|
January 28, 2012 - No. 4
The Politicizing of Private Interests,
Depoliticizing of Public Interests and Destruction of Public
Assets
• The
Politicizing of Private Interests, Depoliticizing of Public
Interests and Destruction of Public Assets - Sandra L. Smith
Davos Economic
Forum
• Capitalism's Existential Angst --
To Tea or Not to Tea -- Or Do Both - Pauline Easton
• Harper's Attack on Canadian
Seniors at Davos Forum - Jim Nugent
The Politicizing of Private Interests, Depoliticizing
of Public Interests and
Destruction of Public Assets
- Sandra L. Smith -
At the federal level, as with the provinces and Quebec,
the state is at the
disposal of the monopolies. This is not new. What is new is the speed
with
which final touches are being put on new arrangements which have been
brought into being for the last twenty years. These new arrangements
provide the interests of the most
powerful monopolies in the Anglo-American sphere of interest with
everything
they require to compete successfully in what is called the global
market. These
arrangements started in the mid-1980s with free trade deals which rang
the
death knell for the social welfare state and ushered in the new
neoliberal phase
of state-monopoly capitalism. Today, the state is used to destroy the
sovereign
public institutions and make sure the interests of the most powerful
monopolies
and their oligopolies trump all other interests that stand in their way.
An oligopoly is a cartel of the most powerful monopolies
in a particular
field. They come together in an arrangement that permits them to
collude with
one another to eliminate rivals, get states to do their bidding, fix
prices,
destroy unions and engage in other activities to serve their interests.
Definite
activities and things favour the common interests of all the monopolies
within
a sector, as with the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The
executive
power at the federal level enacted a new law that destroys the CWB's
single-
desk marketing board. The need for the new law is not based on any
public
interest but to further powerful outside private interests. The
Parliament, an
institution constituted to enshrine the popular will in the form of the
legal will
and thus represent public opinion, has been, so to speak, hijacked to
enact
legislation that favours private not public interests. This can be
characterized
as the destruction of the sovereign decision-making power as a result
of the
politicization of private interests.
The use of public institutions and funds to further
private interests poses
a serious problem of legitimacy. To address this problem, a raison
d'état is provided in the form of irrational arguments
saying for "reasons
of state" certain private interests must be provided unfettered right
to access
all of Canada's resources as they see fit. The irrational arguments are
couched
in language of national interest. Similarly, obstacles standing in the
way of
what is called national interest are presented as criminal, treasonous,
terrorist
or in other ways targeted for removal.
Not all changes brought in to justify the new raison
d'état
require new laws. Many are brought in through regulation, as in the
case of
the new Canada/U.S. border arrangements. Supra-national non-elected
bodies
have been established that have discretion to achieve their aim,
whether
security or emergency relief or anything else. The focus becomes the
homeland
and guaranteeing its security from external and internal subversion.
Agencies
charged with security, border arrangements and defence, which the
people
believe to be under the civil power, are transformed into powerful
privatized
interests and in many cases taken over by private contractors.
To explain the arrangements being put in place today in
Canada, the
United States and other countries, the Prime Minister and other
ministers, the
President of the United States, other prime ministers, presidents and
ideologues
of the global monopoly interests give "reasons of state" based on the
requirements to secure the global monopoly interests they represent.
The
arrangements and reasons of state are centred on politicizing the
private interests of the global monopolies, depoliticizing the public
interests of
the people and destroying their public assets and nation states.
Whether the executive power enforces the private
monopoly interests by
establishing non-elected appointed boards that oversee the
implementation of
new regulations or by getting legislatures to pass new laws to uphold
monopoly interests, all is deemed constitutional. The governing bodies
constituted to rule based on the rule of law are taken over and become
dysfunctional while life is taken over by bodies established through
ministerial
and presidential prerogative. The powers used to do this are described
in the
Constitution as residual powers. They are not under the mandate of the
Commons, legislatures, Congress etc. They are unlimited in the sense
that
unless the Commons, legislatures, Congress or another power can
restrict them
in practice, they are unfettered.
