And on that page linked there are to be found no concerete arguments to support it.

He externalizes human qualities, human values, human awareness (etc.) to capitalism. He argues we can have socialism, which isn't necessarily green, but make it green.

But he refutes the notion that we have capitalism, which isn't green, but can be made green.

It is not very difficult to comprehend that global capitalism with effective enrivonmental regulations, restrictions and massive scientific research would be a gradual process towards green capitalism.

I am guessing (having not read the book) that his point must then be (if he makes one in the first place?), that capitalism cannot be reformed to such direction, because capitalists control mass media (etc.)

BUT how can you then market an even more radical, from their perspective even less desirable alternative and get people behind it?

!

You can do it with view B which is more difficult for people to relate to in general but not with view A which is closer to as things are today and thus easier to market.

I have always found that illogical, and I haven't seen concrete arguments, why to think any differently about it.

quote:

---

I refuse the main premise in his book.

---

Generally, I am suspicious of work which uses "nature" as a norm of behaviour or limiting condition, because it is such an inherently elastic term.

quote:

---

the importance of "being" rather than "having".

---

Great point. I think this is something that often gets over looked; and it is the major problem with capitalism. The fact that it creates needs and values that are not in line with our best interests. We are conditioned to want more. Large amounts of our public space are designed to create feelings of inadequacy. We are often are accessed and judged by others on the basis of having. If someone asks if you are well off, they don’t want to know if you are rich in friends, if you profit from a happy family life, if you reap the benefits of doing meaningful work; it is simply the size of your paycheck.

Capitalism is well designed for the human psychology. The fact that we quick adjust our baseline comfort level to what ever level we are at means we be come slaves to upgrading and up-sizing. My little Korean car brought me the same amount of happiness as a BWM would have when I got it. It still does all the same things, but parked next to my neighbor’s German made car it no longer delivers the same level of happiness. In fact in makes me feel needy.

I think the over-consumption inherent in the current capitalist system is a major factor in the environmental situation. I don’t know if the system can be reformed or if it must be scrapped; but I think that 6 billion people are not going to be able to live at the level of the Western middle class. What happens when every Chinese and Indian decide that they need a car. I think the logic that drives expansion of global capitalism contains in it the logic of its’ own collapse. (A Hegelian, not Marxist Logic) The question is do we survive the collapse, and what follows after.

quote:

---

Large amounts of our public space are designed to create feelings of inadequacy.

---

I have often been impressed by the thought behind Thomas Hobbes subtitle to "Leviathan".

It is "Kingdom of the Proud". The idea is that "pride" drives us forward, but that pride is measured against the achievements of others, and thus is a moving baseline.

Capitalist apologists and to large degree the various "reformers" of it share a similar legacy: they are long on rhetoric and misinformation (like some of the anti-Marxist drivel on a neighbouring thread) and short on any substance what so ever.

I wonder what Crazy Miranda means by "capitalism needs to be reformed," yet dismissing anyone who seriously challenges its fundamentals (like Marxism).

Capitalism has been continuously reformed over the last century--mostly because of the pressure from socialism and its various public interest movements: Labour, cooperative, social justice, etc. But while there have substantial improvements for people due to compromises between the two, the basic fundamental problems the system creates are still every much in place. And the improvements that have come from the reforms are under constant threat, and, in today's economy, are being lost.

The supposed "eco-capitalists" I have met, like those on the "Green" Party, are just out to do whatever they can't to preserve the undemocratic power and privilege of the various corporate elites out there, along with all the same economic problems, by just throwing a green paint job on them.

I haven't had a chance to read the book, nor have I (shockingly) had a chance to see The Corporation.

But I don't think I need these media to tell me what I have seen as blatantly obvious, and historically well established, is that capitalism of any variety is in its very substance ecologically destructive, as well as anti-democracy and non-conducive with long-term positive human development.

I have said it here before, I will say it again now: The underlying cause of most ecological destruction is that the environment, like labour and human needs, is treated like a commodity to be used and thrown away by our capitalist dominated economy. It’s an economic fact.

Socialistic economic policies (no--I don't mean the state capitalism of the Stalinists) have repeatedly shown themselves to be more conducive to ecological well being, largely because they de-commodify the economy by basing product and service values on the labour and resources extracted by labour into creating them.

Also, the fundamentals of democratic control of the economic means, the emphasis on cooperation mutual benefit and the long-term sustainability of the community being the primary economic motivators, instead of maximum capital accumulation by elite agencies, monopolization of markets and control of labour and resources.

Now obviously, we can't de-commodify our economy with just a snap of our fingers. That, unfortunately, is going to take at least two generations or more. But most cooperative, CED, labour-sponsored enterprises, credit unions, etc, tend, at one level or another, to reflect much of this thinking, at least philosophically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:

But I don't think I need these media to tell me what I have seen as blatantly obvious, and historically well established, is that capitalism of any variety is in its very substance ecologically destructive, as well as anti-democracy and non-conducive with long-term positive human development.

---

Of any variety? Also capitalism in which strict environmental regulations have been established globally. Public sector is funding massive programs to clean our environment, develop alternative energy sources and study the problems we face.
There are restrictions on cutting down forests, and massive publicly funded programs to plant new forests.
Regulations are put in place to ensure that our rivers, lakes and oceans won't get more polluted and will get cleaner by time.
The funds needed for such programs are got by making taxation more progressive in global co-operation.

quote:

---

Those who claim to fly some sort of progressive flag in terms of the environment yet oppose these above socialistic movements and developments can't really be taken too seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:
Socialistic economic policies (no--I don't mean the state capitalism of the Stalinists) have repeatedly shown themselves to be more conducive to ecological well being, largely because they de-commodify the economy by basing product and service values on the labour and resources extracted by labour into creating them.

---

Where have these polices been proven to work in a democratic context (or even in an authoritarian setting) ?

quote:

---

To step inside the New Piccadilly cafe in London's Soho is to enter an eerily preserved example of Britain's postwar cafe culture. But now the owner of the Italian family business, Lorenzo Marioni, is preparing for a final blast on the pink-enamel espresso maker before switching off his neon 'EATS' sign for good. The cafe - which has fed foreign royalty, West End stars and rockers (but not mods) - is going out of business.
...

The establishment is earmarked for redevelopment, which will see the loss of a place of immense social and historical importance, says Maddox, who runs a Classic Cafes website. 'You had a complete music, art, literature, crime, sexual sub-culture built out of the cafes. If it hadn't been for that base, you wouldn't have got the rock 'n' roll culture and the role of Britain leading and dictating culture to the world in the Sixties.

'The culture and the architecture and the ambience of these places is fast being levelled in a kind of massive cultural, corporate napalming by the big coffee stores. They will gang together, move into an area and have a lot of muscle with the landlords. They will then move their guys in a few streets down, play against each other and destroy everyone else.

'The chains will not rest until every street in the West is a branded mall. They provide the standard issue coffee shop: a sick, pallid parody of the cafe culture of the Fifties. Orwell's nightmare vision in 1984 was of a jackboot stamping on the human face for ever - we now know the future is best represented as a boiling skinny latte being spilt in the lap of humanity in perpetuity.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrazyMiranda:
[QB]Now now people, let's not let realism bother our dreams.
QB]

---

What on earth are you responding to?

Childlish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrazyMiranda:
Nothing like clinging to one remark, when someone, talking in a foreing language to him, already admitted it was a badly chosen expression.

Childlish.

Anyway the definition of forest isn't that important. From the perspective of the environment it is important that CO2 gets stored in trees.

---

I was talking about the second comment, the one about replanted areas becoming "natural", actually. From all I've learned in bio-geography classes and general research forests are worth a lot more than the air filtration that they provide, in terms of habitat, etc. The definition of forest does matter if you're talking about environmental protection or restoration. Also, in my experience, replanted areas all have "harvestable in 20--" signs posted, so it's not like they've been planted out of concern for the environment so much as profit.

quote:

---

Global capitalism, with effective enrivonmental regulations, restrictions and massive scientific research, would be a gradual process towards green capitalism.

