Forget Ike It's PetroCan's Fault

P.O. about the 13 cent rise in gasoline prices at the pump last Friday. Don't blame hurricane Ike, rather it was exasperated by the shut down of Petrocan here in Edmonton. The plant has been offline since July!

September 15, 2008

Petro-Canada Refinery Shutdown Causes Shortage Petro-Canada, Canada's second- largest refiner, said filling stations in Alberta and British Columbia may run out of fuel after the unexpected shutdown of a unit at its Edmonton, Alberta, refinery. The company is investigating the reason for the closing of the catalytic cracking unit, a gasoline-producing piece of equipment, according to a Bloomberg report. Petro-Canada spokesperson Jon Hamilton said the reduction in gasoline could last several weeks as the company fixes the unit. "It could be short term, it could be a little longer," Hamilton said. "We're looking at, I'd say, weeks not days, right now." Gasoline shortages may occur in parts of British Columbia's so-called interior region and Alberta, Petro-Canada said in a statement. The Calgary-based company said it's trying to boost supplies in Canada's western provinces partly by buying fuel from rivals. Deliveries to some customers and filling stations have been curbed, Hamilton said without providing details. "The deliveries that we're sending out are reduced from what they would normally get,'' he said. "That might mean a smaller load or that might mean less frequent loads." The company intends to import more supplies to its port terminal in Vancouver and truck the fuel to customers, Hamilton said. Petro-Canada also is altering its distribution network across the country to boost supply in western Canada. The equipment failure is unrelated to a C$2.2 billion ($2.07 billion) modification project nearing completion at the plant. Parts of the refinery were scheduled to be shuttered for about two months starting this month so that the plant can run on crude extracted from Alberta's oil sands. Output at the refinery was cut last month because of a water-boiler equipment problem. The plant is capable of processing 135,000 barrels a day. Imperial Oil Ltd. of Calgary is Canada's largest refiner and marketer.

Since Petrocan, Shell and Imperial Oil are the area's main refiners losing Petrocan put pressure on their retail outlets. Of course this should have been predicated. Add to that the shut down of East Coast gasoline due to Ike and you have the perfect storm.

In March, a shut down at Imperial's 187,000-barrel-a-day Strathcona refinery near Edmonton caused gasoline shortages at Esso stations throughout Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C. and Manitoba.

Around the same time, Shell Canada Ltd. said its Scotford refinery and upgrader near Fort Saskatchewan, Alta., were operating at reduced rates because of unplanned maintenance.

Last year, Ontarians experienced gasoline shortages for several weeks after a fire at Imperial's Nanticoke refinery.

Canada's refining infrastructure is aging, but companies are not keen on investing in new facilities, said Roger McKnight, an energy analyst with Oshawa, Ont.-based consulting firm En-Pro.

Not only would it would take up to 10 years and billions of dollars to build a new refinery, but they would tilt the market against the companies' favour.

"Their refining margins would drop because of excess supply. So there's no incentive at all for them to do that," McKnight said.

Another factor discouraging the industry from spending money on new refineries is uncertainty about government regulations.

"If I was an oil company, I would like to know in 10 years, when I'm going to have this refinery built, what the eventual specs are going to be and what the emission standards are going to be," McKnight said.

As for the solution it is as clear as the nose on Uncle Ed's face, we need more refinery capacity in Alberta and Canada. Of course given the anti regulatory anti-public ownership attitude of Big Oil and its government in Alberta that ain't gonna happen any time soon.


And so we have gasoline shortages on refinery row.

Back in August, it was Petro-Canada. Now, it’s Shell that has run out of gasoline at some of its Alberta stations.

In Medicine Hat, the Shell stations on Dunmore Road and Eighth St. NW have been out of gas since Friday, while the Shell on South Railway had gas as of Monday but wasn’t sure how long its supplies would last. Shell stations on Redcliff Drive SW and Trans-Canada Way were reporting they still have gas.

Jana Masters, spokesperson for Shell Canada, said there are also a couple of stations in Calgary and Edmonton that are running on empty.

“But these are very small numbers compared to our total operations across the province,” she said.

While the Petro-Canada gas shortage in August had to do with a problem at that company’s refinery, Masters said that is not the case at Shell.

“It’s just a temporary challenge keeping up to customer demand,” Masters said.

It is the lack of tertiary refining that causes gasoline shortages in Canada and subsequently price increases. And wqe won't get more refineries built until there is a national initiative to make it so including a Green Plan.

Call it a Green National Energy Program. If you want to end price gouging lets have a made in Canada Energy Plan that includes increased bitumin processing and tertiary refining capacity.

Of course others have solutions too, like importing more dirty gas from the U.S. but that is all refined in Hurricane Alley, and we know what that means. 13 cent price increases in one day.

Petro-Canada said it’s pulling out all the stops to make sure supplies of gasoline keep flowing.

Company officials said on Petro-Canada’s website that it was able to use trucks to ship approximately 200,000 litres of gasoline per day from its Vancouver storage facility last week, but that volume has now more than quadrupled.

That’s been partially accomplished by hiring truckers from Ontario to move more product, Stevens said.

The company is also trying to find rail cars that could be pressed into service to deliver gasoline to destinations in B.C. and Alberta.

