There is an article in this week's Common Ground about co-operatives and social change. If this election goes to the Libs, are we going to keep passively bitching away on the Tyee? I'm already pretty much boycotting shopping period as I'm still slowly recovering from losing my job last fall (though I am employed once again). I left the Common Ground with one of my friends but there is a link to the co-op association in BC. Corporations aren't going away anytime soon; every little thing we do has to help.

Society is in quick decline due to corporate attitude of today. Dog eat Dog. Public education is now being contracted out to private corp in the US and will soon come to BC. I believe this will be a priority for Gordo and Co. These corporate hacks can't see past the next quarter, let alone a generation. I urge all Gordo and Co. voters to exercise their imagination and try and see how bad things can get for our working families of BC. Take off your blinders before you vote!

Democracy has been hi-jacked by the corporations, and we can't expect people to remain civil in this climate.

I just watched the most distrubing piece of film on the subject of corp.I advise all people of canada to take a hard look at the show(the corporation)and then you can see where we are goin in the future.believe me it is not some where make believe it is real,people my generation was born in to bondage and by the way thanks for telling us

The federal NDP should be using Murray Dobbin's articles to formulate their plans for the next election. If they can get the focus on how our country is being slowly frittered away, this could lead to their nation-wide break-through as the only pro-Canada party.

It won't matter so much the private news corporations will try to ignore them, the internet will get the message out.

I wish I wasn't so damnably busy right now, with more time to respond at length the this piece. There seems to be a conspiracy to keep me overly occupied whenever Murray Dobbin does an installment.

Nonetheless, good stuff Murray. Keep it coming. Maybe one time I can connect with it. Of all the official writers for Tyee, in my opinion, your stuff has the most heft, and striking to the core capacity.

Murray, thank you again for alerting citizens to the CCCE/BCNI, and the power of the top 150 corporate executives in Canada.

I agree with your statement that " When the CCCE/BCNI dictates to Paul Martin about the direction of the country, it is speaking on behalf of an ethically corrupted and perverse institution: the modern, global corporation. Governments -- and by implication, citizens -- crafted the laws that made them so. It’s time we changed them."

....yes, it is time we changed them'. But how?

In my view, to answer the question of 'how' - we must clearly understand 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 - elites who gain their autocratic power by Canada's colonial constitution (Charter excepted) which vests sovereign power in the Crown and her Ministers.

..so I assert that the laws that favor 'corporations', capitalism, and capitalistic reproduction, and the capture of the Crown by Capital itself...have occured due to deep structural dysfunctionality in the political institutions of this country, and, those political institutions are dysfunctional not just because of corrupt politicians, civil servants and parties, but because the Canadian Constitution itself, affords insufficient legal guarantees to citizens to prevent the corruption, and excesses we witness now.

Corporations and capitalism are inordinately privileged in Canada ..because politicians and political parties under the current constitutional framework that created this low-level democracy -are not accountable, not transparent, enjoy excessive concentration of political and fiscal power, with minimal checks and balances - and the judiciary primarily favors the corporate/capitalistic hegemony.

As I see it...all law, including corporate law, derives from the Constitution...it is the supreme rule-making law...it is more powerful then the common law. So if citizens want to change corporate law, and the multitude of laws that privilege Capital...then the only remedy - 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.

Only in this manner can we end the assault of corporations on democracy and actually empower and extend citizens democratic rights.

As an aside, the Sponsorship scandal, is not just a scandal touching upon the Liberal Party. It is a scandal that has arisen due to the inordinate power vested in the Prime Minister's office - an office with minimal transparency, minimal accountability, and minimal checks and balances. ...all resulting from a poorly drafted constitution that affords citizens less rights than the PMO and its bureaucrats.

I forgot to say...that in this 'Canadian democracy' it is not mere chance that there is a paucity of law that extends democracy into the economic sphere of human endeavor....in fact, there exists a conspiracy against economic democracy. At the very least Equality demands that the State equally favour co-operative enterprise and capitalistic enterprise, equally favor capitalistic and non-capitalistic modes of production--but this is not so. Indeed modern day Capitalism exists only as a conspiracy - a conspiracy aided and abetted by the State and the privileged oligarchy that have captured it.

jester, I am Spartacus, sorry, couldn't resist.

Hate to be a negative nellie, but let's face it, we're done like dinner. The only chance this country has is to have a progressive in the PM's chair and running the Bank of Canada and to be honest I haven't believed that will happen since Mel Hurtig and the National Party folded their tent.

Even manning barricades has no appeal because the US army would wipe us out faster than you can say "but this is Canada".

So much as I'm with all you Tyee guys I think the only chance we have politically now is if the Gomery Commission consigns the Liberals to the scrap heap of history for a decade or two allowing for the possibility of the NDP and our separatist but ideological allies in the Bloc forming a government. Or maybe the Gomery Commish will taint the Bloc too. Still, probably not gonna happen the way I'd like. Instead we'll get Harper or someone singing a duet with Bush and we can all look for oil, gas and water pipeline jobs to pay for those thousand dollar visits to the doctor for the young'uns.

jack layton is a flake that found himself a fulltime job,,,
city council ,,no way.resume,,,

find someone that can lead,,

And what real job has Stephen Harper ever had?

I'd like to comment on Peter Dimitrov's piece.

It shouldn't be impossible to counter the trend of corporations toward secrecy. In fact what we've been seeing is not reduced Democracy, but split Democracy. Corporations, for all their faults, are also democratic. At least the public ones. To get the right to vote, and attend meetings, and get access to information there you only need to buy a share or two.

Your problem would have two main parts. First, to counteract the boring uncle effect inherent in all politics, including the kind we practice here. If you want to wake people up, you have to get their attention and interest. Something to do that would be fun and effective. Start an investment party, where your membership fee goes into buying shares in whatever you think is most critical, sending delegates to meetings, writing articles to inform people in interesting ways, press releases, publicity things, like Michael Moore does. People can't sleep while they're laughing.

Second, legal reform. Lobby to reinstate transparancy laws, disclosure laws, checks and balances. CEOs and politicians should have to declare all their banking info before and after each election.