[...]

Regulations are put in place to ensure that our rivers, lakes and oceans won't get more polluted and will get cleaner by time.

The funds needed for such programs are got by making taxation more progressive in global co-operation.

---

can you provide quotes/links/case studies of corporations (their CEO's, their boards of directors, etc) who favour progressive taxation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:

can you provide quotes/links/case studies of corporations (their CEO's, their boards of directors, etc) who favour progressive taxation?

can you provide the same for corporations (their CEO's, their boards of directors, etc) who favour environmental regulations and restrictions on the scale that you would like?

---

I don't think many of them support anti-capitalism either

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lizard Breath:
what's with your deathgrip on capitalism? why are you so opposed to the thought of a new, different economic/social system replacing it?

just wondering.

---

Addressing another question: forest management vs biodiversity.

Old-growth forests (whether truly "virgin" or regrowths that have developed great biodiversity are far more productive in terms of their contribution to the environment than tree farms could ever be - remember that the latter are most often monocultures. However it is indeed important to replant and "manage" forests that have already been cut down rather than continuing to look for new sources of wood. It is a false dichotomy.

[ 16 August 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Well, I want a greener and more caring planet. That's why.

---

Well I do too, but it seems painfully clear to me that we'll never get it as long as capitalism is the dominant economic system in so many countries around the world.

Capitalism is all about making the most money from the smallest investment. It's very nature dictates that it must not concern itself with anything that doesn't factor into the fiscal equation.

The system of captialism is actually abeautiful thing if its done right. Everyone should have the right to strive to do their best, reach for the "American" dream, and make as much money as they can. It is the function of government to regulate it and ensure that it doesn't get out of hand, and to ensure that the "people's" will is done.

quote:

---

So does Dr Kovel. (He is a close friend of one of my best friends. Friend says he is a good and kindly man, and a doting grandpa). Not all us Marxists have horns, you know.

---

True. Marxism still scares the shit out of me though.

Communism of every variety, whether it be Marxist Lennist or Trotskyite, is fundamentally authoritarian, and while I admire some of the things which Communist thought has created, (the health-care systems in both Saddam's Iraq and Fidel's Cuba, Israeli Kebbutzim etc.) you could never convince me to live in either Cuba or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and I could never, for reasons which are beyond my control, live and work on a Kibbutz.
Besides, my entire family is made up of Whoosey social Democrats. They would all die if The Revolution were to take place. I would never be able to survive in a Communist dictatorship. It is in my best interest not to see the ideas of the red Trinity put into practice. Yes, the capitalist system needs to be reformed. Maybe it even needs to be scrapped, but a Communist dictatorship is not a suitable replacement for our current free market albatross.

[ 16 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 16 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Actually, China now has a middle class that's larger than the U.S. population. Their economy has been growing at rates of 6, 7 and 10% for the last 21 years in a row and is now creating 400 000 jobs every month. Pure capitalist economies have just never achieved that. And China's is a communist-interventionist economy.

---

>"Of any variety? Also capitalism in which strict environmental regulations have been established globally. Public sector is funding massive programs to clean our environment, develop alternative energy sources and study the problems we face.
There are restrictions on cutting down forests, and massive publicly funded programs to plant new forests.
Regulations are put in place to ensure that our rivers, lakes and oceans won't get more polluted and will get cleaner by time.
The funds needed for such programs are got by making taxation more progressive in global co-operation." Crazy Miranda.

So that's it!!?? This is the extent of all these big innovative reforms you're supposedly in favour of? This is supposedly to solve our problems!? Ghobe!

A) Capitalism of every variety: any economic structure or order that is based on maximizing wealth accumulation, control of markets and businesses, centralization of power and turning everyone and everything into a commodity by privileged undemocratic institutions at everyone else's expense is a form of capitalism, and this type of economic value system is the main cause of ecological destruction.

B) Capitalism with strict environmental regulations established globally: obviously I would support a global set of standards and regulations like these. The problem is, it's already been done in many respects: Kyoto, Rio de Janeiro, plus all sorts of international ecology/pollution/nuclear agreements and charters signed on to by governments all over the world which then go on to violate them systematically.

Add further that whether rules or standards are global or simply national or provincial, they are constantly being challenged and watered down or rolled back because of economic blackmail by various corporate cliques and lobbies.

In addition, most of our international and global trade and social institutions are as corporatized as the business agencies are themselves, with a huge crossover and connection. In other words, those who are setting the standards are either part of or influenced by those who have an interest in violating them. That's not going to change as long as the corporate capitalist model is dominant.

C) The public sector spending on massive programs to clean the environment: this is yet another example of the destructive consequences of capitalist economics. The public sector (re: the working class taxpayer) has to expend huge amounts of resources to clean up huge messes and damage caused by corporate capitalist instructions that should never have been so badly messed up in the first place (That is if we had more sustainable socialistic economic practices).

Add to this that most public sectors in the world don't invest huge resources in cleaning up the environment, but rather spend them on military and all sorts of other subsidies and handouts to protect corporate capitalist interests

Furthermore, even in places where it does, these are still largely inadequate in keeping up with the huge messes created by corporate capitalist activity, which adds even more pressure on the public purse. Instead of demanding less ecologically intrusive practices by corporations and commercial ventures (at lest in some way tempering their capitalist agenda), you seem to want the public to subsidize all of their bad practices by spending huge amount of money cleaning up after them, just like spoiled rich brats they are.

D) Regulations on forestry, protecting our rivers, oceans, etc. This again is the same problem as above: regulations are often watered down and challenged under corporate pressure, governments often lack the resources to enforce these rules and standards and the very mechanisms set up to deliver these are big top-down bureaucracies that large imitate the corporations themselves and are often headed by people with similar mentalities. That's why these things have been far less than satisfactory.

I was very active in the former BC NDP government, which brought in some of the best environmental legislation ever seen in North America, only to have bunch of it scaled back due to various corporate clubs threatening to wreck havoc on the economy; or having these great laws not be fully effective because the government, trying eliminate the provincial deficit, often didn't have the resources at hand to put them into full effect.

I remember the outright lies and smear campaigns against the NDP for trying to enact good environmental laws, as well as investing in new ecologically friendly economic development, from both the corporate media monopoly and the corporate lobbies themselves.

It was sickening, but that's the reality of living under a corporate capitalist dictatorship over our economy, and as long as this continues, we will be faced with the same worsening problems.

It's an obvious historic fact that maintaining as clean and healthy environment is in the overall long-term public interest. Also, maintaining a healthy and prosperous economy is also in the overall long-term public interest.

Yet, under capitalism, the public, and its interests, are systematically shut out of the economic decision-making process, and therefore from most of the wealth, so the two above situations don't get played out very well--anywhere.

If we aren't interested in shifting our economy:

a) Moving away from a profit-maximization, market monopolization agenda at the expense of everyone's needs and labour to a more sustainable value-for-use, self-preservation-via-cooperation, community re-investment agenda based on satisfying individual and community needs

b) Democratizing our economic institutions so that the working population that creates wealth via its labour and creates markets and it consumer needs is in control has a direct democratic franchise in various ways in setting the conditions of the agenda and control its economic destiny

>” Where have these polices been proven to work in a democratic context (or even in an authoritarian setting)” Tom Loves Trees (but do they love him?)

All you need to do is look around you. I could throw all kinds of history across the globe about this, but since yer from BC, let’s start there. While our economy and government are unfortunately dominated by corporate capitalism and its oppressive undemocratic institutions (as they are most places—that’s the “authoritarian” setting you talk about), there are all kinds of examples of practical democratic socialistic enterprises that operate more on a sustainable and mutually beneficial basis: credit unions, cooperative ventures of various kinds, labour-sponsored businesses and employee ownership and community economic development.

