The Lambda Fifth Columns: Part 1 (of 4), Fall 1971

This is the first part of a new series of Fifth Columns featuring my columns from 1971 to 1973 in the Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda, that inspired me to write the Fifth Column many years later. They will be presented here in four parts.

The original print copies have been run through an Optical Character Reader to present them in full text (rather than images) here. 

 

The First Column (VOL 10#08 1971-11-02)

Richard W. Woodley

This column is dedicated to the proposition that Canada (and indeed the world) is in a crisis situation and that fundamental social change is required to remedy this situation.

This week week will look at an attempt to cause fundamental social change in Ontario, an attempt that failed with the return to power of the Conservative government.

The election of the Conservative government, with an even greater majority than before, was an event unexpected even by the Conservatives themselves, who saw the possibility of their being put in a minority government position. It was seen as an impossibility by the NDP, who near the end of the campaign were beginning to see themselves as possibly forming the government.

What went wrong ? Why did the attempt to gain fundamental social change through “participatory democracy’’ fail ? The NDP campaign had all the attributes of the campaign of a people’s party - it was a campaign fought on issues important to the people and conducted by the people, thousands of unpaid workers throughout the province. That this kind of campaign can succeed was seen clearly in the Sudbury area, where the hard work of hundreds of workers visiting every home in the area three times before the election and one or more times on election day won three seats for the party. In Sudbury Riding the NDP won despite the massive advertising campaign of the Conservative candidate (said to have cost over $25,000) who came last. The people of the Sudbury area were convinced that the NDP cared about them.

Certainly the provincial government’s lack of concern for the north may have been a factor in the NDP sweep of the Sudbury area. But then why did the NDP not sweep all of Northern Ontario, as expected, and why did the Conservatives win seats in Northern Ontario ? And especially why Sudbury, which though it has its problems (e.g. housing, roads, hospitals) is one of the most prosperous areas of the province with a high employment rate, and why did areas like Oshawa, (illegible original print text) which is undoubtedly expecting layoffs in the near future, elect Conservatives.

Undoubtedly the ‘blue machine” had more effect than expected and though the people did not approve of the Conservatives’ advertising campaign, they bought the product - no change.

The question is why did they buy the product. the product was sold as toothpaste is sold and undoubtedly every move was calculated to take advantage of human psychology (one may be tempted to call this brainwashing). This linked with the insurance industry’s advertisements, strategically brought forth at the end of the campaign with little chance for their refutation, was critical. So the people bought Bill Davis and his no change policy.

It seems that the campaign had its effect at the last minute - it was a culmination of psychological influences that formed the voters’ decisions at the end. Thus there was a high percentage of undecided votes right up until the election itself. Thus as the Conservative support was not acquired till the end of the campaign, the NDP support appeared artificially high till it reached a point where the NDP appeared to be able to elect the government.

At this point the ‘blue machine’ had its final effect. And with this came a reaction against change. And in fear of an NDP victory the people voted against the NDP and for the government, the result being the re-election of the reactionary Conservative government.

The only way the ‘blue machine’s’ psychological manipulation can be fought is by winning support early and holding it - not allowing undecided voters to be psychologically manipulated by the ‘blue machine’. This is what happened in the Sudbury basin - and it was only because of hard work by people dedicated to social change.

What will happen with the re-election of the Conservative government is uncertain. But the fight for social change must continue, Pressure must be put on the government continuously. It will be harder with a reactionary government than with one dedicated to social change - but the battle must continue.

 

The Second Column (VOL 10#09 1971-11-09)

By Richard W. Woodley

In volume two of ‘‘attempts at social reform that failed’’ we return to Laurentian University and our own Students’ General Association.

For most students attending Laurentian the top priority is academics, i.e. their courses. This is obvious as that is what they pay their $490 for. Though other aspects may contribute as much to their education, it is to take courses that they come to Laurentian.

Therefore academics should be the SGA’s top priority and the SGA’s aim should be to ensure that students get the highest quality courses possible.

The SGA took the first step towards this with its orientation program this year, which hoped to provide comprehensive academic counselling for students, especially new students, This was a limited success due to its being an initial experiment - but many things were learned from it. Hopefully next year’s program will start earlier and be more comprehensive.

However two things are vital to a good orientation and counselling program. They are a good student handbook and a good counter calendar., We had a good student handbook (ORCA) this year and will hopefully have a better one next year. This year we did not have a counter calendar and it appears that we won’t have one next year.

A counter calendar provides an evaluation of all professors and all courses taught in a school. It is based on questionnaires distributed to all students in all courses. It is an invaluable aid in the selection of courses by students.

From a counter calendar students can learn what courses were successful (from other students’ point of view) and what courses were not. They can see what students from the previous year felt about the courses and professors, This gives a student at least a basis for deciding what courses and what professors to choose.

A counter calendar can indicate professors who can’t or don’t bother to teach, It can indicate individual professors particular teaching methods. It can indicate where courses differ from the official calendar description and provide descriptions of what the courses were actually about,

A counter calendar used with student counselling provides an excellent basis for deciding what courses to take. Counselling without such a calendar is almost impossible unless you have counsellors who took every course available and then you only get one person’s opinion, while a counter calendar provides a summary of a whole classes’ opinions, When you have few counsellors, as we had this year, a counter calendar is an absolute necessity.