The company also is trying to boost its gasoline supplies by looking to its other Canadian refineries and to the United States and overseas, Stevens said.

An industry group that represents independent gasoline retailers is calling for a harmonization of gasoline standards between Canada and the U.S., which would allow for more importation of American products during shortages.

Canadian gasoline has hard caps on sulphur and benzene levels in gasoline, which prevents the importation of the product from the U.S. to ease any shortages, said Dave Collins, a director with the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association.

"It’s great if you’re a refinery because it blocks competition and helps you keep our prices up," he said in an interview from Halifax.

"But it’s not good for consumers and, at times like this, it’s not good for our operations either because we can’t get any gas," he said.

The federal government’s failure to ease importation restrictions means such shortages will likely happen again, Collins said.

Of course the solution is not unrestricted trade with the U.S. for dirty gas, rather the solution was in hand until the Liberals under Paul Martin sold off the last of Canadians taxpayers shareholdings in Petrocan.There is a solution to price gouging, that is worker and community control of the refineries.


SEE:

It's Time to Take Back Our Oil and Gas

NDP And Workers Control

Nationalize the Oil Industry

The Myth of the NEP

Aren't you sorry you sold your shares

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
royalties, oil, profits,
Bill Hunter, Alberta Royalty Review,
Alberta Cabinet, CAPP, Ed Stelmach,
Big Oil,oil royalties, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, NEP, Conservatives, Fort McMurray, One Party State,
Parkland Insititute, Encana, Nationalize, Nationalization, Workers Control, public ownership, Petro Canada, Anarchism, NEP, Self-Management

Lenin's State Monopoly Capitalism

_{Meyerhold's production of The Bathhouse by Mayakovsky, March 16 1930}

"The methods of Taylorism may be applied to the work of the actor in the same way as they are to any other form of work with the aim of maximum productivity."

_{Vsevolod Emilevich Meyerhold, 1922}

In my post on Battleship Potemkin I posted about the Kronstadt sailors revolt of 1921. At the 10th Party Congress of the Bolshevik Party Lenin declared; "Enough Opposition", and the Red Army crossed the ice and attacked the revolting sailors.

At the Tenth Congress, as the Kronstadt soviet was being crushed by arms and buried under a barrage of slander, Lenin attacked the radical-left bureaucrats who had formed a “Workers’ Opposition” faction with the following ultimatum, the logic of which Stalin would later extend to an absolute division of the world: “You can stand here with us, or against us out there with a gun in your hand, but not within some opposition. . . . We’ve had enough opposition.”

Ironically their demands were then used by Lenin to create his New Economic Program.

"Our poverty and ruin are so great that we cannot at a single stroke create full socialist production" Lenin

Lenin came before the Congress in March 1921 and proposed the NEP. The NEP was in essence a capitalist free market. The NEP stated that requisitioning of food and agricultural surpluses, a doctrine of War Communism, must be ended. Instead, the government would tax the peasants on a fixed percentage of their production. Trotsky had already proposed a similar policy, but it was rejected by his fellow colleagues, including Lenin. Basically, this promoted a free agricultural market in Russia.

Lenin's N.E.P.

The Bolshevik revolutionary takeover in October 1917 was followed by over two years of civil war in Russia between the new Communist regime (with its Red Army) and its enemies--the conservative military officers commanding the so-called White armies. The struggle saw much brutality and excesses on both sides with the peasants suffering most from extortionate demands of food supplies and recruits by both sides. The repressive and dictatorial methods of the Bolshevik government had so alienated the mass of peasants and industrial working class elements that the erstwhile most loyal supporters of the regime, the sailors at the Kronstadt naval base, rebelled in March 1921 (see ob19.doc) to the great embarrassment of senior Bolsheviks. Though the rebellion was mercilessly crushed, the regime was forced to moderate its ruthless impulses. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was the result, a small concession to the capitalist and free market instincts of peasant and petty bourgeois alike. Moreover, victory in the civil war was assured by this stage, thus allowing a relaxation of the coercive methods symbolized by the War Communism of the previous two to three years.

The New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced by Lenin at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, represented a major departure from the party's previous approach to running the country. During the civil war, the Soviet state had assumed responsibility for acquiring and redistributing grain and other foodstuffs from the countryside, administering both small- and large-scale industry, and a myriad of other economic activities. Subsequently dubbed (by Lenin) "War Communism," this approach actually was extended in the course of 1920, even after the defeat of the last of the Whites. Many have claimed that War Communism reflected a "great leap forward" mentality among the Bolsheviks, but desperation to overcome shortages of all kinds, and particularly food, seems a more likely motive. In any case, in the context of continuing urban depopulation, strikes by disgruntled workers, peasant unrest, and open rebellion among the soldiers and sailors stationed on Kronstadt Island, Lenin resolved to reverse direction.

Lenin's economic model was like Trotsky's transitional program. It was the creation of state capitalism to create the conditions for monopoly capitalism to occur in Russia. His socialism as he liked to call it was state capitalism with electrification, and just a dash of Taylorism.

“Communism is the Power of Soviets plus the electrification of the whole country!”