The previous NDP government in BC fostered the development of numerous community forests licenses, run as cooperatives with democratically elected local boards, with a sustainability mandate that, despite lacking all kinds of resources, have survived and are pushing ahead. Some of these are partnering up with sawmills and other manufacturing facilities recently bought out by the unions that work there to develop local value-added production.

Let’s also not forget the Columbia Basin Trust, also set up by the NDP government, which guaranteed a portion of the revenues from electricity sales from all the local dams in that region go into sustainable democratic community economic development and diversification. It has been so successful that the BC Liar regime is trying to dismantle it and give the money away to their corporate pals.

Also the BC Federation of Labour and several of its affiliated unions have set up the Working Opportunity Fund and Working enterprises Group—two union-owned cooperatives that provide both venture capital and management expertise to new democratically run ethical small businesses, mostly in new technologies and ecologically sound developments (Ballard and other non-fossil energy, solar homes, commercial recycling and reclamation, etc.), as well as setting up their democratically run services, such as insurance, travel, financial and a host of others. The focus of these funds is to provide stable, low risk sustainable rates of return for investing in long-term sustainable development.

Several credit unions (which were set up by NDPers and trade unionists), including Vancity, which started the whole ethical investment/socially responsible development initiatives, are now offering community development loans for ethical ecologically respectful enterprises, such as the BC Cooperative Auto Network, various organic produce and recycling cooperatives, etc.

BC is real hot bed for all kinds of cooperatives, labour-sponsored ventures and community-based business. These vary in all sorts of ways, and some are considered more ecologically oriented than others. But one thing they all try to do as part of their fundamental operation is moving away from maximum short-term profit, extreme wealth accumulation, monopoly control of markets, destroying other businesses, etc. which are the fundamentals of any form of capitalism. Rather, they try to push for long-term sustained yield revenues, sharing the wealth, democratic decision-making, sustainable development and respect for community and ecological values.

>” Ecologically based Socialism could work, but it would have to be profoundly anti-democratic, otherwise it doesn't have a hope in hell of taking "sustainability" seriously at all”

First, “anti-democratic” socialism is a fallacy. You can’t have an economic system that’s based on the democratic control of the economic means without having a democratic system.

Second, “sustainability,” both in the strict ecological and economic sense, can’t be achieve via authoritarian or anti-democratic methods, since these involve a ruling elite imposing itself on the rest of us. That’s isn’t conducive to satisfying the public interest or community values of mutual benefit, which sustainability is all about. Instead, these are conducive to creating a capitalistic economy, since the personal ambitions of the elite and its desire to remain in control begin to take precedent over the public interest and the common good.

>” it just ain't politically viable to us selfish hu-mans.”

“Hu-mans” may be selfish, but they also have a strong sense of self-preservation that is oriented toward building communities based on cooperation, democracy and mutual assistance and mutual self-interest (i.e.; socialism).

You need people to support such reforms, yes.

You need people to support anti-capitalism, yes.

Which one do you think is more realistic to achieve and why?

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: CrazyMiranda ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:

I was very active in the former BC NDP government, which brought in some of the best environmental legislation ever seen in North America, only to have bunch of it scaled back due to various corporate clubs threatening to wreck havoc on the economy; or having these great laws not be fully effective because the government, trying eliminate the provincial deficit, often didn't have the resources at hand to put them into full effect.
.

---

Sure, they wrote some excellent legislation, only to cut back any potential in actually enforcing it's own laws! [Remember: the massive cuts to the civil service weren't started by the BC Liberals... the NDP started on that road years back]

As much as I hate to say it, it was the NDP who led to the current "self-enforcement" scenario we see today in BC's woods, by having a lot of perceived "red tape" (aka good legislation left un-enforced) transformed into our New Era of environmental irresponsibility.

As for the credit union/co-operative initiatives, I salute them, and I would agree that these continue to be the way of the future (think wind energy co-operatives, for example).

That said, I remain skeptical if you think that those types of piecemeal initatives indicate some radical "paradigm shift" into sustainability... we still have an overwhelmingly command and conquer attitude towards our natural resources.

"There has never yet been a human society worthy of the name of civilization. Civilization remains a remote ideal."
--Edward Abbey

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
China has become a faschist state. Capitalism+authoritarianism= faschism

---

I think that if any country has copied the 1930's German economic model, it would have to be the United States with their corporate welfare statism Uncle Sam spends several trillion dollars a annually to ensure that U.S. corporations earn about $500 billion a year.

quote:

---

China's booming while Dubya's economy is in net job loss, the first since Herbert Hoover proved that Smithian-laissez faire capitalism doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

I agree with both of those statements. However, I still do not believe that we should follow the Communist model.

---

Given that Canada owns one of the highest infant mortality rates as well as highest rates of child poverty as well as growing homelessness whem comparing developed, first world nations and just better than the United States and Mexico, what economic model do you propose we follow ?. Too, note that we have one of the largest external national debts next to the United States, Brazil etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Isn't the binary choice of communist or facist rather limiting?

---

quote:

---

Actually, China now has a middle class that's larger than the U.S. population.

---

I have to wonder how you would define middle class in this example. The GDP per head is $1,120 in China, compared to $38,620 for the USA. (Numbers from the The Economist: The world in 2004) I don’t quite see, using those numbers, how what you claim is possible, unless you are simply stating that China has more people making average Chinese income, that the USA has making average US income. In which case that says nothing about the standard of living. Using that logic Nigeria with a population of 136 million has a large middle class than Canada. (GDP per head $382 and $28,950 respectively.)

quote:

---

Their economy has been growing at rates of 6, 7 and 10% for the last 21 years in a row and is now creating 400 000 jobs every month.

---

That is an impressive growth rate; however those numbers show an economy in transition. As noted above their GDP per head is about 1/30th that of America, as they close in a 1:1 ratio that rate of growth will slow.

quote:

---

China's is a communist-interventionist economy

---

You have me interested, know of any good sources for information of the China’s economy either on-line or in dead-tree format.

This talk about China’s growth rate brings me back to my thoughts earlier in the thread. As China and India grow and start wanting the trappings of western middle class, how do we cope ecologically. It seems to me that most people living in the west are consuming resources at a privileged rate. Look at the damage created by a small fraction of the world’s population living our decedent lifestyle; what happens when 2 billion more people wantt to hop on board? Will our technology advance to allow it, or do we have an upcoming crash?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

We've got authoritarian fascism at one end of the political spectrum and authoritarian communism at the other. Hmmmm What's in between ?.

---

Social Democracy.

The probem is that it dosen't seem to be working.

Socialism was supposed to create a system in which capitalism could be managed without being destroyed. The problem is that companies are now too large to be managed, and have too many laws supporting them. Left wing governments can't regulate the private sector properly. So, keeping in mind that a Communist dictatorship is not an option, what do we do?

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Social Democracy.

The probem is that it dosen't seem to be working.

Socialism was supposed to create a system in which capitalism could be managed without being destroyed. The problem is that companies are now too large to be managed, and have too many laws supporting them. Left wing governments can't regulate the private sector properly. So, keeping in mind that a Communist dictatorship is not an option, what do we do?

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Socialism was supposed to create a system in which capitalism could be managed without being destroyed. The problem is that companies are now too large to be managed, and have too many laws supporting them. Left wing governments can't regulate the private sector properly. So, keeping in mind that a Communist dictatorship is not an option, what do we do?

---

Now THAT is the essential problem behind pretty much everything that's happening now. It's not the essential nature of "capitalism" so much as capital freed from national/democratic constraints, thereby gaining the power to blackmail any jurisdiction which doesn't play by their rules. There may be a couple ways around that connundrum though.