Besides aiding students in course selection a counter calendar can be an aid in deciding on the hiring and promoting of professors. Even if the administration doesn’t adopt its recommendations the student members of the hiring and promotions committees can use the counter calendar as a guide in their decisions.

However, the SGA, in its wisdom, has decided that Laurentian shall not have a counter calendar this year. This decision was taken when a viable proposal for a counter calendar exists.

The proposal was put forward by former SGA president Jim Stark, representing a non-profit company EDUCORP which specializes in producing counter calendars and doing other computer work for student unions,

The counter calendar EDUCORP proposes is based on a questionnaire which has been pre-tested and used across Canada and the United States. It will be used by Cambrian College in Sudbury this year. EDUCORP will provide the questionnaires, analyze them, and print the counter calendar for $2,140, The SGA will be responsible for distributing and collecting the questionnaire as well as preparing a summary of the comments on each professor. (The questionnaire contains pre-coded questions as well as space for longer comments,) -

The two basic criticisms of the proposal was that it was developed outside Laurentian and that it would be costly and difficult to administer.

The first criticism is unfounded as the nature of such a questionnaire is general and the same questions are relevant to all campuses. What students at Laurentian want to know about professors and courses is the same as what students anywhere want to know about professors and courses. What is more important is that the questionnaire has already been pre-tested and proven effective and relevant to what students want to know. As well a Laurentian developed questionnaire would be much more costly, approaching $6,000,

As far as the problem of cost is concerned all of the SGA’s responsibilities could be carried out on a voluntary basis, All it would require is organization. A well organized program working through each department would spread the work among several students in each department - each having a relatively small amount to do. The problem of student apathy would not be great in this case as students would see the personal value of a counter calendar. and would gladly help with its implementation as it is something that is a direct help to them in their studies. Thus the cost would be $2,140 for the production of the counter calendar, and there would be no great problem in its implementation.

As far as the time factor is concerned, it is far from too late, as the questionnaire should not be filled out till the students have at least one semester to base their evaluation on.

Thus if an agreement with EDUCORP was entered into soon a counter calendar could be available during the summer so that students could use it as a guide prior to registration.

The SGA is responsible to the student body as a whole and must respond to mass student pressure. The counter calendar will aid every student, It is up to every student to make his views known. But it must be done immediately.

 

The Third Column (VOL 10#10 1971-11-16)

By Richard W, Woodley

Well the SGA has done it again. You may remember that when the decision to open the pub in the cafe robot area was made, students were promised that the area would be available as a lounge when it wasn’t being used as a pub. We have had numerous inquiries from “lounge starved’’ students as to when it would be opened as a lounge. Well we have news - the SGA Council, in its wisdom, has decreed that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS and shall not be able to use this area as a lounge lest they do thousands of dollars of damage to the furniture (which they paid for). Of course it is understood that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS only in the day when they wish to use the area as a lounge but not during the evening when they go there to drink,

What else is there to say except that you have a chance overrule your representatives as the question will be put to you during the up-coming student Senate by elections. If you want the area as a lounge and don’t want to be “shit on’’ anymore this is your last chance,

Meanwhile the area remains locked!

Another SGA decision will be up for re- viewing at the next Council meeting (Wednesday, November 24, 7:00 pm. Room L207). Jim Stark, former SGA President and representative of the company proposing the latest counter calendar proposal, will be present at the meeting to explain the proposal to Council members who will be able to reconsider their previous decision not to accept the proposal.

A decision on SGA policy regarding incidental fees will also be made at that meeting,

At the same meeting a proposal will be put forward to make the council more representative of the students most important interest - his learning experience.

At present council members are elected according to Colleges which are simply social agencies. A much more relevant basis for election will be proposed. It will be proposed that the SGA Council representatives be elected according to the student’s academic fields. In this manner the SGA’s highest body will be representative of the students’ most important interests. Your representatives will be elected from amongst those who are in your same faculty - students who you will probably know better and whose qualifications you will be better able to judge.

As academic matters should be foremost in the priorities of the SGA, then the Council should be representative of the students academic interests.

Students are urged to attend this council meeting to present their views - otherwise you may be “shit on’’ again.

 

The Fourth Column (VOL 10#11 1971-11-23)

By Richard W. Woodley

The question of incidental fees is one that has been avoided and evaded by both the Students’ General Association and the Senate. The SGA tabled the matter until the specific motion that was tabled was forgotten about. However they have been collecting information on the situation in other universities and a decision on the matter should be forthcoming at tomorrow’s Council meeting.

Senate has referred the matter, in Senate tradition, to a number of committees, of which at least one does not exist. If it gets back to Senate, before the deadline for payment of the second instalment of student fees is due, all will be amazed.

This is a question which is of much importance to all students as it involves what they pay to this institution as student fees. However, of more importance is the affect that a decision on the matter will have on student services.

Compulsory fees guarantee that the service they provide will be available. With non-compulsory fees year to year planning in these fields is difficult as the number of students wishing to pay the fees each year is unknown.

However the other question is one of principle. Should a student pay a fee for services he does not receive and does not wish to receive, In this area the fees can be divided into two categories. One category is that of services which the student may not wish to take advantage of and does not get the advantage of. The Athletic Fee is an example of this - students not wishing to take part in athletics do not get the advantage of the fee. The College Fee is the same for students not taking part in college social activities. The Health Services Fee is of the same category for students who have a family doctor in Sudbury and do not take advantage of the Health Services.

