I thought the government manages the state,
and as such, it is the state. If there
are periods of better social provision,
you may be sure it is so, because a powerful
- a bit more farsighted - strata of the
capitalist/financial strata wield influence
over the government that time. Whatever "good"
achieved at these time is in fact to avoid social
unrest and to prolongue the system. So these
"successes" are transitory, look at the quick
erosion of the education/health/social
services in the UK. If you think this "process"
will give us a democratic and sustainable future
you are sadly mistaken.
Eva
...cut...
>
> I don't believe that what is needed is a replacement of the system. As we
> have learned time and again in history, corrupt systems are almost always
> followed by corrupt systems. However, I do feel that advanced democracies
> such as Canada were, at one time, on the point of achieving something
> special, a society which really did work in the interests of its citizens.
> At one time government operated on the belief that it had a very different
> role in society from business -- that business must work in the interests of
> its shareholders but government must work in the interests of citizens. I'm
> beginning to wonder if this belief has been so eroded and government's view
> of itself has so confused as to make government virtually ineffective.
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