In fact Lenin was a Taylorist and recognized that modern capitalism required fordist production which is what is currently occurring in China. It's failure in the Soviet Union of the seventies and eighties, was due to its use for military production rather than for consumer goods. In other words Reagan did bankrupt the Soviet Union by creating a competition between the U.S. Military Industrial Complex and its Soviet counterpart. The result was not just the collapse of the Soviet Union, but its collapse into a basket case economy. It did not have the production models required for consumer goods required for a market economy.

In terms of its impact on world politics, Lenin's State and Revolution was probably his most important work. This was derived from the theoretical analysis contained in his earlier work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). Lenin's theory of imperialism demonstrated to his satisfaction that the whole administrative structure of “socialism” had been developed during the epoch of finance or monopoly capitalism. Under the impact of the First World War, so the argument ran, capitalism had been transformed into state-monopoly capitalism. On that basis, Lenin claimed, the democratisation of state-monopoly capitalism was socialism. As Lenin pointed out in The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (1917):

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly” (original emphasis, www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm).

Lenin’s perspective may be briefly expressed in the following words: The belated Russian bourgeoisie is incapable of leading its own revolution to the end! The complete victory of the revolution through the medium of the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” will purge the country of medievalism, invest the development of Russian capitalism with American tempos, strengthen the proletariat in the city and country, and open up broad possibilities for the struggle for socialism. On the other hand, the victory of the Russian revolution will provide a mighty impulse for the socialist revolution in the West, and the latter will not only shield Russia from the dangers of [feudal-monarchical] restoration but also permit the Russian proletariat to reach the conquest of power in a comparatively short historical interval.

Lenin unambiguously endorsed the view that the proletariat should use markets to prepare underdeveloped countries for socialism. It is common knowledge that his New Economic Policy used market mechanisms to stimulate economic recovery after the devastation of the Russian Civil War, but some do not realize that Lenin saw markets as more than just an expedient. He actually viewed market mechanisms as necessary for moving underdeveloped countries toward socialism. Lenin recognized that the economies of underdeveloped, agrarian countries in transition to socialism combine subsistence farming, small commodity production, private capitalism, state capitalism, and socialism, with small commodity production in the dominant role (1965, 330–31). These societies contain many more peasants than proletarians, and because peasants favor the petty-bourgeois mode of production, they tend to side with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. It is tempting to argue that this situation calls for an immediate transition to socialism, in order to force the peasantry to cooperate with the proletariat in defeating the bourgeoisie. But Lenin did not believe this. He argued that the attempt to push agrarian countries directly into socialism, that is, to eliminate markets before the build up of the productive forces had converted peasant agriculture and small commodity production into modern, large-scale industries, was a mistake that would actually hamper economic development and thwart socialist construction. The solution he proposed was for the proletarian state to use capitalism, i.e., commodity production, free markets, and concessions with foreign capitalists, to promote the growth of the productive forces, and to eliminate the conflict of interest between peasants and industrial workers by converting agriculture into a large-scale industry and the peasants into proletarians (1965, 330–33, 341–47).

LENIN'S SOCIALISM

The starting point must be Lenin's conception of 'socialism': When a big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions, and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of raw materials to the extent of two-thirds, or three fourths, of all that is necessary for tens of millions of people; when raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable places of production, sometimes situated hundreds of thousands of miles from each other; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of processing the materials right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when the products are distributed according to a single plan among tens of millions of customers.

....then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production, and not mere 'interlocking'; that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period ...but which will inevitably be removed Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.22, page 303.

SOCIALISM?

This is an important passage of Lenin's. What he is describing here is the economic set-up which he thought typical of both advanced monopoly capitalism and socialism. Socialism was, for Lenin, planned capitalism with the private ownership removed.

Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumers' societies, and office employees unions. Without the big banks socialism would be impossible.

The big banks are the state apparatus which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready made from capitalism; our task is merely to lop off what characteristically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. Quantity will be transformed into quality.

A single state bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society. Lenin, Ibid, Vol.26 page 106.

HEY PRESTO!

This passage contains some amazing statements. The banks have become nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. All we need to do is unify them, make this single bank bigger, and Hey Presto, you now have your basic socialist apparatus.

Quantity is to be transformed into quality. In other words, as the bank gets bigger and more powerful it changes from an instrument of oppression into one of liberation. We are further told that the bank will be made even more democratic. Not made democratic as we might expect but made more so. This means that the banks, as they exist under capitalism, are in some way democratic. No doubt this is something that workers in Bank of Ireland and AIB have been unaware of.

For Lenin it was not only the banks which could be transformed into a means for salvation. Socialism is merely the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 25 page 358.

State capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no immediate rungs. Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 24 page 259.

BUILDING CAPITALISM

This too is important. History is compared to a ladder that has to be climbed. Each step is a preparation for the next one. After state capitalism there was only one way forward - socialism. But it was equally true that until capitalism had created the necessary framework, socialism was impossible. Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership saw their task as the building of a state capitalist apparatus.

...state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 294.

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 340.

Socialism or State Capitalism?

