----------
>From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
>Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 10:36 PM
>
> To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph
> While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct
> Democracy is unstated
>
> Colin Stark
Dear Colin:
Let me answer your implied question by quoting the first paragrapgh of an
excellent book out from England called The Age of Insecurity by Larry Elliot
and Dan Atkinson - two writers who actually can make all this stuff
interesting and exciting - I highly recommend it.
Quote PageVII
The central struggle of our time is that between laissez-faire capitalism,
which represents the financial interest, and social democracy, which
represents democratic control of the economy in the interests of ordinary
people. These ideologies are incompatible, in that at the heart of social
democracy is the one economic feature specifically and unashamedly ruled out
by the resurgent free market: security. Social democracy offers nothing if
it does not offer security; the free market cannot offer security (to the
many at least) without ceasing to be itself. Instead it provides security to
the financial interest at the expense of the majority, upon whom is shifted
the entire burden of risk and "adjustment" whenever ther system hits one of
its peiodic crises.
Thomas:
Whether we have a DD system or a Representative System, the will of the
people is constant. Security is the goal of all people. People continually
vote for more security, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions and other
supports. Elected governments continually promise security. And then - yes
you guessed it, the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism subverts the
politicians into other directions from which they recieved a mandate to act.
We then turf the buggers out because the next group convincingly sings the
theme song of security only to be subverted once again. The real question
is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism. The people
continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human
individual level, continually opt for more security. The problem to me
seems less in how we elect them, but rather in how we can make them produce
the effects they promise.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
> "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way,
> behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a
> way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to
> tolerate unemployment. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in
> such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently.
> It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth
> of trade. It was, in sense, done deliberately. That is the real evil of
> the time."
>
> *************
> At 01:11 PM 5/30/99 +0000, you wrote:
>>A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde
>>
>>Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are
>>not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and
>>similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media
>>support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made
>>this their guiding light.
>
> snip
>
>>Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way,
>>behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a
>>way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to
>>tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in
>>such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently.
>>It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth
>>of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of
>>the time.
>
