Occupy Toronto - Protest

[Bob Armstrong]

Occupy Toronto targets 1%/Capitalism symbol with demonstration today:

City News Toronto - http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...-downtown-park

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

Well it looks like Occupy Toronto has kicked off its 2012 campaign. After a quiet winter by the fireplace, Occupy has returned to Toronto for the May Day celebrations.
http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/05/o..._may_day_2012/

The protests appear peaceful to date, but 3 protestors were arrested for trying to erect a tent, that's a no no.

A demonstration is expected today at the annual shareholders meeting for Barrick Gold.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

A demonstration is expected today at the annual shareholders meeting for Barrick Gold.

The shareholders get the gold and the demonstrators get the shaft. The meeting will also likely provide coffee and cookies - for the shareholders, but I've never been to Barrick's meetings.

Speaking of demonstrating at annual meetings, I once went to a meeting some four decades ago. I wanted to complain about something. It was a small mining company.

Other than the board and directors I was the only shareholder who came. They treated me really nice and explained a lot of things to me. I never did complain about what I had in mind. There were another couple of mining speculation companies the CEO was involved with and I bought shares in those as well.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

While '1%' does make for a catchy slogan, the percentage of the population (at least in the developed world) that stands to benefit from the continuation of the capitalist system is in my opinion considerably higher. And I believe that the U.S. and Canada are still largely 'aspirational' societies- that is, many members of the lower socio-economic classes hope to move up economically, so they are loath to attack a system that they (or at least their kids) hope to be a part of some day. I suspect this is changing with the shrinking middle class, but still largely true.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

While '1%' does make for a catchy slogan, the percentage of the population (at least in the developed world) that stands to benefit from the continuation of the capitalist system is in my opinion considerably higher. And I believe that the U.S. and Canada are still largely 'aspirational' societies- that is, many members of the lower socio-economic classes hope to move up economically, so they are loath to attack a system that they (or at least their kids) hope to be a part of some day. I suspect this is changing with the shrinking middle class, but still largely true.

At the very least shares of corporations are not owned only by 1% of the population. Through direct share holding in say an RSP, mutual funds, pension funds and even union investment funds for strike pay (of which I was a treasurer for 2 years) shares of corporations are owned by a majority of society. The biggest pension funds out there belong to teachers, auto and industrial workers and civil servants.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

While '1%' does make for a catchy slogan, the percentage of the population (at least in the developed world) that stands to benefit from the continuation of the capitalist system is in my opinion considerably higher. And I believe that the U.S. and Canada are still largely 'aspirational' societies- that is, many members of the lower socio-economic classes hope to move up economically, so they are loath to attack a system that they (or at least their kids) hope to be a part of some day. I suspect this is changing with the shrinking middle class, but still largely true.

Well said Ken. I believe the vast majority appreciate the strengths of the capitalist system, free enterprise, the market system, etc. and are not ready to throw it out. The OWS movement does however quite correctly point out that it is the 1% who have captured almost exclusively the economic gains of the last few decades. The middle class has collapsed, and the rift between rich and poor has growth to such an unhealthy level that protesters are taking it to the streets worldwide.

IMHO, what we need to do is not to replace capitalism with socialism, but to improve what we have by moving to a social democracy. I find the following definition in Wikipedia:

Social Democracy

Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach has been called the Nordic model.

What do you think?

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

Well said Ken. I believe the vast majority appreciate the strengths of the capitalist system, free enterprise, the market system, etc. and are not ready to throw it out. The OWS movement does however quite correctly point out that it is the 1% who have captured almost exclusively the economic gains of the last few decades. The middle class has collapsed, and the rift between rich and poor has growth to such an unhealthy level that protesters are taking it to the streets worldwide.

IMHO, what we need to do is not to replace capitalism with socialism, but to improve what we have by moving to a social democracy. I find the following definition in Wikipedia:

Social Democracy

Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach has been called the Nordic model.

What do you think?

Lovely sentiments. If you actually spoke for the movement or were involved enough in it to have first hand knowledge it might actually be comforting. Because that's what I do hear from the movement, all we want is the Nordic model. Well that and end to all corporations because they are all greedy. Let's loot the banks so we get free tuition.

The middle class has collapsed? Then who is buying all the real estate in Toronto and Vancouver and all over the country. Those gains over the last few decades are what have funded pensions for millions of retired people. Including those who receive CPP and company pensions. The market has enriched the RSPs and pension plans of the middle class investor over the last few decades. The real estate market has made millionaires out of ordinary Canadians and their heirs over the last few decades.

[Bob Armstrong]

Evolving Capitalism

The New Democratic Party of Canada ( NDP ) is multi-layered, and I'd have to think it is a social democratic party, rather than a pure " socialist " party, if your distinction of the 2 definitions stands up to scrutiny.