The SGA is of a different sort as students who would opt out of the SGA fee would undoubtedly still benefit from its services.

Another category can also be added - that is one of essential services. ‘Health Services is an essential service for those that need it and as such the subsidization of such a fee by those who do not use it can be justified. However because of its special essential character it should be logically included in tuition (provided compulsory insurance is removed).

The SGA is also an essential service - for all students. For without a student union future progress of this university, as far as making it a more humane place to learn, would be slowed down immensely. As well past student gains could be eroded without its presence. It assures student representation on important bodies and committees and provides a ‘‘unity’’ that is necessary to prevent the student from being ‘‘screwed’’, The existence of an independent student newspaper is a very important way that students’ rights are protected. This is not taking into account the necessity of a student organization to provide services such as the Pub and La Boutede - and in the future the administration of a campus centre.

The differences in the services suggests that their fees be treated in different manners.

The Athletic and College Fees should be optional as they are non-essential services which should be provided for those who want them only.

The Health Services, a special case as explained, should be paid for out of tuition costs.

The SGA Fee should be treated in a special manner. As all students necessarily benefit from it, and in reality all would want to, it should be compulsory. The compulsory fee would prevent students from benefiting from the SGA at the expense of their fellow students.

However to ensure that the SGA is providing the students with what they want, and to ensure that it is providing it adequately, the compulsory fee could be contingent on its receiving fifty per cent support from the student body in a referendum held each year (to apply to the collection of the next year’s fees).

This would ensure that the SGA was relevant to the student body as a whole as well as preventing individual students from ‘‘freeloading’’ on the rest of the students,

The existence of a students’ union is essential to the students of the university. It is up to them to make sure that it serves them.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#12 1971-11-30)

By Richard W. Woodley.

What Senate needs is a new chairman,

The present chairman’s obsession with efficiency has gone too far. The chairman’s attempt at using dictatorial methods at last Thursday evening’s Senate meeting was not the first occasion he has acted in such a manner. He has shown his contempt for the members of Senate on numerous occasions.

It is not just that he attempts to move Senate business along quickly but he disregards Senate’s right to decide how its meetings will be carried on.

At Thursday evening’s meeting he put forth a ten o’clock deadline which was extended by Senate. After the extension was passed Professor Barry, an observer at the meeting, repeatedly attempted to be recognized. Finally he addressed the chair and was told he would not be recognized immediately. He waited patiently until the chairman called for a vote. Upon this, Professor Wagner, a Senate member, reminded the chair that Professor Barry wished to speak. The chair said it would not allow him to speak (in the interests of expediency). (A number of observers had previously been allowed to speak.)

Professor Wagner immediately challenged the chair’s decision. The chair said that it would not accept the challenge. This was too much for student Senate candidate Ike Lindenburger, who protested and finally told the chairman to “go to hell”. At this point the chairman told Mr. Lindenburger to leave or the meeting would not continue. Mr, Lindenburger refused and the chair recessed the meeting for ten minutes. During this time a number of faculty members on Senate managed to convince Mr. Lindenburger to leave, on the understanding that the chair would be challenged when the meeting resumed.

The meeting was resumed and in a matter of minutes was recessed. The challenge was not put and Professor Barry did not speak. Though Senate’s business was resolved satisfactorily, the question of the chair’s ruling was not - and in this the members of Senate share the blame with the chair.

The point is that, though the chair has the right to decide if an observer may speak, Senate itself has the final decision.

“An appeal may be made from any decision of the chair (except when another appeal is pending), but it can be made only at the time the ruling is made. It is in order when another member has the floors’’ (Roberts Rules of Order)

The chair, according to the rules, must recognize a challenge. Not to allow Senate the final decision is to show contempt for the Senate., This is not the first time the chairman has said that he would not recognize a challenge. On previous occasions the Senate has had to force the chair to take a vote on challenges and usually the chair’s decision has been defeated.

If the chair has no respect for the rights of Senate, then the chair should be replaced.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#13 1971-12-07)

What is the purpose of Laurentian University? Perhaps this question gets to the root of all our problems. Trying to be a university like all the others is obviously leading to problems. So then, we should be “unique”.

The most common suggestion for achieving this uniqueness, is to exploit our regionality. It is said that we are a regional university and should concentrate on regional studies. In this way we can compete with southern universities by not competing in the same fields.

This is logical but does not provide a real alternative. The field of studies would be different, but that’s about all. We would still be the same type of university.

That type of university is the graduate-research oriented university where everything is geared towards the graduate level. The undergraduate level is simply a preparatory level for the ‘‘real thing”.

Today’s students are frustrated. From grade school to high school they are continually being prepared and looking forward to the next step. They do not consider the stage they are at as being useful but just as preparation for something greater. When they reach university they think they have finally “arrived” only to be told ‘‘you really should plan on graduate studies”.

Of course, what is a BA worth, Nothing? It is said that it is no longer a job ticket, This could be the best thing that ever happened to universities - if it is reacted to properly.

Universities in the past pretended to ‘‘educate” - while attempting to provide job training at the same time. Of course they failed.

