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 > >
[PEN-L:3427] Re: Re: Re: Canada (Ken)
ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224] Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:28:33 -0600