other neo-liberal crap, neither is it the 'stupid', inefficient state socialism of the old Left and the 'old' NDP.

What is required is a higher quality "democracy" --political and economic democracy --indeed - what is required are activist citizens and workers who are 100% fed-up with Big Capital, Big Labor and Big Government...and the elites who run them. What is needed are people who want to empower themselves by building a more equitable 'participative democracy' and an economy which they democratically own, manage and control.

Hang in there Coyote, that time has arrived in Latin America, in Venezuela, and other Latino countries whose people, after centuries of exploitation, are finally putting an end to the reign of elitist neo-con oligarchies ..and who are now building a whole new political, economic democracy. Soon I predict, Russia, Iran and Venezuela will no longer trade their oil exclusively in Yankee dollars, and then the sh*t will hit the Capitalist fan and the permanent war economy of U. Sam...so hang onto to your hats ...interesting times are surely ahead...

Questions about idealism for sdgreen---

How did the British abolish slavery? Nobody much wanted to, except some far seeing idealists.

How did the Americans abolish it? That war produced more and more horrible casualties than any war since. Why did they do that, tolerate such pain and misery?

What happened to the overall economies of those powers after they ended it, compared to before?

You think the cost of living is too high? Living costs exactly what it always did and always will. Absolutely everything. Except the two pennies for the ferryman, nobody takes anything with them except what they have become.

We should try to become something worth being, don't you think? Something idealistic. It's not impossible just because you can't believe it.

On the bright side China can't grow unless we buy their products and ship them raw materials. "We" being the non-Chinese. Didn't Brazil and Argentina just play the cartel card with China? Raw material prices will continue to rise, squeezing the Chinese.

By the way the Chinese have been "modernizing" most of this past century, not for just 15 years, you may recall names such as the "Great Leap Forward".

As for the article stating an economy can't run by taking in each other's laundry, well, hate to break it to you but that is exactly how the economy of this planet is run.

Also, the US economy is stronger than ours and a big reason for that is their domestic economy dwarfs their foreign trade, in layman's language that means they do each other's laundry more than we do.

Intelligent and cogent remarks, Mr. Dimitrov. Thanks for so clearly summing up what is so wrong with rampant capitalism. For a long time I have been wondering at the huge disconnect between the West's consistently growing "wealth," as measured by GDP and other outdated methods, and the continual erosion of purchasing power within the working classes of which I am part, concomitant with an increasingly degraded environment. I am now convinced that we are witnessing the return to a kind of feudalism, one where a great majority of the people will be barely surviving while a small elite grows fat and decadent. We have been duped by a slick media dominated by the wealthy class to the point that very few are aware that a catastrophic re-adjustment is nigh. The only question is what kind of re-adjustment will take place first: economic or ecologic. Interesting times indeed.

"What is required is a higher quality "democracy" --political and economic democracy --indeed - what is required are activist citizens and workers who are 100% fed-up with Big Capital, Big Labor and Big Government...and the elites who run them. What is needed are people who want to empower themselves by building a more equitable 'participative democracy' and an economy which they democratically own, manage and control." wrote Peter Dimitrov, in another outstanding piece. He is clearly on a roll and in his element in this piece. We are entirely agreed, brother.

But then, there are others finding their voices here as well, like Michael, who asks the most relevant questions of our right wing critics here. "What basic are you talking about sdgreen? Back to the basics of 50 years ago? 100 years? When forest were clear cut, rivers were polluted, workers toiled in the most unsafe of conditions?"

Because that is what these folks are about, taking us back to some fanciful Grand Old Vision of an idealized capitalism that never really did exist, save its worst excesses, in a time you really would not want to repeat if you have any sense at all, not as a working man or woman anyway.

What Peter, Michael and such as Pfrovtar are all saying though, in another sense is true: Those of us who get it, really do need to be struggling as well, to prepare OURSELVES for what lies ahead here, if we seriously do want to "grow our economy" in a most relevant, equitable, democratic and sustainable way. For there are those who would block our way , unfortunately, including some elements from Big Labour as well as Big Business, whom we will need be prepared to deal with, regardless of who wins this next election in May.

We should have no illusions about that "minimal democracy" process outcome either.

(Now, I've got bread to make today, and I'm going to try and sneak in a little fishing, to see if anything is biting yet, out there in the still frigid waters, but I'll read ya's all later. :-)

Outstanding, Peter.

Just a quick note - I’m actually in the midst of writing a take home economics exam. Coyote and Peter: thanks you for articulating so well the issues that need addressing now more than ever (or at least in my life time). Participatory democracy is exactly what we need. In almost every first chapter of an economics text you'll find the definition for two systems: command and laissez-faire. Perhaps participatory democracy, or co-operative economics, or some other derivative should become a third system, one worth some serious larger scale investigation. Hope the fish are biting Coyote!

Michael....yes, the universities and colleges are still teaching "BS" classical "capitalistic" economic theories - ..that have produced economic policies ...that have led to the impoverishment and deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people in the last century/ IMF/ World Bank policies, etc --and that privileged primarily USA, UK, France, etc....while ignoring the enormous subsidies to build the permanent war economy of the United States - nothing laissez faire about that, and while discounting or ignoring social & environmental 'externalities' in the out-dated & stupid economic accounts of GNP, GDP, etc.

That students blithly put up with that "BS" is beyond me...there have been full-scale revolts of economic students in the US, UK over the continued teaching of 'black-letter' classical economics and law ...where no alternative courses are provided.

My sympathies to you --but if you have time -do some reaarch on critical legal theory, and critical economic theory . Check out bcpolitics.ca - menu item "New Economics", also International News - Venezuela particularly. There is a lot that could be written about the economics of co-operation, social capital, etc., and some of it is posted at bcpolitics.ca. I commend the Tyee for posting several articles on Economics, ...certainly more discussion occurs here...than within the photo-shoots and crap found within "The Democrat" - the BC NDP paper--which is the 'sad' reality of how little space there is within the right of centre 'social democratic' party for 'debate' on economics. I have never seen a BC Fiberal party newspaper...but I imagine it too is full of pictures and rosy BS news about how good things are under the Fiberals.