Now is the time for polarization. What we need is a complete split of the two functions with job training and education provided by separate institutions. One need not choose. In our society today we do not need a large labour force. People can afford to spend more time in school - they can attend both types of institutions - and society can afford to support them while they are there.

What are the implications of this for Laurentian? Laurentian has the opportunity to be a leader, as an education oriented university.

I propose that Laurentian become a purely undergraduate university (a graduate university is only a job training school for professors). It is not too late for this as Laurentian has not yet become a completely graduate oriented university,

Graduate schools provide more individualized education. We should do this on the undergraduate level.

With this will come a certain freedom., Freedom from *‘standards’’. We should not gear our programs to ‘‘standards” of industry or graduate schools. Let other universities do that.

The main point here is that students are realizing that university does not guarantee employment, Increasingly those people who come to university will be coming strictly for an education. If we can do this better than anyone else we can attract the real “best’’ students.

The major criticism of the elimination of graduate studies is that it won’t attract the best staff, as they wish to have research facilities. But we will attract staff that want, first of all, to work with people. And that is what education is all about. We will attract people from all over who never had this type of university to work in.

What this would do for Laurentian would be to open it up for all sorts of rewarding innovations in education, simply by the elimination of outside ‘‘standards’’. Evaluation, examination, and grading could be eliminated.

It would not be the same institution it is now and would not attract the same students, But why should it? CHANGE!

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#14 1971-12-14)

By Richard W. Woodley

What is love? ;

What is this world all about. Are people really happy. Do people know what they really want out of life or are they simply goal oriented towards goals that they are artificially socialized into seeking. Is the pursuit of “happiness’’ the pursuit of love,

Love is portrayed as a saviour; but what is love. Love is seen as the solution of the world’s problems and indeed it is. But how many people know what it really is and how many people really feel it. How can everyone in the world learn to love everyone else if few people can even learn to love someone else.

Is love happiness. And are too many people too busy worrying about happiness to love or be loved.

Is love relevant.

Happiness, unfortunately, is defined socially - society defines happiness and, as one has little control over one’s society, one has little control over one’s happiness or indeed over what one learns to consider as happiness.

Though love should be social in the sense that it is for others - it is not by my definition social. It is not socially defined for it is not definable. It is inner, it is a feeling, not exactly contentment but just a feeling of... love. It may not be exactly “bells ringing’’ but maybe more of a quiet reassuring, even in the midst of desperation, “humming’’.

What is this all about anyway - a personal plea or a solution for humanity. Perhaps neither, perhaps both, perhaps nothing perhaps everything,

But there must be more to life than socially defined happiness - and socially defined love would be even worse and unreal - love is not socially definable.

What is love, Love is personal and interpersonal. Can love be mass - can one love the world, Love is ‘‘a complete giving of oneself” so can one completely give oneself to the world.

Let us start at the beginning. If everyone is to love everyone, then first of all everyone must love someone. But if love is “a complete giving of oneself” can one completely give oneself to another. And, in defence of individualism, is this desirable. But is this really, literally, what love is or is love just a feeling.

Love is an inner commitment. Not necessarily a commitment to another, but a commitment to yourself to another.

But why love. If love is not ‘‘happiness’’ and it may not always be so, if love is painful, why seek it. But is love painful, or does it just appear that way when compared to “social happiness’’.

I began by saying that love is portrayed as a saviour - but is it love that is portrayed or some form of “socialized love’’. Perhaps in it’s very nature love cannot be portrayed or described or talked about, but only felt. Then is this relevant, Is this talking about love or talking about ‘‘talking about love’’,

Have I been artificially socialized into falling for an artificial image of love. The closest I could come to describing “love”, with the tools of language available, would be similar to the “self-sacrificial image of it’’, but it is not that and it is much more than that.

Perhaps it has a depth that society has socialized people out of being able to conceive.

Why love, especially if love is painful, why love. Society and the socialization process has defined man’s society, man’s goals, even man’s happiness. It cannot define his love. It cannot prevent his loving. It can make it difficult and make it painful but it cannot destroy it or distort it.

Love is personal and as such is that which makes man human. It may be all that man has left in today’s socialized technological world. It is inside and thus the outside cannot distort it or destroy it. It is humanity. It is life!

Merry Christmas Love

 

For more from Lambda see Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda - Internet Archive

The future of Laurentian University is in the hands of a flawed process and an anti-education government

When Laurentian University was founded it was not to create a profit making enterprise but to create an educational institution to serve the north, one that went on to include an important partnership with the Franco-Ontarian and Indigenous communities.

Using a mechanism (Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act) designed to ensure profit making enterprises can continue to earn a profit as a means to solve it’s financial problems is doomed to failure from the start. I fear greatly that this great institution will be damaged beyond repair by this process as our anti-education provincial government and “businessman first” Premier stand idly by and watch.

We now have a process based on making cuts to ensure profitability and prioritizing revenue earning programs rather than than prioritizing the programs most important to the institution and the community.

The first thing that should have been done to address Laurentian University's future was to identify the most important programs, particularly those that can only be provided by Laurentian University or provided better there than elsewhere.

At this time of reconciliation there is one program at Laurentian University that stands out from all others and that is the Indigenous Studies Program, and supports for Indigenous students and ties to the Indigenous community. This is a program that is historically important not just to Laurentian University but to all of North America.