These changes come under the domain of the
constitutionally sanctioned
prerogative powers of the office of the Prime Minister, President or
ministries
organized to serve the privatized interests. Their arrogance stems from
the use
of arbitrary powers with impunity. Rule by exception is no longer the
exception; it has become the rule. Rule by exception is beyond the rule
of law
and can be described with the expression "anarchy raised to authority."
 Problems emerge as a result
of the push to bring this new regime into
being. The anarchy and violence created when the public system is
destroyed
in favour of private interests means that the ruling elite itself
clamours for
regulations to satisfy their need to predict the outcome of financial
investments. Internationally, the politicized and competing private
interests are
a major cause for a new inter-imperialist war for the re-division of
the world
into new spheres of influence, zones for the export of capital and
sources of
raw material and cheap labour. Another problem for the new regime is to
ensure an organized resistance of the working class and peoples of the
world
is successfully suppressed.
In Canada, all kinds of changes are being made to the
state arrangements
in a manner that does not require opening or changing the Constitution.
End
of year/new year media interviews informed Canadians that the Governor
General and Prime Minister have restarted the practice of regular
consultations
to make sure all changes are done in conformity with the Constitution.
An
impression was conveyed that when a change conforms to the
Constitution, it
is not above the rule of law. Ipso facto the change is
democratic
and okay. The reality remains however that the change can be
constitutional
by falling under the residual arbitrary powers of the executive and not
be okay
at all. The change, such as Bill C-18 to destroy the Canadian Wheat
Board,
serves alien private monopoly interests not the public interests of the
Canadian
people constituted as a sovereign body politic mandated to uphold what
was
historically established as comprising the public good or interest.
 As for being democratic,
what Canadians perceive to be true is
fundamental to the system's survival. The elected bodies must be seen
to be
democratically elected and the laws they pass must be seen to be passed
democratically. A majority government such as Stephen Harper's is
considered
arrogant and abusive because it is arrogant and abusive. But this does
not
mean his majority government is acting illegally per se. It
is
acting within what the government and its advisors deem to be the
prerogative
powers given to its executive by the Constitution. Prior to the passing
of Bill
C-18, the legislation to dismantle the single desk marketing wheat
board, the
Manitoba Court declared the Bill above the rule of law. However, the
Court
did not declare it unconstitutional. The government sees itself as
having duly
introduced and passed the new law in Parliament. How to explain why the
Harper government seems so certain that its new law cannot be declared
unlawful despite not carrying out a referendum amongst western grain
farmers
as required by the previously existing law? Is this because, using the
Constitution as its guide, it will argue that all matters of regulation
come under
the arbitrary powers of the ministers and it considers that the
consultation
mandated by the prior law pertains to some regulations about which
grains are
included in the single desk? Whatever argument is used, it is
self-serving
because it serves private interests, not the public interest.
In part, the arrogance of the government can be
explained by its belief that
no-one can stop it and so it can get away with just about anything. It
argues
that according to the democratic process, the government can be judged
at the
next general election but of course that is no longer true. Today,
similar
changes are being wrought in the arrangements to elect what are called
democratic institutions as are being wrought in all other fields.
Governments
in the service of the most powerful private interests use those private
interests,
such as public relations marketing firms, media manipulation, new
"knowledge
based" companies and so on, to get the election results they require.
The
political parties and public institutions have become dysfunctional
which
means that organized political expressions are either rare or no longer
exist.
The citizenry has become depoliticized along with public interests and
public
assets destroyed; meanwhile private interests are politicized.
 Opposing the state's
subservience to the dictatorship of the most powerful
monopolies forms part of the work for political renewal. Modern
political
renewal must favour the working class and people of Canada, as well as
the
United States and peoples of the world. Modern political renewal
requires a
new direction for the economy that does not put all the assets of the
country
at the disposal of the cartels of giant monopolies. The actions of
those cartels
cause irreparable harm to the overall socialized economy and undermine
the
right to be of First Nations. Their actions seek to turn the working
class into
a dehumanized slave labour force. All is done in the name of the
national
interest, economic prosperity and homeland security, which in reality
serves
the private interests of the monopolies.
