The Bankruptcy of Liberal Federalism

The release of the testimony from the Gomery commission this week pushed the Popes funeral off the newspaper headlines on Friday. Scandal battering Liberals, poll shows

Damn good thing too, there was enough 24 hr coverage on TV to bore one to tears, with the platitudes given to the leader of this outmoded medieval institution.

On to Gomery, well lets see what has been revealed is that now that Jean Brault of GroupAction spilled the beans last week everyone is now singing like stool pigeons. The Chretien cone of silence has been broken open. And now it comes out that as PMO hack Alain Renault says "It's just the way the world works".

Yep it goes like this. Facing a crisis from doing little or nothing around the 1995 Quebec Referendum the Liberals under PM Chretien panicked after the vote went 49% Yes 51% No. Along with the 1993 election the referendum bankrupted the provincial Liberal organization in Quebec. The Federal Government, an arm of the Liberal Party, under Chretien created a sponsorship slush fund to promote Canadian Unity in Quebec.

The official opposition was the Alliance Party of Canada, which had no base in Quebec nor did the NDP. So the Liberals being the only Federalist party in Quebec naturally assumed that they were THE FEDERALISTS. That the Liberals see themselves, not the Government, as the voice of federalism is key to this mess.

Ever since Trudeau, the Liberals have had a vision of a Quebec within Canada, while the Parlimentary carreerists in the old Tory party and the NDP were weak sisters backing up the Liberal lead against the Quebec nationalists.

With the success of the PQ in coming to power in Quebec despite Trudeau, the two Quebec referendums, the collapse of the Tories into the Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois scared the bejessus out of the Quebec Liberals under Chretien.

But the real problem was that the party organization in the province was broke. So the sponsorship fund to promote Canadian Federalism, read the Liberals, in Quebec became a slush fund to refinance the party.

Now this is business as ususal in Quebec, the Tories under Brian Mulroney did the same thing on a smaller scale and got caught. The business class in Quebec like Bombadier always lobbies the Feds for corporate handouts, it is the legacy of Trudeau Liberalism. And even the PQ is now accused of accepting brown envelopes of cash to approve GroupAction contracts.

Of course this kind of brown envelope politics is not limited to Quebec, it has been practiced by the Liberals in areas like Hamilto, Ontario too. Both Hamilton and Quebec have strong organized crime families that have allegedly been involved with the Liberals through their ties to certain ethnic communities. And this has been the case in Quebec where some of those who are accussed of money laundering for the party have last names like Gagliano, Morselli,and Mignacca.

Was this approved by the PMO under Chretien,? Well the bread crumbs lead that way, but the former PM has plausable deniability built into this affair. He can claim he left his Ministers in charge, and not being one to micro-manage he can say he didn't know. He also has the Liberal arrogance of being able to say, as he has, that only the Liberals fight for Federalism, that Federalism (Trudeau's concept of it anyway) is the Liberal Party.

And that is the subtext to this whole affair, only the Liberals represent all of Canada and the Trudeau vision of a Federalism that includes Quebec, whether they want it or not. The Tories under Brian Mulroney never could say that since they were an amalgamation of soft Quebec Nationalists, right wing populist Western Canadians and Bay Street boys.

The NDP has a policy recognizing Quebec's right to self determination but their 'real politick' is two faced, the elected MP's are all quizzlings for the Liberal Federalist vision. So the only real Federalists are the Liberals, and whatever they do to save Canada from Quebec nationalism is ok.

Whenever the Liberals talk about Federalism it is their federalism, their party policy that integrated the Quebec ruling class into Canada after the Quiet Revolution. It is the continuation Trudeau's war against the Quebec nationalism of the unions and the left.

Which is also why the NDP has been historically locked out of Quebec, even though they are a social democratic party. The PQ and the BQ have the support of Quebec's unions and the left. And their social democatic parties are to the left of the NDP. The BQ is under the leadership of Duccepe who is a Marxist Lenninist and a labour activist.

While the NDP under Smiling Jack Layton a former city councilor, remains the voice of Ed 'I'm a social democrat' Broadbent and the CLC. During the referendum the English Canadian Unions and the NDP joined in mass demonstrations waving the Canadian flag in Quebec and calling for a No vote.

Yep, the Federal Liberals view themselves as the only party capable of maintaining Quebec in Canada. And if that takes creasing some palms, well so be it. Of course it helps when the pork also gets shared back to bail the party out of it's fiscal mess.

This is all the result of the politics of statist federalism, that refuses to reconstitute Canada as a partnership between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. It is the real legacy of Trudeaumania.

Federalism as it is now constituted is a failure. It requires a strong central state, willing to slap down the provinces, which Trudeau was willing to do ("just watch me") and his descendants have no stomach for.

The weak tea federalism of the post-Trudeau era has created the mess we are in. Mulroney tried to bandage over with recognition of Quebec's distinct status not as a nation but as a province, with powers different from other provinces cause it is, the home of one of the Canadian State's founding peoples.

This has left the door open to other provinces like Alberta to challenge the Feds over provincial rights and for the Right Wing Federal Tories to promote a decentralized federalism contrary to the Trudeau vision. Liberaltarian Stephen Harper offers a vision of Canada that would be the creation of ten provincial fifedoms. His version of Canadian Federalism is simply neo-Feudalism.

In fact Trudeau's Federalism is not that of the classical anarchists but the reverse, he stands Bakunin on his head and proposes a new Canadian Nationalism, which had a strong central liberal state in opposition to Quebec nationalism.

"In the great tide of nationalism in the nineteenth century, there was a handful of prophetic and dissenting voices, urging a different style of federalism. It is interesting, at the least, that the ones whose names survive were the three best known anarchist thinkers of that century: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. The actual evolution of the political left in the twentieth century has dismissed their legacy as irrelevant. So much the worse for the left, since the road has been emptied in favour of the political right, which has been able to set out its own agenda for both federalism and regionalism." Colin Ward. The Anarchists Sociology of Federalism

But Quebec does not want special provincial status and never has, it wants state hood, within a new regional confederation. And that could open up a real confederation, not only between the so called English Canadian State and the Quebec State but also with the Aborignal peoples, who were not included as 'founding peoples' of the modern Canadian state.

If this Federalist scandal proves anything it proves that trying to keep a former colonial state under British parlimentary rule founded in 1867 and revised in 1967 is a failure despite Trudeaus best efforts.

We need a new Canadian Confederation, one that recognizes citizens assemblies, the Quebec nation, the aboriginal and metis nations, that eliminates the Senate and allows for greater involvement of political movements through proportional representation. All this a liberal state could accomplish.

But a Liberal state never will.

From bad to worse: MPs fear Gomery revelations could lower public trust

Bruce Cheadle

Canadian Pres

Sunday, April 10, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - Veteran New Democrat MP Bill Blaikie, an ordained United Church clergyman, has never felt a personal whiff of scandal in his 26 years in federal politics.

But the affable Winnipeg MP still fears the stench rising from Justice John Gomery's sponsorship inquiry will taint him and every other federal politician forced to call Ottawa home these days.

"Obviously, my hope would be otherwise: that people would resolve to rise up and do something about it," Blaikie said in a weekend interview from his Transcona constituency office.

"But I think there's a very real danger that it increases cynicism."

It's an almost universal lament as the inquiry unearths a vast cache of riveting testimony alleging Liberal party corruption that is unparalleled in recent Canadian political history.

"People are going to lose faith even in voting," offered NDP Leader Jack Layton.

For a profession that consistently polls at the bottom in public trust rankings, right behind used car dealers, the sponsorship scandal is like a cruel punchline.

Stephen Harper agrees. Federalism in peril: Harper, Liberals to blame And so does the public; Opinions range from 'Liberals must go' to 'all politicians are corrupt'

Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION By Antony C. Sutton
Found on the web the full book by Anthony Sutton a rational conspiracy researcher, he studies machinations of 20th Century business decisionsof the Wall Street movers and shakers that have had important political impacts. His focus is on the masks of capitalism, the movers and shakers of the corporate world and their political allies.

His dedication is interesting as well:

To
those unknown Russian libertarians, also
known as Greens, who in 1919 fought both
the Reds and the Whites in their attempt to
gain a free and voluntary Russia

Suttons book is an excellent supplement to Maurice Britons outstanding libertarian history of the Russian Revolution; The Bolsheviks and Workers Control. The libertarians in the Russian Revolution were centred around the Ukrainian Anarchist Nestor Makhno.

Sutton debunks the Jewish Conspiracy theory in his appendix to this book, which is printed below.

"Capitalism and Bolshevism are the two sides of the same international Jewish coin." - Adolf Hitler

This is the core conspiracy theory behind the American/English/European/Christian and Islamic belief that the Jews rule the world. One could just as well make the case for the Anglo American Alliance conspiracy theory which sees the the US and England in a long battle with the Vatican. Or that it is all an attempt by the Freemasons to enlighten the world. Or the attempt by Cecil Rhodes to revive the power of the declining English Empire with his round table group, Rhodes himself being a notorious racist and anti-semite. All these conspiracy mythos come to a single conspiracy conclusion that there is one mysterious body of leaders behind all this and it is always the same metatheory whether it is the Illuminati or the New World Order it ends up as the Jews are behind it. Since conspiracy theorists are single minded in their 'faith' that there is a single power at the top of their pyramid their metatheory always ends up as anti-semitic. Being a monolithic view that there is a conspiracy to monopolize power, the conspiracy faithful build intricate patterns of roots and branches eventually all leading to Zion. Or is it Sion? Ah well it's B.S. as Sutton correctly points out. Conspiracy theorists enamoured upon their discovery that "the history of the world is the history of secret societies"(as Ishmael Reed said in his novel Mumbo Jumbo) forget that other dictum; the ruling classes compete for power. Regardless of whether that power is to maintain the antiquated aristocracy of the various European royal families, or the Arabic clans and families, or the Indian Brahamin class, or the Japanese Samuria culture now embedded in their Corporatist State, or the American power struggle between Yankees and Cowboys ( Carl Oglesby ), it is all the same struggle. The capitalist system of politics makes each national bourgoise , the executive arm of their particular national capital and its political economy, regardless if it is a mixed economy, a private market or state capitalism. And within this national executive the Power Elite, (C. Wright Mills,) form political camps and vie for power and global hegemony. The Trilateral Commission, the Davos World Economic Forum and the Bilderburger group, are excellent examples of this ruling class conspiracy (conspiracy in the sense that these are private meetings which do not have public oversight and involve all the superstructures of the capitalist state) to maintain its power. The decisions and policies of these institutions of the ruling class elite, think tanks really, set the wheels of globalization, the WTO, and the new corporate state in motion; American Imperialism through free trade and privatization, while right wing think tanks, like the Cato institute, act as the cheerleaders for these policies . Like the story of the Wizard of Oz the conspiracy theorist needs to believe in the metatheory that the Wizard is behind it all, when in reality it is like the machinery of the Wizard; being the machinery of capitalism, the interlocking families, businesses, corporations, and the state compete to maintain their hegemony of power, and to become a monolithic hegemony (imperialism). The conspiracy theorists do us all a favour in revealing exactly the magnitude of what Chomsky calls the institutional structure of the ruling class. But rather than dismissing the conspiracy culture as Chomsky does, we should look at the facts they raise, not for their racist xenophobic conclusions, but rather as a way of assessing the machinations of the global ruling classes in all their internal conflicts to maintain their power and hegemony. This is what makes Suttons books such a damn good read. They clearly show that rather than being a monolithic conspiracy that goes back thousands of years to lost Atlantis, the corporate hegemony of the elites over the state in the twentieth century is really politics as usual under a still ascendant capitalism. In this way Sutton is not so much a conspiracy researcher, though many of his fans are, as he is a student of Ruling Class Studies. As were Caroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, another source for the conspiracy cult, Ferdinand Lundberg The Rich and the Super-Rich and William Domhoff', Who Rules America? Another excellent sociological study of an actual ruling class secret society is the doctoral dissertation by Peter Martin Phillips, A Relative Advantage: Sociology of the San Francisco Bohemian Club. This struggle of the power elites goes back to the origins of modern capitalism between 1400 and 1700 as it evolved out of fuedalism to finally challenge it with a new method of production in the 18th and 19th centuries, and a new State, certainly needs no Atlantean connection to make it worthy of study and understanding. As the power of the elites under capitalism expanded so did their riches. Which is what intriques the conspiracy faithful, they expose the inheritance of power and wealth of the elite. The fortunes of the capitalist ruling class are not made by production, sales, work, creation of factories, or jobs but by inheritence the very source as, Marx points out, of the origin of capital. The right wing in America, so enamoured of conspiracy theories, justifies this inheritance of power and wealth by the elites and the ruling classes which is ironically, the very source of their conspiracy theories.

"In a capitalist society, the institution of inheritance is more than a moral institution, it is part of the process whereby wealth is transferred to those who can best use it to serve the wishes of consumers." The Super-Rich Tax Themselves by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

And who better to know what we want, then our rulers whose only claim to power is the wealth they did not earn but inherited from their families who have been exploiting us for centuries. How this wealth came to be, theft, murder, etc., in the hands of a small elite is not anwsered by the right wing apologists for the power elite. And when the ruling class fears things aren't going their way they create their own counter revolution; Fascism.

As Domhoff points out:

Most sectors of the American economy are dominated by a relative handful of large corporations. These corporations, in turn, are linked in a variety of ways to create a corporate community. At an economic level, the ties within the corporate community are manifested in ownership of common stock on the part of both families and other corporations, as well as in joint ventures among corporations and in the common sources of bank loans that most corporations share. At a more sociological level, the corporate community is joined together by the use of the same legal, accounting, and consulting firms and by the similar experiences of executives working in the bureaucratic structure of a large organization. Then too, the large corporations come together as a business community because they share the same values and goals-in particular, the profit motive. Finally, and not least, the common goals of the corporations lead them to have common enemies in the labor movement and middle-class reformers, which gives them a further sense of a shared identity.

hundreds of very large corporations ... are privately owned by a family or group of families. The size and extent of such corporations is often overlooked in discussions of the modern corporation.

The fact that the upper class is also intertwined with the corporate community adds a second dimension to the nature of its cohesiveness. The cohesion is not only social, based on school and club affiliations, but economic, rooted in common stock ownership and most visibly manifested in the complex pattern of interlocking directorships that unites the corporate community and creates a dense and flexible communication network.

And this is exactly what Anthony Sutton's books document is the American Power Elite and their influence in the 20th Century. In Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, he says;

"This politically active Wall Street group is more or less the same elitist circle known generally among Conservatives as the "Liberal Establishment," by liberals (for instance G. William Domhoff) as "the ruling class," and by conspiratorial theorists Gary Allen and Dan Smoot as the "Insiders." But whatever we call this self-perpetuating elitist group, it is apparently fundamentally significant in the determination of world affairs, at a level far behind and above that of the elected politicians."

Sutton is also the author of "America's Secret Establishment. An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones." His work on the Skull and Bones has seen renewed popularity as both George W and John Kerry were members of this Anglo American establishment institution, as is William Buckely Jr. Scratch a right winger, even a so called libertarian right winger, in the United States and you will find a conspiracy theorist. A simple review of conspiracy web sites will reveal the fact that all of them lead to evangelical protestant sects in America and their websites, bible study courses and mass media broadcasts about the coming end days. And of course these sects are notorious anti-semites, cause they know who killed Jesus. So now you know who is really behind the conspiracy.

Appendix II

THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"; more specifically, a conspiracy by Jewish world bankers. Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age-old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness."

The argument and its variants can be found in the most surprising places and from quite surprising persons. In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article — rarely cited today — for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism Versus Bolshevism." In this' article Churchill concluded that it was "particularly important... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion . . . and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy." Churchill draws a line between "national Jews" and what he calls "international Jews." He argues that the "international and for the most atheistical Jews" certainly had a "very great" role in the creation of Bolshevism and bringing about the Russian Revolution. He asserts (contrary to fact) that with the exception of Lenin, "the majority" of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish, and adds (also contrary to fact) that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were excepted by the Bolsheviks from their policies of seizure. Churchill calls the international Jews a "sinister confederacy" emergent from the persecuted populations of countries where Jews have been persecuted on account of their race. Winston Churchill traces this movement back to Spartacus-Weishaupt, throws his literary net around Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, and charges: "This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

Churchill then argues that this conspiratorial Spartacus-Weishaupt group has been the mainspring of every subversive movement in the nineteenth century. While pointing out that Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the soul of the Jewish people, Churchill (in 1920) was preoccupied with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Another well-known author in the 1920s, Henry Wickham Steed describes in the second volume of his Through 30 Years 1892-1922 (p. 302) how he attempted to bring the Jewish-conspiracy concept to the attention of Colonel Edward M. House and President Woodrow Wilson. One day in March 1919 Wickham Steed called Colonel House and found him disturbed over Steed's recent criticism of U.S. recognition of the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to House that Wilson would be discredited among the many peoples and nations of Europe and "insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia."1 According to Steed, Colonel House argued for the establishment of economic relations with the Soviet Union.