One is more international cooperation between Social Democratic states, doesn't even have to be a majority of states, just a solid block to impose some minimum standards among nations. Second, and more radically, remembering that although little can be done to stop capital from fleeing a country (some but not much) the nation state does retain the power to stop capital from entering...that, of course, would takes vision and will so far absent from our democracies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:

One is more international cooperation between Social Democratic states, doesn't even have to be a majority of states, just a solid block to impose some minimum standards among nations.

---

I agree... I often tout the idea of Canada adopting the Euro for specifically this (not to menetion how PO'ed the USofA would be!!) reason.

quote:

---

Now THAT is the essential problem behind pretty much everything that's happening now. It's not the essential nature of "capitalism" so much as capital freed from national/democratic constraints, thereby gaining the power to blackmail any jurisdiction which doesn't play by their rules. There may be a couple ways around that connundrum though.

One is more international cooperation between Social Democratic states, doesn't even have to be a majority of states, just a solid block to impose some minimum standards among nations. Second, and more radically, remembering that although little can be done to stop capital from fleeing a country (some but not much) the nation state does retain the power to stop capital from entering...that, of course, would takes vision and will so far absent from our democracies.

Which leads to the third essential part of the formula, an independent progressive media that more than a handful of already converted would see. That IMO is the most central need right now, everything else is whistling in the dark.

---

How would one implement your ideas on a large scale without being shot up by the CIA

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Do Venezuela and Georgia have cooperatives?

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
How would one implement your ideas on a large scale without being shot up by the CIA

---

Oh, I think the trick would be convincing a solid plurality of voters that it's not only possible but absolutely necessary, meaning American voters as well. Which would also mean changing people's perception about international 'investment', which mostly just involves buyouts of pre-existing businesses nowadays. Lots of levels here, but I wouldn't even venture such a thing until there's strong public support for it and a willingness to withstand some short term pain for long term gain. The beauty of it though, is that the corporate 'bottom line' could be used against them, they're not a rock solid front. Where the socialist left tends to be more conservative than more optimistic social democrats.

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 17 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomlovestrees:

I agree... I often tout the idea of Canada adopting the Euro for specifically this (not to menetion how PO'ed the USofA would be!!) reason.

Nonetheless, I always get shot down, from both right and left wingers.... funny. Despite such a plans obvious flaws, I think it would be preferable to getting swallowed up into a Common American currency.

---

Given the historical fact that "Communism" comes from the word "commune," which defines the numerous cooperative democratically self-reliant townships throughout central Europe, and the Communist Manifesto was written to advocate this form of democratic economy and government on a global scale (i.e.; socialism), why do so many folks here insist on defining economies like Cuba, Iraq and China as "communist?"

Mao Tse-tung, after the 1949 Chinese revolution, declared that a form of "state capitalism," based on large to-down state owned corporations and bureaucracies were to run the economy and accumulate capital wealth, instead of the population. He said, much like Lenin did in Russia 30 years earlier, that this was a "tansitional stage" to socialist economy. But nonetheless, capitalism is what it was then and is today.

The same goes for Cuban President Fidel Castro, a non-elected plutarch who Forbes magazine reported last year has personal family wealth sack of over $120 million.

Saddam Hussein, the US-installed Iraqi military dictator in 1979, was also from a rich family and kept his personal wealth, while working hand in hand with the major oil companies and the US government making sure the Black Gold would keep flowing (until 1990 of course, when stepped out of line).

How do folks mix up these icons of one form of capitalism or another with communism or socialism?

BTW, the very essence of socialistic economics is about dropping profit-maximization, wealth accumulation by privileged undemocratic cliques at the expense of everyone else, treating everything and everyone as a commodity to be used and thrown away by those cliques, the monopolization of markets by various corporate oligarchies via a winner-take-all competitive/manipulative process, trickle-down economics etc.

" agree... I often tout the idea of Canada adopting the Euro for specifically this (not to menetion how PO'ed the USofA would be!!) reason.
Nonetheless, I always get shot down, from both right and left wingers.... funny. Despite such a plans obvious flaws, I think it would be preferable to getting swallowed up into a Common American currency."

Hate to upset people even more. But if some elements in the IMF, World Bank and WTO have their way, this point could soon be mute.

I have read some WB proposals that call for pushing the whole planet toward some form of standard global currency. This would likely happen in the form of actually three regional currencies: US dollar in the Americas (and possibly Australia); Euro in all of Europe and Middle East and Africa; and the Yen in South and Central-East Asia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rand McNally:
I have to wonder how you would define middle class in this example. The GDP per head is $1,120 in China, compared to $38,620 for the USA. (Numbers from the The Economist: The world in 2004) I don't quite see, using those numbers, how what you claim is possible, unless you are simply stating that China has more people making average Chinese income, that the USA has making average US income. In which case that says nothing about the standard of living. Using that logic Nigeria with a population of 136 million has a large middle class than Canada. (GDP per head $382 and $28,950 respectively.)

---

The Economist (April) had an interesting article about Euro-socialism and state of the welfare state, by the way. And I think that GDP is a misleading figure. Dubya's people report rising quarterly growth rates of 8% last March, but they neglected to mention that their net job loss economic recovery emphasizing bogus numbers like quarterly growth rate of a whopping 8 per cent was due in large part to borrowed Keynesian-militarist spending in Iraq/corporate welfare handouts and mortgage refi activity. And per cap income may be high in the States, but even Canada's bottom 60% of income earners have greater purchasing power parity than the same group in the U.S.. "Stuff" is generally cheaper in the States, but we more than make up for it with cheaper services. Universal health care being a biggie. Canucks and Scandihoovian's tend to live slightly longer on average than our American counterparts, and we have lower infant mortality rates/ lower incidence of child poverty in the advanced social democracies and welfare states.

Back to China's communist experiment in socialism, they still do not float the Yuan as per liberalized capital markets, and so their money is purposely being low-balled by the Chinese. And this gives them a huge advantage with the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit. By what I've read, Dubya's people would be furious except that China is a major purchaser of U.S. bonds right now. The Chinese economy is creating over 400 000 jobs every month. They'll have more cars and trucks on the road than any other nation soon enough. And yes, the pollution is staggering. N. American's went through the same pollute now-worry later phase at one time. The CHinese know they need to do something about car and industry emissions ... later. Politics in Beijing is preventing anyone from slapping emission controls on auto makers and industry for fear of harmomh job creation numbers. Same ol-same old. The best American economy ever produced about 235K jobs per month averaged over eight years of Clinton during the roaring 90's. Trickle down deficit economics is sucking once again for the Yanks, currently mired in a low grade recession.

quote:

---

This talk about China’s growth rate brings me back to my thoughts earlier in the thread. As China and India grow and start wanting the trappings of western middle class, how do we cope ecologically. It seems to me that most people living in the west are consuming resources at a privileged rate. Look at the damage created by a small fraction of the world’s population living our decedent lifestyle; what happens when 2 billion more people wantt to hop on board? Will our technology advance to allow it, or do we have an upcoming crash?

---

And exponential poplulation growth is a big worry for sustainability of the planet as well. I agree though. Middle class capitalism based on consumption is an abomination to mother earth. If 5% of the world's people can trigger global warming, then how can we expect the other 95% of people to become consumers like us ?. It would be disasterous. We need to find some other drivers for economic activity. Besides. who wants to make plastic shower curtain liners that requires thousands of gallons of fresh water to make ?. Bor-ing and wasting precious water as well while Palestinian's have their own wells confiscated and drilling permits for new wells denied in what is a desert environment.