That ought to fix it up. Somewhat. Make a start, anyway.

I mean, you don't really need a new Constitution. You just need to strengthen the one we've got. Start using it. Apply it to everyone.

I disagree much with Bailey here, which hopefully, we will have a chance to get into again sometime. Whilst some of his ideas certainly justify further critical examination, I think he is more than a bit too naive, about the prevailing levels of democracy within current corporate capitalism and the possibilities of democratization going out.

(Besides, the object is not to enhance democracy just for "have" Investment Clubs, but for all, including the large bloc "have not" class strata of society. This level of "minority shareholder" participation in corporate capitalism has been around already for a very long time and not changed significant outcomes in either national or class issues. It is more a way of sucking cash out of a broader swath of society than simply the corporate elites themselves-, without significantly changing any power relationships. Frankly, it is a Yuppie or Professional Class Strata solution.)

But anyway, another issue, another time for me-, being too busy right now. Besides, hopefully, Peter will deal with that anyway.

But to Peter and Murray Dobbins, and others of like mind here, I think we do have to watch how this current period evolves, and the BC election aftermath, regardless of who secures the formal victory-, for an opportunity for us of like mindagain, to get together for an, at this stage, not too formal exploratory conference/conflab. (Certainly the big names :-), all being relative, around Tyee, and in the background of it, are not fooled by such things as the pseudonyms many of us use :-)-, so if in order to initiate that process we have to flush our cover :-), so to speak, I am certainly prepared to do that-, when it is useful to do so.)

Sooner or later, matters around these issues of the "people's" national interest and the US Empire, the further evolution of democracy and the future direction of national/provincial economic development is going to have to move beyond the pages of Tyee, if the intent is to bear some real fruit.

Peter, Murray, myself and others here of like mind, certainly need to be keeping our eyes open to the evolution of an appropriate moment for a more serious and private chin wag amongst ourselves on these matters. I am free to travel anywhere, anytime just about.

Further on the topic of taming corporate power - a previous Tyee post from the CBC read:

"Liberals flush with cash"
Last Updated Apr 6 2005 11:43 AM PDT, CBC News
VICTORIA – The B.C. Liberals are heading into the election with more than three times as much money as the NDP, according to figures released by Elections B.C. The Liberals finished last year with a surplus of $3.2 million, while the NDP had less than $900,000 in the bank. Forest giants Canfor and Interfor and the mining multinational Teck Cominco lead the list of Liberal donors for last year. Canfor donated about $90,000, and Interfor more than $70,000. Two Teck Cominco companies contributed a total of more $87,000. Corporations and businesses accounted for nearly $6 million of the $8.2 million the Liberals raised last year.

Indeed we have the best democracy that money can buy...corporations contributed $8.2 million to the BC Liberals in the last year. That there exists no law that strikes down the legality of those donations and prevents the BC Liberals from spending that money in an election campaign is f**king unbelievable. Can not an argument be made that the various provisions of Elections BC that allow for corporate and union donations to political parties are in violation of citizen's democratic rights implicit or explicit in the Constitution of Canada? Surely, beyond voting,
citizens have a bundle of enforceable democratic rights to ensure the integrity of the democratic process ...despite Elections BC's ruling that corporate & union donations are acceptable. To my mind, given this outrageous conduct by the corporate sector, and their undue influence that comes with being the major contributer of funds to the BC Liberals ...surely one of the primary issues of the provincial election ought to be the status of our low-level democracy itself...and the role of corporations versus citizens in a democracy. The silence on this issue is deafening!

You can't lobby them if you can't talk to them. You can't talk to them if you can't go to their meetings. You can't go to their meetings unless you're a shareholder.

I'm not talking about investment clubs. I'm talking about becoming politically active in an effective way by accessing the corporation through the front door.

If a shareholder motion to ban political donations were passed by shareholders at a general meeting, it would then be fraud for officers to do it.

Most corporations consider ownership of ten or twenty percent of the shares to be effective control. The rest are usually held by unorganised small shareholders, pension funds and mutual fund managers.

You see no potential there to influence this institution you wish to influence?

Your tool would be Robert's rules of Order. Most all corporations run their meetings that way. Lots of power there. Lots of ways to accomplish change, if you're good enough.

rulesonline.com

Excellent article by Murray Dobbin. It is interesting to note that under the Mulroney government the BCNI, (now The Canadian Council of Chief Executives) drafted the Competition Act (which Dobbin refers to above), one of the results of which was that Canada became "virtually alone in the industrialized world in having no legislation to prevent the concentration of newspaper ownership or cross media concentration."

In a word, no.

Nor is this a new proposal of yours, indeed it is as old as capitalism. I recall, for example, when young and upwardly mobile NDPers argured this same position with me, going back a long ways, certainly to the late 50s, early '60s. It was the, "Let's get on the inside of the system, and reform it from within." ideology, thrown up to counter counter then Marxist ideology, which has produced the current status quo fig leaf system, and the position ordinary folks are in now with neocon capitalism.

It never worked because the net result was, which we "radicals", beyond the pale at the time, predicted , would lead to the CCF/NDPs and the trade union movement's co-optation into the system. Which is precisely where we are at now, and characterizes the fundamental problem we have with both the NDP and the NDP led trade union movement; the NDP has become a kind of "liberal", quasi neocon-lite political institution, indistinguishable from all the others within "limited democracy" capitalism, and the trade union movement an integral part of capitalism's management of labour regime. Your proposal would only put the final corporatist brand upon the lily white asses of both these formerly working class institutions, and deliver them up, plucked, trussed and ready for the spit to "Triumphant" corporate capitalism.

"Getting in on capitalism" never worked in the past, when the system was terrified of communism and a "relatively" militant working class, and will even less so now with a "tame" working-class, and pussycat "Me Too!" social democracy and labour. (Now even, as we speak, Georgetti of the CLC has "labour" behaving like corporate "lobbyists" themselves, hosting influence peddling, hoist a glass and have an hors de oeuvre sessions in Ottawa with the politicos and CEOs. It is debatable, and a lottery we might hold, as to who is being the greater influenced by this methodology. My bet is, any "perceived" influence will only last so long as the "minority government" -, and that is probably being overly optimistic. Meanwhile, street level class organizations are starving for want of cash and organizational assistance.)