That is the problem, acceptance of too much economic dogma, and not enough serious adversarial debate amongst proponents of different economic ideas. Anyways, good luck on that paper

Michael...check out;

http://www.debunking-economics.com/

I posed my article as a challenge to the set concepts of both left and right. It is more a dilemma than anything else -- we are trapped within the bounds of a capitalist economy and there is no use wishing or trying to pretend we are not. After all, as I said, neither of the parties who might win the next election are going to change that.

That being the case, what can the BC government and the people of our province actually do to ensure that we offer ourselves a worthwhile and liveable future? I take that to mean a maximum of high quality jobs; a reasonable and acceptable standard of living; the possibility at least of a decent future for any child that wants one and is able to strive for it; a reasonable level of services and social supports for those who need them.

How can we assure these things at a time when we see the rapid growth of a dynamic and powerful police state that is happy to offer its people none of the above and is willing to jail, brutalize or kill them should they ask for them?

How can we assure them when we face the dominance of international capital that seeks the highest possible return on investment in the shortest possible timeframe and is quite free to roam the world search for it?

I believe that people in BC and elsewhere should be willing to ask for a decent life. I also believe that both the emergence of China as an industrialized police state and globe-trotting capital threaten those things. I also believe it is essential that British Columbians work to protect themselves and their standard of living in the face of these threats. As I said in my article, I believe that the beginning of protecting ourselves is naming the beast and then beginning to think about ways to deal with it.

These are the very real challenges we face. I would be interested in hearing ideas and comments on this, which is my understanding of the -- very narrow, perhaps even dark -- road ahead.

KBP

Thanks Peter, I'll definately check out those links!

Actually, in this latest piece in "comments" immediately above by Kim Pollock, I think we are arriving closer to a place, at least, where we have a more or less "similar" analyses of "where we are at"-, which has to be, before one can get at talking about appropriate responses. And frankly, there is not too much I disagree with Kim about here, from this "where we are at" perspective.

What we need to understand, I think, is exactly what Kim has said in his opening paragraph, because there is much idealistic "delusion" about it out there, especially around the false hopes that tend to arise as to the possible outcome of this upcoming BC election. "... we are trapped within the bounds of a capitalist economy and there is no use wishing or trying to pretend we are not. After all, as I said, neither of the parties who might win the next election are going to change that."

Indeed, this is entirely true, and neither of the parties to this election are going to change that. We are trapped within the legal and conventions bounds of a capitalist economy as surely as prisoners in a prison yard, and a much dominated capitalist world, much like the Mediterranean World must have seemed at the time of the Greek, followed by the Roman Empire slave system. And that is the fundamental problem, of course.

But if we see that as an "immutable" fact of life, a kind of coffin-like box in which we are going to be forever trapped, then there is indeed nothing one can do, but pursue the objectives of simple "self-interest", and preoccupation with covering one's ever vulnerable butt. So first, I think, we need to understand that whatever is can be changed, certainly in the social sphere, if it coincides first with an opportune moment in history joined with peoples understanding, and if out of that, there is the will, the courage and sufficient accuracy of our "situation analyses." (Even Rome was brought down eventually.)

So, in short, because there is a certain space limitation here, even for someone as long-winded as myself :-), I think one needs an analysis and a strategy that has two essential parts to it: the first being, because there is almost certainly not going to be a "quick solution" to the larger problem of capitalism, it having its own "prerequisites"-, best as we can, the protection of what we have and serving our immediate "collective" needs of selves, home and hearth, while(b) seriously, rather than just rhetorically working towards the creation of a movement of workers, the particular interests of women, the poor and a broad range of citizen's movements, such as NGO's organized around community interests, such as environmental ones, for example, to to create a movement of ordinary folks that can "begin" to challenge some of the underlying assumptions built into capitalism. The assumptions, codified in law and even trade union labour contracts, being about the special management rights of "ownership/capital" and those lesser and more marginalized ones of workers seeking to open up boards of directors, management committees, and the rights of workers and community interests to "democratically" and "equally" participate in the strategic and financial planning and direction of enterprises and industries. In short, we need to set in motion a Magna Carta-like process, which in medieval times began to circumscribe and restrict the powers of kings, that begins to circumscribe the rights and powers of capitalist ownership and its management, while taking concrete measures to expand the "participatory" rights and power of workers and community interests within all areas of the economy. (Not through the vehicle of "the state", though it could certainly assist or hinder the procees, about which we should be clear, but through "workers and community interests.) Also, where opportunities to do so emerge in the political and economic situations of the future that is evolving out there, trade unions and groups of workers need to be assisted if necessary, and encouraged, to take over/buy out existing capitalist interests (even as part of contractual trade-offs etc.), form their own "democratic" management systems, hiring what managerial and specialty expertise may be needed to augment that, and creating new kinds of "democratic processes, enterprises and co-operatives".

If we can begin to develop a growing and powerful movement of community interests and workers to do that, then we can begin to erode that "capitalist confinement" in which we find ourselve, and which boxes us into the declining present, and open up the possibilties of the future in ways we can scarcely even imagine from where we are at now.

On the other hand, if we cannot find the wherewithall to do that, then there is no alternative to the diminishing and deteriorating possibilties of the capitalist present, but the endless disappointment of this "electoral tail-chasing" of current minimalist democracy capitalism.

A couple of typos above, and a paragraph break that didn't work, which I hope will not cause readers too much difficulty. (One should probably first do these lengthier pieces in Word.)