Capitalism does not provide free markets in or place value on clean air or clean water or safe streets to drive and walk on. The very thing that capitalism was supposed to provide in abundance, material goods and prosperity in general, isn't happening for billions of people. Major cities have pockets of wealth and usually surrounded by layers of want and ignorance and low wage philanthropy to feed the top of the food chain, the fewest who work toward owning vast concentrations of wealth. Capitalism pronotes inequality and in spite of recent indications that equality in the economy does not drive runaway inflation as we've been made to believe that the opposite is true.

quote:

---

Just incase someone cares, there are 7 nations that are forecasted to have over a 10% growth rate this year. Chad leads the list with a rate of 58.0%. Iraq is 4th with a rate of 19%.[/QB]

---

That's interesting, Rand. I'll bet socialist Singapore is one of them. That economy is booming as well. Singaporan's earn the world's fifth highest incomes on average. BMW's everywhere.

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

That's interesting, Rand. I'll bet socialist Singapore is one of them. That economy is booming as well. Singaporan's earn the world's fifth highest incomes on average. BMW's everywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

When you say Singapore is a socialist country, are you saying that it is a social Democratic state or a communist one?

---

They have a mixed economy as per democratic socialism. Singapore has liberalized capital markets, high speed rail, modern highways and other infrastructure, socialized medicine, state owned airline, some state and private manufacturing and attracting foreign investment with a well trained and literate work force. Lee Kuan Yew is a protege of Harold Wilson, a British socialist of the 1960's. Singapore has risen further, faster than Hong Kong. Singapore has been ranked in the top five most competitive economies in the world by growth index over the last several years.

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Chad 58%
Equatorial Guinea 23%
Liberia 20%
Iraq 19%
Kazahstan 10.1%
Georgia 10%
Turkmenistan 10%
China 8.2%
Azerbaijan 8%
Mozambique 8%

Not on the list is Afganistan because there is not enought data to figure out where they stand. However their best guess is that their economy will grow by about 1/3.

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

They have a mixed economy as per democratic socialism. Singapore has liberalized capital markets, high speed rail, modern highways and other infrastructure, socialized medicine, state owned airline, some state and private manufacturing and attracting foreign investment with a well trained and literate work force. Lee Kuan Yew is a protege of Harold Wilson, a British socialist of the 1960's. Singapore has risen further, faster than Hong Kong. Singapore has been ranked in the top five most competitive economies in the world by growth index over the last several years.

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

I was about to say. How democratic is Singapore? According to this article, not very.

---

I think a better description of Singapore would be a corporate welfare state, as I won't use the term "benign" dictatorship. Malaysia is probably a more progressive example, standing up to the dictates of the IMF and allowing some limited democracy, but from what I've heard it's authoritarian at heart too.

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

But the main reason for the lack of genuine political debate - arguably crucial now as the country is going through its worst recession in 30 years - is that there is very little true freedom of expression.

The government has stakes in all the printed and broadcast media, while the internet was regulated in April when all websites with political content were forced to register with the authorities.

Opinion polls are banned during the election campaign and exit polls cannot be published until after the results have been declared. There is also the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), under which people can be detained indefinitely without charge.

A recent example of the pervasive fear is that in August [2001] the three main book distributors refused to sell Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore by Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic party. No reasons were given for rejecting the book, which is critical of the PAP [People's Action Party, which has been in power since 1965].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:
I don't mind a global standard currency. The problems are who controls it and how it's used. Given the way currency is used now, and banking policy in general being so destructive, and the global banking system under such clique control, its' scary scenario.

---

A global currency or currencies would only be one part of the jigsaw puzzle, and would do little to redress other inequities in the labour market, but it would save a gazillion dollars (give or take a zillion or two...) a year in currency speculation, redirect it towards more useful investment, and more importantly it could used to help undermine the death grip that free flowing global capital have over governments everywhere.

quote:

---

think a better description of Singapore would be a corporate welfare state, as I won't use the term "benign" dictatorship.

---

My understanding is that socialism combines principles of communism, capitalism and democracy into one political philosophy. If you take the democracy out of socialism you no longer have socialism.
In your opinion is Singapore fachistic state or is it Communist in nature?
[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
In your opinion is Singapore fachistic state or is it Communist in nature?

---

quote:

---

My understanding is that socialism combines principles of communism, capitalism and democracy into one political philosophy. If you take the democracy out of socialism you no longer have socialism.

---

As long as 'some free markets' is used in place of 'capitalism', I'd agree. Some "socialists" might not.

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Doesn't Singapore have a extremely authoritarian government? Don't they cane prisoners?

---

Maybe they do, but no country matches the United States for rates of incarceration and total number its citizens in public and private-for-profit gulags. And contrary to basic human rights laws in most developed nations, incarcerated American's lose their right to vote. Over 80% of American's in jail are there for petty drug offenses, petty thefts and three petty strike laws. The poor in America are increasingly being warehoused by the prison industrial complex. Prison industrial complex is the new social contract on America.

quote:

---

And guess which country they want to expand into?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

My understanding is that socialism combines principles of communism, capitalism and democracy into one political philosophy. If you take the democracy out of socialism you no longer have socialism.
In your opinion is Singapore fachistic state or is it Communist in nature?
[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

---

Corporate welfare states could essentially be called fascist states if they met a few other criteria, like de-emphasizing social policies, glorifying military and over-emphasizing crime and punishment. Germany was a fascist, corporate welfare state as was Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Carlos Menem's Argentina and General Pinochet's Chile. In all cases, these fascists ordered the murder and torture of socialists, union leaders and communists.

Fascism is the merger of corporate and state interests. Interesting to note that Washington D.C. has several thousand corporate "lobbyists" bending the ear of government officials and state legislators, and Brian Mulroney introduced Washington style lobbyists to Ottawa in the 1980's.

China is definitely a communist nation that is experimenting with a socialist economy. But they do not float the Yuan as per liberlised capital markets, and they demand 51% controlling interest in all foreign corporations locating there. The Chinese state owns everything else. That's even further to the left than democratic socialism.

Harrison Salisbury, an investigative journalist who was in China during Tianenmen, has said that the students there were protesting for democratic socialism, not western style capitalism as so many corporate sponsored news media have led people to believe. Tiananmen Diary: 13 Days in June

And I've been to Cuba. "Give me socialism or give me death." Viva la revolucion de la partido de socialista!

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:
Given the historical fact that "Communism" comes from the word "commune," which defines the numerous cooperative democratically self-reliant townships throughout central Europe, and the Communist Manifesto was written to advocate this form of democratic economy and government on a global scale (i.e.; socialism), why do so many folks here insist on defining economies like Cuba, Iraq and China as "communist?"

---

Klingon, you're making my brain hurt. Going through these kinds of convolutions to define Maoist communism as capitalist is as absurd and revisionist as the repugnant attempts by the likes of A2K to define Hitler as a leftist.

quote:

---

China is definitely a communist-interventionist economy. They do not float the Yuan as per liberlised capital markets, and they demand 51% controlling interest in all foreign corporations locating there. The Chinese state owns everything else. That's even further to the left than democratic socialism.

---

That isn't liberal democracy, and neither is it liberal democratic reform to insulate their currency from foreign speculation. China isn't adhering to the Washington consesus to a large degree, Erik.

If you want an example of a country that has followed IMF/WB structural adjustment programs to a 'tee', then observe Thailand. And that country has faired about the worst. Same goes for almost every country in Latin America, Russia and several African nations currently struggling with "free" market reforms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:

Singapore?

---

Nope. Canada!.

American apartheid. Pic Botha travelled to the States several decades ago to study segregation as a model for S. African apartheid. Blacks, native Americans and Hispanics in America are disproportionately represented in what are the largest gulag populations in the world, bar none.
And those same ethnics also have the highest rates of child poverty and infant mortality in ranking the States about the worst for wear among developed nations. So much for capitalism delivering prosperity to all American's.

Singapore's socialist miracle

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Corporate welfare states could essentially be called fascist states if they met a few other criteria, like de-emphasizing social policies, glorifying military and over-emphasizing crime and punishment. Germany was a fascist, corporate welfare state as was Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Carlos Menem's Argentina and General Pinochet's Chile. In all cases, these fascists ordered the murder and torture of socialists, union leaders and communists.