Probably the most superficially damning collection of documents on the Jewish conspiracy is in the State Department Decimal File (861.00/5339). The central document is one entitled "Bolshevism and Judaism," dated November 13, 1918. The text is in the form of a report, which states that the revolution in Russia was engineered "in February 1916" and "it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work":

(1) Jacob Schiff Jew (2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company Jewish Firm Management: Jacob Schiff Jew
Felix Warburg Jew
Otto H. Kahn Jew
Mortimer L. Schiff Jew
Jerome J. Hanauer Jew (3) Guggenheim Jew (4) Max Breitung Jew (5) Isaac Seligman Jew

The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution was started and engineered by this group and that in April 1917

Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished and in the Spring 1917 Jacob Schitf started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia.

The report contains other miscellaneous information about Max Warburg's financing of Trotsky, the role of the Rheinish-Westphalian syndicate and Olof Aschberg of the Nya Banken (Stockholm) together with Jivotovsky. The anonymous author (actually employed by the U.S. War Trade Board)states that the links between these organizations and their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution show how "the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged." The report goes on to list a large number of Bolsheviks who were also Jews and then describes the actions of Paul Warburg, Judus Magnes, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Speyer & Company.

The report ends with a barb at "International Jewry" and places the argument into the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion. Accompanying this report is a series of cables between the State Department in Washington and the American embassy in London concerning the steps to be taken with these documents:

5399 Great Britain, TEL. 3253 i pm

October 16, 1919 In Confidential File
Secret for Winslow from Wright. Financial aid to Bolshevism & Bolshevik Revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mendell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung & one of the Guggenheims. Document re- in possession of Brit. police authorities from French sources. Asks for any facts re-.

* * * * *

Oct. 17 Great Britain TEL. 6084, noon r c-h 5399 Very secret. Wright from Winslow. Financial aid to Bolshevik revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews. No proof re- but investigating. Asks to urge Brit. authorities to suspend publication at least until receipt of document by Dept.

* * * * *

Nov. 28 Great Britain TEL. 6223 R 5 pro. 5399
FOR WRIGHT. Document re financial aid to Bolsheviki by prominent American jews. Reports — identified as French translation of a statement originally prepared in English by Russian citizen in Am. etc. Seem most unwise to give — the distinction of publicity.

It was agreed to suppress this material and the files conclude, "I think we have the whole thing in cold storage."

Another document marked "Most Secret" is included with this batch of material. The provenance of the document is unknown; it is perhaps FBI or military intelligence. It reviews a translation of the Protocols of the Meetings of the Wise Men of Zion, and concludes:

In this connection a letter was sent to Mr. W. enclosing a memorandum from us with regard to certain information from the American Military Attache to the effect that the British authorities had letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. Copies of this material will be very useful to us.

This information was apparently developed and a later British intelligence report makes the flat accusation:

SUMMARY: There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action....4

However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.

It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime. This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.

The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.

What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?

Tags

The Canadian Panama Mining Swindle

Petaquilla Minerals chairman-CEO steps aside temporarily due to legal issues



March 23, 2005
VANCOUVER (CP) - The chairman and chief executive of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. has stepped aside temporarily due to an investigation into allegations of irregularities while he was the governor of Panama's Cocle province.

The company said Wednesday that no charges have been laid against Richard Fifer, but in the interest of good corporate governance he would step aside for the time being. Fifer will continue to serve the Vancouver company in a non-executive role and will remain on its board.

Petaquilla is a Canadian-based mineral explorer focused on developing a property in north-central Panama containing copper, gold, silver and molybdenum, a specialty industrial metal.

Richard Fifer is accused of embezzelment and shady dealings in Panama, hoping to cash in on his links to the government and knowing in advance the expansion plans for the Panama Canel he suddely revives his mining company reserves in Panama exactly where the Canel is supposed to expand.

Meanwhile he is financing his Canadian based Panama Mining operations in the infamous Vancouver Stock exchange, notorious for it's insider trading and other swindles and scandals. And along comes Fifer to create another one.
See my Alberta Stock Exchange Scandal for more on the Vancouver Exchange.

If there ever was the need for a SINGLE Regulator over the five Canadian exchanges, here is another good example of why.

And of course Fifers mining operations are an environmental hazard, being a get in, get out, get rich quick scheme. Is this another Bre X in the making?

You would of course never know this from the CP story. So I have added background news on Fifer from Panama.

Panama News
Vol. 11, No. 5
March 6 - 19, 2005
Panamanian government officials, IADB used as stage props by Fifer’s company
Canadian authorities looking at Petaquilla Minerals over possible insider trading

by Eric Jackson

Petaquilla Minerals Ltd, which has an extensive but never operational mining concession for northern Cocle and western Colon provinces that may be in the way of plans to expand the Panama Canal, may be in trouble with Canadian authorities over transactions on the Toronto Stock exchange.

Former Cocle governor Richard Fifer, the CEO of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd, was charged with embezzling public funds while serving as governor of Cocle on February 4. An arrest warrant was issued and Fifer went into hiding while his lawyers sought to quash the warrant. On February 10, while Fifer was a fugitive from Panamanian justice and before there had been any mention at all about his trouble in the Canadian press, Petaquilla sold 500,000 company shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On February 21, a court in Cocle province cancelled the arrest warrant but not the charges, and required Fifer to report to police every 15 days and prohibited him from leaving the country.

On February 20, while Fifer was still sought by Panamanian authorities, President Martín Torrijos and officials of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) appeared at a ceremony in La Pintada, Cocle, to announce a $20 million contract for several projects, including improvements to the road to Coclesito.* At that event Torrijos was photographed with Petaquilla CFO Kenneth W. Morgan, and the company used that photograph and a deceptive headline to imply that the bank is supporting the company’s purported mining development. (That clipping is found on the Internet here.) In another press release about the event, Petaquilla claimed, without citing a date, that Morgan and Fifer met with the Vice-Minister of Commerce and Industry (See here.)

The Panama News asked the Presidencia and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry whether officials of the Torrijos administration had met with Fifer while he was a fugitive from justice. A spokesman for President Torrijos referred The Panama News to Petaquilla for answers to that question. A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said that no such meeting showed up on the ministry’s logs.

Meanwhile, this reporter contacted the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), which oversees activities on the Toronto Stock Exchange, asking if it would have constituted insider trading for Petaquilla to sell shares on the exchange when the fact that its CEO was a fugitive from justice was undisclosed to the Canadian market.

In a delayed response to the questions from The Panama News, the OSC acknowledged the February 10 transaction, and said that "your email has been forwarded to appropriate OSC staff for further review" but added that "the OSC does not generally disclose the existence or status of a review or investigation until we issue a Statement of Allegations and the matter becomes part of the public record."

The OSC also pointed out that "[o]n February 25, PTQ responded to news reports in Panama regarding the investigation of their Chairman and CEO Richard Fifer.... [t]he News Release does not seem to have had a dramatic effect on the stock price."

From the company's perspective, continuity in the stock price was the objective. But the problem is that the Petaquilla press statement was a lie.

Petaquilla Addresses Press Reports
Distribution Source : CCNMatthews
Date : Friday - February 25, 2005

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthe ws - Feb. 25, 2005) - Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. ("the Company")(TSX:PTQ)( OTCBB:PTQMF) has responded to news reports in Panama that Richard Fifer, Chairman and CEO of the Company, is being investigated for alleged irregularities while Governor of Cocle Province, Panama.

The Company has retained independent legal counsel in Panama to investigate the allegations against Mr. Fifer.

The Company has been informed that there are no outstanding warrant orders, charges or arrest orders for Mr. Fifer, despite what some newspaper articles are currently reporting.

The Board of Directors assures all stakeholders that it will continue to seek additional information and will act decisively and promptly if further action is warranted.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of

PETAQUILLA MINERALS LTD.

"Kenneth W. Morgan"

Kenneth W. Morgan, CFO and Director
Petaquilla Minerals Ltd.
Kenneth W. Morgan
CFO and Director
(604) 694-0021
(604) 694-0063

No stock exchange has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.


Panama News
Vol. 11, No. 4
Feb. 20 - March 5, 2005

Is this an alleged embezzler’s ploy to cash in on canal expansion?
Just as the Cerro Petaquilla mine promoters say they're set to start, problems arise

by Eric Jackson, partly from other media

There’s gold in them hills. Also, copper, silver molybdenum and other mineral resources. Proof of that is the frequency by which the police have to move in to eject wildcatters, many of them Colombian, who wash away hillsides in the forest with high-pressure hoses to get the gold.

But how much of the metal that drives white men crazy, extractable at what cost? And is Cerro Petaquilla really a world-class copper deposit?

These questions could come front and center in Panamanian political discourse within the year, as soon as the Panama Canal Authority issues its plan to expand the canal. If previous suggestions to flood areas west of the canal are part of the plan, then all of a sudden the Cerro Petaquilla mining concession would become the largest single property for which compensation would have to be paid.

Now if that compensation is for mineral rights that have never been proven, let alone exploited, that would lead to one set of assumptions about the value of the concession. But if the concessionaires can claim that they were busy developing a mine when the government came in and declared eminent domain, that could support a different valuation.

In recent weeks a series of reports have appeared in La Prensa and El Panama America, announcing the imminent start of work at the Cerro Petaquilla mining concession, actually a set of nine concessions encompassing some 250 square kilometers of northern Cocle and western Colon provinces, held by Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. That limited partnership includes Vancouver-based Adrian Resources Ltd (listed as ADL on the Toronto Stock Exchange), among whose directors and shareholders is former Cocle Governor Richard Fifer, and Inmet Mining, another Canadian outfit. Richard Fifer is chairman of the board of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd.

In the face it presents to Panama, Cerro Petaquilla has always been Fifer’s project. He first claimed mineral rights at Cerro Petaquilla in 1987. Through his company GeoInfo, this reporter was taken along with other journalists on a tour of Cocle province back in the mid-90s. In the recent corporate mainstream media reports on the project, the Fifer connection is always prominently mentioned. The press releases by the promoters invariably appear over Fifer’s signature.

There are a several interesting features about the recent Cerro Petaquilla stories.

One is that they state certain figures about the amount of copper, gold, silver and molybdenum in the ground at the Cerro Petaquilla concession, generally without attribution and always without question. The figures cited are invariably the concessionaires’ estimates, but are usually presented as undisputed facts.

Another oddity about many of the recent Cerro Petaquilla stories is that they are not by journalists on the staffs of the publications involved, but by freelancers.

And then there’s the story that Reuters disseminated, which announced that a Canadian company had obtained $1 billion in financing and the word to start mining work. But the company denied that it had obtained a line of credit.

Most importantly, Richard Fifer now stands accused of embezzlement. After more than two weeks as a fugitive sought for embezzlement from the government between 1999 and 2002, when he was the governor of Cocle, a court has rescinded a warrant for his arrest but forbidden him to leave the country and required him to report tro police every 15 days while his criminal case is pending. Earlier, from his hiding place he had his lawyers surrender $68,000 he allegedly pilfered from the funds at the Cocle governor’s disposal, and another $47,000 allegedly diverted from Spain’s contribution toward the Arias Brothers Museum in Penonome to the Office of Patrimonial Responsibility. No admission of wrongdoing was made, but prosecutors aren’t calling off the criminal prosecution.

Panama News
Jan 26-Feb 8. 2002

Fifer replaced as Cocle governor

After complaints from the provincial organization of his own party, arguments with ANAM about permits from projects that would have environmental consequences and a lot of criticism over plans that would establish new pushbuttons in Penonome, Richard Fifer has been removed as governor of Cocle province. The new governor is Irving González and the new lieutenant governor is Ernestina Tejada. Fifer had used his own property to furnish the governor's offices and he took it with him when he left, so not only are provincial employees wondering whether they will have jobs under the new administration, but in many cases they've been having to improvise places to sit and to write.

University takes sides in Penonome pushbutton row

The promoter, Eros Nos, SA, says that it plans to build a "short-term lodging facility," but the Catholic Church and municipal officials in Penonome say that what is really contemplated is a new "pushbutton" place of assignation and they disapprove. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the governor of Cocle have issued some of the necessary permits, but the city refuses to sign off and now the Cocle Regional University Center (CRUC), which is located near the site proposed for the project, has joined the opposition. The administration has criticized the project, a student committee has been formed to moblize public opposition and law students at the University of Panama branch are organizing a possible legal battle to stop the development.

Latin Business Chronicle
Panama Economic and political overview.

Martin Torrijos, a U.S.-educated economist assumed Panama's presidency on September 1, 2004, pledging to negotiate a free trade agreement with United States and implement reforms aimed at reducing government expenditure and taxes. Despite Panama's status as a major trading nation, the country only signed its first free trade agreement in 2002 - with El Salvador.

Torrijos has also vowed to reduce and fight corruption, which was widespread under his predecessor, Mireya Moscoso.( who appointed Fifer as Govenor e.p.) Transparency International gave Panama a score of 3.4 (with 10 being best) on its latest survey of corruption perception.

In addition to a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Panama is home to the world's largest shipping registry, Latin America's largest banking center (in number of banks) and largest free trade zone (Colon Free Zone) and a major offshore company registry.

As a result, Panama is Latin America's most globalized economy, according to the 2004 Globalization Index from A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy magazine.

Legalize & Unionize the Sex Trade

	Prostitution laws under fire
	Last Updated Mar 29 2005 07:17 PM PST CBC News
	VANCOUVER – An advocacy group representing Vancouver sex-trade workers is calling for the repeal of Canada's prostitution laws that would make street prostitutes' lives safer. Katrina Pacey"> Katrina Pacey The PIVOT Legal Society argued its case to the parliamentary sub-committee, which is holding hearings in Vancouver Tuesday and Wednesday, seeking input on the sex trade in Canada. Prostitution is legal, but negotiating sex in exchange for money remains illegal, as are brothels. Katrina Pacey of the PIVOT Legal Society, which did a study on 91 prostitutes in Vancouver, says the current laws compromise the safety of street prostitutes. Libby Davies on the left- on tour of the Downtown Eastside"> Libby Davies on the left- on tour of the Downtown Eastside "The criminal laws place them in a work environment that is extremely dangerous," she says. "…ultimately used to criminalize nuisance and to move sex workers into neighbourhoods that are very unsafe." LINK: PIVOT report on prostitution laws (pdf) Vancouver East NDP MP Libby Davies, who helped establish the sub-committee, agrees that Canada's current laws are making street prostitution more dangerous than it has to be. And Davies says she's also concerned about the escort business – noting it accounts for up to 95 per cent of prostitution in Canada. While several of the MPs on the committe favour decriminalization of prostitution, at least one of them does not. Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger, a former police officer, calls the concept utter nonsense. "So what does that mean? That all of a sudden, they become professional people? That they be looked upon no differently than a dentist, or a lawyer, or a police officer?" The committee has held hearings in cities across the country, and plans to forward its final report to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. INTERVIEW: The Early Edition's Kelly Ryan speaks with Katrina Pacey of PIVOT and with Vancouver East MP Libby Davies.

Yes Art that is exactly what it means that sex trade workers are professionals who should be unionized and allowed to operate worker owned and controlled cooperatives as I said in Whose Family Values?

"Sex Workers Union: Whether strippers, prostitutes, escorts, porn actors, etc. women workers in thus unregulated industry face the dual oppression of being exploited by owners and customers, and their banishment by society at large. The exploitation of children and young adults as well as immigrant women is allowed to exist due to this free market. Laws against prostitution need to be abolished and the regulation of this industry be under workers control through a sex workers union."

Right to Life = Right To Work

Those on the right who oppose gay marriage also oppose a womans right to choose abortion, they also oppose publicly funded daycare and a living wage for daycare workers.

They also oppose unions and while not saying it outright they support "right to work" laws, those that would end 'forced unionization' in the work place the ending of the Rand Formula.

"In Canada, the union security clause requires that all workers in a bargaining unit belong to the union and/or pay dues. The mandatory collection of dues is protected from Constitutional challenges under a 1945 ruling by Supreme Court Justice Ivan C Rand (origin of the Rand formula for authorizing dues payment) saying the collective rights of workers supercedes individual rights. These provisions are crucial for unions to maintain control in the workplace."
Could BC be Canada's right-to-work beachhead?

Right wing groups in Canada cross post each others press releases, and research. It is common for a right wing reseracher say with the Fraser Institute to quote from the Cato Institute, both right wing think tanks, to legitmate their research. The same applies to the right wing -anti-abortion, anti-daycare, anti-feminist, and anti-gay lobbies.

For instance a Real Women of Canada Press Release posted on the Canadian Family Action Coalition complains that Taxpayers Fund Gay Legal Challenges for Same-sex Marriage

"With the funds they receive from compulsory union dues, Canadian unions are also financially backing homosexual activists. EGALE lists Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Canadian Labour Congress as its “Gold” sponsors on its website."

Subtle eh, "compulsory union dues" is a phrase used by the right wing opposed to so called 'forced unionization'.

An example of this kind of language can be found at the American Right Wing Anti Union
"NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS RESEARCH" site.