It is past time to look outside the corporate capitalism box altogether, for a democratic working class solution. Which doesn't mean that there isn't any "workable" compromise that can be made with capitalism at some point in time, but to the degree that there is, only from a position of power.

And that "position of power" is the endpoint we have to be aimed and working for-, not the current bootlick position which Bailiey and the CLC proposes, that is the result of "the system's" current position of power, and our abject vulnerability.

IMHO, this history tells us in the starkest terms, that the solution to current neocon capitalism's inadequacy lies outside the box, and of our own making, not within it, where they hold all the legal and other trump cards.

It's time to organize and move on.

Excellent article Mr. Dobbin. Just wanted to add one point about the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, that about 30 percent of the 150 member corporations are American. So, long before this swift, fast, virtually silent Security and Prosperity "partnership" agreement, the U.S. already had it's hand up the back of Canada, directing it's latest puppet.

The virtually bankrupt United States of America will prey upon us to provide the resources they've squandered with their outrageous standard of living. Our oil and electricity are now promised to them, regardless of whether Canadians are freezing in the dark. Our water will go next.

Also I imagine the BC Liberals virtual sale of BC Rail to a private company (an American one at that) was done in concert with the Bush administration to help ease their plans to drill in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Now they're getting bolder, telling Canada that it will have to use passports or "other secure documents" for its citizens. Mind you, although they've passed that law, they haven't figured out what the "secure documents" will be. Watch out for that one. I believe they very much want to have outright access to our personal information. Why? Well, information is power, and enables control.

Next, I believe we'll have a push for computerized voting -- watch and see if I'm not right about that. They'll dismantle the current Canadian system of managing elections which has us cast votes, with a paper trail, and counting by humans, who are watched by other humans representing all major parties. As someone who has experience working in elections as a scrutineer and in other capacities, I know this system works very well -- we have no scandals like they do in U.S. elections. But I think there will be a "push" for us to change the way we tally election results in Canada.

Think about it. Much of the U.S. has computerized voting, lots of those systems have NO paper record, and "counting" is done by computer. The two companies that have the contracts to provide computer voting systems in the U.S. are very closely tied to the Bush administration. The software they use to count votes is private, not known to anyone but the two companies who own them (no accountability whatsoever!). They've managed to keep the lid on that scandal, largely by having the mainstream media onside, but even if there were no abuses, their system is wide-open to systemic abuse and manipulation. I won't be surprised if I hear "suggestions" in the next year or two about us "modernizing" our election system. Be very afraid if that happens. Then, they won't have to worry about getting voted out of office.

But, what I'm most afraid of is that the U.S. wants more than our natural resources to support their extravagant lifestyles. They have a growing need for more military personnel, and they can't and don't want to have to use their own citizens. More and more U.S. citizens are balking at enlisting in the military, and it would be very easy for the U.S. to cast their eyes towards their new Security and Properity "partners," Canada and Mexico to provide the cannon fodder to help ensure their lust for world domination.

Mr. Dobbin, you are right about corporations, but I'd go one step further. I don't think we have "countries" as we know them anymore. I think the world is run by corporations, that like those sci-fi thrillers, (Alien?), the evil being has entered into the body so that it looks from the outside as if various governments are running countries on behalf of their citizens, for the benefit of their citizens when, in fact, the corporations have killed off our governments and taken over. The corporate elite are using us and our countries for their own power and reward.

The only thing that keeps me grounded to sanity is that despite the vigour with which the corporate elite are pursuing their aims, they can't control everything. Something unplanned always occurs to shift the momentum of movements in other directions. It's the old "unintended consequences" thing that will derail this madness. Who knows what will happen, but I think the only way to derail it is for thinking people to start speaking out more. There is a deadly fight on now for people to toe (tow?) the line, to get with the program.

A good example is all this hysteria about the pope -- fueled by the media's non-stop coverage. [If you have Thursday's Globe and Mail, read Russell Smith's column in the entertainment section. He's bang on.] CBC Radio has practically become Radio Vatican this past week. Sure many Catholics are sad, but it's like this guy is greater than Jesus Christ now. This is despite how he protected (and rewarded) American priests who raped children, refused to support South American priests who promoted human rights with their lives, and helped bring about the horrific situation in Aids in Africa where there are now villages of orphaned children whose parents died in large part because condoms were forbidden by this "saint." Oh yah, this is a saint...

The media coverage orgy is just fueling mindless adoration. It's a PR event for the Catholic Church, that's all. Did you know the Vatican owns the broadcast rights to the broadcast of his funeral. Wonder how many millions they got from the networks for the broadcast? Wonder how many homeless North Americans or African orphans could have been helped with that money.

The people of western societies are "event" junkies now, and they get their fixes from their media pimps. I believe it's a key way that the corporate elite keep us distracted from what they're up to. I've derailed into a major rant now. Apologies. Gotta get focused. Time to do some housework. Let's all keep talking, and thinking, and watching. It may lead us to doing... whatever it takes.

When people play the game of capitalism, even social reformers labouring under the illusion of exerting some kind of positive influence upon it, all they really achieve is ?

To reinforce capitalist relationships of exploitation. (Even assuming the reformer's best intentions and that they are not themselves corrupted by it-, as the historical record suggests they, in fact, are.)

I just whupped the old lady's ass in cribbage, two straight, and that was after a day long ride and a flat tire. She's really seriously ticked. :-) Time for bed, for this old man.

Good piece, Sunny Samson.

Which doesn't mean that I think, for example, that workers whose enterprises are threatened with bankruptcy or movement offshore, ahouldn't take over and run their own enterprises as "businesses" otherwise operating in a "capitalist sea". I think they should, indeed. As is currently occurring in South America, with varying degrees of success against the intrigues of the organized business class and its capitalist state.