Fascism is the merger of corporate and state interests. Interesting to note that Washington D.C. has several thousand corporate "lobbyists" bending the ear of government officials and state legislators, and Brian Mulroney introduced Washington style lobbyists to Ottawa in the 1980's.

China is definitely a communist nation that is experimenting with a socialist economy. But they do not float the Yuan as per liberlised capital markets, and they demand 51% controlling interest in all foreign corporations locating there. The Chinese state owns everything else. That's even further to the left than democratic socialism.

Harrison Salisbury, an investigative journalist who was in China during Tianenmen, has said that the students there were protesting for democratic socialism, not western style capitalism as so many corporate sponsored news media have led people to believe. Tiananmen Diary: 13 Days in June

And I've been to Cuba. "Give me socialism or give me death." Viva la revolucion de la partido de socialista!

cheers!

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

The United states of America is, or is rapidly becoming, a fascist state. I have no desire to move there nor do I wish to defend it. I am simply taking issue with your characterization of Singapore as a socialist state. It is not. Why do you insist on using the words socialist and social democratic to describe it? You seem to be very keen on holding Singapore up as an example all nations should follow. I vehemently disagree with you. The kind of authoratarinism practiced by Singaporean politicians should never be considered as a form of government.

PS: I do not support the policies of the IMF or The World Bank.
[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

The United states of America is, or is rapidly becoming, a fascist state. I have no desire to move there nor do I wish to defend it. I am simply taking issue with your characterization of Singapore as a socialist state. It is not. Why do you insist on using the words socialist and social democratic to describe it. You seem to be very keen on holding Singapore up as an example all nations should follow. I vehemently disagree with you. The kind of authoratarinism practiced by Singaporean politicians should never be considered as a form of government.

PS: I do not support the policies of the IMF or The World Bank.

[ 18 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

---

I don't support the policies of the IMF/WB either. And neither does Singapore or China subscribe to their ideals for "liberal democracy."

I don't seem to be able to convince you that Singapore is a socialist nation. I stand firm. Singaporean's may have some cultural/ethnic peculiarities about law and order, but by and large they are a bastion of socialism. The way justice is administered varies from country to country. Most democracies allow their incarcerated citizens the basic human right to vote in elections. And just as an example, the U.S. is the exception. Most democracies count incarcerated citizens in their unemployment statistics. Again, the U.S.A. is an exception.
In fact, our own "frozen Puerto Rico of the North" allows a rather high infant mortality as well as child poverty rates to define our society here. Many Singaporean's might actually say that Canada is not a social democracy. So if Singapore is not a socialist economy, then can you point me to another social democracy ?. There are several.

Economists around the world are describing Singapore's economy as among the freest in the world. And if annual income and material wealth of the people are included in those measures, then Singaporean's are certainly prospering from president Lee's socialist experiment in progress since 1965 or so. No economic system is perfect as we can point out the vast inequalities and lack of social justice in even the most prosperous economy built on Keynesianism, the United States. However, the USA has been headed down a path of economic chaos since the Ronald Reagan years.

"When money arrives, all is green, bustle and abundance. And when it leaves, all is trampled down, barren and bare." ~ 3000 yr. old Chinese proverb

"Where the military is, prices are high." - even older

cheers!

[ 19 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Captialism itself isn't bad.

---

quote:

---

I don't seem to be able to convince you that Singapore is a socialist nation. I stand firm.

---

No, it isn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

No, it isn't.

In order to be a social democracy singapore would have to be democratic.

---

There are 22 opposition parties in Singapore. They have elections. The socialists have invested in education for the people and have more than doubled the employment numbers within a generations time span. Singapore has socialized medicine, fifth highest incomes in the world on average, and there aren't people protesting in the streets against child poverty, right wing death squads, homelessness or bad economies in general as was the case in Brazil, S. Korea, Chiapas State, Chile, Spain, India etc before the people swung to the left in recent elections.

Singapore's highly competitive and affluent economy has been built by Lee Kuan Yew since 1965, a protege of British socialist, Harold Wilson.

CMOT, there are so many other more politically conservative and backward nations for you to tell the world, "we don't want to copy that economy."
Singaporean culture may not be for everyone else, but look at what the socialists have accomplished since being a third world victim of colonialism not that long ago. Of course no one is going to copy Singaporean mores and culture to a tee, but look at how there economy has been absolutely booming for many years now while so many more politically conservative economies are mired in mediocrity and low grade recession.

And Singapore's socialists didn't achieve this by experimenting with full scale deregulation and massive privatisation of the economy. Socialism in Singapore has a distinct Asian flavour with a bit of old time British socialism to spike it up!.

quote:

---

There are 22 opposition parties in Singapore. They have elections.

---

With unemployment rates, infant mortalityh and child poverty at the levels they are in Canada and the United States, I think we can learn a great deal from Singapore's Socialists.

cheers!

[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

But our very own Liberal party in Canada never lost a federal election for 27 consecutive years before Lyin' Brian in the 80's.

---

You're forgetting 1979, as well as minority governments in 1962, 1963, 1965, and 1972. And while I'm not claiming that democracy's necessarily healthy in Ontario -- let alone Alberta -- in neither jurisdiction do opposition politicians have to worry about the sort of intimidation detailed in that Guardian article I linked to, if you read it.

quote:

---

Your concerns about democacy in Singapore seem to be overshadowed by the economic miracle that has taken place in that country. I once read that Emma Goldman travelled to Russia to speak with Lenin about a lack of freedom of speech in that country. Lenin listened to her with wide eyes and bent ear. Goldman neglected to observe the civil war, 14 nation invasion of Russia in the skunkworks and absolute chaos surrounding the revolutionaries at the time to focus on ... freedom of speech ?. My God!

---

This makes no sense. One couldn't press for freedom of speech in revolutionary Russia because it was under attack, so by the same token one can't worry about political freedom in Singapore -- by your account, long since a "socialist" success -- because it's doing so well? I don't think so.

Besides, Emma Goldman was right. Stalin developed Soviet repression to a high degree, but he didn't invent it.

Edit:

Forgot to add this link, to a page run by Singaporeans who don't believe they have a democracy.

[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

CMOT, there are so many other more politically conservative and backward nations for you to tell the world, "we don't want to copy that economy."
Singaporean culture may not be for everyone else, but look at what the socialists have accomplished since being a third world victim of colonialism not that long ago. Of course no one is going to copy Singaporean mores and culture to a tee, but look at how there economy has been absolutely booming for many years now while so many more politically conservative economies are mired in mediocrity and low grade recession.

---

There are plenty of governments in the majority World which I think can be classified as social democracies, Venezuela being one of them, but not Singapore, not unless they have democratic elections.

[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

This makes no sense. One couldn't press for freedom of speech in revolutionary Russia because it was under attack, so by the same token one can't worry about political freedom in Singapore -- by your account, long since a "socialist" success -- because it's doing so well? I don't think so.

Besides, Emma Goldman was right. Stalin developed Soviet repression to a high degree, but he didn't invent it.
[ 20 August 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

But Singapore is doing well. That's the whole point. I mean, if freedom is measured in terms of economic prowess and average income, then on average, Singaporean's are earning the fifth highest incomes in the world and have a greater degree of income equality throughout their society than Canada or the States does with our extreme concentration of wealth and widening income and wealth gaps between rich and poor. If Liberty, equality and fraternity are the hallmarks of social democracy, then Singapore with its lower rates of infant mortality and lower child poverty should be a benchmark to achieve for any social democracy.

And Stalin was a product of not just the revolution, but the civil war and military attempts in the early 1920's by Germany, USA, Britain, Italy, Spain, Czechs, Hungary, Poland and several more nations which, together, tried to put down the Bolshevik revolution. Emma Goldman suggested that "freedom of speech" in Russia should come before bloody revolt at a time when not that many of them were ready to talk cease fire. It was no small case of "she had to be there' before making a valid comment on the situation. She was an American in a Russia that was quite unrecognizable to her at that chaotic time. She wanted to put the proverbial cart before the horse, so to speak.