It is important for the working people to recognize and
discuss seriously
the ruling elite's self-serving justifications for the new arrangements
they are
putting in place where powerful private interests are politicized.
Those private
interests are being given government sanction in the form of laws,
regulations
and public monies. Hitherto public interests represented by the
legislatures and
public institutions and agencies are being destroyed or have become
dysfunctional creating a profound crisis. The people must occupy the
space for
change and take practical steps to make sure the crisis is resolved in
their
favour. The disasters the imperialists and their henchmen have
unleashed can
be stopped and turned around with an alternative organized and driven
by the
people themselves.
Davos Economic Forum
Capitalism's Existential Angst --
To Tea or Not to Tea -- Or Do
Both
- Pauline Easton -
 
Left: security fence and
patrol at the Davos, Switzerland resort hosting the World Economic
Forum;
right, protest against
the forum in the Swiss capital Bern.The world elite and their spokespersons in the media are
too clever by
half. They face worldwide condemnation as a result of the agenda of the
most
powerful global monopolies and finance capitalists to put the assets of
the
peoples of the world and their states at their disposal, no matter what
chaos
this causes and what destruction it leaves in its wake. To divert
attention from
their own fear over the chaos and unpredictability they have created as
a result
of the rivalry between competing private interests, they used their
obscene annual gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland
to raise the ultimate diversion -- how to reform their monopoly
capitalist
system. It has given rise to a "to tea or not to tea" policy debate as
rival
factions fight over control of the state power. It appears as if a
crisis of
existential angst is haunting the policymakers who must all reassure us
that the
capitalist system is the only way to go but it must be made less
unfair, or
more free, or some other prescription. It is instructive to see how
they are all
trying to provide legitimacy to the aim to put all the assets of the
state at the
disposal of the international financial oligarchy.
In the debate some take the side that this is best done
by increasing
regulations -- by which it is meant that new arrangements which enforce
monopoly right are strengthened while certain interests may be favoured
over
others. Some take the view that the market place must be left
unfettered to
determine everything and let the chips fall where they may. This too is
of
course designed to enforce monopoly interests. And some, such as
Canada's
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, implement both courses of action in
tandem
to serve what he deems determines to be the "national interest."
The first Tea Party lot think that the values they claim
of liberty, freedom
of choice and individual and state sovereignty speak for themselves as
concerns providing legitimacy for their project. They oppose state
intervention
when it comes to social programs and defence of public interests but
make
sure all the military and security arrangements are in place to protect
their
vested interests.
The second Obama-type lot pay a great deal of attention
to establishing
some sort of legitimacy for what they are doing to uphold monopoly
interests
by claiming they are interested in fairness or opposing corruption and
such
things. Both seek to exercise control over the civil war between the
private
interests and to avert the provocation of a revolutionary upsurge on
the part
of all those the system dispossesses. Both lots make sure all the
security
arrangements are put in place so as to protect their vested interests
from such
a rebellion or usurpation of any kind.
It is difficult to grasp the news agencies' reports of
what is being discussed
at the Davos World Economic Forum without putting them in the context
of
this so-called policy debate which is not limited to the United States
but spills
over into the imperialist system of states. This is in part because the
ruling
elites of what is called the Eurozone are also dealing with the
restructuring of
the state to serve their own so-called national interests and in part
due to the
dominant role played by the U.S. debt and deficit in the economies of
all
countries which hold U.S. debt.
India's Economic Times quotes the founder of
the World
Economic Forum Klaus Schwab as follows:
"Capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the
world around us. We
have failed to learn the lessons from the financial crisis of 2009. A
global
transformation is urgently needed and it must start with reinstating a
global
sense of social responsibility."
