Sovereignty, Executive Federalism, And The Privileges Of Capital

Great article. Where are the candidates? I think, now more than ever, a party of this nature would get the votes. All we need is someone to step up to the plate...
I think it was perterbed that said "it looks like people are looking for change" It's true. We need a new party.

---
These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters

PatriotPete,

Very good article. I forsee that Canada, going in this nonstop direction of capitalism in 20 years will be one massive slum. The jobs that maintain the lifestyle most of us enjoy will be gone and our cities will start looking more and more like huge slums.

No wonder mercenaries are needed to protect corporate interests. So far in Canada they're called security guards but it won't be long. Corporate behaviour can create a sense of helplessness and helplessness can create very angry citizens.

I don't think another political party is the answer though. What I think we need is the resurgence of people power over corporate power. I support Dave's idea of the countrywide strike. This would show ourselves how much power ordinary workers acturally have and we could take back our workplaces and our government. Maybe what we really need is a Joe-Blow Union. A union where all citizens that want reform can be a member.

---
"Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

The idea of a country wide strike is a great one!Somehow we got to figure out how to mobilize the people on this one.
Any ideas?
Great article!

I agree that a countrywide strike could be effective
except the majority of us in Canada have large personal
debt that prevents the use of direct democracy, such as a
general strike. The strike would have to be of such a long
and relentless duration, creating hardship that most of us
would have trouble conceiving of. Because of the huge
collective personal debt, it makes it very difficult for
the average person to take such a big risk - a risk that
could forfeit much of their personal material gains.

Under the above conditions, it would take a MASSIVE public
demonstration - in the millions perhaps - to create the
kind of change that is being spoken of on this site.

A great example is the resolve of the people of Argentina
who, since 2001, have essentially been in revolution
against global capitalism. That is the kind of sacrifice
that here in Canada we are nowhere ready to attempt.

We have been brought up in the atmosphere and attitudes of
capitalism. They are so entrenched in our psyche of
self-interest that we need to be fundamentally re-educated
in the concepts of what real community and co-operation
can facilitate towards alternative democracy and economy.
This will require an about-face from the 'ideals' of
self-interest and personal property.

"but notice that co-operatives and non-profit societies of citizens do not equally have these rights"<br />
<br />
Can anyone link to an enumeration of the differences in such rights between the various types corporate of corporate entity? (investor-owned for-profit, cooperative for-profit, cooperative non-profit and cooperative)<br />
<br />
I'll start:<br />
<br />
Corporations:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/h_cs01914e.html">http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/h_cs01914e.html</a><br />
<br />
Cooperatives Secretariat:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/coop/home_e.phtml">http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/coop/home_e.phtml</a><br />
<br />
Canada cooperatives act:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/h_cs01418e.html">http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/h_cs01418e.html</a><br />
<br />
"How is a Cooperative Different from Other Businesses?": (table form)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/cs01271e.html">http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incd-dgc.nsf/en/cs01271e.html</a><br />
<br />
Here is an excerpt from an email response I got from a leading expert in banking in Canada, when I asked about 2001 legislation allowing credit unions to bust out of the provincial straightjacket:<br />
<br />
"With regard to your question about what happened to the development of a federal co-op bank, about 10 credit unions from several provinces initiated a process to cooperate and set up a federal co-op bank when the law was passed allowing it in 2001. Ego and turf got in the way (disguised as what the CEOs and boards of the credit unions claimed were legitimate concerns) and the effort fell apart by 2003. Since then, CS Co-op credit union has set up Alterna Bank under the new law, and it is a federal co-op bank accessible across the country wherever there is a CS Co-op branch.<br />
Several small credit unions have been taken over by larger credit unions in the past 5 years, and CS Co-op is actually merging right now with one of the other large credit unions in Ontario, Metro Credit Union in Toronto. Once these mergers work themselves out, it is believed among observers that there will be another attempt by these larger credit unions to set up a national co-op bank. Lets hope they are successful this time because it could be a model financial institution that could very much challenge, very publicly and on a national level, the banks claim that their way of doing banking is the only way to do banking. "<br />
<br />
Now, this is just a banking example, but how much of the "special rights for for-profit corporations" are not truly legal mechanisms, but simply privileges/advantages gained by having power and money on one hand, and a population "used to it" on the other? People could move their money to an FDIC-insured, member-owned, credit union easily, but they don't. Finanical clout like this could "buy back" the sovereignty and economic fundamentals our get-rich-quick class is selling away. <br />
<br />
So, there's a Big Business party. There's a Big Labour party. Time for the Big Co-operative party?