(don't you love that name, sounds like a government department,
or a legitimate labour relations institute when really is a right wing anti-union lobby front)

Where they say in an article about Canadian Unions: Trouble in Big Labor 'Paradise'

"U.S. Employees Are Free to 'Vote With
Their Feet' Against Forced Unionism

In the U.S., nearly four out of every 10 private-sector employees work in a state with a Right to Work law that bars union officials from forcing anyone to join or pay dues to a union as a job condition. And the share of employees who are protected by Right to Work laws is steadily increasing. Every year, non-Right to Work states suffer an average net loss of roughly 500,O00 citizens who "vote with their feet" by moving to one of the 22 Right to Work states. But not one of Canada's 10 provinces has a Right to Work law. Forced union membership or dues payment is authorized under federal law and under every provincial law. Therefore, employees have no opportunity to "vote with their feet" against forced unionism unless they are willing and able to leave the country! It is not just Canada's lack of any Right to Work protections for employees that appeals to U.S. union officials. They also love the fact that Canadian labor laws put even tighter restrictions on employers' ability to resist the forced unionization of their employees than does U.S. labor law, and that the penalties for recalcitrant employers are far more severe."


And while Canada does not have Right to Work laws, that has not stopped the Right Wing from lobbying for it. As the Labor Notes article Could BC be Canada's right-to-work beachhead? points out. (my comments in bold)

"There are advocates in Canada who see right-to-work as a tonic for the country's economy and a way to free workers from the yoke of "forced unionism". Support comes from the National Citizens Coalition whose "top priority" is "to push governments to reform labour laws so those union bosses can no longer use forced dues to subsidize their political causes." The NCC launched Canadians Against Forced Unionism in Alberta during its 1995 right-to-work debate. The former president of the NCC, Stephen Harper, is the newly elected leader of the Canadian Alliance party. (now the Conservative Party of Canada)

The spokesperson for CAFU was Rob Anders who is now a Calgary Conservative MP .

["Just as the Reform Party lost Harper as an MP to the NCC, it picked up a former NCC employee to run in his seat. Rob Anders, who headed up the NCC's project "Canadians against forced Unionism," was selected by the Reform Party to replace Harper as the candidate in Calgary West. (Prior to being hired by the NCC, Anders was active in the Reform Party club on the University of Calgary's campus. Anders worked on the NCC anti-union project, set up according to Somerville to “expose and oppose Canada's oppression labor laws" from 1994 until November 1996.) He won Harper’s Calgary West riding for the Reform Party in February 1997." ] StephenHarperSaid.ca

Completing the axis of ideological allies, the Fraser Institute's Michael Walker and Fazil Mihlar write, in Unions and Right to Work Laws, that such laws "constrain excessive demands by unions and keep wage increases in line with productivity growth," meaning an employer is likely to hire more workers when wages are lower rather than invest in labour-saving technologies.

Rob Anders, Ezra Levant and Jason Kenny the young Turks on the Right were all student interns at the Fraser Institute. Kenny and Anders are now Conservative MP's, Levant (the mouth that roared) is publisher of the Conservative Western Standard.

Alberta's Ralph Klein government and set up a joint review committee to study the economic benefits of right-to-work in 1995. Organized labour responded with concerted lobbying efforts to stop this scheme from going further. In the end, the committee reported there was no economic justification for introducing right-to-work as Alberta already enjoyed an advantage over the rest of Canada.

Today, the Alberta government continues to pass contentious labour legislation like Bill 12 to prohibit teachers from striking. Could right-to-work be resurrected there anytime soon? Selby thinks not. He explains, "In Alberta, the labour movement is not considered a significant threat to expand much beyond its current base - in other words, the current labour legislation is already doing an admirable job from their point of view." According to the AFL, Alberta has the "worst labour code" and the lowest unionized workforce (23 percent) in Canada."

The most recent union busting right to work legislation passed in Alberta and supported by the Federal Government is allowing Oil Sands companies and their allies in the Construction industry to bypass the building trades unions and bring in contract workers from Venezula in cooperation with the fake union: CLAC (Christian Labour Association of Canada).

CLAC is the arm of the Christian Reformed Church in Canada, and was founded here in the 1950's by post WWII Dutch immigrants . The Dutch immigrants came to Southern Alberta and Southern Ontario to farm, and they formed a similar Farmer Association. These are politically right wing associations, opposed to the traditional unions and farmers organizations that created the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and New Democratic Party (NDP).


"The Christian Reformed Church does not allow women to hold official positions in the church and also strongly supports the establishment of private Christian schools , Christian Reformed parents sponsor the largest network of primary and secondary Christian schools in the United States.The CRC has consistently condemned divorce, except when infidelity is part of the picture." New Religious Movements Christian Reformed Church



Christian Reformed Church (CRC) on Labour Unions

Position

Church membership and membership in a labor union are compatible as long as the union does not warrant or champion sin in its regular activities. Church members should discontinue membership in any unions whose common practices are clearly in conflict with the principles of the Word of God. Christian conscience cannot condone membership in a union if it continues in sinful practices in spite of protests against them. Membership in unions which have engaged in sinful practices does not of itself make one liable to ecclesiastical censure, but if church members themselves are guilty of acts contrary to the Word of God, the usual means of discipline should be applied. Churches should be aware of the practices of labor organizations in their communities and vigorously emphasize the scriptural principles regarding the relation of the Christian to the world and the organizations of the world.

History

The CRC has dealt with the issue of labor unions several times in its history. From the 1880s to the 1940s the following matters were discussed: whether church members ought to be members of labor organizations, whether members of a union are responsible for its decisions and acts, and which labor unions were appropriate for church members. In 1904, 1928, 1930, and 1943, synod reasserted its basic position with regard to unions. In 1934, 1936, and 1943, synod recommended the Christian Labor Organization for moral and financial support. Synod 1965 adopted resolutions of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod regarding Christian organizations. This discussion went beyond labor organizations to include social and political organizations.

And what sinful activities does the CRC Oppose; birth control, abortion, in divorce it does not recognize remarriage, the scientific theory of evolution, membership in Freemason or other oath based fraternal Lodges.

They also oppose:" The endorsement or use of contemporary inclusive language for God (both gender-egalitarian and gender-neutral) is unacceptable to the CRC. "

On Dancing, until the 1970's they were opposed to it; "As a result, Christians are not to reject dancing, but to redeem it, realizing that some forms of dancing are more difficult to redeem than others."

They opposed going to movies, The CRCNA made its first official declaration on the topic of film arts in a warning against movie-theater attendance in 1928. But by 1966 "The film arts were then considered a legitimate cultural medium to be used with discernment by Christians."

They support capital punishment " The CRC has declared that modern states are not obligated by Scripture, creed, or principle to institute and practice capital punishment. It does, however, recognize that Scripture acknowledges the right of modern states to institute and practice capital punishment if it is exercised with utmost restraint."

They are biblical literalists; "Holy Scripture in its entirety is the written Word of God, inspired by God to be our rule of faith and practice. This inspiration is organic, extending to the ideas and the words of Scripture, and is so unique that Scripture alone is the Word of God."

On the Church and State

"The state is instituted by God and is endowed with power in order that it may promote, within the limits of its authority, the maintenance of human life and its development in agreement with God's law. The state is called to protect the church with all the means given to it by God in order that freedom of conscience to serve God be guaranteed and anti-Christian powers which threaten the church be resisted and prevented. The church recognizes and honors the state for its God-given power and service, faithfully proclaims the gospel to all in the state, and prays for all people, including those who are in authority, in order that all may lead quiet and peaceable lives. The state should not assume the right and power of the only King of the church, Jesus Christ, and should recognize that the church owes allegiance and responsibility to him alone."

On War: "Glorification of war for its own sake must be warned against, but pacifism that causes people to refuse to bear arms under any conditions is also to be condemned. The CRC formed its position on war in the 1930s, when the threat of the Second World War loomed and pacifism was a controversial issue. The basic statement adopted by Synod 1939 has not changed."

On Race; The CRC was involved with the Reformed Church of South Africa the church of Aparthied and the Boers. And while they now proclaim to be inclusive that was not always the case;

"During the 1960s and 1970s the church dealt with the issue at home as it struggled through a race-related case regarding Timothy Christian School in Cicero, Illinois, and abroad as it held discussions with the Reformed Churches in South Africa regarding its policy of apartheid.

Synod 1985 appointed a committee to deal specifically with the RCSA and apartheid, awaiting its recommendation rather than acceding to overtures to sever ties with the sister church. In 1989 this committee did recommend suspension of ties of ecclesiastical fellowship, and synod agreed. That suspension was in effect until 1996, when synod lifted the suspension because of changes in the RCSA's position and practices re apartheid and the changes in the political and societal situation in South Africa."

1989, it took till 1989 before the CRC recognized that apartheid was sinful. Gee someone should have told them to talk to Dr. Tutu, Opps nope these are Boers after all. They were one of the last of the Reformed Churches to end their relationship with the Aparthied regime and its Church in South Africa.

These are the Christian values that CLAC supports and promotes.

CLAC supports Right To Work legislation and is opposed to "forced unionization" and opposes the Rand formula, though they abide by it when they "represent" their workers. CLAC does not unionize workers, they approach the employer as labour management consultants and in a private agreement (voluntary representation under the Labour Relations Act) with the boss they become the union for the workers. There is no voting on whether the workers want to be represented by CLAC, it is a private deal between the employer and CLAC.

This has caused CLAC no end of trouble with Labour Relations boards which have ruled that while they are an association they barely fit the judicial definition of a 'union'.

As CLAC says on their web site:

Can I be forced to join the union?

Canadian law has given unions the right to force people to join their ranks as a condition of employment. CLAC believes this is fundamentally wrong and an abuse of Canadians' constitutional right to freedom of association.

It is our policy that no one is forced to belong to CLAC. If you cannot in good conscience support the union, you do not need to sign a membership card, and you can apply to CLAC to have your dues directed to a mutually agreed upon charity. No other union offers this choice or respect for your freedom of association. Workers who are granted non-member status cannot participate in union affairs and have no voting rights."

While the Supreme Court ruled that the Rand Formula was the law in Canada, see Lavigne case below, CLAC likes to take the same position that Lavigne and the NCC did back in 1998 that union members who disagree with the unions politics should have the right to put their dues in a Charity.

For instance in their FAQ about CLAC they say about being a "Christian" Association,

"The word "Christian" in our name comes from our distinct philosophy that guides our policies and practices as a trade union."

Yeah right, it comes from being founded by the Christian Reformed Church, a specific Dutch protestant Calvinist faith sect. They can't even be honest about that.

Gee for a Christian organization they sure do fib a lot. They fib about not being in favour of Right To Work while denouncing Forced Unionization, which is right wing talk for the same thing.

CLAC has used their 'Christian' appelation to be able to represent Save-On Foods employees, who never got a chance to vote on being represented by CLAC. A private deal was swung by this Christian Association and Save-On Foods owner, multi-millionare, born again Christian, Jimmy Pattison. It has meant CLAC has a secured source of dues revenues to expand its raids into other sectors, such as healthcare and nursing care in Ontario and Construction in Alberta's oil sands.

What kind of bargaining does CLAC do for the bosses well we will let them speak for themselves: "We have the opportunity to chart a new course in workplace relations. We challenge all, including ourselves, to explore the possibilities of labour-management cooperation and partnership, based on a preponderance of mutual rather than different interests. In this we appeal particularly to the employers of our members, to put aside fears and suspicions, and accept and respect their employees (and their union) as responsible partners." Working at Cross-Purposes By: Ed Grootenboer

Ah gee, that sounds nice doesn't it. We should all get along, what it means in reality is that the partnership CLAC has is with the boss not the workers it reperesents. It will bend over backwards to maintain labour peace at all costs.

It is called corporatism and was practiced in fascist states of Spain, Italy and Germany and by the Catholic Church when it formed it's own labour movement, just like the Christian Reformed Church has.

"Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. This original meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, being a rather more general reference to any incorporated body. The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions made by these corporate groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions which were organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology." Wikipedia

And like other right wing groups CLAC opposes "compulsory union dues" being used for political purposes.

"Telling you how to vote is one thing. But a good number of unions even use their members’ dues money to support a particular candidate or party—whether members like it or not. And in a much publicized case in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada told unions they could do so!" Unions and Their Sleeoing Partners By: Gideon Strauss

Sounds just like the complaints from the right wing groups like Real Women, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, etc. And it should because the Christian Reformed Church is well represented in these groups. For instance the editor of AFWUF is a Christian Reformed Church member. Here's her opinion on fair pay for daycare workers in Alberta.

AFWUF "Voice" Archive
"It Takes A Mom vs Day Care
Fall 2001 Vol 20 No 4
In July, in response to a year of intense lobbying from social workers, daycare owners and career women, Alberta Children's Services Minister Iris Evans announced that the government would begin subsidizing the wages of Alberta's daycare workers. The province already gives grants worth $350 per year for every child in daycare as well as doling out $20 million in subsidies for the most needy parents over the last two years. I'm sure Alberta is not unique and other provinces do the same or more. This means that every Canadian family where mother cares for the family's children is subsidizing the lifestyle choice of those who daily put their children in an institution. Government subsidies to harm children. Now that's sad."

The right wing likes to talk about lifestyle choices, its the same accusation they make against women who have abortions and of course against gays and lesbians.

It's a choice we make; working for a living in a province with the worst labour law and lowest minimum wage in Canada is not a lifestyle choice. It's a neccissity. So both parents work.

Interestingly AFWUF accuses working women as being 'career women', identifying them as privleged. In reality it is career women who can afford nannies, not daycare. These so called career women are in fact the women who serve you in the resteraunt, at the 7/11, or work in daycare centres. Their career is making a living.

Many of Alberta's daycare workers were making minmum wage and even now still are seriously underpaid. But AFWUF doesn't sympathize, why should they, daycare to them is an attempt to destroy the Christian family. The family where the woman knows her place.

CLAC is no better their position on the recent Federal announcement of federal funding to increase public daycare spaces is that government should give money to both daycare funding and child tax credits for stay at home mothers. This is the same position as the Klein government and the Federal Conservatives.

CLAC has its own Research Arm that lobbies for Right to Work, tt's called Work Research Foundation, Van Pelt, Strauss and Pennings have been associated with CLAC, and the funding for WRF comes from CLAC and the Christian Reformed Church of Canada.

The Work Research Foundation was established to influence people to a Christian view of work and to promote the idea of sphere sovereignty as a framework for renewing the economic sphere and public life.

However there is no direct linkage between WRF and CLAC websites, giving the (false) impression that WRF is an independent research foundation. You have to ask why and what are they hiding.

Well WRF like CLAC supports the right wing idea of corporatism. And their vision for labour relations is a right wing corporatist state, a theocratic state where we all work together.

History of the WRF

The WRF researches issues surrounding the organization of work, the movement of trade, and leadership in the economic sphere. The WRF organizes its projects on three levels: academic, macro-economics and public policy, and the front-line workplace. Together, these perspectives help us identify the changes that will characterize the contribution of work to our socio-economic prosperity in the decade to come.

The Work Research Foundation (WRF) was incorporated and registered as a charitable organization in 1974, with Harry Antonides as the first part-time research director. Antonides argued for a view of work rooted in the European Christian tradition. In 1983, Antonides launched the WRF Comment, a bimonthly journal devoted to issues of work and public life.

Between 1987 and 1994, Antonides published two books through the Work Research Foundation. Servant or Tyrant? was a collection of papers presented at a joint conference between the Christian Labour Association and the Work Research Foundation, with contributions from Christian luminaries such as Paul Marshall, Michael Novak, and Al Wolters. Servant or Tyrant? explored and analyzed the main trends of contemporary politics, and discussed ways in which Christians can actively preserve and enhance freedom and justice in the political realm. Three Faces of the Law, by Ian Hunter, was based on a series of lectures to the Ottawa Summer School of Biblical and Theological Studies, and critically examined the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its subversion of justice, liberty, and life.

The profile of the WRF increased substantially with a $325,000 project relating to freedom of association from 1997-2000. In March 1997, the WRF commenced its biennial survey of Canadian attitudes toward unions. The survey indicated that Canadians are looking for a less confrontational and adversarial approach to labour relations. The WRF built on this insight over the next few years with conferences and publications devoted to alternative labour relations structures.

In 2000, the WRF developed an aggressive business plan and hired Michael Van Pelt, its first full-time President. Van Pelt rebranded the WRF as a full-fledged research institution and think tank, focussed on investigating work, productivity, and work relationships. Van Pelt hired Dr. Gideon Strauss to edit Comment, and Ray Pennings to create an alternative model for industrial relations policy.

Since then, the WRF has begun to promote a holistic view of the economic sphere, in which the individual worker, the trade union, management, economics, and public policy are vitally interdependent. In projects ranging from its Corporate Partners Program, Sphere Sovereignty Project, and revamped Comment magazine, the WRF is charting a new path for economic life and civil society.

WRF has used polling of Canadians to see whether or not their push for Right to Work laws will fly. The survey done in 1997, 1999 and 2002 always asks if Canadians accept forced unioniziation, and compulsory membership. It is used by the WRF/CLAC to justify their corporatist ideology for changing Canada's labour laws.