A plan to save Laurentian University must have its indigenous component at the forefront. The Indigenous Studies Program should not only be preserved with no cutbacks but expanded. Retaining a few courses and slapping them together into a token program is the worst thing that could be done and would be about as disrespectful as could possibly be to the Indigenous community.

That, of course, should not be the only priority. Near the top should be programs and research in the social sciences that focus on Northern Ontario in particular and northern communities in general.

In the sciences and engineering sectors, programs, courses, and research dealing with the ecology and environment of the north should prioritized along with programs and research related to the mining industry.

As well, programs in the health sciences and professional schools designed to meet the particular needs of Northern Ontario, such as social work, nursing and midwifery, also need to be protected.

The traditional arts programs and courses may be easier replaced by programs at other institutions but courses relating to northern history and culture, including francophone culture and history, should be protected.

As an Honours Bachelor of Arts (Political Science) graduate (May 1973) I would be remiss if I did not mention the Political Science program, which in my time provided me with a unique education in both applied and theoretical politics with a particular Northern Ontario focus.

Only after it has been determined what needs to be saved to protect the unique Northern Ontario mandate of the University should an analysis of what should be done to solve the university’s financial problems be undertaken. Gutting the university is not the answer. Strategic investments are more likely to be succesful.

To be done properly this process would require extensive community consultation, impossible with the flawed process that has been chosen that puts the process in the hands of bankers and accountants rather than educators and community representatives.

With the ultimate decision making power in the hands of a provincial government that is anti-education and anti-community I fear for the future of Laurentian University.

Is Charity Evil

We supposedly live in a major developed industrialized country which is one of the seven most advanced economies in the world, yet:

many people depend on charity to be fed and not starve,

many people depend on charity for a place to sleep so they do not freeze to death in winter,

many people depend on charity to have a place to stay to protect them from being killed by their domestic partners,

despite our so-called public health care system we depend on charity to fund major medical research and many of our public hospital are in permanent fund raising mode to provide the beds and equipment they need to provide that care,

even our public education system depends on charitable fund raising to provide such basic amenities as library books, as well as extra programs, leading to a class-based public education system depending on the wealth of the neighbourhoods schools are located,

and the list goes on and on.

Do we not have a social responsibility to provide these basic human rights to our citizens. Should we not be funding these basic human rights collectively through a progressive tax system.

Who really benefits from charity.

Certainly corporations use charitable donations not just for tax benefits but for brand image enhancement. The wealthy use it not just as a method of tax management but also personal promotion. But it no doubt also provides a way of easing one's guilt for one's greed.

What would it be like for society if instead of making tax deductible charitable donations corporations paid all their employees a living wage. What would it be like for society if instead of making tax deductible charitable donations the wealthy paid their fare share of taxes, including a wealth tax.

What would it be like if we did not need charity because we fully funded a complete public health care and education system from a progressive tax system where everybody paid their fair share.

What would it be like if we eliminated the need for charity by establishing a minimum wage and a guaranteed basic income that allowed everyone to have a decent standard of living.

What would it be like if we did not have charity because we didn't need charity because we recognized as a society that everyone had the right to a decent quality of life.

What is the role of government if not to ensure citizens have a decent quality of life.

Does charity enable government to shirk that responsibility.

Is charity evil.

COVID-19 and Education in Ontario – An Imaginative Approach

Let me start by saying that I understand that hindsight is a big advantage and some may ask why didn't I think of this sooner and my response is that thinking about education in Ontario is not my full time job but it is for Ontario's Ministry of Education.

While it may be seem late now It seems to me that at some point the Education Ministry should have realized that too much time has passed to do justice to the curriculum for this year and the best solution might be to just start over next fall and use the rest of the school year creatively for students.

The result would be Ontario students requiring thirteen tears to complete their elementary and secondary education instead of twelve. This is something that millions of Ontario students, including myself did before 2003 and we turned out just fine.

Instead of trying to finish the curriculum using what can only be described as rushed into service experimental online methods, why not do something more creative with the online teaching and what little in classroom teaching time may be left in this school year.

Why not let teachers go “off-curriculum” or perhaps more accurately described as parallel to curriculum, by putting a local focus on their teaching. Teach local history, and in particular the history of the indigenous peoples in their area. Teach about the history of their communities and local industries and businesses, community groups, etc. Focus science and geography on the local ecosystem and the scientific principles behind local industries. Go a bit farther afield and teach some of the history of the local immigrant communities, particularly refugees. The opportunities for creative teachers are endless.

Each community and neighbourhood should have it's own focus which is why letting individual teachers go “off-curriculum” is the best way to achieve this.

Use this as an opportunity for these students to finish elementary and secondary school with a greater education than otherwise, rather than a lessor one.

Towards a Green Social Democratic Economy

Background/Context

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.[1][2][3] In this way, social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4]

The Green New Deal is an ambitious plan for how we can eliminate poverty and create millions of jobs while tackling the biggest threat of our time: climate change. It involves massive public investment in clean energy, transit and climate adaptation work. But the vision is bigger than that: it’s about transforming our entire economy to be safer and more fair, and give everyone a better life. First proposed in the U.S., the Green New Deal is now spreading around the world. In 2015, we joined with dozens of movement leaders to draft the The Leap Manifesto, a 15-point plan for how Canada can decarbonize its economy based on principles of justice. We’re excited about the Green New Deal because it’s even more ambitious than the Manifesto, and it’s being backed by both grassroots movements and politicians.