So what did the Bolsheviks aim to create in Russia? Lenin was clear, state capitalism. He argued this before and after the Bolsheviks seized power. For example, in 1917, he argued that "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" He stressed that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly . . . socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."³

The Bolshevik road to "socialism" ran through the terrain of state capitalism and, in fact, simply built upon its institutionalised means of allocating recourses and structuring industry. As Lenin put it, "the modern state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connections with the banks and syndicates, an apparatus which performs an enormous amount of accounting and registration work . . . This apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed. It must be wrestled from the control of the capitalists," it "must be subordinated to the proletarian Soviets" and "it must be expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide." This meant that the Bolsheviks would "not invent the organisational form of work, but take it ready-made from capitalism" and "borrow the best models furnished by the advanced countries."⁴

Once in power, Lenin implemented this vision of socialism being built upon the institutions created by monopoly capitalism. This was not gone accidentally or because no alternative existed. As one historian notes: "On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the [factory] committees leaders sought to bring their model [of workers' self-management of the economy] into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them."⁵

Rather than base socialist reconstruction on working class self-organisation from below, the Bolsheviks started "to build, from the top, its 'unified administration'" based on central bodies created by the Tsarist government in 1915 and 1916.⁶ The institutional framework of capitalism would be utilised as the principal (almost exclusive) instruments of "socialist" transformation. "Without big banks Socialism would be impossible," argued Lenin, as they "are the 'state apparatus' which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready made from capitalism; our task here is merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. A single State Bank, the biggest of the big . . .will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods." While this is "not fully a state apparatus under capitalism," it "will be so with us, under socialism." For Lenin, building socialism was easy. This "nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" would be created "at one stroke, by a single decree." ⁷

Lenin' State Monopoly Capitalism is the model being used by the former state capitalist regimes in Asia like China and Viet Nam. They are full filing Lenin's dictum. And ironically in China's case they have become a new Imperialist power.

Lenin: 1917/ichtci: Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance ...

Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.

That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

To apply the Lenin's theory on state capitalism in the renovation cause of Vietnam 10:18 28-07-2005

Role of the State in applying the theories of State capitalism in Vietnam 16:05 09-05-2005

From a review of Lenin's ideas and concepts of State capitalism and State capitalist economy as seen from Vietnamese perspective, the paper reaffirms an indispensable role of the State in the present development of market economy.

The new Economic Policy of V.I. Lenin with the use of state capitalism in our country nowadays 10:21 28-07-2005

The awareness of the socialist-oriented market economy in Vietnam 12:43 04-07-2006

Realizing the market economy under socialist regulation in Vietnam is a major content in the economic model in the transitional period toward socialism. The article analyzes and elaborates the theorical and practical sides of the socialist regulated market economy, through which to make the following conclusions. 1. In the context of globalization and international economic integration today. The model of the socialist regulated market economy which has been pursued since the IX National Party Congress is a correct policy both theoretically and practically. 2. However if we regarded the model of the socialist regulated market economy as Vietnam's creative policy, it would lead us to fall into subjective thinking. 3. Through theory and practice the author of this article concludes that. a. According to Marxist doctrine the view that socialism emerged after capitalism still remains scientific b. Human elements in socialism contradicts with those in the previous societies; as a result if the criteria that were applied to solve social problems of socialist society to be imposed on the period of market economy being in existence, it would naturally stand in the way of the development of market economy. c. The key for Vietnam at present is how to solve the relations between growth and development, in other words economic growth should go along with social development d. Vietnam's economy should be broken just into two sectors, namely, state run and private run. It should not be divided into 6 sectors as presently applied. e. The role of the private owned sector i!1 the national economy should be appreciated.

Even the right wing occasionally gets it right but for the wrong reasons. In this case another red scare, red baiting, reds under the bed, commies out to get us, article reveals;

In his "Report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International," Lenin explained the basis for NEP. He said that Russia needed capitalism before it could have socialism. The form of capitalism Lenin advocated was called "state capitalism." As early as 1918 Lenin had stated, "State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs."

By 1922, when Lenin delivered his report, state capitalism was still the order of the day. "This sounds very strange," admitted Lenin, "and perhaps even absurd." Russia was unready for socialism and lacked the strength to create communism. In his report Lenin said that socialism in Russia had been adopted "perhaps too hastily."

Does this mean Lenin, like the Chinese and Russian leaders after him, had abandoned the ultimate communist goal?

"I repeat," said Lenin in his 1922 report, "it seems very strange to everyone that a nonsocialist element should be ... regarded superior to socialism in a republic which declares itself as socialist republic. But the fact will become clear if you recall that ... the economic system of Russia [is backward]."

This exact formulation could be applied to communist China. In fact, this is the line that the Chinese Communist Party has adopted for itself. And what Mr. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has mistaken for China's commercial objectives, are actually communist objectives. Talk of a future war with America is not simply a question of Taiwan. China's leaders look ahead to a day when a socialist civilization will be possible -- thanks to what Lenin called "state capitalism."

The purpose of state capitalism, as it exists in today's China and Lenin's Russia, is to pave the way for socialism. "The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind," noted Lenin. "It does not correspond to the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions."

Lenin emphasized that all land in Russia belonged to the state. "This is very important," said Lenin, "although our opponents think it of no importance at all."