"Overcoming the adversarial labour relations model that has characterized Canadian labour-management relations requires systemic public policy change that, to date, has proved elusive. " Ray Pennings, “Cooperative Labour Relations: Translating Theory into Practice,” a symposium conducted by the Work Research Foundation on November 25 and 26, 1999 in Vancouver, B.C.

"The solution is to create local work communities that model the sort of respect workers and managers owe each other as fellow human beings and to work within structures that reinforce that respect. Besides the good will and positive benefits of living civilly with our neighbours, solutions based on mutual respect are the best recipe for social and economic prosperity."
Beyond Unions? by Ray Pennings Published in the Summer 2002 issue of The Comment

Besides polling to see if there is room to move to a corporatist right to work model of labour organizing, WRF launced an Industrial Relations Institute (another CLAC front group) which proposes:

"Our second project will focus on work organization practices in the construction industry and seek to quantify the various implications that arise from how we organize the workforce. The conventional craft method of organization will be compared with the wall-to-wall and open shop models and we will document the particular challenges and opportunities offered by these different approaches. The construction sector is one of those in which the monopoly model of worker representation is predominant, supported by various legislative provisions across the country. The implications of this model are profound on both a micro and macro economic level and the study we are undertaking should result in a series of monographs and symposiums tentatively planned for the latter part of 2002." Launch of the Centre for Industrial Relations Innovation
(Ingersoll, ON - September 19, 2001; Vancouver, BC - September 26, 2001; Edmonton, AB - October 17, 2001) by Ray Pennings, Chair

It is this research that has been used by CLAC to give it an opening in the Construction Industry in Alberta in its work with Ledcor and CNRL and its corporatist collusion with the Klein government in recent months.

With its membership in the right wing World Confederation of Labour, CLAC has contacts with its Christian union counterpart in Venezula, the Central Latino–Americana de Trabajadores (CLAT). It is CLAT workers that CLAC will import into Alberta to work at wages below those of the other Trades Unions.

"It was in 1920 that was founded, in The Hague (Holland), the international trade union organisation currently known as World Confederation of Labour - WCL. Born in the European cradle and inspired by the basic values of Christian humanism, this organisation was constituted under the name of "International Federation of Christian Trade Unions". As was stipulated in the first Statutes, the new international trade union organisation wanted to protect, in an independent and autonomous way, not only the concrete workers' interests but also values such as the dignity of the human being, the priority of labour, democracy, justice and solidarity across the national borders. The Dutchman Pieter Jozef Serrarens was the first secretary-general, the Swiss Joseph Scherrer the first president"
A Brief History of the WCL

"Forced unionization" is right wing speak for right to work and is used by Conservative politicians when they oppose unionized construction projects. In Alberta it is what allowed the Human Resources Minister Mike Cardinal to void the labour relations act in favour of CLAC and Canadian National Resources Ltd. to allow the importation of workers that did not belong to or would be allowed to belong to the Building Trades Unions.

In Manitoba the Conservative opposition whined about Forced Unionization there too.

Mr. Hawranik – Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion and to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. (G. Friesen, P. Funk, R. Funk and others)

CLAC attacks the CLC and the CAW as being class war unions, while it portrays itself as the prince of peace in the labour movement. Discussing the CAW dispute with the CLC over raiding in 2000 the WRF news magazine Comment said this:

"Closed shop dogma

But Buzz deserves only two cheers, not three. While the CAW is for the moment a voice for union choice, it is not yet a voice for thoroughgoing freedom of association, and it is far from a voice for labour peace.

Hargrove would like working people to be able to choose which union should represent them. But he does not want people to be able to choose whether they want to belong to a union in the first place.

Many people find that their dues are used for causes beyond that of justice in labour relations. Sometimes, dues go directly into the pockets of political parties that many union members would not support in an election.

Both the CAW and the CLC unions sponsor schemes for social reengineering that go beyond the interests and concerns of their grassroots members and that some of their members cannot in good conscience support. But the zealous dedication of both the CAW and the CLC unions to the closed shop dogma means that such members must choose between their job and their conscience.

"Closed shop" means that if you want to have access to work in a unionized place of employment you have to be a member of the union representing workers in that workplace. Many unions feel strongly about the closed shop. In their opinion, it prevents the vice of freeloading. The freeloader would refuse to join the union or to pay dues but would by law enjoy the privileges of union representation and the benefits of collective bargaining.

There is a flexible way in which to allow freedom of association to people who cannot in good conscience belong to a union or support all of its causes, while at the same time preventing freeloading: require bona fide conscientious objectors to contribute an amount equal to what would have been their union dues to a charity mutually agreed upon by the objector and the union.

Still class warfare

For the CAW-even more than for most CLC unions-labour relations remains class warfare. While many trade unions in North America are beginning to see the value of win-win negotiations, also known as mutual gains bargaining (MGB), the CAW is "totally opposed" to this kind of innovation.

"I see it as in the interest of the employer only," says Hargrove. "The goals of the corporation are different than the goals of working people."

Were it indeed impossible to reconcile the interests of labour and management, or of labour and the other stakeholders in the economy, then there could be no hope for real labour peace. Every collective agreement would be just a momentary truce in an ongoing war that no one could win.

An increase in union choice would be a boon for organized working people. But that choice would only make a significant difference if workers get to choose between significantly different trade unions. The choice between CLC unions and the CAW is a choice between Dumb and Dumber.

The CLC unions offer working people the closed shop within a union monopoly; the CAW offers them the closed shop within a union duopoly. The CLC unions offer working people class war lite; the CAW offers them class war turbo.

A real choice would include unions that offer workers real trade union democracy through genuine freedom of association and unions that realize the wisdom of labour peace through mutual gains bargaining. Labour leaders who offer such an option deserve the full three cheers that Buzz Hargrove does not."

Gideon Strauss is research and education director for the Work Research Foundation and editor of WRF Comment.

Clever to talk about the closed shop and the need for real choice, freedom of association this is the same language as right wing uses when it calls for Right to Work laws against unions.

And if you don't believe CLAC is right wing lets go way back to 1987 and see what the right wing psuedo libertarian Freedom Party of Ontario wrote:

"That unions exercise legalized coercion as their method of "negotiating" is nothing new to those of us who believe in individual freedom. What is astonishing is how so much of the Canadian public, despite being aware of it, tacitly accepts this coercion --- and sometimes even outright violence --- as inevitable and legitimate aspects of the labour movement.

Our laws do not prevent the use of this coercion. Instead, our labour laws institute, sanction, and enforce it. Explicit in every union action from initial certification to its "negotiating" philosophy and ultimately to its political advocacies is the use of coercion and the denial of freedom of choice to anyone who does not agree with its militant labour stance.

Legalized coercion is the tool of the labour movement. Mutual consent is the target of its destruction.

It's coercion when individuals are forced to join a union against their will just because a "majority" votes for it. Don't minorities have any rights? Should the rest of us just stand back and keep swallowing the old union line that it represents its members when we all know that union methods of recruitment depend on the word mandatory?

Just ask Merv Lavigne what he thinks about union coercion. Ask him how he felt about being forced to fund political causes he doesn't even agree with."

Victory in “Lavigne Case”

1988 also saw an important legal decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal. In 1986 a community college teacher named Merv Lavigne funded by the right-wing National Citizen’s Coalition, had gone to Court asserting that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. He claimed that his Union (Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union – a NUPGE affiliate) was not entitled to use his dues for non-collective bargaining issues. If successful, this argument would have substantially prevented unions from participating in the political process.

Following legal precedents from the United States, the Judge at trial found in Lavigne’s favour, and ruled that unions could not use mandatory dues for political, social, or other non-bargaining related activities. On appeal, Brother Nelson acted as NUPGE’s counsel, and the Court of Appeal overturned the Trial Court’s decision and ruled that unions have the right to decide how they spend the dues they receive, including spending for purposes other than collective bargaining. Lavigne and the National Citizen’s Coalition immediately launched an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Once again Brother Nelson acted as counsel to NUPGE, and, on June 27, 1991, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the importance, value and legitimacy of the social and political role of unions in Canada and dismissed the Lavigne appeal.

Lavigne was awarded the Colin M. Brown Freedom Medal by the NCC for his efforts.
"The Colin M. Brown Freedom Medal commemorates the late founder of the NCC, who first started his crusade for "more freedom through less government" in 1967. Mr. Brown died on March 4th 1987."

The Right Wing supported Lavigne because he was challenging the fact his dues were being used to support the NDP, the party of the Canadian Labour movement. These are the same complaints CLAC makes about forced union dues and they denounce the NDP on a regular basis.

It's not about choice, its about denying that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common.

Right wing Columnist Andrew Coyne agrees with CLAC, about the tyranny of the closed shop, and says so in a National Post column talking about the Supreme Court rulings on the Lavigne case and the Quebec Construction Unions closed shop. And with friends like this no wonder CLAC has so many enemies in the Labour movement.

"So now not only is the Rand Formula constitutional, but so is the closed shop. The Court has a fine idea of workers' rights: not only can the union shake you down for your lunch money, whether or not you're a member, but -- at least in Quebec -- it can prevent you from earning the money in the first place. After all, there's all that "context" to consider.

The mob rule that first led the government of Quebec to enact this repressive legislation has now been sanctioned by the highest court in the land. God help us."
The closed shop is constitutional? Andrew Coyne, National Post Monday, October 22, 2001

The Freedom Parties assertion that mutual consent will eliminate unions, sounds like CLAC's approach to labour relations in their win win / mutual gains bargaining approach to labour management.

The Freedom Party being another right wing lobby regularly runs ads against "Forced Unionization" during Ontraio elections. This is the kind of company that CLAC keeps ideologically.

Unite The Right

TORONTO (March 20-21, 1998) - Fp president Robert Metz was among the key speakers participating in this year's Roots of Change Conference held at the Royal York Hotel. Accompanying him at the event was Fp leader Lloyd Walker, whose comments to Toronto Star reporter Thomas Walkom set the tone of that paper's coverage of the event.

Organized by Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB) president Craig Chandler, the Friday and Saturday conference was billed as a 'unite-the-right' event. With an impressive list of speakers with philosophies ranging from 'social conservative' to 'libertarian', attendees heard a wide range of opinion on the merits and pitfalls of uniting these various fragments of the so- called 'right.'

SPEAKERS LIST

FRIDAY: Toronto Sun Money Editor Linda Leatherdale; president of the Employer WCB Crisis Committee, Richard Fink; London South MPP Bob Wood; journalist, author and talk show host Michael Coren; Mackenzie Institute president John Thompson; Freedom Party president Robert Metz; former Halton School Board trustee Robb McLeod.

SATURDAY: president of Any Key Solutions, Tim McKay; past Reform Party candidate and Canadian Citizen's Alliance president Hugh Prendergast; Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada (APEC) president Ron Leitch; author, writer, and political activist Greg Vezina; Reform Party of Canada's executive councillor in Quebec Brian Rogers; Campaign Life Coalition member Steve Jalsevac; founder-president of Renaissance Canada Inc., Ken Campbell; PGIB Ontario youth chairman and board member of the Canadian Youth Rights Association, Karl Baldauf; president of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Youth Association, Walied Soliman.

COMMON GROUND

Roots of Change organizer Craig Chandler wrapped up the two day conference by calling upon attendees to arrive at some consensus on the issues they could all agree to support, despite their many fundamental differences in philosophy and areas of concern. Surprisingly, support was virtually unanimous on six key issues, all of which are supported by Freedom Party policy:

(1) End government funding of abortion; (2) Seek an alternative to Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system; (3) Repeal the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (4)Calgary Framework in its current form; (5) Promote less government, lower taxes, more individual freedom; (6) Limit law-making to those issues that protect individual rights. Oppose the

We are pleased to report that the last item (#6) was included at the behest of Freedom PartyMary Lou Gutscher, who was quick to warn all that item #5 could be interpreted in ways not consistent with individual freedoms. founding member

Chandler vowed to integrate these recommendations into PGIB's lobby platform when he returned to Calgary following the conference. Our thanks and appreciation are extended to both Mr. Chandler and the Progressive Group for Independent Business for hosting a most provocative and stimulating event.

And the right wing media loves to poll Canadians to prove their point that Unions are no longer relevant. As right wing columnist Terence Corcoran writes in his Labour Day Column in the National Post in 2003 when they polled Canadians about unions.

"But there's more to worry unions here than general worker
crankiness about the usefulness or desirability of union membership.
The poll highlights the great fallacy behind the historical rise and
entrenched power of organized labour.

After decades of mythical struggles based on slogans of class
warfare, worker oppression and exploitation, the entire union
movement shows up in the poll as an ideological sham.
Self-portrayed as the champion of downtrodden masses of working
men and women, the union movement emerges today as the iron
protector of a privileged minority. The alleged saviours of a
struggling underclass are in fact the armed guardians of the
fortresses of a relatively wealthy overclass.

The poll shows only 32% of Canadians are union members, and the
vast majority of those union members (81%) want to hold on to
union status. They are generally better educated (more likely college
or university) than non-union workers, are members of well-paid
professional and service organizations such as teachers and nurses,
and are significantly older. More than 45% of union members are
more than 45 years old. And they mostly work for big government
(72%) and big business.

None of this is unexpected. All of the figures roughly correspond to
other workplace statistics. What is surprising is the degree to which
union members want to hold on to union status compared with the
large proportion of non-union Canadians who want nothing to do
with unions. Few Canadians pine for union rescue, perhaps because
they see fewer benefits of membership than they already enjoy.
But there are other reasons non-union Canadians have little use for
unions. The poll shows Canadians have a deep sense of fairness and
principle when it comes to their jobs and workplaces. They don't
care much for union seniority and prefer instead job advancement
and layoff policies that are based on merit. A large majority of all
working Canadians (76%) oppose government contract rules that
favour unionized companies. Canadians want secret ballots on union
certification and de-certification. They generally oppose the use of
union funds for non-union activities.

These aren't the views of a nation of union collectivists and socialists
who see their work and living conditions in constant deterioration
and in need of union rescue.

In fact, almost nobody thinks unions are a "very positive" force
behind Canada's growth and economic success. Nor are they much
taken with governments as national economic saviours. Canadians
see business as the engine of growth, especially small business.
While only 12% of Canadians view unions very positively, 67% see
small business as the nation's most positive economic driver.
Combined, 96% of Canadians look to small business and 79% to big
business as the major contributors to economic well-being, well
ahead of governments and unions.

The National Post/Global National poll paints a post-Labour Day
portrait of Canadians who love their jobs, respect and have good
relationships with their mostly private-sector employers, and who
are more than happy to make their way in the work world without
having a union boss by their side."

Well as the header to this blog says, the Ruling ideas are the ideas of the Ruling Class. And the National Post is the voice of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Right Wing in Canada so what would we expect from them but this kind of conclusion. Cocoran's conclusions arise from a Leger Poll that the National Post commissioned, so it set the quuestions to get the answers it wanted.

First union representation in Canada may be low, 32% but it has actually increased. And it certainly is higher than in the U.S. Thats the complaint from Right To Work lobby in the U.S. that Canada's productivity is low because of high unionzation rates compared to them. Coyne and Cocoran would likely agree.

Cocoran asserts we all work for 'big government or big business' loaded terms, and that makes unionized workers an 'overclass'. What?!! Even in the relatively well paid sectors of the economy such as Gas Plant workers or Construction workers in Alberta, who may make around $100,000 a year, not exactly what the real 'overclass' makes when you look at the salaries of Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, Real Estate Agents or Journalists, who make more than that.

By asking the questions that the National Post and the majority of the private sector media constantly drum into us, they get the anwsers they want. Small business good, big business and big government bad, small business good, unions bad, small business good. Gee the National Post is a big business, so I guess it's 'bad'.

And their poll is completely contradicted by the survey done a year earlier by CLAC's WRF in 2002. WRF hired University of Lethbridge sociologist Dr. Reginald Bibby (one of most reputiable sociological researchers in Canada and he is NOT a pollster) to do an independent survey of Canadian's opions about unions. That survey found 64% of Canadians approved of unions!! Despite asking their own loaded questions.

Bibby's conclusion is diametrically opposed to that of Cocoran's smug comments. Bibby found that amongst Canadians who did not belong to unions beleived ther best bet for protection of their workplace rights was the government and legislation. While union members believed it was their union that could best protect them. And former union members believed in unions and legislation.

The runs completely counter to assertations made by Cocoran and the National Post Poll.

The National Post poll is simply telling us what they want us to beleive that unions are no longer neccasary or relevant (tell that to Wal-Mart workers), and to promote the right wing agenda to smash unions.

Unions hold some blame for this, failure to publicize themselves, failure to clean up their act and be more democratic and responsive to their rank and file, failure to advertise on TV on radio in the media. Failure to develop a national press that speaks for workers.

That being said the right wing continues to attack unions and lays the ongoing ground work ending "forced unionization".

So lets go over this again the Right has a program and it includes ending "forced unionization", ending "taxpayer funding for abortion", opposing same sex marriage, opposing public daycare, opposing immigration( temproary non union workers are ok), opposing refugee rights.

Right now they are busy lobbying against human rights for gays and lesbians, challenging the right for a woman to choose, and opposing public daycare. But soon they will turn their focus on the unions again.