The Failure of Capitalism

If you are part of the 1%, or perhaps even the top 10%, of wealthy people that call themselves capitalists you are probably wondering what the nonsense of the heading above is. Capitalism is working just fine for you.

But if you are not one of the owners of the means of production, but are the means of production, part of the masses that actually produce the wealth and services that our society depends on you see it completely differently. Indeed even the capitalists themselves are recognizing the market system as it currently works does not serve society and are rethinking the idea that corporations only duty is to shareholders profits and are suggesting corporations also have a responsibility to workers, customers and society. Or at least they want the public to think they have such concerns as a means of placating the masses to prevent the complete abolition of capitalism.

Capitalism unfortunately is based on a lot of assumptions and mythology which simply is not true. Shall we look at some of them.

 

If everyone acts in their own self interest the interests of the society will be served is one of the basic tents of capitalism. Unfortunately it is just a poorly presented justification for greed.

The market will ensure fair prices and wages and an effective distribution of resources to where they are most needed. Clearly not working.

What's good for General Motors is good for America, or more generically, what is good for the mega corporations is good for the country and the society. Has the laughter died down yet.

Competition will ensure the survival of the best ideas and most efficient implementation of them and the failure of the poorest. UNLESS you are too big to fail, then state socialism will bail the capitalists out with the workers money.

No one is too rich and there is no need for income or wealth redistribution because the earth has infinite energy and resources and infinite capacity for development and the environmental impacts that go along with that and there are no limits to growth. Everybody can become a billionaire if they just make the effort. The poor are just lazy. No comment necessary.

Need I go on.

Fortunately social democracy does not require, nor seek, the elimination of private ownership. It only seeks to build a fair society where everyone can contribute with a fair distribution of wealth.

Inequality

We have all read the statistics on wealth and income inequality. It seems unnecessary to repeat them here. But here are a few citations anyway.

The world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 45 percent of the world’s wealth. (Global Inequality - Inequality.org)

Last year 26 people owned the same as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity. (5 shocking facts about extreme global inequality and how to even it up | Oxfam International)

Billionaires in Canada have increased their wealth by $20 billion over the last year, says a new Oxfam report on global inequality. In the same time, the 4.5 per cent of the country's wealth held by the poorest half of Canadians remained static. (Obscene gap between rich and poor, says Oxfam | National Observer)

Since 1990, the richest group of Canadians has increased its share of total national income, while the poorest and middle-income groups has lost share. (Income inequality - Canada and world results)

Income inequality in America is the highest it’s been since Census Bureau started tracking it, data shows (The Washington Post)

I wrote this about excessive wealth in an earlier blog post, THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal.

So what is excessive income and wealth. There are many ways to measure that, many statistical, but I propose a simpler definition – the amount of wealth and income where increases have no discernible effect on ones way of life or standard of living, where the increase is simply not noticeable in one's day to day life. Let's be generous to the wealthy in determining such levels. I propose an annual income of $1 million dollars and total assets of $100 million as the level that triggers “excessive income and wealth”. Above that no one notices without reading their financial statements.

The thing about excessive wealth is that it makes minuscule difference to the recipients but could make all the world of difference to the poor and underprivileged and to society as a whole if used for the common good. I will not even attempt to list what all that excessive wealth could do if devoted to the common good of society .

But there is another side to excessive income and wealth – it is highly undemocratic. The rich do not cling to their excessive wealth because it makes a difference to their daily lives. They cling to it because it gives them economic and political power. It is not just a matter of economic inequality, is a matter of political inequality.

Democracy is based on equality, one person one vote. Economic power is political power. Excessive wealth skews political power so that the wealthy have more of it. Excessive wealth is inherently undemocratic.

The argument that the rich are simply smarter or work harder simply does not hold water (to use an expression). The extremely wealthy are in that position because of privilege or in a few exceptional cases just plain dumb luck. But there is no moral justification for such extreme levels of wealth and inequality, particularity when you take into account the amount of economic and political power that provides which negates any sense of democracy we think may exist in our societies.

Climate Change

This inequality is taking place in a time of environmental crisis. No need to go on and on about the scientific consensus here. Just a few citations for the record.

UNITED NATIONS UN Climate Change Summit 2019

Major Reports - Climate Change - A Global Issue - Research Guides at United Nations Dag Hammarskjold Library

Canada’s Changing Climate Report | Natural Resources Canada

Some people suggest the solution to climate change lies in the hands of a few big corporations. Others think it only involves moving away from fossil fuels. But in reality avoiding future environmental disaster requires a major remaking of our economy from one based on the concept of unlimited consumption, waste and growth to one based on sustainable living and sustainable development (remember that). We need to refocus our society away from the concept of increasing our standard of living, where standard of living is defined by how much stuff (energy and resources) we consume to one based on increasing our quality of life, where quality of life is defined by how satisfied we are with our life experiences, in effect by how “happy” we are.

Tackling Climate Change and Inequality: An Opportunity to Build a New Society

Too big crises at once. How do we prioritize our response. Fortunately we do not. This is indeed an opportunity to use our responses to both these crises to build a better society.

So let us first look at the so-called “elephant in the room”, the idea that actually doing something significant about inequality is an extreme radical idea that involves stealing the wealth of the mega rich.

