On 12 Aug 98 at 21:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Louis P. just responded in the general debate "The
> Canadian Government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny
> Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into
> a maelstrom." Now as someone (from BC) who has followed the
> history of this negotiation for some time, I would like to
> know what "compromised' treaty means (is this some anti-native
> appelation?), why Louis thinks that making a treaty with
> a "tiny" (they occupy most of the area) is somehow demeaning
> to the indians, and that the opposition from the "liberal"
> party which represents the forestry and mining interests
> constitutes turning BC into a political "maelstrom". None
> of my relatives who (mostly) all live there have failed
> to tell me about this political maelstrom. Come on Louis,
> lighten up!
> John Craven, on the other hand, tells us, "iff you are for
> markets, you are not anticapitalis." Give us a break. Barkely
> and I who have studied China, Slovenia, etc. can ( I think) make
> the argument that the market is not cotermwith anything but
> capitalism. I would argue that there is such a thing as a
> "socialist market". If that is not acceptable on this list
> then mayby Me, Barkley, and Bhoddi should be banished to to the
> hot fires of beaurocratic/administrative trading exchanges.
>
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
Response: I guess I would have to ask first of all what Slovenia has
to do with socialism. Secondly, what has been happening in China with
the progressive widening and deepening of markets and market-based
relations? Has there been a widening and deepening of socialist
relations and consciousness? Is China looking more or less like the
US and capitalist nations? Has the working class increased or
decreased representation in State power? Has there been more or less
commodification of various aspects of life? I think it must be looked
at dialectically and over time. The point was that markets are not
mere machines or mechanisms for price determination, resource
allocation, rationing or information (and a technical and better
alternative to shadow or administered pricing and plan-determined
resource allocation ) but are central institutions that also embody
class relations, imperatives for commodification, values, ideas,
traditions etc that are antithetical to socialism--if you define
socialism as dictatorship of the proletariat (not over or for the
proletariat) and a transitional formation dedicated to uprooting the
weeds of capitalism (ideas, values, institutions, power structures
and relations etc); if you have a different definition of socialism,
then of course markets and socialism can co-exist.
On the issue of the Nis'ga Treaty, I can only say that I am in
Vancouver B.C. almost every weekend and am in daily contact with
Indians there from various bands and that within the Nis'ga and among
other Nations with Treaties pending, there are indeed some serious
and powerful voices that regard the Treaty as far less than is just,
desirable or necessary to ensure the survival of the Nation.
That's all I can say. If you are not subscribing, try
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and check out the discussion on the Treaty and
the Treaty Commission.
take care,
Jim Craven
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
(Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
"...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange
for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off
by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
shut our hand to crush them..."
(Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803)
*My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