Nor does it mean that I think the trade union movement, as part of contract negotiations and that deal making , should not be tabling and fighting for proposals that strengthen the ownership and "equitable" management and board of directors participation of workers themselves-, assuming the creation of fully democratic enterprises that is not in fact another "top down" led creation by ownership and the trade union bureaucracy per se.

I think ordinary folks need to begin to wrest control of the economy from capital by whatever means are possible, will actually work and be democratic. (And mistakes will be made, and official corruption rear its ugly head in particular circumstances. But then, these risks always exist-, requiring the vigilance of working people to a greater degree than exists currently.)

That's my view, which presumes others inputs, always, and yours no less, Bailey.

Whatever strengthens the hand of working class folks and assists the process of our liberation and movement towards outside the box.

I understand your reasoning, but I'm unclear about the mechanism you're proposing. Many have been tried in recent(ish) history. Most are better as object lessons than practical schemes. If you're sure you'd find no support among the huge majority of ordinary folks who own corporations.

Democracy is supposed to be about the freedom of masses of people to follow their own chosen path. I've been watching these 'pedestrian interviews' on all channels. They may be selected, but I'm astounded at the number of people willing to say on camera that they don't mind being robbed because they expected to be robbed. Politicians are crooks, after all, aren't they? So goes their thinking, apparently.

So, the only input I can offer is a question:

How strong is the obligation of a minority view to allow the majority view to travel the whole distance to Hell in whatever particular handbasket they find most comfortable?

Let me make my point about the front door a bit more fully.

The Democracy practiced in corporations is a very early form. Seventeenth century, from when only landowners could vote. The Age of Enlightenment. In civil society democracy has evolved. Women were recognised and took the right to vote. Slaves were freed and took the right to vote. Checks and balances were put in place, with varying success.

Corporations have evaded most of that evolution, because they're private, but not all. They all are still members of their society.

In civil society the evolution was driven from within. The people demanded change, change happened. Suppose somebody were to buy 1000 shares of Phillips or some other Maquiador in the names of a thousand Maquiadoras, then brought those women to a Phillips AGM with leave to speak. They could tell their stories publically. They could make a motion from the floor. Very public things, AGMs

These rich nincompoops think they have insulated themselves from the tumult of modern revolutionary advances. They haven't. It's an illusion. They are as vulnerable as governments are to inside influence. They pine for a return to slavery and elitism. They can only have it if nobody opposes them.

There are examples enough around. Why not, do you think?

I will concede, indeed already have to you, that I am deeply suspect of all attempts to play capitalism with the ruling class. The successes at it have not a good track record-, more typical is, as I say, co-optation into a system which they continue to control-, the net result of all changes that have occurred within capitalism, down to the present.

That said, I would in the final analysis, actually support "whatever" that actually begins a process of circumscribing ruling class power, and advancing popular control and management of the means of production and distribution. So, before I would certainly reject any proposal you might make, out of hand, I would want to study the devil in the details-, my sense being that you are an honourable man.

I suppose if I were going to propose any kind of action, it would start with an analysis of why the labour movement stalled so badly. Maybe it's a form of the co-option malady you describe, Coyote. Maybe they just never recovered from their embarrassment over the Teamster disease of the sixties and seventies. Hoffa and the Mafia screwing with the pension plans and the bidding process and so forth. Wherever money is, crooks will sometimes get in. It's kind of inevitable. You just have to keep the justice system honest enough to prosecute them when they do. It's not fatal unless it's immune.

Most unions were unaffected by this, were pretty honest and honourable, but they just stopped. Never took the next step, which would have been to buy into the companies they worked for, taken seats at boardroom tables, affected change from a position of shared power. Certainly, some would probably have been bought off, co-opted, shamed. But the nature of the corporation would have been changed by the public input resulting from a merger with the workers. And the public communications to the workers, and through them to the larger society.

Couple that with a possible expansion of unions role in society; organizing the homeless, those who work in the home, children, pensioners, the disabled, foreign workers, and other non-traditional groups whose voices are marginalized by lack of organization. Just because they can't pay dues doesn't mean they don't need to be organized, heard.

That way we could create a unification of the forces in society that now are fragmented and adversarial. We need business, the talents of businessmen. We need labour, the skills of workers. We need money to circulate through society in a wider way than now, so all can be nourished and the whole society prosper.

Not just the narrow minded nincompoops who will say with a straight face 'There's no such thing as society'.

Interesting discussion by all. I feel a little like Sunny Samson lately, a little down and dispirited, wishing that those "unintended consequences", the "unplanned" would hurry and jump out from the wings of the stage, to change the course of things. Then when a friend of mine, who could easily be the president of the pessimist's club, said to me the other day, "Don't give up, darlin'", I knew I was in real trouble. The best advice came from my mother who said the only route is "to just keep on going." (My mom's own kind of very practical and wise zen buddhism.) Despite these dark cloudy corporate days Sunny Samson is bang on when he says the only way to derail it is to speak out more. "They're" counting on us to behave, after all.

Coyote is raising a really interesting issue about power... that it often has its own agenda. On a thread here, quite a long time ago now, a commentor, "Ragamuffing" presented a really interesting scientific study she was involved in about "power and dominance" and its effect on brain function. That we could be hard-wired for dominance, and the more we accessed it, the more brutish and violent we become... that the accessing of power and dominance in effect, changed us physiologically. (A good reason to keep our comments to these articles as now I'm winging it in my very unscientific way and probably screwing up her theory...that power "over" others changes us in both physical and behavioral ways so that we are able to do things, as in Abu Ghraib, to the point that we no longer recognize ourselves.

So this is where I think Coyote is on to something and is making an excellent argument. We cannot invade old corrupt systems and not expect to emerge uncontaminated ourselves. We must create something new, which is no doubt more difficult but less risky to our souls and to our success in the long run. And I agree, Bailey is certainly an honourable man. On another thread we were on, and after a threatening remark was pointedly targeted our way from a member of the troops trying to silence us, Bailey lobbed back: "Gag yourself, sir"...and earned my utter respect... I loved the "sir"...still makes me smile...

A short point about that contamination point of Coyote's. It's true enough and all, but your feelings about it as a process is coloured by the word you use to describe it. "contamination" has a very negative connotation.