It is why the labour movement must make common cause with campaigns for same sex marriage, full funding for abortion services (which are currently underfunded and privatized), full funding for public daycare with living wages for daycare workers, and of course the right to unionize and the right to strike.

But it is not enough to just throw money and endorsements at these causes, its important to be active in them, to shape them, to recognize that for instance the gay business community is growing and is largely non-union!

That a womans right to choose also includes the right to having a midwife, for birthing, fully paid for as part of medicare which isn't now. And that mid-wives should be unionized and recognized as a profession.

The Christian right wing will attack prostitutes, prostitution and all aspects of sexuality outside of marriage. Labour must oppose these attacks and call for unionization of Sex industry workers, especially in order to assure these women's safety and their health.

The labour movement and the left must not be silent when confronting the Christian Right, we must speak out in favour of a unitarian pluralism, secularism needs to be defended against those who would impose their moral values on us.

The creeping theological domination of politics and the failure to confront it is best illustrated by the fact that creationism is being taught in schools and universities side by side with evolution.

You cannot reason with the right, nor can you reason when arguing with them, as T-Bone Slim said the politiest form of response is attack. And labour and the left have failed to do this.

Now labour and the left must speak out against the Christian Right as the real threat they are and as they have always been. It is time to FIGHT THE RIGHT.

Same Sex Marriage in Alberta A Go

Tick Tock, Tick Tock, The Clock Struck One
and the Alberta Marriage Act is Toast

MARRIAGE ACT Chapter M-5
Preamble
WHEREAS marriage is an institution the maintenance of which in
its purity the public is deeply interested in;
WHEREAS marriage is the foundation of family and society,
without which there would be neither civilization nor progress;
WHEREAS marriage between a man and a woman has from time
immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is
itself a reflection of long standing philosophical and religious
traditions; and
WHEREAS these principles are fundamental in considering the
solemnization of marriage;
THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and
consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Override of Charter and Alberta Bill of Rights
2 This Act operates notwithstanding
(a) the provisions of sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
(b) the Alberta Bill of Rights.
2000 c3 s5

"But unless Alberta MLAs receive an unprecedented awakening from their constituents in the next few days, March 22 marks the date Alberta's notwithstanding clause provision, protecting the definition of marriage as one man one woman, will pass into oblivion. Klein Tories who claim to support traditional marriage have decided to quietly let this sunset clause -- in the Alberta Defence of Marriage Act -- set. "

Janet L. Jackson

(Calgary Sun columnist)

Mon Mar 21 2005

Me thinks they protest too much, all the bluff and bluster, Sturm and Drang for what, the whole Same Sex outrage of the Provincial Tories turned out to the mewlings of weak kittens, rather than the roaring of indignent lions.

Yep when push came to shove those terrible tory tabbies, licked their wounds and cried "Uncle". While proclaiming their opportunistic opposition to Same Sex Marriage they, by inaction, allowed the Alberta Marriage Act which banned same sex marriage in Alberta (a completely useless endeavour since the provincial government has no say in this Federal jurisdiction) to die without renewal.

Yep the time ticked by and Mickies Big hand and little hand passed each other and the Alberta Marriage Act was dissolved as of Wednesday March 23, 2005.

"During question period in the legislature yesterday, Finance Minister Shirley McClellan said the government is developing options for renewing Alberta's Marriage Amendment Act, which expires tomorrow, to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. Government Services Minister Ty Lund will bring those options back before the legislature, but not by tomorrow's deadline, said spokesman Ryan Cromb."

Alberta gays wait to tie knot
Edmonton Sun, Tue, March 22, 2005

As the Februry 2005 Federal Judicial Review of Bill C-38 The Civil Marriage Act, ( this is the act to recognize same sex marriage in Canada) says about Alberta having to accept this legislation it is based upon the fact that: "Every jurisdiction in Canada prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the provision of services, accommodation and employment. Alberta is the only jurisdiction in which this ban was effected by the courts rather than legislation: Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493."

Yep Vriend cost taxpayers millions and forced Alberta to accept what every other province had, Gay Rights are Human Rights, Notwithstanding pig headed opportunist politicians and neaderthal fundamendalists.

Way back in December of 2004 Alberta Tories knew they were toast when it came to banning same sex marriage in Alberta, all Kleins outbursts aside, as Paul Stanway wrote in the Edmonton Sun at the time;

"The Supreme Court yesterday refused to call the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, but it took the legs out from under the only province interested in upholding that definition.Alberta's brand-new justice minister, Ron Stevens, admitted as much. "The reality is that our ability to defend the (Alberta) Marriage Act has been restricted by this ruling," he confessed.Although not mentioned specifically by name, much of this Supreme Court ruling was clearly aimed at the only Canadian jurisdiction that might have hit the Constitution's emergency escape lever - the notwithstanding clause - to avoid the gay marriage juggernaut. "What this (ruling) means now is that the federal government has the full ability to make uniform law through Parliament allowing for same-sex unions." said Stevens. "Alberta does not have the ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause in relation to federal legislation."

But Klein insisted on challenging the unchallengable, to play to his Southern Alberta Red Neck supporters. As Stanway reported a few days later in one of his columns:

"We won't go to hell," Premier Ralph Klein assured reporters yesterday after his cabinet had discussed the burning issue of the day. But the premier insists that Alberta will continue to "fight the good fight" in defence of traditional marriage, even if "the legal options are few and far between." "Marriage has been that way forever, and it should stay that way," he vowed. "I'm against (same-sex marriage) because I feel it's morally wrong. I believe in the traditional form of marriage." Nevertheless, Klein's cabinet yesterday voted unanimously "to pursue all legal and political avenues to oppose same-sex marriage," which is quite remarkable when it knows the legal avenues are virtually nonexistent and the political ones are full of potholes big enough to swallow the unwary.

The result of this decision has meant that since December the Alberta Government has spent over $110G to fight same-sex marriage law.
"The Alberta government rang up about $110,000 in legal fees to fight Ottawa's proposed same-sex marriage law in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. Alberta Justice spokesman Mark Cooper said yesterday that in-house lawyers have also offered opinions on the decision, but could not say how much was spent on that. Alberta was the only province that participated in the high court reference last year in opposition to what was being proposed by the federal government."

See they hadn't learned anything from the Vriend case, and shilling for the social conservatives they wasted money and embarassed Albertans, being the only province to oppose the bill.

Not another red cent on a losing battle - Pannu
NDP Opposition calls for an end to Alberta's "make-work project for lawyers"

Edmonton – NDP Opposition justice critic Raj Pannu called on the Alberta government put a halt to spending taxpayers’ money on the same-sex marriage legal fight today. “This government is prepared to fight losing legal battles with taxpayers’ money, and it is a shameful waste,” says Pannu.

“This government is not committed to human rights, they’re committed to a make-work project for lawyers. Taxpayers are forced to foot the bill,” continues Pannu. “This isn’t only symbolic – it will inevitably lead to more costly legal battles.”

Pannu was responding to the Conservative caucus’ decision yesterday to charge ahead with use of the notwithstanding clause, even though every shred of legal advice – and even their own Justice Minister – has indicated that deciding who may marry is outside provincial jurisdiction.

“If the Tories want to appease social conservatives in their ranks, or conduct a recruitment drive among Alliance supporters, Alberta families should not foot the bill. The Conservative party should pick up the tab for any more legal battles,” says Pannu.

Pannu was echoed by Edmonton City Councillor Michael Phair, who said that the caucus decision is “extremely unsupportive to Alberta’s gays and lesbians and calls Alberta’s commitment to equality into serious question.”

“The fact is that the gay and lesbian community are forced to pay twice for these inappropriate and fruitless legal battles – once as taxpayers, and a second time as supporters of gay and lesbian legal defence funds. Equality rights should not be this expensive, especially since the battle has already been won,” added Phair.

The Alberta Marriage Act died this week, with nary a whimper and so did the Tories campaign against Same Sex Marriage. And by the by Ralphie boy, you are still going to hell.

Alberta Fleeced by Enron

Well you know the good ship of state in Alberta is teetering towards toppling and leaking like a sieve when its main propagandist gives it a good backhand slap.

Edmonton Sun columnist Neil Waugh the apologist for all things Klein and Tory has thrown up his hands in disgust over the cover up by the government of the fleecing it got from Enron when it deregulated the energy market. See his Edmonton Sun columns: March 10, 2005 Powerful question where he asks:

When first confronted with the Project Stanley allegations, Market Surveillance Administrator Martin Merritt - a watchdog without a government leash - reviewed the Snohomish/California allegations and declared them old news. Then he turned his guns on the media, accusing us of "mischaracterizing the allegations."

Just 20 days later - on the first day the legislature gets down to business - Merritt suddenly changed his tune. There's going to be an investigation after all.

"The MSA has requested and obtained materials filed in proceedings before FERC," Merritt gulped. The Cantwell tapes. But instead of an Alberta-based probe, he turned it over to the feds' weak sister Competition Bureau. Then he took another shot at published "articles and commentary."

Short hours later, the Tory butt-covering started in the legislature. Surely a coincidence. And the premier quickly ducked and let the B-Team take over.

"Albertans have not been impacted in any financial way," blustered Energy Minister Greg Melchin. But how does he know? Especially after Justice Minister Ron Stevens - when asked if his notorious Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight has launched an investigation - blurted "at this point in time there is no intention to proceed with anything."

Yesterday, Opposition Leader Kevin Taft met the same brick wall.

"I don't get involved in the mechanics of an investigation," the premier snapped.

Melchin blathered on about "legislated hedges."

Even the man who should be on the case, Auditor General Fred Dunn, is handcuffed. The Market Surveillance Administrator has been conveniently tucked away out of his jurisdiction.

"Why do the people of Alberta have to rely on the County of Snohomish to protect their rights?" wondered Taft. Why indeed?

and in his March 17, 2005 column, How serious are we? Alberta talks tough on crime, but ignores power allegations he continues the spanking:

In a week when a New York court declared Edmonton's own Bernie Ebbers guilty in the massive WorldCom securities fraud, Alberta Solicitor General Harvey Cenaiko summoned the province's police chiefs to his office.

He vowed to crack down on criminal conspiracies.

"Gangs are a breeding ground for organized crime," stormed our Harv. "Organized crime crosses all boundaries and affects everyone."

He joined Justice Minister Ron (Get Tuff) Stevens in his law-and-order manifesto. Our Harv and Tuff mean business. Or at least they say they do.

"We are targeting crime bosses through co-ordinated efforts," Cenaiko blustered on. He talked about "aggressive action already taken."

It all sounds so wonderful, until yet another Enron horror story shows up, this time from deep in the heart of Texas. And you realize just how pathetic the Alberta Tories are these days.

Especially with the Enron bigwigs Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling about to be the next alleged corporate fraudsters to undergo the tough love concept of the United States Department of Justice and President George Bush's Corporate Fraud Task Force.

OUCH that must hurt, could hear that ring throughout the marble halls of the Legislature.

The privatization and deregulation of energy in Alberta has been its billion dollar boondoggle, the equivalent of the Ferderal Gun Registry. No one wanted it, not the public sector or the private sector, and certainly not the public. It was driven by ideology (See my article Wild West Buy Out, Steve West aka Prince of Darkness, Kleins drinking buddy and his promoter of the privatization of everything) and it has been a failure in reducing costs but a success in making huge profits for the utility companies.

And now it has been revealed that Enron set up a price fixing fraud in Alberta using the deregulated market to set up a sting it would later use in Texas and Califronia. The gutting of the public purse by Enron first happened in Alberta, thanks to the ill informed, poor planning and oversight of the Klein team.It has taken an American court case to reveal the fact and the Klein gang now has egg on their face.

And now they are covering their asses, claiming this fraud is no big deal. After all it wasn't their fault it was the, wait for it, the Federal Governments fault. Yep fleece us with deregualtion, get fleeced by Enron pass the buck to the Feds.

The Official Opposition Liberals have taken them to task over Enron in the house last week. The NDP have made energy deregulation their cause popular, and now both opposition parties have a literal smoking gun. Will this kevlar government feel the pain, well when its allies like Waugh give it a good smack down, you know they are in trouble. Big Trouble, with a capital T and its spelled ENRON.

Waugh continues his attack in the Edmonton Sun where he writes about TransAlta the private utility corporation which pushed deregualtion because it had a license to market electricity into and out of the U.S. Along with it being private it is a holding company for ex government politicians, it was that way under the Socreds and remains so under the Tories.

TransAlta was the power behind West, in the push to privatize electrical marketing in Alberta. They hoped to be able to trade blended electricity into Canadian and American markets, since they were the only Canadian utility licensed to do so. Ron Sothern of ATCO the other private utility company as well as EPCOR and ENMAX the City of Edmonton and Calgary publicly owned utilites opposed the deregulation.

And while Transalta and the public utilities have made oddles of profit on the deregulated market it is us as taxpayers and consumers who have borne the brunt of the burdern with massive cost increases in electricty as well as having to shell out infrastructure costs for expanding the electrical generation base in the province. After all we were told that deregulation would be good for consumers.

Yeah, consumers like Enron.


Sun, March 20, 2005
Power struggle
TransAlta gets no help from Tories in shaking off taint of Enron scandal
By Neil Waugh -- For the Edmonton Sun

With friends like these, who needs enemies? TransAlta Utilities and the Alberta Tories have this relationship going. They're not exactly attached at the hip. But a lot of prominent PCs are on its board.

Former provincial treasurer - and reported heir apparent for the premier's job - Jim Dinning was an executive vice-president until he curiously resigned Jan. 1 to head up a small bank based out of High River.

Last week TransAlta's name came up in the legislature. This is not a good thing. Especially when it's linked with former Enron Canada president Rob Milnthorp and ex-Enron general counsel Mark Haedicke.

Haedicke, among other things, is suffering the wrath of ex-Enron workers who lost their jobs and pensions after he got a $750,000 bonus, days before the big power marketer went bankrupt. Enron is now facing charges that it rigged the California power market in 2000.

The Alberta Liberals went on the attack after they found what they claimed was a damning e-mail in the mountains of Enron files and transcripts recently released by the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The document was called "Project Stanley" - the code name Enron execs invented to allegedly manipulate energy markets in California and Texas. And, if you believe the attorney general of California Bill Lockyer, honed their illegal craft, fixing the Alberta market in the early days of Ralph Klein's botched energy-deregulation regime.

'Low profile'

It talked about keeping a "relatively low profile until we settle Project Stanley." And the 2000 memo referred to "recent meetings" with the Alberta government and TransAlta. That sent the Liberals off on a fishing trip for what Grit Leader Kevin Taft says are 5,600 pages of Enron documents in the government's possession.

Instead of giving them up, the Tories naturally stonewalled. Unlucky TransAlta got caught in the crossfire. "The intent is to try and slander," yelped Alberta Energy Minister Greg Melchin. "We still are looking for evidence."

He sure has a funny way of going about it.

"Until a month ago I'd never heard of Project Stanley," said TransAlta legal affairs director Sterling Koch. (Although TransAlta was involved in litigation with Enron at the time.) But he sure has heard of Bill Lockyer. Probably too much.

On May 30, 2002, the crusading attorney general, on behalf of the "people of the state of California," launched a massive suit against TransAlta Energy Marketing Inc., owned by TransAlta but registered in Delaware.

In it he talked about the "skyrocketing electricity prices, widespread blackouts, utility bankruptcy and massive economic upheaval" that hammered his state in 2000. It alleged that the TransAlta spin-off "through unjust, unreasonable and illegal overcharges and price-gouging, received unprecedented profits at the expense of consumers, ratepayers, businesses and the state of California."

As you can see, Bill doesn't pussyfoot around.

In his latest quarterly report - after all the happy news came out - TransAlta president Steve Snyder gave his shareholders the latest Golden State update. The claims were dismissed. An appeal was denied last October.

A parallel investigation by FERC in June 2003 ordered TransAlta to "justify certain trading activities in California." A document filed with the regulator specifically asked TransAlta if it participated in Enron market-fixing scams like "Death Star, Load Shift, Get Shorty and Fat Boy."

TransAlta denied it.

Overcharge claim

"TransAlta does not participate in and has nothing to gain by doing these types of trades," Snyder said at the time. But the company is still arguing over $46 million that California power authorities claim TransAlta overcharged them.

"The courts have dismissed their claim," said Koch. But he might have spoken too fast.

"We're just trying to get our money back," California attorney general spokesman Tom Dresslar snapped last week.

The battle continues. With no help from the Alberta Tories.

Marx Myths & Legends

Marx Myths & Legends

For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing

Dialectical Magick

I have to thank the folks over at the Coffee Shop for the excellent article entitled Socratic Marx, which discusses this letter from Marx which was published in the Tucker Anthology The Marx and Engels Reader as: For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing (1843).

This is one of my favorites short radical writings by Marx which expresses exactly what revolutionary thought is, philosophy in action. It is here we find the essence of Marx's revolutionary thought, and the phrase For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing, was not lost on me when I first read this thirty-five years ago.