And we could ask the growing number of homeless or the unemployed or those kicked off social assistance by various conservative and liberal governments across Canada how they feel about social democracy in this country. How many of us here feel that the Paul Martin Liberals were doing a good job leading up to the election?. Are they corrupt ?. Sure they are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Socialism is a very specific kind of leftist thought, and while Singapore may be a left-wing country it is by no means socialist.

---

Ahhh, I disagree, CMOT. Most, if not all of our political persuasions and thought today were born of the French Revolution, including political conservatism, fascism, a range of socialist theories and communism. Singapore definitely has been built on a solid socialist foundation. I kid you not. That's why socialism is so diverse and varied in thought. Political conservatism is as rigid as communism and tends to lien toward fascism if not held in check by socialists and proponents of social democracy from all disciplines and walks of life. Socialism is the future, and it's alive and well in many countries, including Singapore.

Conservative "think tank" ignores Singapore's Socialism

Off with their heads!

cheers!

[ 21 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

This type of blind apologism for authoritarian state capitalist regimes (and, yes, that is a legitimate description of them, as even Lenin wrote about this, and not a socialist economy, was being set up in post-revolutionary Russia) has lost all relevance or legitimacy--to the extent it ever had any.

First, Emma Goldman DID NOT put the cart before the horse. She quite rightly understood that without basic democratic rights and practices, a socialist economy could not develop. History proved her right, and all the Bolshevik and Stalinist apologists wrong.

Second, while the early Soviet Union was under constant attack and threat from other powers, that's not the main reason why it failed to develop a socialistic economy. It was the fact that its population was not organized, educated and enlightened enough to democratically organize this new type of economy--at least not beyond various successful local or regional efforts. Stalin and his crowd in fact did everything they could to actively suppress this type of activity, starting with the mass purges of all of the serious socialists from the ruling Communist Party (while putting deposed capitalists back in charge to the state owned corporations).

Third, I've done some brief reading, and it sure seems evident to me that Singapore isn't this thriving socialistic economy you make it out to be. I won't bore folks with figures and details, so I'll just give some impressions. It's true it has the fifth highest income in the world now and it's economy is "doing well" in comparison with other Asian countries. And it's seems true that it has a more equitable distribution of wealth than in Asian or even the US is some ways.

But given that wealth distribution is Asian and the US is oppressively lop-sided to begin with, that ain't saying much. It seems in fact that Singapore can't hold a candle to many European countries when it comes to wealth creation, equitable distribution and living standards, let alone democratic rights and freedoms.

Singapore seems to be a very highly corporatized society, where working people are almost entirely shut out of the economic debate and decision-making process. It has a ruthlessly authoritarian government the suppressed basic civil liberties and freedoms. Although trade unions are plentiful, most of their activity is illegal and they meet regularly with brute force. The government-corporate connect is as plainly evident as it is in any of these other countries.

It does have relatively good public health care and education services. But other than this, its social safety net is really lacking. Welfare programs, social housing, re-training, unemployment insurance, retirement security don't add up to much from the labour sites I have just read.

Historically, socialism has meant the democratic control of the markets and the economic means by working people and their communities, which of course presumes fully democratic process. Doesn't sound like Singapore to me.

It has also meant production for use and mutual satisfaction of needs and interest of the working population. Don't see much of this in Singapore.

Finally, the motivation for this has meant the long-term sustainable democratic development of communities, universal well being and opportunities for the free development and growth of every individual in the community. If Singapore had this, I would probably move there tomorrow. But, alas, it doesn't.

quote:

---

I mean, if freedom is measured in terms of economic prowess and average income...

---

but I don't measure it that way. It is important to have a system where people have a large enough salary to the live on, don't get me wrong, and It's true that economic equality is a big part of socialistic thought of all kinds, but civil rights are just as important.

quote:

---

I won't bore folks with figures and details...

---

Please, bore away. It would probably help your argument if you provided some articles.

quote:

---

Ahhh, I disagree, CMOT. Most, if not all of our political persuasions and thought today were born of the French Revolution, including political conservatism, fascism, a range of socialist theories and communism.

---

Definitely, but I would venture to state that not all of those socialist theories were referred to as social democracy.

[ 21 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

On the socialist side, they have several state owned and operated entities, including a modern, high speed commuter rail service, national airline, socialized medicine, freely accessable university education and generous social welfare benefits. And as per socialist economic theory concerning free markets, they have attracted foreign investment and have developed a diversified high tech manufacturing economy and state owned telecommunications company doing very well on the Asian stock market.

Over time, the statutory boards not only became major actors in the economy but also formed subsidiary companies to add flexibility to their own operations. For example, in 1986 the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation formed a subsidiary to produce commercials on a fee-for-service basis. The government entered other areas of the economy that it considered appropriate, exerting leadership, assuming risk, and not hesitating to withdraw its support or close down unprofitable companies.

A number of state and quasi-state companies were created either directly by Singaporean ministries and more often they were organized under three wholly owned government holding companies - Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, MND Holdings, and Sheng-Li Holding Company, which provided a wide range of goods and services. Joint ventures between the government and both domestic and foreign partners produced several industrial products, including steel and refined sugar. In addition, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), which was closely tied to the government, ran many cooperative businesses, including supermarkets, taxis, and a travel agency.

These state owned companies in Singapore contributed to Singapore's growing fortunes to a large extent, guys. That's socialism. In 1983, some 450 such companies, excluding subsidiaries of the statutory boards, employed 58,000 workers, or 5 percent of the labor force. In 1986 there were approximately 500 such companies still active.

Perhaps you just aren't familiar with modern socialist economics or free market theory in general ?.

And in case you missed it, here it is again ...

Singapore's Socialist Miracle

Fidel, you obviously get more from that article than I do. I can tell by the scripting that it has been very roughly translated, so maybe something got missed.

But making blanket equations of "heavy state interventions" automatically with socialism just doesn’t fly as very accurate or honest in my book.

As to accuracy, a few points on your post:

>"tex-book, Smithian laissez faire capitalism lasted about 30 years. Soviet communism last about 70. In fact, text-book political theories and economics have never existed for very long in their purest forms. "

I'll say. The historic truth is, other than a few restricted local experiments and a whole lot of empty rhetoric, "communism" (or socialism) didn't exist in the Soviet Union at all.

As for laissez faire, you would be hard pressed to find that anywhere in history, except at a very petty level. Adam Smith, who wrongly heralded as a hero of capitalism was in fact one of its biggest critics, often attacking the growing power and privilege of the corporate class and its influence over the state and the economy.

>"Singapore is too a socalist economy."

Like I said before, other than a few corporatized copies of socialistic reforms, it clearly is as capitalistic as anywhere else.

>"they have several state owned and operated entities, including a modern, high speed commuter rail service, national airline, socialized medicine, freely accessible university education and generous social welfare benefits."

Impressive. But not any more so than in a whole variety of industrialized countries. The question is who calls the shots?

State ownership, like state "intervention," isn't in itself socialist. Corporations that are controlled by elite appointed bureaucrats and CEOs, be they state or private, aren't conducive to public control or accountability, let alone socialist economics.

You only need to look at crown corporations in Canada. They are structured in a similar way to private ones, and the management operates largely by the same modes. It is state capitalism par excellence, as the profiteering wealth-accumulating agendas of the CEOs and senior managers clashes with and often takes precedent over both the public interest and the interests of the workers who provide the service to the public.

In BC, the very same senior crown corporation bosses are implementing the BC Liar’s vicious and expensive privatization agenda. These are people who unilaterally make investment, operations and personnel decisions, decide how much they pay themselves, which is usually huge amounts of money with perks and benefits and who stand to gain a lot from privatization.