A very good article PatriotPete. <p>I like the united we stand union, in which all are entitled to membership. We do need a party which outlines how it will rid us of capitalism. To get a party like that elected we need to put a counter media in place that would disseminate the ideas necessary for change to take place. A lot of people don't know anything about how our country really runs. Our educational system has done its job, which was to obfuscate everything to such an extent that the majority of people throw up their hands and declare that they don't understand what is happening. The problem is that they think that they don't understand because they are incompetent. The educational system has convinced them of this. What a shock they are in for when they discover that most of what is going on is a con game.

This article sounds familiar to another one posted before, perhaps its the same article. It's very interesting, however, we should note that there is no 'capitalist' economy, certainly not in Canada where 40% of the GDP is routed directly through government. The closest thing to capitalism was Britain in the late 1800's and they quickly gave up on it. Apart from it's propagandistic uses, 'capitalism' is not even on the board.

Finally, to any newcomers to this line of thought I'd like to point out the dangers of thinking that 'your idea' is the 'only idea' apart from violent skirmishes. That's completely false, there are a number of ways to deal with such things. As I said before, the idea that a party would even be considered by canadians to meet and pick out a bunch of people to rewrite our constitution seems absurd to me (that's just my opinion of course). First of all, we don't have a constitution that can be rewritten, we have constitutional law and a 'constitution act' that precedes 1982, goes back to the constitution act of 1867 which is based on British Common Law. So essentially what you are saying is rewriting 600 years of history with a bunch of 'average canadians', some of whom may not even be able to spell let alone contemplate constutional law. What is interesting is that in dealings with the Quebec referendum and other judicial rulings a primary underpinning of canada's constitutional law is that of 'lex non scripta', or unwritten law. In layman's terms, however, it means 'make it up as you go along'. Canada's constitutional law, therefore, is quite flexible.

The most interesting part here is the idea about co-operatives, which most would probably see as the best setup, but fear the procedure that leads from here to there. I liken the situation to Lord of the Rings, or any of another fictional 'hero' themes, where essentially, we will create a heaven on earth, or we will become a miserable third world country.

So my view is that the constitution itself does not need to be rewritten, and we've seen what even bringing the topic up does to most canadians. The mention is made that a corporation was given this health contract rather than a co-operative. This was a political decision, at least there was no mention that the co-operative WAS NOT ALLOWED to take part in the process, it merely didn't win. This is a decision made by certain people.

My response to that particular instance is that first there should be public pressure made on the individuals who made the decision. Second, of those organizing the opposition campaign there should be many who run for local council and the boards which oversee them. That is an instance of what we may call a bad decision, however, the reply should be first local, then provincial, then federal.

This brings us to my particular sphere, which is that of direct democracy. This is a global movement, where people take control of such decisions. Here I part ways with analysis, because the author has his idea of how to combat this, and I have mine, no doubt both of us think ours is better.

However, I should point out that there are already a considerable number of independants running as direct democracy candidates, which enable people to make these decisions, and not boards. Having an agenda of democracy means that there is no 'set ideology' which alienates a certain number of canadians. Likewise, there is a growing direct democratic movement globally which shares information and resources. I know of no such 'vote for us so we can rewrite the constitution' parties globally. This, of course, brings up the whole issue as to whether such people can even propose a complex document like a constitution, and whether it would even turn out the way you would like it to (for example what if those chosen decided it was fine the way it was or wanted to grant even more powers to corporations or make co-ops illegal, ie. what if lobbyists got to them?)

The best thing about direct democracy is that unlike a party which must gain national recognition (and just ask the Green Party how easy that is), it can begin locally and then spread provincially and then federally. That decision presented earlier was a local decision and local direct democracy would address it by having the local community vote on the bidding.

I believe that a direct democracy 'party' would address those concerns, since I think most people function in the realm of self interest. If by using public money I eat, drink, and work better then I would support that. In the example above, it is easy enough to point out how much money is leaving the commmunity as 'corporate profits', whereas local co-operatives, like native co-operatives, will mean that I (we) are not surrounded by as many unemployed and underemployed.