This is perhaps one of the most fruitful dialogues on the economy I have seen for quite awhile in BC. Certainly little to none takes place with mainstream media, or within The Democrat - the newspaper of the BC NDP - and likely not much within BC Liberal publications either, as for Greens, no doubt they have put some thought into this.

As I stated in my first set of remarks to the article -the facts as stated by Mr. Pollack are essentially correct, we are an export driven economy, most of our exports are with minimal value-added in the forest, mineral, oil & gas sectors, and yes, BC is a capitalistic economy where investment decisions are primarly made by private capital & private banks - and as you said Kim - I agree that "neither of the parties who might win the next (BC) election are going to change that."

However, like Coyote, I do not accept your belief that "we are trapped within the bounds of a capitalist economy" - at least not endlessly - as this is unduly fatalistic and discounts the creative possibilities that could lessen those 'bounds' and our collective ensnarement. "

Coyote, your two-step plan is entirely sensible, particularly so since you haven't fallen into the delusion that TINA is the only dance in town - that there are creative alternatives.

All of what you say reflects some of my own thinking as elucidated here on Tyee and at bcpolitics.ca - particularly your statements that:

."..we need to set in motion a Magna Carta-like process, which in medieval times began to circumscribe and restrict the powers of kings, that begins to circumscribe the rights and powers of capitalist ownership and its management, while taking concrete measures to expand the "participatory" rights and power of workers and community interests within all areas of the economy. (Not through the vehicle of "the state", though it could certainly assist or hinder the procees, about which we should be clear, but through "workers and community interests.) Also, where opportunities to do so emerge in the political and economic situations of the future that is evolving out there, trade unions and groups of workers need to be assisted if necessary, and encouraged, to take over/buy
out existing capitalist interests (even as part of contractual trade-offs etc.), form their own "democratic" management systems, hiring what managerial and specialty expertise may be needed to augment that, and creating new kinds of "democratic processes, enterprises and co-operatives". "

How might we do this - may I suggest by looking at non-capitalist economic & legal models around the world that reflect that new "Magna Carta", learning from them, adapting them to our unique situation, --and most importantly, adopt an attitude of willingness to conduct 'experiments'.

Nonetheless, let me be clear I neither favor big Capitalistic firms nor State Capitalism - which implies - I don't favor Big Labor Unions either - as there is only a need for them to confront and negotiate with Big Capital - indeed I have repeatedly articulated for more social & democratic control of Capital by workers, communities, co-operatives, Trusts...so as to engender sustainable, innovative economies, where leakages of jobs and capital is minimized, and where we build the necessary forward & backward linkages to maximize 'endogenous' development to first meet our own Canadian needs --rather than the insatiable needs of the permanent war economy of the United States (shit, Canada doesn't even have a National Energy Policy under NAFTA ...while, surprisingly Mexico and USA do) and growing state capitalistic gulag of China. We need to be bolder in utilizing our own internal Capital (our savings) including a portion of our pension funds (like they do in Quebec) for community controlled economic development - using Trusts or Co-operatives - and yes, lets seriously put in place a solid, realistic plan ...to end our legacy as "the drawers of water, oil, gas, minerals, and the hewers of wood".....selling much of that, especially lately our oil & natural gas - at far too low a rate--the royalty rates that Alberta charges on its energy is scandalously low---and Campbell's Fiberal's just copy it.

Beyond, all this we need to seriously address our 'low-level democracy'

Kim, you're an expert on the Forestry sector - why is it, after 50 years, there is no single successful worker owned and managed TFL and mills....why hasn't union leadership together with the rank & file ...done that at least once ---all we see is increased concentration of ownership, fewer jobs, and minimal value -added production. The exceptions are the Mission Tree Farm Licence owned by Mission. Why does the Crown grant all the privileges to big 'capitalistic firms'...who cut and run...when the resource is ours...and we have the internal capital to socially & ethically invest?

Anyways folks, I haven't got a lot of time ...to write much on this topic these days -but I have a fair amount more I could say - perhaps, in time, I shall post my thoughts here or at bcpolitics.ca

Again, from my perspective, another excellent piece, Peter.

I am especially interested in your views on Labour, about which, hopefully, we will have the opportunity for a future discussion. While I am hands down in agreement with the need of "class organizations" of workers, much of what we have in the current trade union movement has fallen into the trap of becoming "a part" of the labour management structure of capitalism, and removed from the democratic control and participation of workers themselves.

Also, like capitalism, Big Labour as we know it, has to be seen as a transitory stage of development, and not an eternally fixed entity, immutable and unchangeable either. It is more, like I say, the reflection, where it has been allowed to exist and grow by the system, of the current stage of development of Big Capital and its labour management needs, to resolve issues with large pools of workers and provide long term stability to the needs of capital. Which has more or less become its niche within the system, and out of which it has tended to be reluctant to break free.

Trade unions have to come to see themselves having a more progressive and evolving role in representing working class and broader citizen interests, or they too will have to be, as they are very much, bypassed by workers themselves and history.

Whatever your arguments are against capitalism, that system has advanced the welfare of human kind in an exceptional manner, bar none. … and for the foreseeable future, that is the system that will exist for some time.

That cannot be said for the examples provided by communism, collectivism, and any other system experienced on this planet. Even in ancient times, the greater success was always established by power and competition.

The notion of participatory democracy is a certain charade very simply as such devolves into a disaster of competing cliques that would destroy its very objectives. Certainly this would be true in an isolationist society as folks view the external successes of other entities.

There was a chap, can not remember his name, who proposed that a world economy would only work where each national entity would be responsible for a production of a certain product, which would be then provided to the other world entities. This would be controlled by a form of world government. This of course, might solve the issue of trade issues and indeed provide a solid objective of productivity and worker remuneration. The system was called “Economic Modernism”. The major stumbling block, however, is the question of how can you convince, for example, Canada, to just produce a certain product, and indeed, where jurisdictions have a multiplicity of production, how does one adjudicate economic equality. The document as I recall, was very detailed, right down to taxation levels and process.