In the Soviet Union at the height of Stalinism, over 70 per cent of the economy was directly or indirectly in state hands. Senior bosses, consultants and apparatchiks made literally millions a year, while the population laboured in moderation and in many cases poverty.

>"A number of state and quasi-state companies were created either directly by Singaporean ministries and more often they were organized under three wholly owned government holding companies - Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, MND Holdings, and Sheng-Li Holding Company, which provided a wide range of goods and services."

Again, impressive. But who benefited, who was in control, who had a say and who prospered primarily as a result? Where did the bulk of the wealth created go? To the workers, the communities?

>"In addition, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), which was closely tied to the government, ran many cooperative businesses, including supermarkets, taxis, and a travel agency."

This is great too. But obviously it was very much the exception--nowhere near enough to declare the whole economy as socialist.

>"These state owned companies in Singapore contributed to Singapore's growing fortunes to a large extent, guys. That's socialism."

No it isn't--at least not necessarily. The fact that these companies are controlled by an unelected profiteering elite that controls all of the wealth, that in spite of all of the wealth created, it is still predominantly in the hands of a minority.

And laissez faire capitalism is pretty much what collapsed around the world starting around 1929.

"Damnit, Jim. I'm a doctor not a magician!"

[ 22 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

then you can tell me which prominent socialist fled Germany in the 1930's and taught at a well known American university. And no, it wasn't Albert Einstein, although he was a famous socialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rand McNally:

I am confused, this seems like a complete non-sequitur. But yet, I want to play, who are the members of the Frankfurt school, Hockheimer, Marcuse, and Adorono. Do I get bonus points for coming up with multiple answers. Fidel, your location has been nagging me for awhile, I could not remember where I had seen that quote before. Your Einstein remark has reminded me; “Why Socialism?”.

---

C'mon guys. Why do I get the feeling that I'm the one in school here. Bonus points to you, Rand. And it was Karl Polanyi who fled Vienna and came to Southern Ontario. "Red" Vienna is probably the longest running experiment in socialism today, except for the fascist years under Hitler. Polanyi's wife was barred from entering the States because of her communist affiliations. Polanyi wrote The Great Transformation
...smart a$$es!

>"C'mon guys. Why do I get the feeling that I'm the one in school here."

Maybe the School of Fraser Institute level of intelligence and honesty. Your last post certainly shows it.

>""Red" Vienna is probably the longest running experiment in socialism today, except for the fascist years under Hitler."

Wow! For a guy who's full of historic trivia you sure don't have a clue about what socialism is or what the social movements that have inspired it, or have been inspired by it, tried to achieve.

Now, according to the wise Fidel, "socialism" and "fascism" go together, and Hitler, who was one of the most anti-socialist freaks in history, "experimented" with socialism.

This type of assertion borders on insanity (in fact it's actually nuts). This type of association completely divorces the term "socialism" form ANY practical or factual historic context and imposes the meaning of totalitarian state and/or corporate capitalism supported by brutal repression, corruption and regimentation.

This is not only one of the most grossly inaccurate use of historic terms, but it is outright slanderous against any person throughout history who has worked for the democratization of the economy and the public interest, as well as just plain liberty, equality, sustainability and against oppression.

Joseph McCarthy had nuthin on you, buddy. Your posts are a waste of good electrons. Come back when you have at least a vague idea of what socialism is and what its' practical applications have been over the last two hundred years.

Until then, pick up your prize for the worst post I have seen yet on the Rabble.

quote:

---

Now, according to the wise Fidel, "socialism" and "fascism" go together, and Hitler, who was one of the most anti-socialist freaks in history, "experimented" with socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:
P'Tachk! You speak the language of a Tarh’khek!
Maybe the School of Fraser Institute level of intelligence and honesty. Your last post certainly shows it.

Wow! For a guy who's full of historic trivia you sure don't have a clue about what socialism is or what the social movements that have inspired it, or have been inspired by it, tried to achieve.

Now, according to the wise Fidel, "socialism" and "fascism" go together, and Hitler, who was one of the most anti-socialist freaks in history, "experimented" with socialism.
Until then, pick up your prize for the worst post I have seen yet on the Rabble.

Loser

---

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, Klingon. Hitler was a political conservative at a time when political conservatism was on the wane ... around the world. Churchill was a political conservative who cloaked himself in Britain's Liberal party. Herbert Hoover led America into the Great Depression era. So... what to do for a political conservative in an economically depressed Germany a no political party with any chance of being elected ?. There were dozens of socialist and communist parties poised for election, however. And guess who manages to come to the top of the pile?. Hitler wasn't elected though because the Nazis seized power and proceeded to outlaw all leftist parties and arrest socialists, communists and trade unionists in 1933 after the passing of the malicious services act and one other one I can't remember. Hitler was a fascist. And Vienna was socialist before and after Hitler and to this day. Friedrich von Hayek, one of the dead high priests of capitalism, wrote a scathing critique of socialism in Vienna entitled, "The Road to Surfdom." Polanyi, a socialist, wrote The Great Transformation, a masterpiece of socialist economic theory which essentially corrected the Adam Smithian model of economics based on human nature and Smith's homo economicus. TGT was rejected by the elite in Europe at the time but was well received in the United States as they were beginning what would be a long experiment in Keynesian economics - "socialism-lite"... until Ronald Reagan's time.

Homo economicus is/was supposed to represent people acting within an economic framework. In those early days, economists wanted to popularize the study of economics and encourage its study in universities. And they wanted to make the study of economics a science. To make the model more easily surrounded with mathematical formulae and equations to measure and predict economic outcomes, they would reduce the human behavioural model to a single aspect, self-interest or "greed." But according to Polanyi, that wasn't very scientific at all. He said that we are more than just one dimensional prisoners of our own greed. Human beings are capable of empathy for the poor, civic mindedness and a desire to work towards a common good among a wide array of other human behaviours. To distort the model and reduce all human behaviour to homo economicus would distort real human behaviour of people acting within such a model. And the results would also be distorted. Polanyi was trying to explain how economic depressions occur. I think he was right.

Polanyi said that an economy that values cost of labour and capital in producing a good or service cannot provide for a society's needs. He said that a full economic accounting must also include something known as "social capital."

And the conservative hawks, devoid of any real economic theory of their own after the end of laissez faire capitalism in 1929, have been trying to sabotage the whole deal ever since.

Spock, analyze!.

[ 22 August 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I think that we should adopt shared work weeks in order to share meaningful and productive work. There is about a third of the world's work force that has just never been integrated into a working life. Market capitalism is not providing even what it was supposed to for billions of people, basic economic security. There are those advocating a universal basic income for all, and the idea appeals to all political groups.. except probably the ultra-right wing Libertarian's. But they're a fringe group anyway. As most socialists have said, the economy needs to serve society rather than the reverse. Concentrating vast wealth into the hands of a few and true social democracy are incompatible.

It's not the institutions that are the problem. It's not the banks or the corporations, or even the damn IMF. It's a question of ownership. You can't stop these things from fucking up the people until the people can control them, and for the people to control these institutions, they have to own them.

quote:

---

Sorry, "dude", but I mistook you for someone who had a clue.

---

[ 23 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 23 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 23 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 23 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

If you have a weak central government, CMOT, think of what can and has happened.

---

Interesting argument. You believe that democratic reforms would weaken the Singaporean state and therefore leave it vulnerable to attack both from within and without? The problem is that this isn't 1965, Singapore isn't a newly forged state. After 40 years of having the same party in power don't you think the Singaporean state could losen up a bit? The leaders of Singapore are not Fidelistas, they will not be killed by the CIA if they show up in Washington. If a Singaporean government official announced that the transition to democracy would there be rioting in the streets?

quote:

---

By and large, if Singapore has lower infant mortality and rates of child poverty than Canada or the U.S.A., then I think that that must tip the scales somewhat toward social democracy. Yes?.

---