The Economic Times cites the World Economic
Forum's
recent global risks report which highlights rising inequality as the
biggest
threat facing the world in the future.
The Associated Press writes that:
"In an interview, Klaus Schwab insists he's still 'a
deep believer in free
markets, but free markets have to serve society. [...] He said members
of the
Occupy protest movement camped in igloos in Davos have been invited to
a
session on the sidelines of the forum on reforming capitalism. Protest
organizer
David Roth told the AP his group hadn't decided yet whether to accept."
Meanwhile billionaire George Soros speaks about his
latest preferred topic,
"the coming U.S. class war," about which he recently wrote a book. In
an
interview with Newsweek magazine, Soros says:
"I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about
as serious and
difficult as I've experienced in my career. [...] We are facing an
extremely
difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great
Depression.
We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which
threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The
best-case
scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a
collapse
of the financial system." [...]
Newsweek writes: "Soros draws on his past to
argue that the
global economic crisis is as significant, and unpredictable, as the end
of
communism.
"'The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty
extraordinary event, and
we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world,
without fully realizing what's happening.'
"To Soros, the spectacular debunking of the credo of
efficient markets --
the notion that markets are rational and can regulate themselves to
avert
disaster -- 'is comparable to the collapse of Marxism as a political
system. The
prevailing interpretation has turned out to be very misleading. It
assumes
perfect knowledge, which is very far removed from reality. We need to
move
from the Age of Reason to the Age of Fallibility in order to have a
proper
understanding of the problems.'
"Understanding, he says, is key. 'Unrestrained
competition can drive
people into actions that they would otherwise regret. The tragedy of
our
current situation is the unintended consequence of imperfect
understanding. A
lot of the evil in the world is actually not intentional. A lot of
people in the
financial system did a lot of damage without intending to.'
"Still, Soros believes the West is struggling to cope
with the consequences
of evil in the financial world just as former Eastern bloc countries
struggled
with it politically. Is he really saying that the financial whizzes
behind our
economic meltdown were not just wrong, but evil? 'That's correct.' Take
that,
Lloyd Blankfein, the Goldman Sachs boss who told The Sunday Times
of London at the height of the financial crisis that bankers 'do
God's
work.' [...]
"While Soros, whose new book, Financial Turmoil in
Europe and
the United States, will be published in early February, is
currently
focused on Europe, he's quick to claim that economic and social
divisions in
the U.S. will deepen, too. He sympathizes with the Occupy movement,
which
articulates a widespread disillusionment with capitalism that he
shares. People
'have reason to be frustrated and angry' at the cost of rescuing the
banking
system, a cost largely borne by taxpayers rather than shareholders or
bondholders.
"Occupy Wall Street 'is an inchoate, leaderless
manifestation of protest,'
but it will grow. It has 'put on the agenda issues that the
institutional left has
failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century.' He reaches for
analysis,
produced by the political blog ThinkProgress.org, that shows how the
Occupy
movement has pushed issues of unemployment up the agenda of major news
organizations, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. It reveals that in
one
week in July of last year the word 'debt' was mentioned more than 7,000
times on major U.S. TV news networks. By October, mentions of the word
'debt' had dropped to 398 over the course of a week, while 'occupy' was
mentioned 1,278 times, 'Wall Street' 2,378 times, and 'jobs' 2,738
times. You
can't keep a financier away from his metrics.
"As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities
are inevitable. 'Yes,
yes, yes,' he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could
be more
damaging than the violence itself. 'It will be an excuse for cracking
down and
using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to
an
extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society
where
individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break
with the
tradition of the United States.'"
In this way, Obama's liberal constituents and
fellow-travellers are being
spooked by the likes of billionaire George Soros and others of his ilk
to side
with the Not to Tea fortification of capitalism against the To Tea
fortification.