The first step, I believe, is to start co-operatives of our own. Otherwise, this is all just talk and 'those on the hill' are quite right to simply dismiss us.

Critical-mass cooperatives would (perhaps lamentably) need to play the revolving-door game with politicians. Meaning MPs and senior bureaucrats would need to have a stake in cooperatives. I wouldn't be surprised if the banking rule changes got a lot of political eartime because of CS CO-OP self-interest within the bureaucracy.

The Conservative pitch to make co-op dividends tax free (however cynically aimed at getting the prairie agri vote) is a start.

Some people reading this page might not know the distinction of a co-operative: it is a private, limited-liability corporate vehicle like any, with most of the rules the same. The key difference is each member has one vote, regardless of the financial interest. Normally co-ops are incorporations of buyers rather than sellers, and so things like dividends are usually capped and surplus recycles into enhancement of member services or lowering of member costs. Typically members purchase shares in a co-op in order to realize particular purchasing power.

I'd just like to add that although the above is true, in the details, and often quite numerous and distinctive details, co-operatives are considerably unique in each instance. Many banking co-ops will not even pay dividends, and many don't even invest locally. In taxation their treatment varies from province to province. Out east, however, the co-op stores also have their own line of co-op products, much like Presidents Choice. The co-op store in Fredericton, New Brunswick is about the biggest store I've seen, it literally is a wal-mart, however, it doesn't pay any dividends. Many native bands act essentially as co-ops, and if we weren't so racist we'd be looking at many native bands and native self government as examples for the future.

I apologize for the over-simplification, I was trying to keep it to a thumbnail.

Marcarc and other readers on this matter:

PLEASE NOTE:

Marcarc states in reference to my article:
" " Finally, to any newcomers to this line of thought I'd
like to point out the dangers of thinking that 'your idea' is
the 'only idea' apart from violent skirmishes. "

MY ARTICLE EXPLICITLY STATES :
" APART FROM NON-VIOLENT skirmishes" ---

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO I SUPPORT THE
USE OF VIOLENCE TO EFFECT POLITICAL CHANGE.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST MARCARC THAT YOU CORRECT THAT
RATHER LARGE TYPO- AND PLEASE PRINT AN
APOLOGY- FOR THIS IS CERTAINLY HIGHLY
DEFAMMATORY TO ALLEGE WHAT YOU HAVE
WRITTEN WHEN I EXPLICITLY SAID "NON-VIOLENT
SKIRMISHES'

THANK YOU.


PATRIOT PETE

Further to the discussion of salient points that Marcarc
raises in his interesting comments, I am most puzzled
by the comment that:

"... we should note that there is no 'capitalist' economy,
certainly not in Canada where 40% of the GDP is routed
directly through government."

As far as I can see only private or public sector
corporations are active in the mineral, oil, media, timber
, automobile, airline, insurance, pharmaceutical, etc.
sectors of this country's economy. Then there are
numerous corporations listed on the various stock
exchanges of this country. Consider, the vast portions
of the Income Tax devoted solely to corporations and
their stockholders. Consider the commercial Creditor &
Bankruptcy laws of this country which repeatedly favor
the interests of corporations, and secured creditors
such as banks over workers and other unsecured
creditors. Then Canada's Banks, who make money on
the currency of the Bank of Canada - the people's
money- before lending it out to ourselves. Capitalism is
very much alive in Canada - whether or not it is true that
40% of the GDP is "routed" through government .

Marcarc you also said:

" As I said before, the idea that a party would even be
considered by canadians to meet and pick out a bunch
of people to rewrite our constitution seems absurd to
me (that's just my opinion of course). First of all, we
don't have a constitution that can be rewritten, we have
constitutional law and a 'constitution act' that precedes
1982, goes back to the constitution act of 1867 which is
based on British Common Law. So essentially what
you are saying is rewriting 600 years of history with a
bunch of 'average canadians', some of whom may not
even be able to spell let alone contemplate
constutional law. "

What an elitist comment Marcarc - on the one hand you
advocate 'direct democracy' - which I think has
considerable merit - in that it seeks to foster great trust
and reliance on average Canadians - but on the other
hand - you disdainfully refer to a "bunch of 'average
canadians' some of whom may not even be able to
spell let alone contemplate constitutional law".