It is this letter which was to turn the entire socialist movement on its head, that communism is not just an extension of socialism it is something else, something different than existing socialism and social democracy. I have highlighted in bold those ideas which struck me as crucial so long ago, and remain embedded within my philosophical outlook. And this essay has not just influence me, it has influenced other radical thinkers like Raya Dunayevskaya, it is in this essay we find mention of the idea of her Marxist Humanism [1].

Out of the broom closet

I had forgotten how important the ideas in this essay had been in building the foundation of of both my view of libertarian communism and what I would later call dialectical magick; a historical materialist interpretation that magick[2] has acted as a ‘ruthless criticism of religion’ and of science/scientism. It is the original Libertation Teleology.

"The whole socialist principle in its turn is only one aspect that concerns the reality of the true human being. But we have to pay just as much attention to the other aspect, to the theoretical existence of man, and therefore to make religion, science, etc., the object of our criticism."

As Marx says in his Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Karl Marx (published in the same journal; Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, in February, 1844) “the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism”. I have included an excerpt from this below his letter to Rouge.

Magick historically fulfills this prerequisite, it has functioned both as a practice[3], gift economy, and a social movement that acted as a "reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but by analyzing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to itself, whether it manifests itself in a religious or a political form. "

Marcel Mauss; shows this in his Outline of a General Theory of Magic, which is still relevant today, the centennial of its publication. While not as well known as his The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, the General Theory of Magic postulates that magic is different from religion and not only pre-dates it but represents a social function that is essentially anti-authoritarian and based on an economy of self consciousness of production. Just as The Gift shows that this magickal economy is not one that produces exchange value but a communist exchange, those with surplus exchange it with those who do not have it by holding a potlatch.

Mauss further contends that magickal thinking is still with us, and modern physics shows this with its M-theory of String phenomena. Or as Feyerabend says in "Against Method", 1975, "Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit."

Magickal economy is consistent with what Marx called "actually existing communism" in his letter to Rouge. Marx, influenced by the early anthropological work of Lewis Morgan, saw the gift economy as essentially communist. It was an economy based on magick and mediated by the shaman, as in later periods communal society would be mediated by witches, cunning men, wise women, etc.

In the gift economy the shaman reflects social power of both the status quo and its other. They can be insiders, leaders in the community or outsiders, those exiled from the community. In either case they act to make acceptable to the community 'the other' such as homosexuality and gender bending (the bardache) which Edward Carpenter, the English socialist and gay advocate, documents.

THE SHAMAN IN THE CAVE

Les Trois Freres, France

“The Shaman/Trickster appears in the cave paintings of the Early European Tribes, about 18,000 about years ago. Warriors don't appear until about 9,000 years ago. Kings appeared even later. It appears historically that the Shaman/Trickster came a lot earlier, perhaps even before the cave painters appeared. The Shaman/Trickster is closely tied to hunting, and hunting and gathering were the origin of human society, maybe 50,000 years ago. The warrior and the king are possible only after the development of cities. “ THEORIES ON THE NORTH AMERICAN TRICKSTER

Magick in practice is mnemonic, it is a remembrance of mans development of tool making and technics, the subconscious memory that labour altered our consciousness. The tools of magick, the cup, the pentangle, the athame, the wand and the sword are mnemonic symbols of the development and transition of the human from the dominance of the world of nature, into nature’s transformer, the magi. The invocations and the evocations of magickal chants are the voice of humankind speaking of and to the names of the natural world as it are transformed by our labour. [4] As the world changes so do the deities, the reifications of the world made in the image of man. Or to put it another way "That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world,” as Marx says in his introduction to his Critique of Hegel below. And we could add that man also makes science, and that magick which originates science[5], as it does religion, it continues to be a different form of science, natural science as opposed to technic based science of capitalism.

And as Frazer says in the Golden Bough; "So far, therefore, as the public profession of magic has been one of the roads by which men have passed to supreme power, it has contributed to emancipate mankind from the thraldom of tradition and to elevate them into a larger, freer life, with a broader outlook on the world. This is no small service rendered to humanity. And when we remember further that in another direction magic has paved the way for science, we are forced to admit that if the black art has done much evil, it has also been the source of much good; that if it is the child of error, it has yet been the mother of freedom and truth."[6]

We can see within the modern Occult movements in the 19^th and 20^th centuries this dialectic of religion and politics, of liberation and oppression played out in the microcosm of secret societies and the macrocosm of mass movements for social change which includes the neo-pagan and witchcraft revivals that are occurring today. We can see it in the popular response to Harry Potter novels by millions of children, for whom magickal thinking has not been repressed. This is not mere mysticism, but as Freud called it the ‘return of the repressed’[7]. Magick has influenced much of the modern revolutionary movements, from the time of Byron and Shelley (called satanic poets by their contemporaries) through to Surrealism, the beat poets such as libertarian communist Kenneth Rexroth and even Situationism, just as it has broadened our understanding of early human communities through the sciences of sociology and anthropology.

In the information age the return of magick in the 20th century , at the height of capitalisms ascendance its technological transformation of society, shows that the alienation of production and its reification into commodity and consumer, satisfies the individuals need to create meaning and power out of powerlessness. Magick functions not only for creating meaning and power for the individual, but to bring individuals back into contact with each other as creators of community; it answers the need for the village and commune in the midst of a mass consumer culture.

If we are to understand magick as part of the revolutionary movement, we must discard popular conspiracy theory notions of it and apply dialectical and historical materialist theory to it. This then is the challenge that dialectical libertarians face. The study of magick has long influenced revolutionary thinkers[8], as well as reactionaries[9]. The reactionary thinker sees the Occult as competing secret societies vying for power[10], the libertarian communist, sees magick as humanities gnosis of ourselves as self conscious creators of our world as Joseph Dietzgen[11] contends with his theory of Cosmic Dialectics.

Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher

M. to R.
Marx to Ruge

Kreuznach, September 1843

I am glad that you have made up your mind and, ceasing to look back at the past, are turning your thoughts ahead to a new enterprise.^[22] And so — to Paris, to the old university of philosophy — absit omen! [May it not be an ill omen] — and the new capital of the new world! What is necessary comes to pass. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will be possible to overcome all obstacles, the gravity of which I do not fail to recognise.

But whether the enterprise comes into being or not, in any case I shall be in Paris by the end of this month,^[23] since the atmosphere here makes one a serf, and in Germany I see no scope at all for free activity.

In Germany, everything is forcibly suppressed; a real anarchy of the mind, the reign of stupidity itself, prevails there, and Zurich obeys orders from Berlin. It therefore becomes increasingly obvious that a new rallying point must be sought for truly thinking and independent minds. I am convinced that our plan would answer a real need, and after all it must be possible for real needs to be fulfilled in reality. Hence I have no doubt about the enterprise, if it is undertaken seriously.

The internal difficulties seem to be almost greater than the external obstacles. For although no doubt exists on the question of “Whence,” all the greater confusion prevails on the question of “Whither.” Not only has a state of general anarchy set in among the reformers, but everyone will have to admit to himself that he has no exact idea what the future ought to be. On the other hand, it is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one. Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.

Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis — the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines — such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. — arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle.

And the whole socialist principle in its turn is only one aspect that concerns the reality of the true human being. But we have to pay just as much attention to the other aspect, to the theoretical existence of man, and therefore to make religion, science, etc., the object of our criticism. In addition, we want to influence our contemporaries, particularly our German contemporaries. The question arises: how are we to set about it? There are two kinds of facts which are undeniable. In the first place religion, and next to it, politics, are the subjects which form the main interest of Germany today. We must take these, in whatever form they exist, as our point of departure, and not confront them with some ready-made system such as, for example, the Voyage en Icarie. [Etienne Cabet, Voyage en Icarie. Roman philosophique et social.]

Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form. The critic can therefore start out from any form of theoretical and practical consciousness and from the forms peculiar to existing reality develop the true reality as its obligation and its final goal. As far as real life is concerned, it is precisely the political state — in all its modern forms — which, even where it is not yet consciously imbued with socialist demands, contains the demands of reason. And the political state does not stop there. Everywhere it assumes that reason has been realised. But precisely because of that it everywhere becomes involved in the contradiction between its ideal function and its real prerequisites.

From this conflict of the political state with itself, therefore, it is possible everywhere to develop the social truth. just as religion is a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind, so the political state is a register of the practical struggles of mankind. Thus, the political state expresses, within the limits of its form sub specie rei publicae,[as a particular kind of state] all social struggles, needs and truths. Therefore, to take as the object of criticism a most specialised political question — such as the difference between a system based on social estate and one based on representation — is in no way below the hauteur des principes. [Level of principles] For this question only expresses in a political way the difference between rule by man and rule by private property. Therefore the critic not only can, but must deal with these political questions (which according to the extreme Socialists are altogether unworthy of attention). In analysing the superiority of the representative system over the social-estate system, the critic in a practical way wins the interest of a large party. By raising the representative system from its political form to the universal form and by bringing out the true significance underlying this system, the critic at the same time compels this party to go beyond its own confines, for its victory is at the same time its defeat.

Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.

The reform of consciousness consists only in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions. Our whole object can only be — as is also the case in Feuerbach’s criticism of religion — to give religious and philosophical questions the form corresponding to man who has become conscious of himself.

Hence, our motto must be: reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but by analysing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to itself, whether it manifests itself in a religious or a political form. It will then become evident that the world has long dreamed of possessing something of which it has only to be conscious in order to possess it in reality. It will become evident that it is not a question of drawing a great mental dividing line between past and future, but of realising the thoughts of the past. Lastly, it will become evident that mankind is not beginning a new work, but is consciously carrying into effect its old work.

In short, therefore, we can formulate the trend of our journal as being: self-clarification (critical philosophy) to be gained by the present time of its struggles and desires. This is a work for the world and for us. It can be only the work of united forces. It is a matter of a confession, and nothing more. In order to secure remission of its sins, mankind has only to declare them for what they actually are.

Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Karl Marx in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths”] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

For Donalda Cassel, Larry Gambone, Jane Leverick, Sam Wagar

FOOTNOTES

---

[1] communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle

[2] The use of Magick with a 'k' comes from Giambattista della Porta (aka John Baptist della Porta) (1535-1615) Natural Magick , Published in 1558 in Italian and then in 1658 in English. ( In this wildly popular series, now expanded to 20 books, della Porta claims the natural world can be manipulated by the natural philosopher through theoretical and practical experiment. He describes ways of beautifying women, tempering steel, counterfeiting precious stones, identifying natural magnets, and forming new plants and animals.) Natural Magick predates Aleister Crowley’s use of Magick spelled with a K, though he is credited with popularizing this spelling.

[3] Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.

[4] Mircea Eliade's The Forge and the Crucible (1956) asserts that the ancient art of alchemy begins in the bronze age with the forging of tools, and that western systems of initiation into secret knowledge originate in this era with the metal crafts guilds and secret societies of smithy’s.

[5] Astrology is the mother of Astronomy, and Alchemy is the mother of Chemistry as historians of science like to say, but Alchemy is also different from chemistry in that it postulates that the observer affects what is observed, which is the quantum theory of Schrodingers Cat, and that the observer is transformed in the process.

[6] Definition and Theorems of Magick , Magick in Theory and Practice, Aleister Crowley

[7] The Return of the Repressed The strange case of Masud Khan, Robert S. Boynton, The Boston Review

[8] William Godwin, the Lives of the Necromancers, 1834

[9] Sir Walter Scott, Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft, 1833

[10] “the history of the world is the history of competing secret societies” Mumbo-Jumbo By Ishmael Reed which deals with Hoodoo and the spirit of Jazz Age which 'jez grew' in 1920's America to create a black autonomous culture. A very funny work on conspiracy theories in the vein of Robert Anton Wilson/Bob Shea’s Illuminatus series.

[11] Joseph Dietzgen Internet Archive, also see: Joseph Dietzgen and the History of Marxism

Canada's Billion Dollar Rip Off

Canada's Ruling Class Hides Billions Offshore

File This Under; Capitalism is a Criminal Enterprize

I wrote yesterday about the scandal of Offshore Investments by Canada's ruling class in my Red Between the Lines Blog.

And as I predicted Conservative Fianace Critic Monte Solberg was whining that we need more tax breaks for the rich in order to make sure they don't hide their profits offshore in private bank accounts, as reported in the National Pest. (see below). Gee I wish I could say I was a great prognosticator, by commenting in my blog yesterday, but damnit the Tories and the Canadian Taxpayers (sic) Federation are so damn predictable in their knee jerk reaction. To them the solution to everything is Tax Cuts for the rich and Privatization.

The use of offshore banking by Canada's Millionaires and Billionaires, and lets call a spade a spade it's NOT Canadians investing offshore it's THE RULING CLASS, means you and I pay more taxes even after the government has so generously given the corporate capitalists major tax breaks at home. So Monte and the right wing's solution rings hollow.

And it gets better because many of those involved in this criminal enterprize of hidding profits from an already low tax rate for corporations are; Canadas Banks. These are the folks who already have a reputation for money laundering in their offshore banking operations. See my Skimming Kreme for more on Canadian Banks criminal use of offshore banking.

Even more infuriating is the fact that Canada's banks have defered their taxes, again, paying less taxes than they should. Remember that the next time you pay excessive service charges for using their monopoly Interac machines that charge you $1.75 a pop.

The Ruling Class like the Irving Family in the Maritimes makes no bones that as capitalists they should pay NO TAXES, and the old man of the family set up offshore accounts to make sure they didn't. With their Monopoly in New Brunswick they control the lives of the islanders with an old fashioned robber baron paternalism.

"The Mayor of Saint John is defending the city's decision to give Irving Oil a huge tax break. City council voted Monday to approve a deal that would see Irving pay $500,000 annually in property taxes on land where it will build its liquid natural gas terminal. The deal is good for 25 years. The city could have expected as much as $5 million a year in business taxes on that land.
He told council the deal had to be done by midnight Monday or the plant wouldn't be built. McFarlane says he spoke with Kenneth Irving several times over the last few months. "I asked him very clearly, and looked into his eyes, and said, 'Kenneth, you look into my eyes and tell me, if this does not happen, will this facility not be here?'" says McFarlane. "And he very clearly said, 'Yes, it is true.'" Taxpayers aren't so happy about the decision. It sounds like blackmail, says Saint John resident June Garfield. "Billionaires get all the breaks and the ordinary citizen gets nothing," she said. "I'm sure if Mr. Irving doesn't get his own way, there'll be somebody else will be only too willing to come in and we'd have some competition in New Brunswick."
Mayor defends tax deal with Irving CBC March 16, 2005

Its the logic of Capitalism, the capitalist sees himself as the creator of wealth, and since they create the wealth and give us poor suckers our jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and pocket books we should all be grateful and not tax their profits.

Ah thats the logic of neo-classical liberal economics, that the capitalist produces jobs and wealth. Its the logic of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation which is front for these same capitalists as is the Federal Conservative Party. To bad its a big lie, as I point out in my article; It's the Labour Theory of Value, stupid it is labour that produces this wealth not the Capitalist.

And even our very own Prime Minister Paul Martin, has his shipping company registered offshore. So he obviously agree's with Monte even though he will never admit it publicly. But actions always speak louder than poltical speeches or rhetoric.

Remember Trickle Down Economics, or as I like to call them Tinkle On Economics (the capitalist gets the gravy and we get p***ed on), the theory that the more tax breaks given the more the capitalist will invest. Can't forget it can you, its the usual canard of the right. Well since all these Canadian Corporations got their tax breaks for the past decade what did they do with them? Pocket the profits of course.

As the Globe and Mail reported yesterday:"Canada's performance in corporate research during the late 1990s was weaker than earlier believed, a new report concludes. The report, released yesterday, says the increase in the number of Canadian companies conducting research between 1994 and 2001, a period of strong economic growth, was salvaged only by government incentives. Earlier reports had suggested that Canadian companies had been showing more commitment to research during this period. "Much of the apparent activity was simply companies taking advantage of available government money," the document concludes. "There are very few positive stories in the multitude of data presented in this report." The report, called The Demographics of Industrial Research in Canada 1994-2000, was conducted by consultants The Impact Group and paid for by a consortium of federal and provincial governments.

This theft of surplus value and its investment in private bank accounts of the ruling class had a major impact on Canadian manufacturing over the past decade. Had the money been invested back into the Canadian economy as capital investments; R&D, technology upgrades, etc., we would not be facing the decline in manufacturing and it subsequent lay offs as we are now and the resulting decline in so called productivity that Canada has faced for two years now.

Canada's corporations continue to whine for handouts from the State either as tax breaks or as tax credits and investments. I have written about these corporate welfare hand outs to Bombadier, and other Canadian Corporations including those that are American owned like GM.

This is the capitalist economy in the epoch of State Capitalism. Unlike Stalinism or Keynesian Social Democracy, the epoch of Corporate State Capitalism is one which giveth to the corporations and taketh from the workers. The whole gamut of trade agreements that are identified with globalization WTO, NAFTA, FTA, APEC, etc. etc. are symptoms of this epoch of State Capitalism.

Tax Breaks, Tax Credits, Flat Tax initiatives, direct investment, lax regulations in Securities, failure to regulate offshore banking, failure to apply the Tobin Tax , giving Federal tax relief to billionaires like the Bronfmans, all this corporate welfare is symptomatic of state capitalism. Meanwhile not satisfied with workers producing surplus value and then using our taxes to prop up their companies the corporate capitalists continue to whine they need more or we will lose jobs. Hmmm, we are still losing jobs and they are banking their profits in safe havens offshore.

