There has never been a social democratic government in power in Canada at the
Federal
Level. Except for the Rae govt. in Ontario. most provincial social democratic
govts have not been in the area of Canada where the wealthy inheritor firms
are...Ontario, and the Maritimes
Irvine and McCains, but in the west.
Heir controlled firms are noted for their anti-labor stance and support
for conservative and protectionist policies.
It is true that both capital and the general public are (or were) much
less worried about big government than US citizens. Social democratic
governments in the provinces embrace not monopoly ownership per se but
government monopoly as in the medicare first promoted in Saskatchewan and
eventually adopted federally, or in the auto insurance programmes, govt.
monopolies in Saskatchewan first, and now in BC. and Manitoba. all put in place
by social democratic regimes. The hydro companies in Saskatchewan and Manitoba,
govt. monopolies, WHeat Board monopoly trading in selected grains.. but this has
nothing to do with old heir capital. Those old farts are aghast at all these
things.. Both people and old heir capital look to govt. to advance their
interests and protect them from international capital and the vagaries of the
market. So we have or had, all sorts of different boards meant to control
production chicken boards, milk board, etc. all meant to ensure producers a
reasonable return and of course quite counter to free markets.
These policies were not implemented by some fatherly Bismarck. THey were
implemented
because popular movements lobbied for these things, and social democrats had
them as planks in their platform. They would not have been elected and
re-elected if they had not
followed these policies. Some of these policies were adopted by Liberal and
Conservative Federal Regimes because they were scared skinny that the social
democrats might win power
federally..Nothing like the autocratic social programmes of Bismarck.
I seem to recall looking at statistics that show that Canadian voters
participate less in
local elections more in Provincial elections and more still in Federal
Elections--this may not
hold for Quebec. The opposite is the case in the US. In municipal elections here
unless they really do something stupid or a big issue comes up councillors often
remain unopposed or win hands down.
By the way the Bronfman trust case mentioned by someone earlier is not
settled yet.
A taxpayer got a Manitoba lawyer Arne Pelz to file suit in court to force the
Bronfman trust
to pay taxes on the several billion dollars transferred to the US to avoid
taxation. Every 20 years these trusts are assessed for taxation as if they had
been sold and the capital gain is
taxed. The Bronfman's tried to move the fund to the US to avoid this. IN order
to do this
they attempted to have the transaction exempted under a provision that is meant
to apply
to US funds coming into Canada!! The exemption was at first denied. Then later
this was
overruled. Someones head should roll. The court case will claim that Revenue
Canada did
not follow its own rules. Should be very interesting.. This is your typical
heir capital.
Other great heir capitalists live in the Bahamas((or maybe Bermuda)) because
Canada is such a high tax socialist country. We owe nothing to these people but
our chains.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Tom Walker wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote,
>
> >Here's an idea - social democracy is more compatible with "monopolized"
> >ownership structures than most social democrats would like to admit, and is
> >undermined by U.S.-style financial and corporate governance arrangements.
> >It's probably very difficult for U.S. social dems to admit to this, given
> >this country's love of small business and populist, anti-centralizing
> >political traditions.
>
> Doug's idea is right on the (Bis)mark.
>
> regards,
>
> Tom Walker