We do live in a global economic model, where indeed, those known as third world economies are very quickly catching up to the norm, obviously at differing rates. There are some nations who are in denial, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and others come to mind. The reality, they all failed, or are failing. The old USSR, while certainly not modeled on the original concept of Marx and Engel’s, simply could not compete by virtue of its inability to marshal its collectivist forces. Even today largely through enormous corruption, the Russian states are having a difficulty.

In Canada, while we have a substantial industrial and resource infrastructure, we have not exploited to any degree, save some technology sectors, any momentum to sell out products. This a largely to do with the reliance on the markets of the United States, of which we have relied upon for way to long.

Pollack states in a short piece, how do we compete and yet retain out current standard of living? The answer to this is we can not in the short term. There is absolutely no question that we will be hammered by the new economic reality to such a point that our standard of living will be severely derogated. What can we do?

If we are to succeed, and that is a questionable goal, we must all agree that major changes must be accepted in order to make our products attractive on a global scale. That may mean a substantial reduction in current taxation, wage and benefit structures. There is no doubt that our commodity production, which is really minor in comparison to other nations, just cost to much to produce. There is no question that we have basically “given” away our resources at rock bottom return relative to what we could do with local production and resulting employment. There is no question that our general benefits, relative to the rest of the world are quite generous. There is no question that current Union/Management work agreements are not conducive to positioning British Columbia to compete on the world market. What we need to do is to retool our industries into a productive environment to compete with those that are external to us. To start we need to use our resources wisely. It make no sense to export “raw logs” when we could create employment to produce commodities; but we must be able to provide those commodities at fair world values.

To this end, the values of Organized Labour, and Government Taxation must be significantly modified, and there is no question that these changes in the short run will affect out current standard of living, but will in the long run give us a better one.

I read the article and all of your comments and they are all fascinating, especially to someone like me who sometimes has problems balancing her own cheque book. I am way out of my league and depth here but I have two comments all the same.

sd green: I enjoyed reading your comments as well, though I can't find much common ground with my own beliefs. It seems in your examples, that it is the worker that will always have to give way, that to "provide commodoties at fair world values" the worker must accept reduced wages as well as a re-designed tax structure that will, in effect, work against him or her as well. You give yourself away when you write: "It is ground level Owners, Managers and workers that get things done." But the words Owners and Managers are both capitalized, and the lowly workers remain with a lower case "w", not quite worthy of capital letters, not quite worthy of receiving an equal share of the capital, either...and I think that's the crux of the matter.

I especially like Coyote's idea of workers and trade unions "taking over/buying out existing capitalist interests", "forming their own democratic management systems"...it's also unbelievable as Peter Dimitrov says that there is not more worker owned forestry enterprises. My husband who loves those forestry-government maps, as much as he loves the outdoors was amazed that when you study them you realize the big forest companies have been granted so much of the best land right from the beginning, so much of the watershed areas... just granted to them by the Crown, a privilege that escapes the rest of us as Peter suggests.

In regards to Coyote's idea of worker ownership, it's an excellent idea that should help things to evolve at a faster rate.

I'm not sure what you'll think of my example, it's kind of girlie, not in michael's economic textbook I'm sure, but what the heck... anyway, worker ownership seems the same sort of idea that gave Oprah Winfrey the ability to be in charge of her own working destiny in a short period of time. (This is not an endorsement of her show one way or another, sometimes she grates on me in her attempt to be perfect, maybe it's because I know I never will be...) Anyway, she's a perfect example of someone with little power in a white corporate world that was able to change her circumstance quite quickly, even though the odds were working against her - being from a poor backgound, black, and a woman.

But she was smart and made a brilliant decision when her small time Chicago talk show became a success. In an unexpected move, she acquired the ownership and all production responsibilites for herself and her own company, Harpo Productions. The control of the entire company became hers, and in a short period of time when the show soared, so did her profits. Her brilliance was that she recognized she could both work and manage her own resource.

"The notion of participatory democracy is a certain charade very simply as such devolves into a disaster of competing cliques that would destroy its very objectives. "-sdgreen

You may be a Capitalist, sir, but you can make no claim to Democracy.

Your post proposes that since Capitalist history has led to successes, we should tie rocks around our necks and jump off the nearest cliff, the quicker to reach the lowest level possible. You seek a kind of Capitalism that failed at a very early stage. Capitalism has been very successful, but not until it became regulated. Tempered by being bound to a system of public duties.

No power can flourish without discipline, discipline is fostered by the higher requirements of an overriding duty. Otherwise you're just bullies, albeit successful ones.

Successful bullies almost always wind up as criminals. Your reasoning in respect to the failures of Russian Communism are pure smoke, I'm afraid. It has no bearing on the nature of Capitalism, or it's behaviour.

The reason Capitalism has been such a successful system is mostly due to the incentives it provides. Ironically, those incentives also make it extraordinarily dangerous. Money in capital amounts behaves like water, it runs in channels, puddles and lakes. Oceans even. That much money will make a man crazy, and many rich people go crazy from having everybody agree with them all the time. They start thinking that since everybody agrees, they must be right all the time.

Take you for example. You believe the lesson of the last four hundred years is that whatever power has done has led to advances. I think the advances you cite are due to something else. That overriding duty to society I mentioned, and the discipline imposed by it.

Capitalism is silent on moral topics, those have come from the society at large. Capitalism, if allowed will try to evade it's duties to the people. Hell, that's exactly what you're proposing it do now. It never caused or even directed the vast advances in the human condition you cite. It only financed them. The advances came from the people, acting for a greater good. Pursuing the ideals they gained from their families, communities and so forth. The changes you propose will certainly have the effect of lowering human living standards, but I see no path leading from there into the better one you promise in the long run. That part you're just making up or something.

