[PEN-L:3427] Re: Re: Re: Canada (Ken)

[ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224]]

Date sent:              Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:28:24 -0600
From:                   Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send reply to:          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:                [PEN-L:3424] Re: Re: Canada (Ken)


Now here is something I can agree with and heartfully endorse.  
Traditionally the social democrats have relied on regulation of 
capital as their method of  control.  This is why foreign ownership 
was so difficult -- it put capital beyond their regulatory grasp -- but 
also made foreign ownership an important issue (as it still is).  
Ken, however,  has laid out the issue succinctly.

>     I don't think that it is altogether true that social welfare programs were
> brought in
> to serve contingent ruling class interests. If that were so why did the ruling
> class consistently oppose progressive measures every step of the way? Minimum
> wages, UI and improvements to it, pensions, closed shop legislation, pay equity,
> you name it. While the welfare state
> may have saved capital from even more radical demands and staved off
> revolutionary demands, the welfare state was more or less forced upon the ruling
> class. Surely Capital railed against the welfare state, and enlisted all its
> legions of flacks and PR people to try to
> defeat those promoting the welfare state every step of the way. The welfare
> state was a
> great victory for the working class.
>     The ruling class didnt suddenly decide they didnt need the welfare state any
> more--although the
> disintegration of actually existing socialism may have been a factor in
> precipating the assault
> against the welfare state. In my view the welfare state was a feature of the
> Social Structures
> of Accumulation of what has been called the Golden Age of Capitalism...
> Burgeoning debt,
>  problems in maintaining adequate levels of capital accumulation, plus many
> other factors
> such as increased global competition among capitals, the growth of the Asian
> tigers, etc.
> led to Capital's forceful attack on the welfare state.
>         You are right the constellation of class forces has changed in that
> global capital
> has the upper hand at them moment. However, not all struggles against cutbacks
> and attacks
> by capital have failed. If anything the greatest failure has been with social
> democratic parties
> who have sacrificed any pretense of being the leaders in the counter-atttack
> against global
> capital and are bending over backwards to show that they are "responsible" i.e.
> they will
> kiss corporate ass just as well as any old-line party or as in the UK and NZ and
> I guess OZ too
> actually leading the way for global capitalism.
>             The welfare state is not gone. Its reduced. If there had been no
> struggle the situation would be much worse than it. The left may think that all
> is lost but the right knows damn well that the welfare state is still popular.
> There are plenty of aging conservative voters in
> Manitoba. Prior to an election here the Conservatives are pumping money back
> into our health care system--after savage cuts of course. They know, and the
> polls show them this,
> that people want the health care system and want it improved. While the social
> democrats
> in power in the province next door refuse to pay nurses a decent wage and do
> away entirely with the provincial pharamacare plan, the Conservative govt. in
> Manitoba is pumping
> more money into the system and contented itself with raising the kick-in limits
> in the pharamacare plan.
>         The game plan. I grant you the proper game plan for a revolution doesnt
> seem clear.
> At least in advanced capitalist societies, revolution doesnt seem to be on the
> agenda for the moment. This doesn't mean that capital cannot be opposed though.
> I will
> concentrate upon issues not specifically directed to gay and lesbian rights,
> aboriginal or race
> issues, or the quesion of  separatism.
>         Oppose privatisation of all kinds. Some opposition to privatisation has
> been successful
> and any widespread opposition will make governments provincial or otherwise to
> think twice
> about trying it. Although provincial govt. here privatised the provincial phone
> company there
> was a great deal of opposition and the govt. lost a lot of support. They have
> not moved to privatise
> Manitoba Hydro or the auto insurance monopoly.
>         Privatisation of hte phone company gave  a perfect opportunity for the
> NDP to have as a plank that they would take the phone company back into the
> public sector. If they have such a plank, they certainly
> have been mighty quiet about it. The NDP should be pressing for privatised firms
> to be taken back into the public sector. Again no bloody leadership, rather the
> NDP goes with the flow
> doing some privatisation itself as in Saskatchewan where the public road
> construction sector
> was privatised. In Saskatchewan though there is still a publicly owned bus
> company providing service throughout the province. SaskPower still controls gas
> and electricity. The auto insurance industry is still public.
>         Retail and producer co-ops should be supported as well as Credit Unions.
> Neo-liberalism hasnt destroyed these. They are thriving at least in Manitoba and
> Saskatchewan. Indeed, Credit Unions can capitalise upon banks' attempts to
> downsize and add on various fees for services. I havent used a bank for years.
> The left in Canada had
> a well-organised and successful campaign to block a major bank merger. A waste
> of time.
> Let them merge and cut back branches and get credit unions to fill the gap. At a
> conference
> I was at there was paper given by two guys who made a living showing businesses
> how to
> profit when competitors restructure and downsize. They gave a case study in
> which they
> helped a local bank compete against a large banking chain with a branch in the
> community.
> First they hired a laid off employee from the other bank, then they lured away
> her friend who was still employed by the other bank. Then, they mounted a mass
> information blitz showing the relative costs at the branch and at the local
> bank..etc. The final result, the local bank expanded and eventually the branch
> of the merged bank closed.
>     In short, support every movement towards replacement of private capital by
> co-operative
> business, worker-owned business, and publicly owned business. At least here
> people still
> support all these things.. We just need a party to support them to..Public
> ownerhip, co-op development, worker ownership, these should not be dropped as
> policies. It is more important now to stress these simply because they are more
> of a threat to capital then they were in the past. Capital can less afford to
> give concessions and will reveal itself as not being capable of granting what
> people want.
>         I also think that it is important that unions gain control of pension
> funds. Huge pools
> of capital are being invested solely to "maximise public shareholder values" as
> a recent paper put it. Workers should surely have control over their own funds,
> and they should be able to
> use that capital to invest in worker-controlled firms, public firms, etc. rather
> than providing
> a huge capital pool for private Capital and also being locked in to the system
> of maximising
> return above all else.
>         Anyway just a few suggestions..I certainly would have no truck nor trade
> with trying
> to sort out capitalist weeds from flowers since even the best are still weeds.
> You don't
> get a socialist garden by cultivating the prettiest capitalist weeds. This
> doesn't even lead
> you  along the path to a socialist garden.
> 
> 
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Walker wrote:
> 
> > I understand there were Social Democrats in late 19th century Germany, too.
> > I do not mean to push the comparison, other than in the sense that not all
> > welfare state programs are manna from heaven. They are brought in to serve
> > contigent ruling class interests (in response to popular pressure, of
> > course) but it is rather feeble to defend the welfare state in retrospect as
> > a great workers' victory once the ruling class has decided it doesn't need
> > them anymore. The bourgies are telling us, by their deeds not their words,
> > that the constellation of class forces has changed. Our bleak experience in
> > opposing the social program cuts confirms what the bourgies are telling us.
> > So what's the game plan?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Tom Walker
> 
>