Let us assume that we are in an economy where the richest people earn up to a million dollars annually, making more than 10-20 times the income of average workers and that the richest people could acquire wealth of up to $100 million dollars, 100 times what the average worker can save up in a lifetime. Then let us assume someone suggests that is not enough incentive for people to work hard and invest and we should change the system so the wealthy can earn unlimited incomes and acquire unlimited wealth gaining them the economic and political power that that brings with it. Those people would be called extreme radicals with crazy ideas. Rationally that kind of uncontrolled excessive inequality is the crazy radical idea that would undermine society, not establishing reasonable limits to inequality.

Tackling inequality will provide the political opportunity and funds to change our society to deal with climate change. We need to change the economic and political power distribution to do this and there will be economic disruptions and major economic change, which will be for the better in the long term.

How Do We Tackle Inequality

Let us look first at how we tackle the problem of excessive wealth (as defined earlier) and inequality.

Preferably we deal with this outside the tax system and only use the tax system to correct egregious behaviours that continue.

We must start with protections for ordinary working people. We need to start with a minimum guaranteed income for everyone, and not a poverty/subsistence level income but a decent middle class income that allows people to have a satisfactory quality of life.

Side note: Finland’s basic income is making people happier and healthier

When it comes to excess income we should set a societal standard that the gap between the lowest income and the highest income should not exceed twenty times within the society and ten times within any one organization. That leaves lots of room to reward hard work, education or risk taking.

On excessive wealth we hope corporations and organization revise their profit structure so it does not lead to excessive wealth, by reducing exorbitant executive salaries and increasing wages for the people that make the goods and provide the services that create the profits, spending more on making products and services better quality and reducing prices. The days when maximizing profits was the only corporate goal need to end.

There will, of course, be situations of such excessive wealth where drastic measures will need to be taken. They should include, where appropriate, simply transferring corporate ownership to workers co-operatives where the profits can be shared more evenly. They may also include the society, through government, taking ownership of enterprises and devoting the profits earned to the common good. In some cases corporate operations and practices will need to be realigned to better serve the needs of the society as a whole.

Where excessive income and wealth remains we will need to use the tax system to tax away any income over $1 million annually and any wealth in the form of assets over $100 million.

At levels below those that are extremely excessive we need to reform the income tax system reversing decades of tax reductions for high income earners and making it more progressive. We start with eliminating income tax on the minimum guaranteed annual income. Tax rates above that should increase progressively with new higher tax brackets at the upper end.

Corporate tax rates need to be brought back to historical levels before the massive cuts began.

What Type of Economy Do We Need

As we respond to the climate change crisis we must realize that the answer is not simply avoiding a catastrophe at this time by reducing our fossil fuel use and carbon footprint but avoiding future environmental disasters with an economy based, not on consumerism with it's inherent excessive consumption and waste, but on sustainability.

The 4 R's:

One guideline to this is the traditional 4 Rs .

1. Refuse: To refuse waste is often seen as a "radical" choice. As a consumer, the impact of refusing waste is a clear statement to the producer. This choice is a powerful one in that you refuse to take on the responsibility of waste and only wish to receive the wanted or needed product.2. Reduce: As you gain a better understanding of what waste is and the impacts it has on our natural, economic and social environments, reducing becomes a choice of consciousness. Reducing waste allows you to participate at any level.3. Reuse: Using conventional waste to divert it from the waste stream offers a broad spectrum of savings. From plastic containers to shipping containers, the reuse of a product introduces a second life cycle.4. Recycle: Though recycling is the last "R" in this though process, it has become the most commonly used element. Recycling is absolutely important in eliminating waste and will always be part of the ongoing process. Separating out recyclables from other waste is a responsibility that often lies with the end consumer. The problems that arise with recycling are usually the lack of knowledge and accessibility.

I would like to emphasize here that these are listed in priority order with the most important principle being saying no to environmentally unsustainable products and practices.

And “Reduce” has to be meaningful as we move from an economy based on consuming to one based on living.

For example, at a time when families are smaller why are houses bigger. A family of two adults and two children does not need a three or four thousand square foot house. A family with two parents and two teenagers does not need four automobiles. What happened to the family car. Appliances should be built to last twenty or more years. Even computers, tablets, smartphones, etc,. are at a state of maturity now that they do not need to be replaced every two years. When it comes to smaller items it is often the excessive packaging that is the biggest environmental problem. Why do we allow that when it harms the planet and adds unnecessary costs to both the producer and consumer. We simply cannot continue such a wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle. Clothing can be worn until it is actually worn out. These are just simple examples of how we can change our habits with little real impact on our quality of life.

Localism

I would add an additional, and perhaps most important, principle here – localism. A search of the Internet will find many different definitions of localism and environmental localism and political localism. Most of them relate to a certain degree to what I see as localism in this context.

One of the biggest users of energy and resources and contributors to climate change is transportation, and in particular the transportation of goods over long distances.

People make a great deal of noise over personal air travel. However there is a lot of good that comes with people visiting other countries, experiencing other cultures and getting to know other people. There is a also a lot of good to come from international conferences where people get together to try to solve the world's problems that can only be done face to face.

Certainly a lot of business travel, where people are simply travelling to airports and then to meeting rooms and only meeting like-minded people and only discussing internal corporate matters could probably be replaced with electronic communications.