We're humans. Our outcomes are shaped by our actions. If we dive for the bottom, the bottom is where we'll end up. If we want to continue to rise, we must direct our actions to that end.

Look up. Climb. Demand better. Don't for God's sake settle for slavery, even if the Asians insist. We're better than that.

sdgreen is an interesting character. While i agree with him that the raw materials should be kept in B.C. and put through the value-added processes here instead of in China, Germany, or where ever. However, his views of capitalism are over-simplistic. I think that what sdgreen is advocating is the notion of perfect competition. Where this ideal exists, the market will take care of everything, and by that I mean that we will be living in within a system that is both efficient and equitable. Unfortunately, that simple capitalistic ideal does not exist and it cannot exist. In the perfect capitalistic world, profits are eliminated (I won’t go into the theory; I’ve had enough of economic theory this week). In the real capitalistic world, profits are huge, markets are inefficient, and the system is far, far from equitable. If we just grin and bear it, as sdgreen continues to suggest: profits will get bigger, markets more inefficient, inequalities will grow substantially larger.

Another issue, sdgreen says that “Even in ancient times, the greater success was always established by power and competition.” I think that’s a very dangerous statement to make. I’ve studied a little anthropology in the past sdgreen; your ideas of “greater success” are very subjective. Before the invasion of Europeans, the first nations thrived in a very successful culture, just not in the way that you may define success. I guess what I’m trying to say here is be careful when you make statements like this. You come across as very arrogant and I wonder if it gives you away a little more.

Then I think that you really get to the crux of your motivations when you say that change “may mean a substantial reduction in current taxation, wage and benefit structures.” I’m still not sure to this reasoning of yours especially if you’re advocated growing the economy. Furthermore, you still having explained how cutting taxes, lowering wages, and now, changing benefit structures, is going to grow the economy. As we have seen from this current provincial government lowering wage ($6 training wage), reducing taxes, changing benefits structure (ripping up contracts?) have not increased our well-being, or total utility, or whatever you want to call it, despite what the propaganda says.

I deliberately didn't immediately respond to sdgreen, because I wanted to see if others out there could see through this fellow and his real agenda, more or less as I did. And clearly both Lynn and anonymous do. If one reads him carefully, pays attention and connects the dots, as much with what isn't said as said, but certainly implicit, sdgreen's anti-working class bias is obvious enough.

Like Peter earlier said, this has been a fruitful discussion on economics, I think as well, and though the participation rate has been relatively low, likely for the "insecurity" with the subject reasons Lynn spoke of, we have encapsulated here, more or less, a full spectrum opinion of capitalism.

Anonymous makes a number of really excellent points about capitalism, again from my view of the subject, but especially he understands that "evolutionary" element which has to exist in how we view economics generally, and old, new, and now again reverting back to "old capitalism" currently going on out there. Slavery too, was a very successful socio-economic system for a very long time, certainly from the perspective of the slave owner. This Slave Owner, as sdgreen would doubtless say, along with the slave, like they were in some kind of partnership, really made slavery work and a success-, and it is true at a very low level, but which also hides so much about the real nature of the relationship. No less does it hide so much about the “partnership” relationship between Capital and labour.

But it is Lynn, in an entirely relevant "populist" way, which I love by the way, who makes a very telling point with her Oprah analogy, and I would urge everyone, certainly every working man, woman and, most particularly, trade unionist out there, to read her piece very carefully-, for she is entirely right.

" Her brilliance was that she recognized she could both work and manage her own resource.", observed Lynn.

Damn! Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Now, with all the reversion to an earlier type going on within neo-conservative capitalism, and its resultant restructuring, downsizing, dumping of all social responsibility, moving offshore in the endless pursuit of sources of cheap labour, driving the fall-back to a minimum wage capitalism in what have heretofore been the "advanced" capitalist countries, working men, women and their class organizations need themselves to revisit the lessons of their own class history and responses to earlier capitalism. But especially, we need to revisit that very early concept of radicalized workers and their infant class structures, at a time when trade unions were considered revolutionary and threatening by capital, that the working class needed to organize and discipline itself so that it could, in time and by dint of effort, take control of the means of production themselves. This idea which, only relatively later, got subverted, in search of what became a false shortcut, to state nationalizations doing it “in their name”. And the other myth, of course, was that of “reformist” Social Democracy, that by becoming a part of the capitalist political governing structures, while never really challenging capitalist ownership, could through mere ”formal” political reform efforts, could put a human face to capitalism and move it "slowly and carefully" towards becoming another "kind of" kinder and gentler state-socialist society. (Which did seem to work for a time, for particular reasons having to do with the nature of the post WW2, but only until rising Neo-conservative capitalism seriously began to again “re-assert” itself.)

Both of which concepts have now been demonstrated to be inadequate to the task, I think, fostering more illusions than lasting achievements, repeating, particularly with the emergence of current neo-conservative capitalism everywhere.

For, if you read really early class history, as well as dealing with the very real, day to day class inequities of early capitalism, there was always the dream that working folks themselves would rule over their own economic and political destinies. I think the time is again come full circle, because it was never really fully resolved by either Communism or Social Democracy, and is again in the process of becoming full ripe for a class revival of those dreams, only on a more realistic and practical foundation, with that experience under our belts, that does not presume the intervention of other kinds of elites that we ourselves created and allowed, such as political vanguards, political officials and Big Labour leaders. From here there needs to be the realization that only WE ourselves can really do it, not unlike Oprah, “preferably”, but if prevented by antiquated property and "management rights" laws, such as do exist, or other kinds of state and ruling class power, by whatever means prove necessary.