All of it serves to cover up that the alternative for the working class
is to
develop its own independent politics so as to bring about the kind of
political
and constitutional renewal which will resolve the crisis in favour of
public
right, not monopoly right. Anything short of this will merely
contribute to the
civil war and dislocation going on in the United States as a result of
the
contention between rival interests and to forcing the peoples of the
world to
pay with their sweat and blood.
Harper Delivers Keynote
Address
Of all people in the world,
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was invited to give the keynote
address at the Davos Forum. "[H]is blunt words are bound to draw
attention
to Canada," one media report crowed. Harper was also to "hold round
table
discussions with business leaders. He was to be joined after his
keynote speech
Thursday by the summit's founder, Klaus Schwab, in a
question-and-answer
session."
Harper was accompanied by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty,
Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird, International Trade Minister Ed Fast and
Mark
Carney, who is governor of the Bank of Canada and also heads the
international Financial Stability Board.
According to reports, Harper told the world's political
and business elite
that "Capitalism, despite criticism, is still the best way to create
prosperity --
but it must be bolstered through proper regulations." In other words,
Harper's
stand in the policy debate over whether to increase regulations to save
capitalism or to oppose state intervention in any way and let the free
market
determine the outcome, come what may, is to do both -- use the state to
increase regulations when that achieves the aim and oppose state
intervention
and let the free market determine the outcome when that achieves the
aim.
Both are to be done according to what the monopolies require at any
particular
time.
Harper's associate director of communications Andrew
MacDougall said
the Prime Minister called for "urgent" action to fix the eurozone and
provided
the highlights of the speech as follows:
"Europe must finally get its debt-ridden house in order,
or the economic
contagion could sweep around the world and cause a recession,"
MacDougall
said. "The European sovereign debt crisis remains an immediate and
pressing
problem," he added, saying, "It threatens the strong, sustainable
balanced
growth that G20 countries have made their priority and risks bringing
the
world to another recession."
On trade, "Canada is keen to 'diversify' its trading
relationships throughout
the world -- particularly in growing economies such as Asia -- and is
keen to
seal a free trade deal this year with Europe.
"The Canadian energy sector is looking for customers
worldwide, not just
in the United States.
 In fact, Harper's keynote speech delivered on January 26
also laid out his
government's plans for the coming months. Saying that the main aim will
be
to "undertake major transformations to position Canada for growth over
the
next generation," he laid out a program of destruction and
privatization which
will take society many steps backwards.
Harper argued that the right of Canadians to proper
social programs are a
threat to those social programs. "Our demographics also constitute a
threat to
the social programs and services that Canadians cherish," he says. This
declaration is deemed sufficient to justify broad cuts to social
programs and
new waves of privatization.
"For this reason, we will be taking measures in the
coming months. Not
just to return to a balanced budget in the medium term, but also to
ensure the
sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next
generation. We have already taken steps to limit the growth of our
health care
spending over that period. We must do the same for our retirement
income
system." [Old Age Security system -- TML Ed. Note]
In his speech, Harper also outlined the following areas
where his
government will carry out its "transformation" of Canada:
- "continue to make the key investments in science and
technology
necessary to sustain a modern competitive economy."
- "we will soon take action to ensure that major energy
and mining
projects are not subject to unnecessary regulatory delays -- that is,
delay
merely for the sake of delay."
- "cut the burden of red tape on entrepreneurs."
- "undertake significant reform of our immigration
system." This will be
done by making Canada's "economic and labour force needs the central
goal
of our immigration efforts in the future.
- "pass [trade] agreements signed, particularly in our
own hemisphere, and
[..] work to conclude major deals beyond it."
- "complete negotiations on a Canada-EU free trade
agreement this
year."
- "work to complete negotiations on a free-trade
agreement with India in
2013."
- "begin entry talks with the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
while also pursuing
other avenues to advance our trade with Asia."
- "continue working with the Obama administration to
implement our joint
"Beyond the Border" initiative,"
- "make it a national priority to ensure we have the
capacity to export our
energy products beyond the United States, and specifically to Asia."