This is a revealing statement. Politicians like Lee Kuan Yew seem to be clueless. China is a communist country that practices state capitalism. China is following the Leninist path. "We have already succeeded in making the peasantry content and in reviving both industry and trade," boasted Lenin. Furthermore, the communist form of state capitalism not only owns the land which the peasants use, but "our proletarian state owns ... all the vital branches of industry."

The market economists of all political stripes fail to understand that State Monpoly Capitalism results from the fact that all capital must create monopoly. There is no free market, there is a market and it is dominated by monopolies, or oligopolies. These can be owned privately or by the state it matters little since both are forms of capitalism. The neo-con political scientists, divorcing themselves as they do from economics, decry capitalist models that are not based upon their American model.

In this they fail to understand the historical development political economy of the 20th Century which was Fordism and Capitalist Monopoly. The later requires state intervention as the American Military Industrial Complex and the development of capitalism in South Korea shows. Something that Lenin reading Marx understood.

In practical life we find not only competition, monopoly and the antagonism between them, but also the synthesis of the two, which is not a formula, but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly. Monopolists are made from competition; competitors become monopolists. If the monopolists restrict their mutual competition by means of partial associations, competition increases among the workers; and the more the mass of the proletarians grows as against the monopolists of one nation, the more desperate competition becomes between the monopolists of different nations. The synthesis is of such a character that monopoly can only maintain itself by continually entering into the struggle of competition.
Karl Marx
The Poverty of Philosophy
Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy

See:

40 Years Later; The Society of the Spectacle

China: The Truimph of State Capitalism

State Capitalism By Any Other Name

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Lenin, Bolsheviks,
Marx,
Kronstadt,
USSR,
China,
Viet Nam,
taylorism,fordism, NEP, state capitalism, state monopoly capitalism, monopoly capitalism,

Nationalize The Oil Patch

Under workers control!

A publicly owned Petro-Alberta would have a democratically elected board of directors, including representatives of the workers, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and the public.

Share ownership by the public and the workers, union investment with profit sharing and public debentures.

The Stelmach government should tax energy companies' profits up to nearly 100 per cent and the government should take ownership of part of the oil sector, rather than adopt the tamer recommendations of the royalty review panel, an Edmonton-based think tank said today.

In stark contrast to the energy industry's complaints that the review's proposed hikes go way too far and would cripple the economy, The University of Alberta's Parkland Institute said Albertans deserve to capture at least 90 per cent of available economic rent on oilsands project.

The left-leaning institute also noted that the nationalized oil companies in Norway, China, Korea and Japan have taken stakes in Alberta's oilpatch, and that a predecessor to energy giant EnCana was once partly province-owned.

"Public ownership is the best way to capture royalties, as 100 per cent goes to the owners, the people of Alberta," the report says.

Parkland research director Diana Gibson says Albertans should expect the same kind of return on the province‘s resources as an oil and gas executive earning a multimillion-dollar paycheque would get for his shareholders.

Selling Albertans Short: Alberta's Royalty Review Panel fails the public interest by Diana Gibson, Parkland Institute October 17, 2007
Release View Executive Summary Download Report (pdf)

SEE:

It's Time to Take Back Our Oil and Gas

NDP And Workers Control

Nationalize the Oil Industry

I Am Malcontent

Who Will Decide About Royalties

The Myth of the NEP

Aren't you sorry you sold your shares

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
royalties, oil, profits,
Bill Hunter, Alberta Royalty Review,
Alberta Cabinet, CAPP, Ed Stelmach,
Big Oil,oil royalties, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, NEP, Conservatives, Fort McMurray, One Party State,
Parkland Insititute, Encana, Nationalize, Nationalization, Workers Control, public ownership, Petro Canada, Anarchism, NEP, Self-Management

Casey Up To Bat

In a stunning move the longest serving Conservative MP in parliament; Bill Casey from Nova Scotia has announced he will vote against his Party and its Government over its budget, which he claims is a broken promise.

Flaherty repeated that Nova Scotia can't enjoy the benefits of a new equalization formula and its offshore accord at the same time.

This is the point that Danny Williams and Lorne Calvert have been making.

If only Alberta CEO Ed Stelmach and his PC crew could muster the indignation of betrayal that Casey has, and denounce this resource royalty grab, this unequal national transfer program, this new NEP, might well be dead.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
MP, Bill Casey MP, Canada, poltics, Conservative, parliament,
Stelmach, Alberta, tarsands, oilsands, Canada, equalization, royalties, oil, profits,
>Flaherty, Calvert, Harper, Government, Conservatives, Saskatchewan, Atlantic Accord, Newfoundland, Premier, Danny, Williams, Province,

Stelmach's Silence

Alberta's CEO Ed Stelmach remains silent and on the side lines as Saskatchewan and Newfoundland battle Ottawa over provincial resource rights. A promise made by the Conservatives to all three provinces. So much for defending principles.

As Andrew Coyne pointed out.

But Oberg's charming indifference to the issue -- we don't receive any equalization payments, so what do we care what changes the feds make to it? -- while a welcome departure from the usual federal-provincial hairpulling, hardly shows a becoming concern for the province's taxpayers.