As anonymous says above, "We're humans. Our outcomes are shaped by our actions. If we dive for the bottom, the bottom is where we'll end up. If we want to continue to rise, we must direct our actions to that end."

Sorry. It was late, I'd had a busy day. I just forgot to put my name in the box. The bit under the comma at 10:49 yesterday was from me.

It is not by "mere chance' that Capitalism has emerged in the modern age as the dominant mode of production.

Even in Canada, there still exist economies that are essentially non-capitalistic. In the mid-'80's I directed a fairly significant project that documented the way of life & economy of a particular group of indigenous people, who - for their privacy sake, I will not mention their name explicitly.

Not surprisingly they had an 'economy too', - a land based economy based on renewable resources - and their traditional lands & resources were collectively 'owned' and 'governed' by oral tribal laws - whose origins were cultural and not modern law concepts. . There were no subsidies to the operation of that economy, there was no unequal accumulation of 'wealth', no exploitation of labor by bosses - everyone existed within an extended family as an economic/cultural sub-unit, labor was divided fairly equally between men and women - each doing different tasks, and while there was minimal 'financial capital' in their possession, the tribe was rich in 'social capital' and it treated its 'ecological capital' with care & incredible respect. The only ones with privilege were the 'elders' - especially ones who due to their knowledge had earned that respect.

Now contrast that with our capitalistic economy. The 'success' of modern day capitalism and the rise of huge corporations spawning several countries did not occur due to the 'hidden hand of the marketplace'. Everywhere we look the Capitalistic state, via laws, has passed many laws and regulations that unduly privilege the capitalistic mode of production. Look at Canadian corporate law - notice, that corporations have 'all the rights of a natural person' - well I say, they have more rights than a natural person. The state has granted corporations limited liability rights, and since they have all the rights of a natural person, corporations have Constitutional rights protecting their freedom of commercial expression, association --but notice that co-operatives and non-profit societies of citizens do not equally have these rights. Equitable - I think not. Notice as well, that it is the Modern Capitalist state that favors the granting of contracts, licences to corporations so that they may access oil, gas, timber, minerals, water, vast tracts of land, government contracts to build highways, airports, railways and other public infrastructure. This benefit is not conferred equally on non-corporations - in fact, co-operative firms and non-profit societies - which are more democratically constituted than corporations - are at a considerable disability in securing those privileges.

I bring to your attention, the matter of the Nelson, BC health co-operative' that sought a contract from the Interior Health Board to operate a 'care facility' in Nelson. The concept was well supported by the community, it would have essentially been a non-profit - did they succeed in securing that contract - no - rather a for profit corporation did.

Within BC, the state disproportionately favors the granting of contracts, licences, land, etc. to corporations ..and not to community owned and controlled co-operatives, trusts, non-profits - hence our provincial economy is predominantly capitalistic in nature. Then, there is the matter of enforcement - without the courts - paid for by Treasury - corporations would not be able to enforce their capitalistic contracts. Then there is the matter of tax law, why is it that corporations, possessing "all the rights of a natural person' receive tax breaks and outright grants & subsidies that neither you nor I, as genuinely alive 'natural persons' are entitled to - is that equitable? Consider that 'corporations' can raise capital - by selling 'shares' - for their private benefit - to then use to privilege their private shareholders --or that - they can access ' the stock exchanges' to secure capital in that fashion- all of these are privileges conferred upon corporations by laws passed by the Capitalistic state - privileges available only to corporations.

Then there is the matter of 'intellectual property law', matters involving patents, trademarks, copyrights most of which primarily benefit corporations and not the 'public interest' and not public common property and life-forms - witness the Supreme Court of Canada "Monsanto' decision.

Capitalism is not some 'freak occurance of nature', it is a system, now global in nature, that is hegemonic, precisely because citizens have allowed governments, often captured by Capital itself, to pass laws that disproportionately favor Capital and its reproduction as the dominant mode of economic activity on this planet. Until we get that fundamental point - indeed we may believe as Mr. Pollack does that "we are trapped within the bounds of a capitalist economy".

I think, that rather than fighting 'the privileges of Capitalism' and the severe 'erosion of Canada's sovereignty' on an issue by issue basis as they arise at the instance of Capital and/or the Canadian/US Capitalistic State- far better to consider the 'root cause' - namely

- that the disproportionate privilege of Capital arises due to legal benefits and power conferred upon it by Canadian political elities that are closely allied with, or indistinguisable from the interests of Capital - elitiesd who gain their autocratic power by Canada's colonial constitution (Charter excepted) which vests sovereign power in the Crown and her Ministers - and not the people of Canada.

The only remedy aside from non-violent 'skirmishes' with Capital and the elites that govern Canada - is the rise to power of a political party with one item on the agenda - namely, the promise that if elected - to create a Constitutional Constituent Assembly, members to be elected by proportional representation, with equally weighting to French, English and First Nations peoples, so that they may write a new constitution for Canada - a constitution that hopefully, -finally- takes power from the Crown- and vests sovereign power in the people of Canada, with such a constitution to be decided upon directly by the people of Canada in a referendum---and not by Legislatures run by elitists in the Premier's offices of the country.

Goddamn, Michael! Your contributions here are getting increasingly valuable. Good comments.

And here acknowledging Bailey's contribution to my own comments above with his, "The bit under the comma at 10:49 yesterday was from me."

Even tired, after a busy day, always above average observations from Bailey.

By the by, I generally agree with the observations of most folks here, about the piece by sdgreen, Simplistic, and with a class bias certainly different from mine, but nonetheless, one of the more articulate defenders of the right wing world view.

Which says something about the nature and analyses of such as myself, from the radical left, and the more intelligent extreme right. It often surprises me how much we see the same essential socio-economic phenomenon or evidence, but "from our different ideolgical class perspectives" draw diametrically oppossed conclusions. That being why, in my view, it is important to tolerate, as much and for as long as possible, ALL views here-, for it helps make clear how that reality arises and finds manifestation in practical politics and economic theory.