Call it influence, and you feel differently about it. We influence them, they influence us. Not so scary. Or even better, teach and learn. We have a lot to teach them, we have a lot to learn from them. Vice versa.

Knowing each other better has never contaminated anyone, unless they gave you a cold. Or talked you into robbing a bank. We really need each other.

Onre of the issues of many when corporations push governmemnt agendas are ones where services such as Sopcial Services are asked to cut funding and services without any real plan except those done by bureaucrats who are intimidated and also ambitious.For example MCFD is pushing for a further 5% cut in budget though places like Vancouver have met the already draconian task of chopping services.This is because there is a mindset of cutting for the sake of cutting so as to brag about the bottom line.this has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or visionary planning but much to do with corporate culture. Why are there more cuts to a service that many of us believe in and think is worthwhile.Of course this is done in secrecy because there is an election and the mandarins are too scared to speak out though they know it is immoral and unbelievable. Why and the only answer I have is by reading thwe corporate Fraser Institute vision on social policy, which is that government should not be funding social services. Four more years of this and we will be dealing with a differewnt society where we do not look after our children and the corporations will always have then best of an uneven playing field to make more money at our expense. Now I appreciate that a;l corporations may not want this scenario, but like Speers ask no questions and worry abouut their own bottom line.So remeber folks, more cuts even though they arte bragging about a budget surplus.

I will proof read next time for typos and grammar, my apologies.

First of all Bailey, I have long concluded that life is pretty much lived, most effectively, in the grey areas between morality and immorality. Though there certainly is good and evil, mostly there is the shadowland wherein most events occur, that is between the two.

Though I don't think I actually ever used the word, "contamination" which you ascribe to me, I will concede a little surprise that a lot of what you think we are discussing here is mostly an issue of semantics, and choices we make about what words to use. That is the propagndist's argument, the rationale of "the enabler". It doesn't really sound like the highly, I hesitate to say, morally preoccupied and principled Bailey that I am familiar with.

But be that as it may, I understand very much that the world of the future is going to require all the same, more or less, kinds of persons and skill sets, perhaps and then some, as inhabit civil society today. We are going to need folks skilled in business and management, no less than mechanics, truck drivers, secretaries,doctors, waitresses and cooks-, all indispensible to the effective functioning of a modern economy, no doubt. The problem exists in society however because those who have by foul more often, or certainly as much as "morally fair" means, in the grey area abutting up against the black, amassed great capital pools and set themselves up as the priviledged rulers of society, with special rights of control over the distribution of wealth, and the setting of economic and other societal priorities-, though they most typically use hired "front men" they can control for the day to day "management of lesser valued labour/ wage slaves" and the other necessary "affairs of state" .

More, they have come over the millenia of different forms of class society, to think that is the natural order of things in the relationship between themselves and the rest of us, and it has indeed been, like the parallel relatively priviledged role of males vis a vis females in the relationship of the genders, only even more extreme in terms of materiality and power distribution.

Which is the long way around to say, that I think, history deciding if I am full of shit, that current Neocon Capitalism is again resurrecting an old class conflict that has likewise gone on in society across those same millenia of class society history, at this moment open and in flames, there suppressed or temporarily mollified beneath the appearance of things. The question being, of course, have the non-ruling working classes yet arrived at a level of understanding, and are they yet capable of achieving a degree of organization and will, that will allow them to rise above that long history of class and gender inequality?

I make the presumption at least, in order to avoid an overly long treatise here, as I hope I would have at the time of the 1870 Paris Commune or even the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, that indeed, we are approaching a new historical moment where it may be possible to transform society, and resolve the class/gender inequity issue, once and for all. Certainly we are heading into a new social and historical period, in my read of the evidence.

It is clear to me however, that while I would hope that a "deal" can be cut with the old capitalist ruling class at some point, that would preserve society's access to their business acumen and knowledge, at least until it is more widely dispersed through education across society, and I understand that there are more and less "liberal" elements, even within the ruling class, as there were even within the old feudal aristocracy, it is not there that we must put our primary hopes on, but ourselves, as ordinary citizens. (Though no one, not even the current ruling class, is indispensible. There is a great deal of expertise about the economy, for example, embodied within the trade union movement and the other institutions of society, academic and managerial. Mostly they use us to run their affairs for them anyway. They focus on the rules the rest of us must abide by.)

The primary implication of that is, first the need to recognize, that in order to overcome "the power" of resistance to deep societal change on the part of the system's ruling class, it is necessary to pull together a counteracting greater power of our own; that of the remainder of us in society. Once that is secured, even as it is being secured, then we can begin to talk the "terms of surrender" :-), mayhaps even, if they are nice and do not bring down embittering violence upon us, we can talk about some new social contract and terms of future co-operation-, as the capitalist class itself did previously at the end of the period of its revolutionary wars with the old landed aristocracy of Old Europe.

Pretentious shit coming from an old former street urchin here, I know :-), but otherwise it is impossible to get at the weighty issues you raise, my friend.

Now, I have some baking to get to, and a curry stew to get started in the slow cooker. :-)

Amen, to your mother. She is doubtless where you get a lot of your own wisdom from, good woman. :-)

I think we all probably have Sunny Samson days, not? :-) I do.

Pretentious nothing. Your points are always well thought out and pertinent. It's why you always generate so much interesting discussion here.

Everything is always complex, there are underlying points of view here. In the whole body of our discussion. You've always been pretty clear about yours, I seem to be always dancing around mine. Let me see if I can get at it.

I think we've already had our revolutions. We've done that. American, French, Russian, Chinese. Plus a flurry of smaller ones. It's done, for better or worse.

We took Rousseau, Jefferson and Paine, The finest thinkers and honorable men and transformed ourselves with their thoughts and principles. I don't think we get two.

We're left with whatever those magnificent thinkers left us with, which are tools for growth, tools for repair, ways to remake ourselves and correct screwups. Of course we've concentrated power, and neurotic twits will use that to enrich themselves. Then, being rich, everybody sucks up and gives them anything they want and generally yesses them until they think they're just hot stuff. But they're not really. They're just limited thinkers with a talent and a mental quirk that denies them the ability to see things in any other terms than their own. They can't see past their own bank accounts.