So if this isn't a criminal attempt to avoid paying taxes explain what investment opportunities exist in Barbados, or Luxemburg, or the British Virgin Islands. None, zip, nada. Capital is not being invested for anything more than making more money, hence more capital,(Marx's formula M-C-M) and the fact these are nice vacation spots to sit back in the sun on the beach with a cooler, well thats just one of the perks of watching your money grow. And how much you wanna bet the ruling class also applies for a tax credit for the offshore investment!

And who does Revenue Canada go after to bust for not paying their taxes? Coke dealers! If you are member of the Bronfman family or other members of the Ruling Class they forgive you your taxes.

It must be nice to be rich. Next time some company is about to lay off its workers because it can't get concessions, or tax breaks lets remember where they have hidden their profits.

OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS MORE POPULAR THAN EVER
Statscan Says The Amount Canadian Firms Socked Away Soared To $88-Billion In 2003

By PAUL WALDIE,
Globe and Mail
Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Canadian companies are stashing more money into offshore tax havens than ever, a study indicates.

Between 1990 and 2003, the amount of money Canadian corporations put into tax havens, mainly in the Caribbean, soared to $88-billion from $11-billion, according to a study by Statistics Canada.

Direct investments in these countries increased 18 per cent annually on average. That compared with an annual increase of 8 per cent for investments in the United States and 14 per cent annually for investments in other countries. Tax haven countries "accounted for more than one-fifth of all Canadian direct investment abroad in 2003, double the proportion 13 years earlier," the study said. It added that of the $88-billion, $53-billion ended up in offshore banks.

The most popular tax havens were Barbados, Ireland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas.

"This was the first time that we were measuring direct investment abroad in a subgroup of countries which we refer to as offshore financial centres," said François Lavoie, a balance of payments analyst at Statscan.

"The interesting findings were that the amount is important and increasing. [Offshore financial centres] represent now, in 2003, one-fifth of the direct investment abroad."

Mr. Lavoie said the study did not look at motivations for the investments, but he said tax issues were the most likely reason. "We know that these types of countries are characterized by low or zero taxation and moderate to light financial regulation," he said.

Canadian tax officials have raised concerns about the amount of money headed to tax havens. According to a document prepared in 2001, the Canada Revenue Agency estimated that individual Canadians invested $44.1-billion in tax haven countries. That compared with $4.5-billion in 1988.

The Internet has made it easier for individuals and businesses to set up banks and brokerage accounts in far-flung countries famous for their secrecy, said the document, titled "Tax Havens, An Evolving Taxation Issue."

The paper noted that officials are concerned that the secrecy provisions in many countries make it difficult, if not impossible, to get information from a financial institution and collect taxes owing from Canadians.

A study last year by researchers at the University of Quebec said Canada's major banks have used tax havens to avoid paying $10-billion in taxes since 1991. The study found that the banks had a total of 73 subsidiaries in tax haven countries such as Barbados and Cayman Islands.

For example, according to researchers, Bank of Nova Scotia reduced its tax bill in 2003 by $309-million to $784-million because of a "lower average tax rate applicable to subsidiaries and foreign branches."

The Canadian Bankers Association has challenged the study, saying "the underlying premise is entirely unfounded and misleading." The association added that there is nothing wrong with what the banks are doing.

Francis Wade, who runs Can-Offshore Services, a Belize-based company that specializes in offshore banking, said regulations in many countries have been tightened and he questioned Statscan's figures.

"We read these statistics with a grain of salt," Mr. Wade said. He added that most banks in the Caribbean have less than $20-million in total customer deposits and could not accommodate the sums indicated by the report.

The Statscan study also found that, between 1990 and 2003, foreign direct investment in the United States tripled to $160-billion, but rose much faster in other regions.

The United States accounted for 41 per cent of total foreign investment in 2003, compared with 60 per cent in 1990.

Offshore investment

The largest growth in direct Canadian investment in offshore financial centres has been in Barbados, Ireland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas. These five centres are now among the top 11 nations with the most Canadian assets.

$11-BILLION: CANADIAN ASSETS INVESTED IN OFFSHORE FINANCIAL CENTRES IN 1990

18%: ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH IN CANADIAN DIRECT INVESTMENT OFFSHORE (1990-2003)

41%: U.S. SHARE OF CDN. DIRECT INVESTMENT IN 2003, DOWN FROM 61 in 1990.

$88-BILLION: CANADIAN ASSETS INVESTED IN OFFSHORE FINANCIAL CENTRES IN 2003

8%: ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH IN CANADIAN DIRECT INVESTMENT IN THE U.S. (1990-2003)

$169-BILLION: AMOUNT OF CDN. DIRECT FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSETS

Direct Canadian investment assets in offshore financial centres in 2003.
$million Rank
Barbados 24,690 3
Ireland 18,226 4
Bermuda 10,845 6
Cayman Islands 10,619 8
Bahamas 8,802 11
Switzerland 4,044 18
Singapore 3,735 19
Hong Kong 2,535 22
Malaysia 716 32
Luxembourg 683 33
British Virgin Is. 307 45
Panama 131 64
Netherlands 107 69
Costa Rica 94 74
Cyprus 92 76

Offshore centres ranked, but where data is confidential under the Statistics Act.

Channel Islands

Belize

Mauritius

Saint Lucia

Antigua/Barbuda

Malta

Aruba

Seychelles

Bahrain

Macau

Source: Statistics Canada

$88B FLEES CANADA:
TAXES BLAMED AS INVESTMENT IN OFFSHORE HAVENS SOARS

Eric Beauchesne; with files from Scott Stinson
CanWest News Service; with files from National Post

March 15, 2005

OTTAWA - Canadian direct investment in tax havens and other offshore financial centres has soared eight-fold since 1990 to $88-billion in 2003, says a report that has renewed calls for lower taxes to spur investment in this country.

The Statistics Canada report, released yesterday, rekindled opposition demands for a crackdown on Canadian firms' use of offshore financial centres to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

"From 1990 to 2003, Canadian enterprises invested substantial and growing amounts in countries known as 'Offshore Financial Centres,' many of them in the Caribbean," StatsCan said. "These centres include countries that are often referred to as 'tax havens,' as well as those which have important financial sectors, such as Switzerland, but also Ireland."

The largest increases went into Barbados, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and Ireland, the five countries being among the 11 nations with the most Canadian assets.

John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said yesterday the inclusion of Ireland among the top five should send Ottawa a message.

"That is a country that Canada could learn so much from. They pursued a policy of lower taxes to stimulate economic growth and have succeeded to the point that not only is their economy strong, but it is attracting Canadian capital," he said.

Mr. Williamson noted the Caribbean countries have long attracted foreign investment, because banking is a cornerstone of their economies, but Ireland has a goods-and-services economy similar to Canada's. "[Ireland] is the one that jumps out on that list.... There's certainly a lesson for the Canadian government in terms of their tax-and-spend policies."

Conservative finance critic Monte Solberg said Canada should follow Ireland's lead and use low taxes to attract investment.

"That's something we should strive for," Mr. Solberg said.

Jack Mintz, president and chief executive of the C.D. Howe Institute, said the StatsCan study underscores the reality that "we're not as attractive enough as a country for foreign investment, and that's a concern."

Mr. Mintz said it is not suprising Canadian investment in tax havens has jumped in recent years, given that Canada has one of the highest corporate tax rates among industrialized countries.

"We have a significant issue that we have to deal with on the tax side to make Canada more attractive," he said. "We've actually created a policy disadvantage for investment in Canada."

The report also brought charges that Ottawa must follow through on promises to close tax loopholes that allow such high levels of Canadian investment in such countries as Barbados.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP finance critic, said the Liberal government "has to start taking seriously its commitment to shut down tax havens, because they result in higher taxes for Canadians."

However, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale recently said that a "consensus among all countries" would be needed to shoot down tax havens.

The International Monetary Fund defines offshore financial centres as jurisdictions that have a large number of foreign-controlled financial institutions where most transactions are initiated abroad; have assets and liabilities that are out of proportion to its economy and low or zero taxation; and have loose financial regulations and banking secrecy.

Francois Lavoie, author of the Statistics Canada study, said it is based on investments reported by firms but added he "cannot comment if these are legitimate investments or not."

They mostly are investments in financial assets but, depending on how the investment is structured, that could include investments in ships or buildings, he said.

Canada Steamship Lines, formerly owned by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who has now transferred ownership to his sons, has registered ships offshore.

An IMF background paper notes that international companies route activities through low- tax offshore OFCs to minimize their total tax bill ... moving onshore profits to low-tax regimes.

More than one-fifth of all Canadian direct investment abroad in 2003, or more than 20 cents of every dollar, went into offshore financial centres, double the proportion 13 years earlier, the report said.

In contrast, the share of direct Canadian investment going to the United States, Canada's main economic partner, shrunk over that time, it said. Direct investment mainly serves to finance the creation of new enterprises or the acquisition of existing ones.
© National Post 2005

It's the Labour Theory of Value, stupid

In Libertarian Dialectics and in other comments I have made on my blogs I have challenged what I call the price, distribution, production economic model of the Austrian School of Economics, Von Mises and Hayek, and their heirs at the Chicago School of Economics, Friedman et al. It is also called neo-classical economics, what could also be called liberal economics.

This is why I refer to the majority of right wing Libertarians, as liberaltarians, those who embrace the supply side economics of these schools. These characters are masques of capitalism as Marx once described their subjective function.

They reject out of hand the Labour Theory of Value, based on a flawed critique of Capital by the Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Austrian Minister of Finance, 1889-1904, professor and leader, along with Carl Menger and Friedrich von Weiser, of the Austrian school of economists. Böhm-Bawerk, had a special interest in the theory of capital and interest. Author of several books, including his 1896 work, Karl Marx and the Close of His System, a classic attack on Marxist economics.

The German Marxist economist Rudolf Hilferding, challenged the Austrian school’s dismissal of Capital and of Marx, in his critique of Böhm-Bawerk, In his preface to his critique Hilferding writes:

“The publication of the third volume of Capital has made hardly any impression upon bourgeois economic science. We have seen nothing of the "jubilant hue and cry" anticipated by Sombart. [1] No struggle of intellects has taken place; there was no contest in majorem scientiae gloriam. For in the theoretical field bourgeois economics no longer engages in blithe and joyous fights. As spokesman for the bourgeoisie, it enters the lists only where the bourgeoisie has practical interests to defend. In the economico-political struggles of the day it faithfully reflects the conflict of interests of the dominant cliques, but it shuns the attempt to consider the totality of social relationships, for it rightly feels that any such consideration would be incompatible with its continued existence as bourgeois economics.

The only exception is the psychological school of political economy. The adherents of this school resemble the classical economists and the Marxists in that they endeavor to apprehend economic phenomena from a unitary outlook. Opposing Marxism with a circumscribed theory, their criticism is systematic in character, and their critical attitude is forced upon them because they have started from totally different premises. As early as 1884, in his Capital and Interest, Böhm-Bawerk joined issue with the first volume of Capital, and soon after the publication of the third volume of that work he issued a detailed criticism the substance of which was reproduced in the second edition of his Capital and Interest [German edition 1900]. [2] He believes he has proved the untenability of economic Marxism, and confidently announces that "the beginning of the end of the labor theory of value" has been inaugurated by the publication of the third volume of Capital.”

Hilferding refers to the Austrian School as the ‘psychological” school, which is the correct appellation for the heirs of Böhm-Bawerk; Von Mises, Hayek, Freidman, Rothbard, Rand etc. By merging Randism with Austrian Economics, the Libertarian Right moved beyond Benjamin Tucker, who had accepted the Labour Theory of Value, as had Kropotkin in their Proudhonist fashion. While paying lip service to Tucker as an American Anarchist and father of American Libertarianism, they reject his acceptance of the Labour Theory of Value and instead embrace the anti-Prussian State Socialism straw dog of the Austrian School of Economics.

Ayn Rand’s so called “Objectivism” is NOT, it is subjectivism and her work in philosophy is subjectivist psychology, as Von Mises is in economics. They and their followers embrace the Böhm-Bawerk dismissal of the Labour Theory of Value. As Hilferding says in his chapter on the Austrian Schools Subjectivist Outlook:

“The phenomenon of variations in the price of production has shown us that the phenomena of capitalist society can never be understood if the commodity or capital be considered in isolation. It is the social relationship which these occupy, and changes in that relationship, which control and elucidate the movements of individual capitals, themselves no more than portions of the total social capital. But the representative of the psychological school of political economy fails to see this social nexus, and he therefore necessarily misunderstands a theory which definitely aims at disclosing the social determinism of economic phenomena, a theory whose starting point therefore is society and not the individual. In apprehending and expounding this theory he is ever influenced by his own individualistic mentality, and he thus arrives at contradictions which he ascribes to the theory, while they are in truth ascribable solely to his interpretations of the theory.

This confusion may be traced in all the stages of Böhm-Bawerk's polemic. Even the fundamental concept of the Marxist system, the concept of value-creating labor, is apprehended in a purely subjective manner. To him "labor" is identical with "trouble" or "effort" ["Mühe"].To make this individual feeling of distaste the cause of value naturally leads us to see in value a purely psychological fact, and to deduce the value of commodities from our evaluation of the labor they have cost. As is well known, this is the foundation which Adam Smith adopts for his theory of value, for he is ever inclined to abandon the objective standpoint for a subjective. Smith writes: "Equal quantities of labor must at all times and places be of equal value to the laborer. In his ordinary state of health, strength, and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness." [1] If labor regarded as "trouble" be the basis of our personal estimate of value, then the "value of the labor" is a constituent, or a "determinant" as Böhm-Bawerk puts it, of the value of commodities. But it need not be the only one, for a number of other factors which influence the subjective estimates made by individuals take their places beside labor and have an equal right to be regarded as determinants of value. If, therefore, we identify the value of commodities with the personal estimate of the value of these commodities made by this or that individual, it seems quite arbitrary to select labor as the sole basis for such an estimate.

From the subjectivist standpoint, therefore, the standpoint from which Böhm-Bawerk levels his criticism, the labor theory of value appears untenable from the very outset. And it is because he adopts this standpoint that Böhm-Bawerk is unable to perceive that Marx's concept of labor is totally opposed to his own. Already in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx had emphasized his opposition to Adam Smith's subjectivist outlook by writing "[Smith] fails to see the objective equalization of different kinds of labor which the social process forcibly carries out, mistaking it for the subjective equality of the labors of individuals." [2] In truth, Marx is entirely unconcerned with the individual motivation of the estimate of value. In capitalist society it would be absurd to make "trouble" the measure of value, for speaking generally the owners of the products have taken no trouble at all, whereas the trouble has been taken by those who have produced but do not own them. With Marx, in fact, every individual relationship is excluded from the conception of value-creating labor; labor is regarded, not as something which arouses feelings of pleasure or its opposite, but as an objective magnitude, inherent in the commodities, and determined by the degree of development of social productivity. Whereas for Böhm-Bawerk, labor seems merely one of the determinants in personal estimates of value, in Marx's view labor is the basis and connective tissue of human society, and in Marx's view the degree of productivity of labor and the method of organization of labor determine the character of social life. Since labor, viewed in its social function as the total labor of society of which each individual labor forms merely an aliquot part, is made the principle of value, economic phenomena are subordinated to objective laws independent of the individual will and controlled by social relationships. Beneath the husk of economic categories we discover social relationships, relationships of production, wherein commodities play the part of intermediaries, the social relationships being reproduced by these intermediate processes, or undergoing a gradual transformation until they demand a new type of inter-mediation.

Thus the law of value becomes a law of motion for a definite type of social organization based upon the production of commodities, for in the last resort all change in social structure can be referred to changes in the relationships of production, that is to say to changes in the evolution of productive power and in the organization of [productive] labor. We are thereby led, in the most striking contrast to the outlook of the psychological school, to regard political economy as a part of sociology, and sociology itself as a historical science. Böhm-Bawerk has never become aware of this contrast of outlooks. The question whether the "subjectivist method" or the "objectivist method" is the sound method in economics he decides in a controversy with Sombart by saying that each method must supplement the other—whereas in truth we are not concerned at all with two different methods, but with contrasted and mutually exclusive outlooks upon the whole of social life. Thus it happens that Böhm-Bawerk, unfailingly carrying on the controversy from his subjectivist and psychological standpoint, discovers contradictions in the Marxist theory which seem to him to be contradictions solely because of his own subjectivist interpretation of the theory.”

It is this subjectivity, misrepresented as being classical liberal invidualism that underlies the Right Wing Libertarians economic reason de’ etre of reducing capitalism to the economics of prices/distribution/production. It is also their misinterpretation of the market place of capitalism that makes them idealize some sort of laissez-faire utopia without the state. They fail to understand that there is a difference between government and the state.