I happen to think, there is a lot more intelligence and
wisdom within the Canadian populace then perhaps
you give credit for - and it is by their participation, that
this country will either continue with a re-invigorated
democracy - or be 'joined at the hip' with USA - in one
big unhappy union.

I happen to think that the shift from 'elitist Executive
Federalism' can only take place when average, ordinary
Canadians are much more empowered. I belive, that
just like a 'home' has 'rules' by which a family lives and
abides by, some of which rules may non-transparent
and dysfunctional - so to our national home of Canada
- has rules -established by our Constitution by which
we live by. The problem is that the 'rules' - excepting the
Charter, derive from the Constitution Act, 1867, which
in my view, have led to enormous concentrations of
political power in the PMO office - and the offices of the
Premiers - and it is due to that institutional
dysfunctionality that corporate capital has been
inordinately privileged and that we face a serious
erosion of sovereignty.

Marcarc, while I disagree with you - I am 100%
understanding of your view that:

".. we don't have a constitution that can be rewritten, we
have constitutional law and a 'constitution act' that
precedes 1982, goes back to the constitution act of
1867..."

That is the essential question: With whom does
sovereignty rest - in the people of Canada directly - or
with the Crown, her Ministers, and the various
Legislative Assemblies? If the 'rules' by which this
nation is governed, by which our institutions of
goverance are configured are out-dated and
dysfunctional - who, Marcarc- has the sovereign
authority to make those changes? Is it the amending
formula in the constitution- which refers to Legislatures
and the National Parliament and the politicians within
which seek to continue the 'dysfunctional' and privilege-
which would be a conflict of interest-- or does that
authority vest directly in the people of Canada - who
would elect, via proportional representation, etc. as I
explicitly suggested, with the 3 founding nations,
French, English and First Nations, a constitutional
constituent assembly?

PM Trudeau believed that sovereignty flows from the
people of Canada - he was going to go around the
provinces -and directly to the people of Canada to get
his full Charter - without a "not withstanding clause" .
Under international law, the Canadian people - are a
'people' - we, as a 'people' not the Crown have
sovereign authority to change the rules by which we
govern ourselves. Yes, Marcarc- I am saying - we are
indeed approaching a 'historical context' when the
people of Canada may have to reconsider our
'constitution' - and the rules by which we govern
ourselves - otherwise the excessive privileging of
Corporate Canada/ USA, the swift erosion of our
sovereignty, and the steady deterioration of
transparency and accountability over the Political
Executives that 'run' Canada cannot be halted. If
constitutions cannot be rewritten ...then this country is
frozen in time- then the creative and democratic urgings
of its citizenry to modernize and further democratize the
'rules' by which this grand, beautiful home, Canada, is
governed are reduced to a nullity . I assert that the
people of Canada, are a 'people' under international
law, and thus the sovereign right to amend, change,
re-write the Canadian constitution rests directly in
themselves ...not the 'amending formula' as expressed
in the Constitution. That is the point, constituent power
of the people does and ought to trump the constituted
power of the Crown. In fact, I would assert that the
'amending forumla' is illegal - sovereignty vests in the
people of Canada directly - and not the Crown, not the
Parliament of Canada, not the Legislative Assemblies,
not the Supreme Court of Canada, not the Senate - but
directly in the people of Canada- who as- a people
inhabitants of this great land, have the sole sovereign
authority to change the 'rules' by which they wish to
democratically govern themselves. It is the people of
Canada, not the PMO and Corporate Canada/America
who have the authority to decide the sovereign fate of
this grand country. But yes..Marcarc...there are other
options as you suggest...and they essentially
are...struggling on --issue by issue- reacting to the
issues and 'frames' and 'contexts' created by the PMO
Office, Capital and the "'Chief Executives', and the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, CD Howe Institute,
etc. etc ---and while we may have some victories...the
sovereignty trend line looks terrible - so we must be
'proactive' --we must, in time, look at 'root causes' -
namely, 'rulemaking'.

<a href="http://www.iww.ca/generalstrikegazette.htm">http://www.iww.ca/generalstrikegazette.htm</a>

Uh, how exactly does saying that 'your idea' APART FROM 'violent skirmishes' make it sound like you are exhorting violence? It was a typo however.