Of course had the Liberals been the government the screaming, and howling from the Alberta government would make the headlines.

At least one Alberta right winger gets this sell out by the Harpocrites. Who take Alberta for granted.

Albertans have understood what the Liberals are about for a very long time. Where I differ with many right wing Albertans, is in their support for Reform politicians and Reform-style policies. The Reformers have a record in government now - and it is pathetic in all respects - yet somehow, they still have a reputation amongst many Albertans and Westerners for "standing up for the West". Their reputation is completely undeserved, and the policies of the Harper government clearly show it.

Meanwhile King Stephen refused to meet with Premier Calvert yesterday letting his henchmen do his dirty work in the finance committee.

A federal Conservative MP says her party never mentioned it wouldn't impose a cap on equalization payments -- a cap that Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert argues is a broken election promise.

The comment from Calgary Tory Diane Ablonczy came Monday as Calvert appeared before the Commons finance committee, making his case on why a province's non-renewable resource revenues should be excluded from the equalization formula, which -- without a cap -- would mean an estimated extra $800 million in annual federal funding for the province.

"You say there was no mention of a cap when this was discussed in election rhetoric, but there was no mention that there would not be a cap, either," Ablonczy said.

That is the logic of desperation.

See:

Feds Screw Alberta, Again

Stelmach

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stelmach, Alberta, tarsands, oilsands, Canada, equalization, royalties, oil, profits,
Flaherty, Calvert, Harper, Government, Conservatives, Saskatchewan, Atlantic Accord, Newfoundland, Premier, Danny, Williams, Province,

Conservative Green Plan: People Pay Not Polluters

Not a polluter pay tax nor is it a carbon tax, rather the Conservative Government in Ottawa gives us a consumer pay tax.

Households, economy to take a hit under Tory green plan

Ouch. The Conservatives version of the NEP aimed at you and me. The Tories Hot Air plan is that you and I should pay for the environmental destruction caused by capitalism.

Canadians will pay more for many of life's necessities under a new environmental strategy that falls far short of the Kyoto accord but reduces greenhouse-gas emissions faster than the Conservative government's first climate-change plan.

It is estimated the new proposal will cost the Canadian economy $7-billion to $8-billion a year.

Environment Minister John Baird, who unveiled the strategy yesterday, reminded Canadians that there are costs associated with turning the corner on global warming.

"The prices for consumer products like vehicles, natural gas, electricity and household appliances could go up. But it's a small price to pay to ensure a lasting environmental legacy for future generations," Mr. Baird told a press conference.

While the major industrial emitters account for half of the country's output of greenhouse gas, they will be required to find just 40 per cent of the expected reductions.

nd blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nova Scotia, Elizabet hMay, Peter MacKay, Green Party, politics, election, Conservatives
Canada, Progressive Conservatives, Joe Clark, Red Tories, politics,

Liberals, Dion, NDP, election2007,
Layton, Dion, Liberals, Harper, Conservatives, politics, Canada, NDP, left,
Conservatives, green, environment,energy, coal, green house gas, politics, Canada
environment,, Baird,, Stelmach,, tarsands,, oil sands,, Kyoto,, Alberta, Canada, Conservatives, Harper, politics, green house gas, climate change, global warming

Stelmach Sells Out

PM slammed for including oil revenues in calculating equalization payments

But not by the Alberta Government. The silence from Alberta is deafening over Ottawas grab of natural resource revenues under the new Equalization/Fiscal Imbalance plan.Expect no protests from Alberta over the Conservatives New NEP.

They gave some cake to Ed Stelmach and the Provincial Tories to eat. And while this NEP affects the new oil rich provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, Alberta says I'm ok, I got Mine Jack.....

The premier noted that the equalization formula matters little to wealthy Alberta -- a marked shift in tone from his predecessor Ralph Klein, who said the inclusion of resource revenues was his "line in the sand," and that it amounted to a raid on Alberta's oil wealth.

Stelmach's tone Monday was closer to that of Finance Minister Lyle Oberg, after a week that saw the pair appear to take different sides on the issue. Oberg's side won out, as Ottawa agreed with his protests against giving Alberta $170 less per person than other provinces got in the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer.

Ottawa will give Alberta its equal share on the CST immediately, but will not boost its grants through the health fund until a decade-long federal health accord ends in 2014.

Ralphie boy all is forgiven come back quick the Party needs you to fight Ottawa......nope can't count on that. We will have to rely on "Socialist" Saskatchewan to defend against the Harpocrites new NEP.

However, Calvert pointed out that the budget also imposes a cap on equalization payments which renders the choice of formulas moot in Saskatchewan's case. Regardless of which formula is used, the province will get only $226 million this year, not the $800 million Calvert had hoped for, and it's slated to get nothing next year as the province's fiscal capacity improves.

Calvert pointed to a fundraising brochure sent out under Harper's name prior to the last election, which stated that a Conservative government would ensure provinces get to keep "100 per cent of your oil and gas revenues. No small print. No excuses. No caps."

