LEAP Manifesto, would you sign?

[Argus]

You just described yourself perfectly.

You're probably the biggest user of those kinds of terms here. You barely write a single post without using "the left" in the pejorative.

Drivel. I refer to the Left, otherwise known as regressives, when speaking broadly about that group of fools who are ruled by their feelings and emotions and never let logic or common sense enter their thinking. And I'm not insulting them, I'm defining them. But most of my posts are more narrowly focused on particular political issues. It's true that the regressives are invariably on the wrong side of those issues, but that's a state of being which is due to their witless political ideology, and not my fault.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Argus

[dre]

Drivel. I refer to the Left, otherwise known as regressives, when speaking broadly about that group of fools who are ruled by their feelings and emotions and never let logic or common sense enter their thinking. And I'm not insulting them, I'm defining them. But most of my posts are more narrowly focused on particular political issues. It's true that the regressives are invariably on the wrong side of those issues, but that's a state of being which is due to their witless political ideology, and not my fault.

Nice of you to demonstrate exactly what I was referring to.

[Moonlight Graham]

Pretty much every paragraph spouts nonsense of proletariat taking back the means from production from the bourgeoisie. For example:

They have updated the rhetoric must not much of the substance has changed from the time of Lenin.

Tim, co-ops aren't communism, as in the USSR. Whether you agree with them or not, and I'm not saying do, but co-ops are much different than state-owned means of production controlled by dictators. But yes there's some Marxist analysis going here, as in "proletariat taking back the means from production from the bourgeoisie", which in itself isn't nonsense.

[TimG]

But yes there's some Marxist analysis going here, as in "proletariat taking back the means from production from the bourgeoisie", which in itself isn't nonsense.

It is nonsense because it ignores the question of capital which is an essential element in any business. Without capital there are no 'means of production' to seize. In the past, there have been co-operatives in some industries like farming that have done OK because the members of the co-operative had capital to start with (i.e. their farms). By their nature these co-ops are co-ops for the bourgeoisie (the haves) that exclude the proletariat (the have nots) by design because you cannot run a business if you allow people with no capital to decide how the business should be run. Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

The notion that Harper or the Cons are right wing by any international measure is laughable.

I'd disagree with that.

[eyeball]

.

Edited April 17, 2016 by eyeball

[eyeball]

It is nonsense because it ignores the question of capital which is an essential element in any business.

It's nonsense for fishermen to increase profits and form co-ops to market their catch, or to insure their boats and cut down on their costs? Besides cutting out middle men these can also be handy for negotiating fuel discounts. I suppose these verge on being immoral and repugnant in some circles but its all perfectly legal.

How about a consumer co-op that builds shares and pays dividends to it's members and pays decent wages to people?

Decent wages? Ewwwww.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is nonsense because it ignores the question of capital which is an essential element in any business. Without capital there are no 'means of production' to seize. In the past, there have been co-operatives in some industries like farming that have done OK because the members of the co-operative had capital to start with (i.e. their farms). By their nature these co-ops are co-ops for the bourgeoisie (the haves) that exclude the proletariat (the have nots) by design because you cannot run a business if you allow people with no capital to decide how the business should be run.

I agree that any worker-run business or economic model needs to address the issue of capital requirements.

[TimG]

It's nonsense for fishermen to increase profits and form co-ops to market their catch, or to insure their boats and cut down on their costs?

Of course not - but you are still taking about a two tier system where you have the fishermen with capital (the boats) and the workers with no capital. Only the fishermen with boats would have say over the co-op and no matter what altruistic ideas you might have in mind the co-op would be run for the benefit of the boat/quota owners - not the workers. Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

I wouldn't sign the manifesto. I agree with a small minority of it. The rest is wide-eyed, naive, and/or unexplained. Who would sign this without at least demanding the answers to a lot of questions?

[TimG]

I agree that any worker-run business or economic model needs to address the issue of capital requirements.

Which I why I think any system that seeks impose co-op structures on the economy would inevitably turn into a centralized USSR like model because these co-ops would need capital and it would be the central government that would control which ones got capital an which ones did not.

[eyeball]

Of course not - but you are still taking about a two tier system where you have the fishermen with capital (the boats) and the workers with no capital. Only the fishermen with boats would have say over the co-op and no matter what altruistic ideas you might have in mind the co-op would be run for the benefit of the boat/quota owners - not the workers.

Hired deckhands can benefit from higher prices. Fishermen's co-ops are also usually unionized with better pay/benefits for the shore workers in the co-op. You also made no mention of the consumer co-op which are also usually unionized as well. I don't remember any issues or griping from us owners about the gravy being spread around a little.

Communism seems to work just fine.

[TimG]

I don't remember any issues or griping from us owners about the gravy being spread around a little.

It is easy to be generous when there is lot of money coming in. But when times get tough then camaraderie between owners and workers will break down. For example, when the quota system was brought it the existing owners and workers were likely very happy but over time owners wanted to sell their quota to the highest bidder which inevitably led to them be scooped up by large corporations with deep pockets. Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Which I why I think any system that seeks impose co-op structures on the economy would inevitably turn into a centralized USSR like model because these co-ops would need capital and it would be the central government that would control which ones got capital an which ones did not.

Imposing a co-op structure...yeah I sure miss the days when we used to roam the streets hunting for capitalists. If they couldn't quote Maoisms we'd line up against a wall.

[eyeball]

It is easy to be generous when there is lot of money coming in. But when times get tough then camaraderie between owners and workers will break down. It not a system that is remotely viable for the entire economy which consists of many people with diverse views.

It was good while it lasted but times only got tough because Ottawa caved to US interests, abandoned most of the fishery and rigged the remaining quota system so it all wound up in a handful of big-shots hands - big-shots that probably preach a lot of the same sort of economic hooey you subscribe to.

Probably sunning themselves in Panama and shredding documents as we speak.

[TimG]

Imposing a co-op structure...yeah I sure miss the days when we used to roam the streets hunting for capitalists. If they couldn't quote Maoisms we'd line up against a wall.

If people wanted co-ops there would be co-ops and no need for the 'great leap forward' manifesto. Therefore the only way to get co-ops is to impose them and punish the majority of people who do not wish to organize their businesses in that way. Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

It's even easier to sink co-ops and kill unions if you don't like them - just hire a politician to relax regulations and pave the way with trade deals/agreements and ship your factories and profits offshore.

[eyeball]

I wouldn't sign the manifesto. I agree with a small minority of it. The rest is wide-eyed, naive, and/or unexplained. Who would sign this without at least demanding the answers to a lot of questions?

What he said.

Certainly not why TimG said.

[TimG]

It's even easier to sink co-ops and kill unions if you don't like them - just hire a politician to relax regulations and pave the way with trade deals/agreements and ship your factories and profits offshore.

So you saying the only way co-ops and unions can exist is when they are imposed on people with regulations?

[eyeball]

No, that's just what you heard is all.

[Argus]

you cannot run a business if you allow people with no capital to decide how the business should be run.

Kinda like how screwed up a country becomes when it allows those who contribute no taxes to decide how those taxes should be spent.

[Argus]

I'd disagree with that.

If you're going to describe Harper's government as far right how would you describe the much much further to the right policies of the US Republican party? For that matter, even the Democrats have long had policies further to the right than the Tories. They don't support public health care, for one thing. Obama never even tried to implement it eve when he had majorities in both houses.