The state is the judiciary and military power of the old aristocracy adapted by capitalism for its own functioning. Governance, government, is the function of associations of producers and always has been. Even Kropotkin realized this with his analysis of the State, and saw the free association of producers existing in the city state economies independent of any particular feudalist state; in fact it was their crushing that led to the creation of the modern capitalist state. But these associations still governed the market place, by workers control.

“On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State. However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.” The State: Its Historic Role, Peter Kropotkin

Under modern capitalism right wing libertarian “psychological economics” ends up not with a nation of “hewers of wood and drawers of water”, one which produces, but a nation of Fuller brush Salesmen, multilevel marketers and pyramid ponzi schemers. That is the ultimate ideal of supply side economics which sees America evolving into service/distributive based capitalism.

Who is John Galt? Who Cares!

He is not the Scottish author, rather he is a character in the Ayn Rand Novel Atlas Shrugged who declares Rand’s idealist principles of individualism within modern capitalism:
JOHN GALT'S OATH
”The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

The Austrian School of ‘psychological’ subjectivist economics, or the ‘what’s in it for me’ school of political economy, deliberately obfusticates the differences between themselves and the Marxist school of political economy, because they have thrown out the Labour Theory of Value, while caring only about the arithmetic of distribution, the supply and demand of the current existing capitalist system. Even in their most radical form of the free marketers or anarcho-capitalists like Bryan Caplan, they still view the world through the eyes of Ayn Rand and her capitalist heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

In her work The Fountainhead, which was also made into a movie, her capitalist hero is an architect who builds a monument to himself and escapes society by hiding from it. This is Rand’s individualist politics, the cruel but beautiful isolation of the individual. By embracing capitalisms alienation Rand makes this alienation her banner of individualism. It’s lonely at the top is the sine que non of this ideology.

Toohey's values are totally wrong, from Rand's point of view, but his analysis is almost always correct. "Every loneliness is a pinnacle," he says, like a true Randian individualist [277], and he is one of the few people able to recognize Roark's lonely genius for what it is. Toohey analyzes, in Randian fashion, the indebtedness of the many to the genius of the few, and the inspiration given to the collectivist spirit by the envy that results from that indebtedness [281-82].

The Literary Achievement of The Fountainhead By Stephen Cox

In the end, despite their protests to the contrary, the so called anarcho-capitalists heroes are Enron, WorldCom, and Martha Stewart, while their ideal of themselves is the freebooter pirate like Robert Anton Wilson’s caricature of them; Hagbard Celine in his Illuminatus Trilogy.

In order to avoid seriously confronting their differences with Marxism, Böhm-Bawerk and all his followers since have set up the straw dog of State Socialism, as their definition of Socialism, in particular Bismarck’s Prussian State Socialism which they were familiar with. Even after the successful Bolshevik revolution they still define socialism as any form of state intervention in the economy. In this case they failed to historically understand that Keynesianism was the natural outcome of Fordist capitalisms changing nature once confronted with workers revolution. In their steady state economics of capitalism workers revolution plays no part. They can only define capitalism as a market place separate from the state while capitalism has moved into an epoch of State Capitalism as Marxist Humanist Raya Dunavevskaya describes it.

Overall with few exceptions, such as Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian Right and its Austrian and Randian allies care not one wit for class struggle, since to them it can only lead to state socialism. And here is the rub, to be a radical subjectivist you must understand that the subjects of capitalism are the workers who produce it. As Marx said, both the workers and the capitalists are the subjects and objects of capitalism.

Production does not simply produce man as a commodity, the human commodity, man in the role of commodity; it produces him in keeping with this role as a mentally and physically dehumanized being. — Immorality, deformity, and dulling of the workers and the capitalists. — Its product is the self-conscious and self-acting commodity ... the human commodity.

Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

Capitalism is a system, one that goes beyond its subjects, which is why it must be overcome since the result of its existence is alienation of the subjects who create it through the commodity fetishism it demands of us not as subjects but as ‘consumers’.

The Libertarian Right, the Austrian School and the Randites philosophical economics are restricted to understanding the subject as commodity fetish, they can never go beyond this. In effect their economics and the economics of the commodity fetish is well captured in the phrase; “Those with the most toys wins.”

As I.I. Rubin the Russian Economist writes in his introduction to Essays on Marx's Theory of Value

There is a tight conceptual relationship between Marx's economic theory and his sociological theory, the theory of historical materialism. Years ago Hilferding pointed out that the theory of historical materialism and the labor theory of value have the same starting point, specifically labor as the basic element of human society, an element whose development ultimately determines the entire development of society.[1]

The working activity of people is constantly in a process of change, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, and in different historical periods it has a different character. The process of change and development of the working activity of people involves changes of two types: first, there are changes in means of production and technical methods by which man affects nature, in other words, there are changes in society's productive forces; secondly, corresponding to these changes there are changes in the entire pattern of production relations among people, the participants in the social process of production. Economic formations or types of economy (for example, ancient slave economy, feudal, or capitalist economy) differ according to the character of the production relations among people. Theoretical political economy deals with a definite social-economic formation, specifically with commodity-capitalist economy.

The capitalist economy represents a union of the material-technological process and its social forms, i.e. the totality of production relations among people. The concrete activities of people in the material-technical production process presuppose concrete production relations among them, and vice versa. The ultimate goal of science is to understand the capitalist economy as a whole, as a specific system of productive forces and production relations among people. But to approach this ultimate goal, science must first of all separate, by means of abstraction, two different aspects of the capitalist economy: the technical and the social-economic, the material-technical process of production and its social form, the material productive forces and the social production relations. Each of these two aspects of the economic process is the subject of a separate science. The science of social engineering-still in embryonic state-must make the subject of its analysis the productive forces of society as they interact with the production relations. On the other hand, theoretical political economy deals with production relations specific to the capitalist economy as they interact with the productive forces of society. Each of these two sciences, dealing only with one aspect of the whole process of production, presupposes the presence of the other aspect of the production process in the form of an assumption which underlies its research. In other words, even though political economy deals with production relations, it always presupposes their unbreakable connection with the material-technical process of production, and in its research assumes a concrete stage and process of change of the material-productive forces.

Marx's theory of historical materialism and his economic theory revolve around one and the same basic problem: the relationship between productive forces and production relations. The subject of both sciences is the same: the changes of production relations which depend on the development of productive forces. The adjustment of production relations to changes of productive forces-a process which takes the form of increasing contradictions between the production relations and the productive forces, and the form of social cataclysms caused by these contradictions-is the basic theme of the theory of historical materialism.[2] By applying this general methodological approach to commodity-capitalist society we obtain Marx's economic theory. This theory analyzes the production relations of capitalist society, the process of their change as caused by changes of productive forces, and the growth of contradictions which are generally expressed in crises.

Political economy does not analyze the material-technical aspect of the capitalist process of production, but its social form, i.e., the totality of production relations which make up the "economic structure" of capitalism. Production technology (or productive forces) is included in the field of research of Marx's economic theory only as an assumption, as a starting point, which is taken into consideration only in so far as it is indispensable for the explanation of the genuine subject of our analysis, namely production relations. Marx's consistently applied distinction between the material-technical process of production and its social forms puts in our hands the key for understanding his economic system. This distinction at the same time defines the method of political economy as a social and historical science. In the variegated and diversified chaos of economic life which represents a combination of social relations and technical methods, this distinction also directs our attention precisely to those social relations among people in the process of production, to those production relations, for which the production technology serves as an assumption or basis. Political economy is not a science of the relations of things to things, as was thought by vulgar economists, nor of the relations of people to things, as was asserted by the theory of marginal utility, but of the relations of people to people in the process of production.

Political economy, which deals with the production 'relations among people in the commodity-capitalist society, presupposes a concrete social form of economy, a concrete economic formation of society. We cannot correctly understand a single statement in Marx's Capital if we overlook the fact that we are dealing with events which take place in a particular society. "In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be borne in mind that as in reality so in our mind the subject, in this case modern bourgeois society, is given and that the categories are therefore but forms of expression, manifestations of existence, and frequently but one-sided aspects of this subject, this definite society." ". . .In the employment of the theoretical method [of Political Economy], the subject, society, must constantly be kept in mind as the premise from which we start." [3] Starting from a concrete sociological assumption, namely from the concrete social structure of an economy, Political Economy must first of all give us the characteristics of this social form of economy and the production relations which are specific to it. Marx gives us these general characteristics in his "theory of commodity fetishism," which could more accurately be called a general theory of production relations of the commodity capitalist economy.

Between these two Libertarianisms, there can never be a rapprochement, as those on the right reject the Labour Theory of Value and those of us on the Left (including some mutualists and some free-marketeers) accept the Labour Theory of Value.

Compared to the Labour Theory of Value, all other economics are simply the arithmetic of the market and the calculations of supply and demand distribution of currently existing capitalism. They offer no historical understanding of how we got here or where we are going, they only offer us the steady state of capitalism as it is, as it was, as it ever will be.

This is the contradiction of the free trade argument, since no trade in goods is truly free, each nation of producers restricts access to trade in its own capitalist interests, but in a world of commodity producers (off shore overseas, out of sight out of mind) and a world of commodity consumers (North Americans) then Free Trade is the right wing liberaltarian ideal. With that in mind all we can look forward to sweat shops in space ala Outland, with the lone sheriff being the Randian hero, if John Galt liberaltarians get their way.

The real Libertarian calls for smashing capitalism and its State. For ending the market domination of society and for the free association of producers.

Deconstructing Hayek

I came across this article on the web by Sean Johnson Andrews critical of the Regulation School of Economics that also handily dismisses the Austrian School of Economics so favored by Neo-Conservatives and Right Wing Libertarians.

[Author’s aside: I found it while researching material for Libertarian Anti-Imperialism, ah the joys of research based writing, it takes you off in all directions at once. And serendipitous synergies occur as happened in this case.[1] ]

Andrews study is about cultural production under capitalism, especially media concentration, and the whole article is an excellent read as are his other writings ( I have included a link to his article on blog freedom as a comment to my Blog Freedom or Cyberwar). He asks if bourgeois political economy which wants be taken seriously as a science but what kind of science and what kind of economics? He does an excellent job challenging the neo-classical school of the economics including its most radical wing the Austrian School of Economics from a libertarian dialectical position.

I have excerpted some of his critique from this long article, the whole of which is well worth the read. I have excerpted a small section of his very long article dealing with neo-classical economics of the Austrian and Chicago Schools of Economics as well as the new Regulation School of Economics.

Excerpts From: A Conversation among Bourdieu, Regulationist Economics and Cultural Studies and the way they can help objectify this and other conjunctures

The Science of Culture and the Culture of Science:

From Culture and Political Economy (Spring 2003)

Sean Johnson Andrews

Sean Johnson Andrews Blog on Media

Where, if anywhere, ideology leaves off and science begins has been the Sphinx’s Riddle of much of modern sociological thought and the ruthless weapon of its enemies. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, 1973

At the present time, scientific effort mirrors an economy filled with contradictions. The economy is in large measure dominated by monopolies, and yet on the world scale it is disorganized and chaotic, richer than ever yet unable to eliminate human wretchedness. Science, too, shows a double contradiction. Max Horkheimer, “Notes on Science and the Crisis,” c.1930

The] neoclassical consensus succeeded in replacing the labor theory of value with one grounded in subjective utility and placed the ideas of ‘marginal product’ and ‘final demand’ at the center while elbowing into the wings the concepts of total demand. With these new ideas [. . .] the economy came to be thought of less in terms of material production and reproduction and more as a logic of human action. (79)

To make matters worse, this is the model of economics that is most strongly believed as rational and verifiable by a great many capitalist subjects.

The same social alchemy is true of economic capital and, like the capital in the scientific field, capital in the economic or symbolic field, legitimated by a hierarchy of producers, is more than just a mode of exchange: it is also a mode of domination.

Regulationist economics is concerned with “the study of the transformation of social relations as it creates new forms that are organized into structures and themselves reproduce a determinant structure, the mode of production”(16). This characterization of the economy seems similar to the Polanyian idea of embeddedness, which he describe in detail in The Great Transformation. In short, embeddedness is a way of giving primacy to one social formation over another. Polanyi insists that before the development of modern market capitalism in the 19th century, “the human economy was always embedded in society”(xxiii) and, more importantly,

The idea of a [disembedded] self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness. Inevitably, society took measures to protect itself, but whatever measures it took impaired the self-regulation of the market, disorganized industrial life, and thus endangered society in yet another way. (3-4)

This is understanding of the relations between the economy, society and the state is, indeed, similar to the Regulationist view, but they tend to posit the agency with the market instead of with society. The concept of a Regime of Accumulation, central to the school, is not concerned with the effect of capitalism on society per se, but rather on the way that society can be best transformed to accommodate capitalism. It could be said that, in relation to Polanyi, they recognize that there are times when the relation between the two is unique. The concepts of a the predominantly extensive and intensive regimes of accumulation indicate this understanding. The former is the regime of accumulation which Polanyi might call “disembedded;” it is “that in which relative surplus value is obtained by transforming the organization of labor; the traditional way of life may persist or be destroyed, but it is not radically recomposed by the logic of utilitarian funcitonalism”(Aglietta, 71). This is the type of accumulation regime, according to Aglietta, which existed in late nineteenth-century America.

The crisis of worldwide depression and the rise of fascism that ensued when this accumulation regime could no longer continue is what Polanyi has witnessed when he says, in 1944, “nineteenth-century civilization has collapsed.” But whereas Polanyi thinks this is primarily the social result of an economic phenomenon, Aglietta describes it as a social phenomenon with economic consequences: “The Great Depression [. . .] was a major crisis of accumulation because the transformation of the labor process itself set up obstacles to valorization. What was at stake in the crisis was the transformation of the conditions of existence on the working class”(95).

What this understanding of capitalism points to is the “progressive, historical role of capitalism”(Lenin, 47) which Aglietta describes as only being fully possible in an intensive regime of accumulation, or some other “set of mechanisms for social mediation that guide the accumulation of capital in the direction of social progress”(Aglietta, 412). The description of he gives of this concept is important because it points to the place where Bourdieu’s understanding of habitus becomes relevant to the Regulationist description of capitalism:

The predominantly intensive regime of accumulation creates a new mode of life for the wage-earning class by establishing a logic that operates on the totality of time and space occupied or traversed by its individuals in daily life. A social consumption norm is formed, which no longer depends in any way on communal life [. . . .] This norm is stratified according to principles that closely correspond to the stratification of social groups within the wage-earning class. The intensive regime of accumulation accomplishes an integration of the two departments of production that makes possible a far more regular pace of accumulation and a far more rapid increase in the rate of surplus value.(71)

Packed into this quote are several ideas that become more fully articulated concepts in the hands of later Regulationist theorists. So, the “mode of life” which Aglietta mentions above, becomes a mode of regulation and the “logic that operates on the totality of time and space” is similar to Alain Lipietz’s description of a schema of reproduction (32-33).

Aglietta describes the major problem of capitalism in terms that are similar to Althusser and the conception of “capital” as quite similar to eponymous idea in Bourdieu: “we conceive of capital not as an eminent entity but as the development of the wage relation. Every major crisis of accumulation is a crisis of the present conditions of reproduction of this relation”(Aglietta, 169). The idea of a “schema reproduction” is something which is meant to stem this crisis in the production relation or the “reproduction of the material conditions of production”(Althusser, Lenin, 127). The schema of reproduction accounts for the relationship of labor, the relationship between departments of production, and the patterns of distribution and consumption which all together form “the skeleton of a regime of accumulation or a mathematical diagram of its social coherence”(Lipietz, 32). This system of relations is not necessarily planned or settled upon before it is implemented, it is just the schema that was “found” to work. And the schema works in so far as there is a “mode of regulation” that is appropriate: “If any schema is to be realized and to reproduce itself for any length of time, there must be institutional forms, procedures and habits which either coerce or persuade private agents to conform to its schemas”(33). Thus the “mode of regulation” is almost identical to the habitus.

In relation to Bourdieu’s capital, which again, Aglietta describes as a development of the relation, capitalism can be conceived in terms of a certain formalization of an economic field. However, there is a highly stratified relation between the people able to accumulate capital and the people who only serve as, what could be called, relational support, for their accumulation. Workers, whose laboring capacity may reward them with symbolic capital within the field of economic relations, are not typically able to accumulate enough of the economic capital (which their work valorizes) to change their position in the field. Thus there has to be a strong relation of domination within the field which encourages a disposition for the worker to continue to play this relational support role when it is clearly more in the interest of the capitalist for him to do so.

For unlike other, more settled sciences, economics has had a difficult history in convincing other practitioners from other sciences that it has the same sort of quantitative verifiability of mathematics or physics. Its status as a social science makes its seem less authoritative among other scientists. On the other hand, its status as a social science having to do with the basic relations of humankind gives its authoritative practitioners a great deal of symbolic capital, even as many of them attempt to disconnect their theories from the messy assemblages of power and production that they are supposed to describe. Friedrich Hayek, whose most famous book Road to Serfdom, was published the same year as Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, went to far as to suggest that the term “society” should be stricken from “our poisoned language” (Hayek, 112-115), making a point of not using the term to describe “our extended moral order” lest he be branded a socialist.

This dimension of the authoritative position of economics is evident enough in common parlance. Nevertheless