A good day, folks. I'm bound for my playground in the bush. Some days, nature is like a seductress, calling to me to her bed, to play. :-)

Don't ask me how I did that, but Michaels name wound up in place of mine above. Spring fever?

Peter, you continue to delight me. I have some "reservations" on one or two points, but am otherwise, and maybe even on these, in the course of being talked out, in overwhelming majority agreement-, especially in the spirit of your views. It is not often in one's life, in my experience to here, that one arrives at such a level of "commonality of views" with another person.

We must arrange, perhaps through an exhange of emails through David, to exchange email addresses.

Regards.

Now, as occurs from time to time with me, I am in a wee bit of a tippling mood-, and coming home from my ride, I purchased a lower end, working class priced "Famous Grouse". 'til the 'morrow.

I think Kim P has touched on a number of very valuable points in his article. However, in rebuttal to many of the above posts I would say government policy is not the only answer - in fact it is only a small part of the answer. We need to think beyond politics. We need a BC economic plan that brings together business, academia, investors, government, media, consumers, and organized labour around a set of common long-term objectives and goals. It should not be a political project, rather the leadership should emerge from the other sectors.

...cushy meeting it will be...to discover a "set of common long-term objectives and goals".

I can just see it in my mind's eye now:

the guys in the suits, with the big briefcases, and the computers, cell-phones and their 'blackberries'... from the big corporations wanting to pay even less tax, fewer labor and environmental laws, less social safety nets, all public infrastructure build by corporate P3's, lets dig for oil & gas off the coast - forget the indigenous they don't have many votes, lets dig for minerals in the parks., shut down a few more schools and hospitals, jack up tuition rates another 300 percent, sell off more public assets, ...and watch as inequality of power and wealth grow in this province, and corporate media distort it all.

KF ...you're a hel'va optimist....but I do agree...government policy is not the answer--for sure!

Dear KF; I have thought as you do for some time. Politicians, while accepting their lavish salaries, have been loudly declaring their utter incompetence to do the job they are taking on.

They can't keep the records, their contributors have to do that. They can't manage the money, even with a fine professional civil service to help. They can't organise inspectors to inspect industries for safety or compliance or anything really. How could they, after taking so much money from them. Foolish of us to expect it.

Government policy is supposed to be our best imterests.

Why do they run for a job that's morally and technically so far beyond their level of competence? When they find they can't do it after being elected, why don't they resign? It would be the honourable thing to do.

It is not honest to continue taking money for a job you have declared you can't or won't do.

"KF ...you're a hel'va optimist....but I do agree...government policy is not the answer--for sure!" says Cushy.

With which piece of writing I as well entirely agree. That is, where this kind of a gathering are brought together by and controlled by whom there is no mystery either-, the guiding hand of the Chamber of Commerce, and the subservient hands of everyone else. The pulpit will be occupied by the Jimmy Pattisons and Ministers of The Crown, and the obedient pews by the Big Labour suits, and the other rabble. Another round of preaching by the ruling class to their toadies.

It smacks too much of all those "business friendly" restraint progammes of which the state and business is so fond-, which, once all the bullshit is stripped away, reduce down to "restraint" borne by the working class alone, and tax breaks for the wealthy. Too fucking late for more of this hyperbole shit. The Chamber of Commerce view of the world is fast losing all credibility.

The suits are not the solution, but part of the problem.

WE are the solution. Which is another kind of problem.

wow man! that was far out!

Well, I may indeed be a bit of an optimist but as there are so few on this forum that is not a bad thing. I do not subscribe to the view that all business people are evil because I know several who are not. My point is that other countries can and have achieved a greater degree of social and economic consensus and there is no reason why we couldnt do that in BC. Most people in BC are agreed that a healthy, diversified and value-added economy is what we need to pay for the wages and social programs that we want. There is some disagreement on how to get there and there is a completely useless debate about who is to blame.
Politicians will always focus on areas of disagreement to distingiush themselves from their opposition - there is no political benefit to focusing on issues where there is agreement. However, it is exactly those areas of social consensus where there is the possibility to make progress. So the leadership needs to come from outside of the political arena. The politicians will join in as soon as they see a political opportunity to take some of the credit.

The only thing, KF, is that you are assuming political influence is somehow separate from the meeting of academia, investors, business, government, consumers, media, and organized labour. None of these positions are free of influence, political or otherwise. Nothing is ever as clean as that.

No Lynn, of course all those folks have a political agenda and probably most of them have connections to the political parties. I agree that none of those positions are free of political influence and any meeting has political undercurrents. What I am saying is that a diverse group of people who share a stake in building a stronger BC economy should start to work on some solutions. Maybe its not big headline grabbing stuff that solves everything... change doesnt happen that way. But aside from the big multinational corporations, I believe anyone who lives here can understand that regardless of our politics, we have some issues and interests in common and we should not let partisanship get in the way of useful dialogue.

I very much agree with Peter, this is a very unusual series of posts. No acrimony, just honest attempts to present our private sense of our collective predicament. Can we make a next step, to tangible action? This medium is useful only up to a point, should we designate a Magna Carta and meet in the streets or what? Help me out here, commrades in communication.

Hey Folks,

There are many sub-threads within this long thread on 'growing' the economy, with many fine posts. In fact, I have never seen such a fine dialogue, free of acrimony and ad hominium attacks for quite some time. I would be interested in meeting personally with those who while comprehending we currently live within a capitalistic economy - realize that TINA is not the only dance in town--and there is a large need to clarify an alternative vision...and possible pathways ahead. Anyone who knows me, comprehends my long-term interest in co-operatives as noted by writings posted at bcpolitics. ca ...Coyote's two step 'tango' for change seems sensible. Anways, for anyone wanting to contact me my law office tel number is (604) 684-4446 - where a message can be left.