Harper's Attack on Canadian Seniors at Davos Forum
- Jim Nugent -
 The World Economic Forum
held annually in Davos, Switzerland is an
annual meeting between the CEOs of the largest international monopolies
and
the politicians from around the world who serve them. Held from January
25-
29, there were an estimated 2,600 participants from 100 countries, some
1,600
of whom were business people. Also present were 40 heads of state,
other
government representatives and representatives of media, cultural,
sporting,
academic and research organizations. The theme of this year's gathering
of the
world's rich and powerful was "The Great Transformation: Shaping New
Models."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was one of those in
attendance and he used
his speech at the World Economic Forum to step up his government's
attacks
on the right of retired workers and other seniors to live with dignity,
security
and good health in old age.
Most of Harper's speech was spent touting Canada to the
audience of
CEOs. He boasted that Canada had the lowest corporate taxes of any
developed country, that Canada's borders had been virtually eliminated
for
international monopolies through trade agreements and that more
agreements
were in the works. He offered continued unfettered plunder of Canada's
energy, minerals and other resources. Then Harper got down to the theme
of
the day, pledging his government to the "great transformations" the
corporate
oligarchs had organized the forum to solicit from their political
representatives.
Harper said Western governments have " too much focus on
our services
and entitlements" and "too much general willingness to have standards
and
benefits beyond our ability to pay for them." He pledged that "in the
months
to come our government will undertake major transformations" to reduce
services, standards, benefits and entitlements of Canadians. Clearly
targeting
seniors in this transformation, Harper said health and pensions costs
resulting
from an aging population are a threat that "has the capacity to
undermine
Canada's economic position well beyond the current economic crisis."
"We have already taken steps to limit the growth of our
health care
spending," Harper said, referring to his government's recent unilateral
announcement that it would drastically reduce the federal share of
provincial
health care costs. "We must do the same for our retirement income
system for
those elements of the system that are not funded we will make the
changes
necessary to ensure sustainability."
As this speech was being delivered, the Prime Minister's
Office (PMO)
was launching a saturation media campaign about the urgency to cut
pensions.
It was very obvious that Harper's speech was meant to give birth to a
"pension
crisis." Academic charlatans from C.D. Howe and other PR institutes of
the
rich were activated to make statements agreeing with Harper.
Coast-to-coast,
the press and airwaves were suddenly filled with commentary on the
Canada's
aging population and the need for pension reform.
The PMO media briefings clarified that Harper was
talking about cuts to
the Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)
programs. They included a specific proposal to extend the age of
entitlement
for OAS/GIS from 65 to 67 along with very manipulative demographic
statistics to "prove" this is necessary.
These statistics are selected in a way to create the
impression of a whole
society of retirees living off the work of a few active workers. In
fact, the
dependence ratio (number of people working compared to the total
population)
is stabilizing at about 50/50 which is very low by historical standards
(up until
the 1960s the ratio was 35 working/65 not working). As well, OAS and
GIS
represent a very small fraction of wealth produced, only 2.5 per cent
of GDP,
which will rise to only 3.2 per cent of GDP when the senior population
peaks
in 2030.
 Harper's speech and the
media campaign about a "pension crisis" tries to
use statistical mumbo-jumbo to create the impression that reducing the
standard of life for retired people is a mathematical and economic
inevitability
-- a done deal -- with only the details to be worked out. But it is
political
issue. The aim of Harper's propaganda is to settle this political issue
in favour
of the rich by undermining the deeply held conviction of the working
class and
all Canadians that dignity, security and good health in old age is a
right.
To uphold their conviction, workers -- retired and
active -- have to engage
in a political battle with the Harper dictatorship and its assault on
the rights of
retired workers. The promises made to the rich by Harper at Davos to
slash
old age pensioners are easier to say than to do. The same promises were
made
before, by the Mulroney government and by the Chretien-Martin
government,
and their attempt to slash pensions were beaten back. Workers have to
find the
means to fight this battle for the rights of all again.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