"That's the promise that has been betrayed," said Calvert, pointing to the cover of the brochure, which cites a Gaelic proverb: "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stelmach, Alberta, tarsands, oilsands, Canada, equalization, royalties, oil, profits,

Mackenzie Valley Pipeline

Back in 1980 when I worked as a custodian in the Alberta Legislature I cleaned Premier Peter Lougheeds offices which included the Sanctum Sanctorum the inner cabinet room. On the wall was a large geophysical map of Alberta and Northern Canada showing the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project, the jewel in the Alberta Crown of Oil resource development.

It was to be the second greatest pipeline debate in Canadian history, and the second one to challenge the ruling Liberal party of the day.

Back then the Pipeline was projected to cost the same as it is today. The cost in the 1970’s was estimated at 8 billion dollars.

But it was halted at that time by Justice Berger. It was the real nail in the coffin of the NEP. Subsequently the petro-economy went through a tail spin downward in the 1980's allowing for the pipeline which was put on hold to be forgotten, and in the intervening years new deals were struck with Northern communities and peoples for self government as Berger had recommended.

With the oil boom of the 1990's the Mackenzie and Alaskan Pipelines became economically viable once again.

The proposed gas pipeline from the Beaufort Sea to markets in southern Canada and the United States was billed in the 1970s as "the biggest project in the history of free enterprise."

Mr. Justice Thomas Berger

It was up to a Canadian judge, Mr. Justice Thomas Berger of British Columbia, to examine the impact of the pipeline on the people who lived in its path. Berger took to the job so thoroughly that some said he ran off with the terms of reference that established what was formally known as The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, embarrassing the Liberal government that appointed him.

On May 9, 1977, Berger's report was released in Ottawa. Significantly, Berger titled his report Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland, for above all he wanted the world to know that though the Mackenzie Valley may be the route for the biggest project in the history of free enterprise, people also live there.

Berger warned that any gas pipeline would be followed by an oil pipeline, that the infrastructure supporting this "energy corridor" would be enormous - roads, airports, maintenance bases, new towns - with an impact on the people, animals and land equivalent to building a railway across Canada. Some dismissed the impact of a pipeline, saying it would be like a thread stretched across a football field. Those close to the land said the impact would be more like a razor slash across the Mona Lisa.

The hard news of May 9, 1977, was Berger's recommendation that any pipeline development along the Mackenzie River Valley be delayed 10 years, and that no pipeline ever be built across the northern Yukon. The pipeline was delayed far longer than 10 years.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in a gas pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley, and many of those now pushing for the pipeline were the young radicals who opposed it with such vehemence 25 years ago.

With the war in Afghanistan and Iraq reducing oil capacity, and with projected peak oil reserves waining by 2020 the new gold rush in oil was being pushed by the US. With their eyes on the prize of Alaskan Oil the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline once again became an economically viable alternative to the Alaskan Pipeline.

In 2001 the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was projected to cost between $2-3 billion. In 2002 it was estimated to cost between $3 billion and $4 Billion. In 2005 estimates for construction were double that of 2001; $5 Billion. In 2006 the total cost was expected to be $7 billion.

Basically the cost estimates jumped a $1 Billion annually then suddenly this year
it is quadruple the cost, it is estimated to cost $16.2 Billion.

New estimates of overall costs for the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline project have hit $16.2 billion, from an original $4 billion, Imperial revealed before stock markets opened early Monday.

The massive project's in-service date was also rescheduled to 2014, three years past original estimates, due to significant delays in regional permits and approval.

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - Jim Prentice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says, somehow, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will be built.
Imperial Oil says it will cost a whopping $16.2 billion.
Prentice says, however, the project is a key piece of oil and gas infrastructure.

"We'll be studying the information and I will be proceeding to cabinet to examine alternatives and options. But this is a very important piece of infrastructure that we are committed to."

And Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources, echos Prentice saying the federal government will do anything it can to help support this project, within limits.
Both Lunn and Prentice were in Calgary Monday.

However this is the total cost of the pipeline operations including finding oil fields. The actual pipeline cost remains $7.8 billion.

In other words one billion more than 2006, which is in line with the annual cost increases predicted by Imperial Oil which calculated that the pipeline could cost up to $10 billion when the project first came on line.

The original opposition to the Pipeline was over Native Rights and self government, as well as its environmental impact.The first nations issue was resolved by the Berger commission and today the first nations are full partners in development.

The opposition now is by a few bands that do not have first nations status and the environmental lobby. But Berger addressed the environmental concerns in his report; . Berger sees no compelling environmental reasons why an energy transportation corridor could not be established along the Mackenzie Valley. That development is being challenged by environmental groups because they see the pristine north as wilderness, now threatened with development. They want NO development in the North.

Most Canadians have never seen it. But it is perhaps our nation’s most treasured natural feature...the Mackenzie River.

The entire Mackenzie Valley is now threatened by Canada’s biggest natural gas pipeline project ever. The Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP), likely to cost at least CDN $7 billion, includes three major natural gas production fields north of Inuvik and two underground natural gas pipelines (the longest is 1,220 km) to carry the gas south along the Mackenzie Valley to northern Alberta. Other pipelines would be built connecting other gas fields to the main pipelines.