" Most people in BC are agreed that a healthy, diversified and value-added economy is what we need to pay for the wages and social programs that we want." writes kf.

I should perhaps be more complete in my response here.

First, I think that largely, a meeting such as you describe between Big Capital and Big Labour is not likely to be fruitful at this time, by other that the working class being expected to make more downward moving concessions. Though I think at some time, as a counter response to any serious, let's call it New Magna Carta movement, should such actually arise, it will more than likely be tried by these parties. And it will doubtless raise hopes, and provide an opening gambit, which is okay too, because that helps create expectations that then have to be satisfied, but which these two parties, in my assessment, are not capable of delivering an "equitable" result on, because of the nature of their own economic and political interests, rooted in the status quo. Though Big Labour certainly has the more it needs to gain, and is the greater threatened at the current time. It is just that Big Capital is not yet in a seriously threated power position where it might feel it has to make concessions.

And that is the fundamental flaw in this scenario; there is no serious gain that needs to be made by Big Capital, "They Have The Power", other than "spin"/propaganda value, from this exercise. They are quite secure as it is, thank you very much.

At which point we arrive at Guy Laflam's comments.

Though there is certainly nothing wrong with beginning to raise these Magna Carta ideas, and attempting to discuss them with Big Capital and/or Official Labour, for it is going to have to be done at some point anyway, in my view, it is not very likely to be a fruitful exercise until there is a seriously "threatening" movement of large numbers of ordinary citizens-, workers, even small business, women's movements, environmental, poverty and broad community interests in motion, providing them with the threat level and the "incentive" to sit down, especially Big Capital, and begin the process of striking a new Social and Economic Contract, that at least "begins" the process of democratizing the economy and the distribution of power there.

So first, I see "the process" involving the articulation/ more detailed spelling out of this New Magna Carta concept, with its centrepiece being the creation especially of a new economic democracy, which could/should include, in all probability, some "grandfathering" protection for current capitalist ownership interests, and a call for changes to property, tax, subsidy and other law to more favour cooperative/democratic forms of economic ownership of enterprises, while increasingly circumscribing private capitalist ownership rights and enterprise, beyond a certain small business scale at least. Which then, of course, needs to be followed by the building of a popular movement of citizens and groups around it, fighting for its inclusion on the social, economic and political agenda, much like Peter D. has described. (And "street pressure", frankly, is the heavy armour with the greatest potential to give real heft, "threat meaning" and incentive to current economic wealth and power, to finally arrive at a real and equitable settlement with the citizenry.)

Politics like economics,in my view, is not really one of the Black Magic arts either, or anything particularly mysterious. Fundamentally it involves "competing power". He/she with the greater amount of it generally wins, with rare exception. And "people power" arises from their position as the primary producers within the economy, and consumers, the sheer potential force of their numbers, in conjunction with their militancy/willingness to act in defense of their own class interests, and that is magnified when they are prepared to put it in motion and muster it, strategically and tactically, for display on the streets. Then it suddenly becomes a real and tangible threat, when wielded intelligently and with resolve-, that cuts through media censorhip/indifference and can compell negotiations and agreements with more desirable outcomes.

It can lead even, as Peter suggests, to a kind of great Citizen's Constituent Assemply to change and legitimize the nature of economic and political democracy and power as well.

Will it occur, at what pace and in what precise form?

We will have to see how much support the idea secures over the coming period, if at all, and what demand there is to begin the project in earnest. (I don't immediately know myself, frankly, but it seems to me, some kind of a founding conference around the concept would be in order as a first step. But that must occur, I think, not frivolously or prematurely, but as the result of a real and significant demand.)

Sigh, dear Kim please take an economics course or two. There are four things needed for prosperity: 1) Property Rights 2) Scientific Rationalism 3) Capital Markets and 4) Efficient Transportation and Communication networks.

When it comes to goods and services most of us will flock to where we can get cheap stuff at cheap prices, hence the global success of Wal-Mart.

Where the rural regions of BC started taking it in the shorts was when government stopped investing in rural infrastructure. Thus under the NDP the people in the Peace River despite all the oil and natural gas revenues flowing to Victoria had to contend with badly deteriorated roads.

On the plus side, the NDP did finally upgrade the Vancouver Island Highway which was about 30 years overdue and that certainly helped the local economies of communities north of Victoria.

It's my dream to move to China and work in a factory making bobblehead dolls of Tim Louis, Jim Green, Carole James and the other anti-capitalists who would like to be running our show.

But only if the factory is unionized. You gotta get that done first.

"There are four things needed for prosperity:" Steve O.

Nowhere in this goofs formulaic right wing analysis is there even a mention of working class folks, either as workers or consumers. First you need hands and brains to do the work, and be able to afford to buy the product in sufficient quantity to maintain "demand-pull" on the process of production and distribution, asshole.

Without that, the rest of it is just another right wing goof's pipe-dream. (But then you presume "the slaves" will just be there, cheap like dirt, and have sufficient mass to take their pittance minimum wages into the marketplace, at least enough to keep the ruling class's interest humming and profitable.)

Human labour and consumption capacity is the goose that lays the golden egg for Capital, right wing dreamer, only you right wing nut jobs keep wanting to starve and kill it, until you've re-created the conditions that preceded the crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression.

You really do need to read more than the right wing equivalent of religious tracts, in order to get a better, less propagandistic understanding of economic theory.

The degree to which the NDP actually has a problem, it only arises out of its preference for trying to resolve the interests of capitalism to the those of the working class, without the ruling class's cooperation and the hostility of its "concencus creating" Big Media. Which is a very restricing environment in which to try and work. It much needs to return to looking outside that blinkered and confining environment, as its founders once sought to do.

Repeat asshole, "It is about people. People. Not things."