They're nincompoops. Like those crooks who messed up the labour movement. Incapable of seeing themselves in the canvas of history. I don't see any Rousseaus or Jeffersons among them.

So deal with it. There have been lots of economic systems tried for Democracy, in many ways. They were successes, failures, some were just plain bank robberies. I think that's most likely what we're enduring now. These guys don't seem to see that they're disqualifying themselves as a workable economic system by their very abuses. The very thing that's making them all rich will surely bring them down.

We should hope for a Jefferson or two to help us rebuild. We should shout out truths with honour and good will. We should try the tools we've been given to fix the problems we're facing.

If we lower ourselves to the level of our opponents, we become what we most dislike. Then what good are we to history or the future or even ourselves?

PS. Coyote You're corrected. I looked back to check. You said "corrupted", not "contaminated".

Apologies.

No, not corrected, correct; you're correct. Apologies again for the typo. Makes a difference.

Which is the point upon which we fundamentally differ. You think we have come to the end of social evolution, except in some of the minor details. I don't think we have come to the end of evolution in any sense, or I would certainly not presume it, either in the physical world, or that of human society.

More, I would think, to conclude as you have is extremely unscientific to begin with, and is more a faith based conclusion for which there is zero to scant evidence. I think we have to assume, if we assume anything, that nature is not yet, until the end of time and space presumably, finished evolving, nor any of its aspects, including humans and their social forms.

Certainly I hope bloody not. Though it will clearly take some history yet, probably beyond our individual lifetimes at least, to secure the definitive proof of either of our hypotheses. :-) (Unless you are much younger than I suspect. At least your viewpoint is too mature.)

And nonetheless, you are an interesting fellow to discuss with, and at least I, along with Lynn, remain convinced that you are still an honourable man. :-) Which is more important right now, in any case.

I'm the culprit who used "contaminated" but I think I'll stick with it all the same. The reason I used it was because I think we should be careful as to how we proceed, that we may not emerge from entering these corrupt systems quite as we planned.

Bailey, I'm not sure it's so much about lowering yourself to your opponent's level as it is about letting your opponent know that the weapons they choose will be returned in kind...perhaps not the same kind of weapon but with the same force... that we will defend ourselves. It's amazing how the true cowardice of the schoolyard bully is revealed when his usual victim turns up unexpectedly empowered by karate lessons. All of a sudden it's negotiation time...when the fight becomes fair and the playing field truly level. They count on us to obligingly cower as they advance, on the predictability of our self-defeating niceness that allows them yet another easy victory.

And that is the essence of it.

Only the coward, the fool or the overwhelmed do not defend themselves. And I am not necessarily talking about violence here, but simple defence of one's interests and physical self. Otherwise we truly are at the end of all evolution of society, if we are to depend on either their good intentions or their mercy.

Better we should depend on ourselves, is all I am saying.

Lynn

This thought has just become my personal inspiration to get off my ass and oppose this terrifying slide into corporate/military tyranny. I'm indebted to you Lynn. You've made my day.

The provincial election is right around the corner, a federal one may be too, the opportunity to change how we elect our provincial government is also tantilizingly at hand... I don't have millions like Campbell's circle of pals, I don't make $200,000 a year like Justice Wally Oppal who just threw his credibility into the ring by agreeing to take direction from a man who's been charged and convicted of drunk driving.

But hey, I can/will speak up, I can/will volunteer my time to help elect the NDs (while I'd like to support the Greens for their environmental protection stance, I just can't bear to see any vote splitting resulting in even one more Liberal MLA).

By the way, I just heard that CBC TV will be broadcasting a 3-part show on Leo Strauss, the mastermind behind the Neocon revolution, the guy who inspires and informs the Bush administistration. His followers have infiltrated many Canadian universities, and are the backbone of the Conservative (Alliance/Reform party), and yes, BC's Liberals. Those of you who've never heard of him will be in for a real eye opener, even those who've heard about him, this will really put recent events in perspective. It's scheduled to be broadcast on CBC (Newsworld?) over three nights, April 24, 25 and 26.

Hey, and thanks again Lynn for my new motto ""They're" counting on us to behave."

I very much agree, Coyote. I would also like to add just a few sentences about the much promoted and often misleading quality of niceness...niceness is not goodness.

Being nice can be genuine, but sometimes it is simply social etiquette, politically correct behavior. Nothing wrong with being nice or polite but sometimes it hides a whole other agenda, yes, even self-interest or vanity so one is perceived in a certain way. Most politicians are nice, especially during elections, as we can observe in BC right now. Much effusive niceness and pretending going on. And we on the left (little lambs that we are:-) we too, are too self-righteously attached to being nice.

Now a good-hearted man or a good-hearted woman... now that's a very different and very precious thing.

Thanks Sunny Samson. You've made my day, too.

In a column in the NY Times by Maureen Dowd, she quaotes a researcher who says the y chromosone is hanging on by a thread and eventually there may not be men :)

I think that would be a pretty important bit of evolution and would spell the end of the BC Libs :)

On the subject of revolutions, they all spring from weakness. They happen in countries where the state has had a rough go of it. The 1917 revolution succeeded where earlier ones failed because of the defeats inflicted on the Russians in WW1. The foundations of the state have to be weakened before the state will fall.

Right now there are a lot of very powerful countries, I wouldn't look to a revolution being in any one of 'em until after a major war. China and India included.

With which I largely agree actually. Certainly that is the historical record to here.

Though also, for the US Empire, much depends upon how the Iraq war evolves as well-, and out of that, the entire Middle East Region, which is increasingly breaking into flame as well. Does the US wind up with a large part of its army trapped in the Middle East in the final days? Already the US is THE major debtor state in the world: What will be the cost effect for them of the loss of Middle East hegemony-, especially in terms of oil, and control of the world's shipping lanes etc?