Once elected in the next federal election ( you heard it here! ), they will move to implement within our Canadian capitalist system, more socialist reforms. I agree with this incremental evolution of the state from capitalist to socialist. This allows that it happens with plurality support ( and maybe sometimes even with majority support ), since the NDP will have to win election, after implementing reform - if they have not brought the population along with them, then they will be thrown out, and the evolution toward the socialist state will stall ( or regress, depending on the ideology of the substitute government ).

Bob A

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

IMHO, what we need to do is not to replace capitalism with socialism, but to improve what we have by moving to a social democracy. I find the following definition in Wikipedia:

......

What do you think?

what I think is that you do not completely know the definitions of the words you are using. What I was taught many years ago was that a simple way of describing political & economic order was to consider two axes, the political system and the economic system.

Axis 1 Political: democracy versus totalitarianism
Axis 2 Economic: capitalism versus socialism

with:
capitalism + totalitarianism = fascism
socialism + totalitarianism = communism
socialism + democracy = social democracy
capitalism + democracy = that of the US & Canada as examples.

Of course this is pretty black and white and there are degrees of everything but the point is that socialism/capitalism is an economic description and democracy/totalitarianism is a political description.

So, when you say "not to replace capitalism with socialism, but .... moving to a social democracy" you are not making any sense.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Evolving Capitalism

The New Democratic Party of Canada ( NDP ) is multi-layered, and I'd have to think it is a social democratic party, rather than a pure " socialist " party, if your distinction of the 2 definitions stands up to scrutiny.

Once elected in the next federal election ( you heard it here! ), they will move to implement within our Canadian capitalist system, more socialist reforms. I agree with this incremental evolution of the state from capitalist to socialist. This allows that it happens with plurality support ( and maybe sometimes even with majority support ), since the NDP will have to win election, after implementing reform - if they have not brought the population along with them, then they will be thrown out, and the evolution toward the socialist state will stall ( or regress, depending on the ideology of the substitute government ).

Bob A

Maybe when the NDP are elected they will restore the rights of the majority of students in Quebec who want to attend class.

and what exactly is a substitute government? is that like a government that shouldn't be there but is there because the people have not moved along correctly to agree with the NDP ideology? like a substitute teacher that should only be there until the real teacher gets back

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Evolving Capitalism

Once elected in the next federal election ( you heard it here! ), they will move to implement within our Canadian capitalist system, more socialist reforms.

They will most likely be the third party after the next election. The two shadow cabinet ministers from Windsor have been demoted in favour of new inexperienced Quebec MPs. I doubt that their Windsor seats would be very safe if either of the incumbents elect to retire on that generous MP pension.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

what I think is that you do not completely know the definitions of the words you are using.

:) Yes, I agree. In fact, I was surprised by some of the violent reactions I was getting on chesstalk by my use of the term socialism, so I decided to look it up on Wikipedia. I was surprised to read some of the descriptions of socialism which sounded more like communism to me. So, that explains that.

But it is worth noting that these definitions on wikipedia do carry the warning "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)".

So, people do interpret these political labels differently. Wikipedia does try to define several hybrid political/economic systems, all labelled as "socialism". It is an interesting read.

I think the simplistic model you described, that we were both taught in school (so many years ago), is not adequate to deal with the complex real world.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

We pretty much knew what Socialism was in SFRJ, the socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Occupy Toronto - Protest

:) Yes, I agree. In fact, I was surprised by some of the violent reactions I was getting on chesstalk by my use of the term socialism, so I decided to look it up on Wikipedia. I was surprised to read some of the descriptions of socialism which sounded more like communism to me. So, that explains that.

But it is worth noting that these definitions on wikipedia do carry the warning "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)".

So, people do interpret these political labels differently. Wikipedia does try to define several hybrid political/economic systems, all labelled as "socialism". It is an interesting read.

I think the simplistic model you described, that we were both taught in school (so many years ago), is not adequate to deal with the complex real world.

Good luck with your quest to educate yourself about the meaning of political terms. Might I suggest a book on political science, that way you don't have to worry about Wikipedia warning labels. Try this one for example http://www.amazon.com/Politics-For-D...6077222&sr=8-1

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Evolving Capitalism

The New Democratic Party of Canada ( NDP ) is multi-layered, and I'd have to think it is a social democratic party, rather than a pure " socialist " party, if your distinction of the 2 definitions stands up to scrutiny.

Once elected in the next federal election ( you heard it here! ), they will move to implement within our Canadian capitalist system, more socialist reforms..

Is this something on which you would wager a token $20.00? The NDP winning the next federal election and forming a government. I figure it won't happen.