If it proceeds, this mega-project will trigger the transformation of the Mackenzie Valley from largely intact wilderness to industrial landscape. The environmental impact would be massive. It will fragment habitat for bears, caribou and wolves. It will harm fish and fish habitat by increasing sediment deposition into the rivers and streams of the valley from constructing pipeline crossings. It will permanently damage important breeding or staging areas for millions of geese, tundra swans and other migratory birds. Read about the Kendall Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary. It will cause forests to be clear cut and heavy machinery deployed to construct the infrastructure and the new underground pipelines which would tunnel under or cross 580 rivers and streams along the way. It will trigger a rush of oil and gas development in the Mackenzie Valley, which would accelerate further damage to wildlife and ecosystems. It will increase greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by heavy equipment and from the cutting of boreal forests, destruction of wetlands, and melting of permafrost. It will accelerate climate change in the Mackenzie Valley. Even now, thawing permafrost is collapsing roads and buildings. Warmer, drier summers are causing the worst forest fires ever. Infestations of southern insects, especially the spruce budworm, are likely. Depletion of Arctic sea ice will likely push polar bears, walrus and some seals into extinction within 50 years.

The old alliance between first nations and environmentalists is now broken, and development of the North becomes the economic life blood for Northerners especially because of climate change.

It was, in fact, just a matter of time before this modern version of the Gold Rush resumed in earnest. The prize is simply too alluring. The National Energy Board estimates there are nine trillion cubic feet of discovered natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta - and at least another 55 trillion yet to be found. In sheer volume, that would amount to more than a third of the known reserves in the more traditional gas fields of Alberta. To the west of the delta, at Prudhoe Bay, there are proven gas reserves of 30 trillion cubic feet and estimated total reserves of more than 100 trillion. Northern Alaska is already a significant oil-producing area, generating over one million barrels per day, which is piped south across Alaska and then put on tanker ships.

The opening up of the arctic due to global warming means once hard to access oil, gas, coal, uranium and other mineral deposits become economically feasible.

A proposed Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline is still before the regulators and it's already creating massive new plans for industrial development in the Arctic.

Vancouver-based West Hawk Development (TSXV:WHD) has unveiled plans to strip-mine extensive coal reserves along the Mackenzie River and begin building $2 billion worth of coal gasification plants to tie into the pipeline within four years.

"It's a property we're feeling very comfortable with in terms of generating natural gas from coal," West Hawk president Mark Hart said Monday.

The west was opened up by the railway, the north will be opened up with pipelines and mining. The difference is that development will be ameliorated by environmental watchdogs, and by the Northerners themselves which did not exist when the railway opened the west and the great Buffalo slaughter happened.

But already development and climate change have affected the peoples of the North and development of their resource base is crucial now to their survival.

Until about seventy years ago, the native peoples of the far north relied on their skills as hunters to feed their families and were self-sufficient. With the extension of Canadian sovereignty northwards, the nomadic people were encouraged to gather in permanent settlements where they could be supplied from the south with food, education and medical care. Settlements, such as those in the Arctic Islands for instance, were often well north of natural food supplies, leaving the inhabitants dependent on a supply route from the south. While fresh food and lightweight goods can be brought in by air or by road, heavy freight such as fuel still depends on the barges that travel in the Mackenzie River during the short summer navigation season. This is a life critically dependent for the necessities of life on the continued availability of fossil fuels.

It also offers an alternative to the Alaska pipeline, one that would destroy the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, ANWR. Which puts environmentalists in a difficult position. Unless the oppose all development of the North. Which essentially they do.

The proposed Alaska pipeline is estimated to cost roughly CDN $20 billion (US
$16.16 billion)9. This is a higher cost than the proposed Mackenzie pipeline and has a
number of stumbling blocks of its own. It also has a later estimated date for possible
completion, somewhere around 2014 by optimistic estimates10. It connects to a different set of deposits than the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, as the Alaska line is intended to allow for shipment of the Prudhoe Bay gas. There have been suggestions that a smaller pipeline could be built between the Prudhoe Bay fields and the Mackenzie delta, to allow both deposits to be distributed through one pipeline.

Those who dream of some idyllic past for Northerners and their land, the noble savage in the pristine wilderness, fail to understand the revolutionary nature of capitalism, which is to destroy all those village traditions and replace them with dependence on development and civilization.

And they fail to understand that these people will not have a pristine wilderness to hunt and fish in given the changes happening in the Arctic thanks to global warming created by capitalism. Their survival is now to adapt to capitalism, not to hold back the development of the North. It is something they understand but Southern Environmentalists fail to. The reality of the North is that climate change is making development crucial to the survival of the peoples of the North, halting mega-projects like the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline will not stop climate change, but it will limit the survival of traditional communities now dependent on the South for food and fuel.

In the end, large construction projects are an essential part of human civilization, they just have to be done right. A genuinely useful megaproject must arise out of any public planning process, in which the citizens of the region looked at the long-term needs and options and discussed what should be done. The hype surrounding megaproject proposals also serves as a convenient way to distract the public from the more day-to-day problems of society and government. Seriously addressing our state's shameful social problems requires fundamental questions about the way our society functions, the types of questions that politicians hate being asked.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
oil, Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, Imperial Oil, Berger, NWT, Canada, gas, petroleum, Alberta, pipeline, natural gas,