Additionally, there is emerging significant tensions over global resources, access and who controls, with clashing European and US interests, and going out-, with the new capitalist Russia and China. Russia cannot be pleased with the US camped in many of the former Balkan and 'stan countries that are critical to the security of their border regions, to say nothing of future access to the oil and other resources there themselves.

And increasingly confident China seems poised, just waiting for sufficient signs of weakness on the part of US imperialism in that region of the world. Already it is sending muscle flexing signals that it will not much longer tolerate the currrent global status quo.

So, in my read of evolving global economic and political relations, the potential for war has not been diminished in fact, but increased with the collapse of the old USSR, reigniting old intra-capitalist state rivalries that have heretofore been the main cause of all the wars in modern times, certainly since the rise of capitalism.

And whither capitalism goes in this country, relatively pathetic creation as a state that it is rooted in currently, is tied pretty much to the rise or fall of the US Empire, in current circumstances, is my view. We have probably hung our hopes on the wrong star here.

So, unless there is some new element to dramatic evolution potential that we are unaware of, which to my mind would be tied to the popular level of political understanding-, of which I see no great evidence of a change in quality, you are likely correct.

Though I would not be too quick to rule out emerging and future catastrophic environmental change events, as the potential cause of "failed states" and "failed economic systems" in the future-, which depending on the natural systems involved, could cut a wide swath across the globe relatively quickly. And of which the warning signs are many, going largely unheeded in the rush for profit wealth and the pressure of the geo-political events I have described at the start here.

We shall have to see, of course.

Nothing that a world-wide pandemic (avian flu?) or cataclysm (man-made or au natural) wouldn't fix. But nothing much less either.....

The psychology behind all the arguments I hear here on both sides is a psychology of disunity. Us or them.

Neither side gives any real thought to what should happen to the other when they themselves are victorious.

The neo-conservatives seem to be on the cusp between allowing those who are defeated to simply starve in the cold, and making their very existence a crime in law.

Those who think more co-operatively recognise the inhumanity of this view and recoil from it, demonizing their opponents to a remarkable degree.

Society is by its nature a unifying structure holding dissimilarities. No revolution can disappear the opponent short of extermanation. They will still be there tomorrow, after the election, after the next election. Nobody is persuaded, nobody is disenfranchised.

No restructuring of society can succeed without recognizing this fact and making way for dissimilar views to operate successfully simultaneously.

Unity means allowing others to be other, and flourish at it. Not forcing them to agree, which is a foolish hope at best. A pandemic won't do it, sorry. Unless you think disagreeing with you makes people more susceptible to infection.

Bailey, I don't think the idea of a natural catastrophe or pandemic is aimed vindictively at those with a different view than us. We would all suffer and that is the point. The level playing field would be levelled for real, not only in theory. We would have to work side by side, no owners and lowly workers, just people working together to survive. Much like the tsunami where doctors would have cleared rubble away alongside street sweepers, but on an unimaginable even larger scale that would shake the foundations of our present economic system.

That we will always be able to work side by side is, of course, a perfect world and perfect human being theory. We will always have differences and strife on our way to enlightenment, if indeed that is where we are headed but the idea that some unintentional cataclysmic event may force us to deal with the failure of our present system is a possible and yes, painful irony.

It is true that catastrophe brings people together, but they don't necessarily unify anything.

I was caught recently by an ad for donations to a Christian aid for children outfit who were bragging that they were saving Cambodian slaves from the brothels of Phenom Penh and teaching them to knit, as an alternitive to slavery apparently, then giving them back to the parents who sold them in the first place.

This madness is typical of the thinking I'm talking about. Force people so different from you that it's doubtful they even know what you're talking about to pretend to agree with you. Then when the force is no longer effective, throw them back and pat yourself on the back. You 'saved' her. Phooey.

Like you, Bailey,I hold little regard for the saving of people through that missionary mentality that permeates much of our world.

In reference to catastrophe, I don't think it's a unifying factor in itself, who knows we may not survive it, so when you speak of force I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing... I would say it is more a dawning of realization, a universal realization, that things MUST change. The emphasis of the word must is not coming from force, but rather like a bell tolling, that as human beings we must change... or die.

Lynn, please expand on your idea for change. What kind of change are you proposing?

As to the force I mentioned, it was specifically in reference to the ad I saw. The children are being bought, or somehow acquired from the brothels by the missionaries who qualify them by prosyletizing sectarian dogma. They must submit to their new owners.

According to documentaries I've seen and read on the subject, the children, mostly girls, are bought in bulk lots from poverty stricken villages, some are selected for the sex trade, the rest are jobbed out to industrial uses, such as shoe factories and clothing producers. The shoes and clothes are sold back into western markets, principally, big box discounters.

You may remember the Wal-Mart/Gifford scandal some years ago.

The missionaries do not interfere with the commercial slaves, only the sex trade ones. The commercial slaves are institutionalized in the right wing process of outsourcing of Western jobs, and therefore protected. The brothels are not.

Force is rampant throughout all stages of the process. The girls are forced from their homes. They are forced into their new jobs. When 'rescued' they're forced to accept the prosyletization of their new owners, then forced to accept restoration to their former families.

Lynn, I'm sorry if my last couple of posts were a bit harsh.

The thought that the wild salmon would be deliberately wiped out because the theory of the neo-cons defines them as a 'common', which therefore must be owned by them, while the salmon themselves just stubbornly insist on being wild, refusing to be owned, led me to the thought that they view us as a common too. All of us. Humanity.

If true, they would have to find a way to own us, and that would explain Bush's attack on Constitutional rights and freedoms. In the name of phony 'security'.

Then I saw that distressing ad, and I knew that the scope of change required to deflect this would be very profound. And would have to be profoundly internalized by whole cultures.

So please don't be put off by my tirade. Answer my question.

What kind of change are you envisioning?

The change I am talking about is a re-thinking about what work is, that all people in effect are workers. We just perform different jobs. And that workers themselves have the potential to own and manage their own workplace.

As we moved away from physical labour, from the reign of the machine onwards to today's domination by technology and the business world, the physicality of labour has become less and less valued. Workers are just things to be owned to get the dirty work done in a world that is ultimately revolted and in great fear of the physical. It is interesting that in the extreme puritanism of the religious right, this fear of the physical and the consequent disgust with real sexuality, is at the core of many of their stringent beliefs.

The environment, nature, doesn't stand a chance in a world that has lost it's reverence for the very physical, touchable, human world we are all a part of. The present systems will eventually either collapse of themselves, through their own corruption or nature herself will step in and deal us an awakening blow.

I am out of my league when it comes to economics, just beginning to learn so this is an intuitive response on my part. I did read Seymour Hersh's article where he says the neo-cons have no intention of listening to those who disagree, who question, that their agenda is set and that there is no reaching them. They will proceed at any cost. I largely believe that, too. That this will be the fight of our lives. It will be a fight about the real value of life.

The authoritarianism that is necessary to sustain the corporate world, to me at least represents the dead world. It is all about materiality. The physicality of labour, the multiplicity and haphazardnesss of nature, is what still hums with life. The change that I hope happens must at least resurrect that.

So for you then, this represents a choice of life over death? Then you propose to infuse these death affirming forces with grace?

But if they are closed to persuasion, as you read, what would be the nature of this fight of our lives? How would we know if we succeed or fail? What are your weapons?

What if they have chosen to pursue death as passionately as you choose life? This question of evil has been central to our attempts to explain much of the history of the last long time.

I have a relative who is religious. Through a long process, he has come into professional contact with what he describes as "generational demons", that he says infest families, moving from this one to that, causing disfunction and unhappiness by imposing their personalities in sneaky ways over their hosts. He finds them, exposes them, converses with them. He is not insane, though you only have my word for that, not a con man, I can vouch for that absolutely. He is quite convinced of the truth of this, lives in it.

What if he's right? What does that do to your strategy?

Or what if Good and Evil are somehow cosmically connected, in balance? What if every good thing generates an equal but opposite reaction, and every evil ditto? Like Newton's law? What then?

My difficulty is that I understand the passion, but not the process. I see the urge to fight, but not the path to a determination of victory or defeat for either side. All the revolutions of the past that I know anything about were betrayed; the French before it was over, the Russian before it began, the Chinese revolution is betrayed daily, over and over. The American one did best. It wasn't betrayed for fifty years or more. I blame the slowness of communication and low density of the population.

So, what are we talking about? What life can we build that would supplant the one we object to? If we wished to live co-operatively in our present society, we could. We could join together, buy property, form compacts, create whatever we want. Many have tried, their successes have varied. They have had to fight, but only because they met mistrust among their neighbours, not because they were forbidden to try by authority.

This is rambling, I apologize. This growing power is dangerous and unstable. It should be opposed. But I see no form or future to a fight. I can think of nothing to gain we haven't already got. Lots and lots to lose, though.

I think we have already lost too much. Some of it already irretrievable. I certainly have no love of violence but I believe in defending yourself. I would hope that part of the nature of the fight (and even these moves are still allowing the power structure to continue, just making it a kinder one, that's all) would perhaps take the form of world wide unions or worldwide watches of human rights. But you must have the masses backing you on those ones, the organizing power and "the realization and the courage by the many" all over the world to be effective. I think we are far from that but who knows what repressed people are really thinking, just about everything of real meaning goes unreported these days.

I think the neo-con view demands a dead, highly-ordered, materialistic, controlled world, the monster they are presently creating. And I am not sure of the outcomes of standing up against them. I wouldn't try to predict anything. Most revolutions demand you have the courage to fight despite overwhelming odds. There are many forms a fight can take, your co-operative compacts are a good idea but even those may require you fight for them as they would be seen as a threat to "the system". Look how unions are demonized by the right. They also had to be fought for.

I would hope we could come up with an ingenious method that would de-rail their whole process, some economic one which would hit at their core. But I'm no economic genius so I don't know what that would be.

To not stand up to them is really to lose it all. I watched Frontline's piece on Karl Rove the other night and was most struck by the utter sociopathic nature of that small inner circle. They openly admitted their scheming, arrogantly proud of it in fact. If it worked in their favour they had no scruples about it. It really was chilling. What I found even more interesting was that they were unbelievably boring as individuals. It was boring to listen to them. They were well-structured suits.

I really don't think they care if they mow us over if we get in their way. Look what deceptions they are willing to play on their own soldiers, their own side, who think they are defending democracy, while their military leaves in Iraq are continuously extended with no compassion for them whatsover. They are simply military pawns, to be used til they drop. They've obliterated Iraq, it's cities, many of it's people, it's historical treasures, with no remorse. In a just war there is always remorse. These guys have none... and what is worse, this is only the beginning.

I don't like the idea of myself or others being enslaved to these sociopathic suits so we may have to fight. We may have to defend ourselves in any inventive way we can find, in order to survive.

This is great article. What I would expect from dobbin--one of the few free thinkers out there.

It's too bad that we have let the corporate media dictate the agenda for so long that in BC today, it's possible we might see the re-election of the most corrupt, economically incompetent and dishonest regime in this province's history--and it appears some alleged "progressives" hiding behind a fake "green" veil are ready to do what they can to help them win by undermining the only political organization that has ever done anything good on the environment here: the NDP.

I think in part this becasue the NDP, and to a lesser extent labour and the co-op and environmental movements, have become too scared to seriously challenge the dictatorial power of these parasitic corporate tyrannies and their stupid destructive economics--even though they would very much like to, and successfully have done so in the past.

As posted elsewhere, I think the NDP had it right when they were the CCF and said to Hell with trying to make these elites play fair. Instead they pushed for economic democracy, by organizing unions in workplace, but also setting up cooperatives, credit unions and all sorts of democratic community based and non-profit ventures. That's what put them on the political map in the first place.

There are some good things NDPers and labour and co-op activist types are doing in this way today. But it's largely a side show. The NDP needs to quite being so afraid of its democratic socialist economics and history and start building on it. It has clearly worked before. It can work today as well.

As working people and professionals, we pay for business and government as workers and consumers. We should get more interested in democratizing these and making them more sustainable instead of having to play political cat and mouse with the dictatorial corporate elites we have allowed to control most of our economy for so long.