But the big transportation waste of energy and resources (and carbon footprint) has to be the needless global transportation of goods that could easily be produced locally by local workers. There was a time when every town had a sawmill, a textile mill and a factory or two producing consumer goods and providing good paying union jobs.

Now most of our consumer goods are made in the same massive factories in China and most of our clothing comes from the third world. Capitalism is supposed to promote efficiency but when you add the amount of resources and labour to the cost of transportation to market, importing most of our goods from offshore is not efficient. The only measure by which this is profitable is the extremely low value we attach to workers in developing countries and on flags of convenience shipping lines. When you look at what wages used to paid for goods consumed in North America compared to wages are now paid for most goods consumed in North America it is pennies, or less, on the dollar.

But the environmental costs, particularly in terms of carbon footprint, are excessively greater than producing goods close to where they will be used.

Much the same can be said about food. There is a lot of energy and resources expended because we think we should be able to get anything we want from anywhere anytime. That was not even the case 50 years ago when many products were just considered seasonal. We don't need to just eat what we grow in our own backyards but we can adopt a more balanced approach to importing food. And we can certainly encourage more local growing of Canadian produced foods to reduce transportation costs and the related environmental impacts.

We need more than individual tokenism here but an economy built on these principles.

Community Infrastructure Building and A Green New Deal

Capitalism and the so-called free market may do a good job of maximizing short term profits but it needs tempering to serve longer term corporate needs and is a complete failure at serving social needs, often diverting funds to frivolous but profitable expenditures.

Regulations (including labour, environmental, and health and safety standards) can restrain some of the worst aspects of capitalism but only taxation can provide the funds necessary to fulfill our society's needs. This is why, as pointed out earlier in this post, we need a strong progressive tax system especially at the highest levels of income and for corporations.

As well as funding a social safety net in the form of a guaranteed annual income and universal health care and public education, not to mention police and fires services, defence and foreign policy, and on and on, taxation funds necessary public infrastructure.

Side note: Canada Should Be Spending $595 Billion More On Public Services Per Year

This is where the proposed Green New Deal comes in. By building sustainable public infrastructure the public sector can set an example for the private sector on how to do development that is not harmful to the environment.

The most obvious example is transportation which has a huge carbon footprint. Locally improved public transit and cycling infrastructure can reduce the use of individual motor vehicles considerably, even eliminating it's need for short trips. Development of electric transport vehicles, particularly rail, can make a huge reduction in the economic and environmental cost of delivering goods, especially when coupled with production facilities (factories) closer to the final consumers.

The improvement of water, sewage and waste disposal facilities has an obvious environmental benefit.

As well, moving to a more people focused society, as discussed in the next section of this post, will see the need for more educational, arts and community facilities.

And we must not neglect to include publicly funded housing projects to address the chronic need for affordable housing. Public housing projects will provide an opportunity to develop and implement more sustainable building techniques and build housing that has much lower ongoing environmental impacts.

Side Notes: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Wikipedia and Canada Green Building Council - LEED Homes

We now know the best way to provide affordable housing is through co-operative or mixed income housing that does not ghettoize low income earners, Hopefully a guaranteed income at a decent middle class income level will make this less of an issue.

All of this will, of course, provide an employment benefit, increasing the traditional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) standard of living measurement and more importantly increasing the quality of life of the population.

What Type of Society Do We Want

This is the big question. Do we want a society based on people not stuff, living not consuming. But first this.

The Robots Are Taking Over and Taking Our Jobs

Since the first stages of industrialization to the assembly line and beyond to modern robotics there have been two scenarios for this trend. One dystopian. One utopian.

The current capitalist economy tends to be leading us to the dystopian model. As automation leads workers to be more productive, producing more per hour of labour, wages per hour are going down. Workers are earning less for producing more. This is because, unlike early predictions, increased productivity has not led to reduced working hours but to increased unemployment. At some point very few people will be producing a large number goods for a very small number of people and the whole system will collapse.

A New Society For A New Economy

“Whoever has the most stuff when he dies wins” is a reflection of our current capitalist society based on competition where the goal is to prove yourself better than other people by acquiring more stuff, which may include fame and status.

There is a another, more utopian model. The expression "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” reflects a society where everyone contributes according to their ability and has their basic needs met, a social democratic society.

Such a society will produce our basic needs in the most efficient way possible, taking advantage of automation and robotics to free people from the drudgery of producing excessive stuff. We will produce less stuff because our lives will not be based on the status conferred by owning things.

People will still work, but hours of drudgery will be limited and everyone will be guaranteed a decent middle class income. Education will be at the forefront of society with most people serving as both teachers and students. Education, the arts and culture (including writing, music, theatre, movie, TV and video production, etc.) and recreation will provide meaningful employment. There is a huge opportunity for localism here with hopefully a better balance of funding and earnings for local productions compared to international corporate financed productions and so-called superstars earnings.

Connections with the natural world will be emphasized with resource extraction of the wilderness being replaced by sustainable recreation and forms of eco-education and eco-tourism. Sustainable energy sources will replace those based on resource extraction.

A society based on living a more meaningful life will reduce alienation (Side Note: Karl Marx’s Conception of Alienation) and build a sense of community and reduce crime and conflict. While the first stages of new society will allow for some inequality, people realizing they do not want to measure themselves by how much more they own than everyone else will lead to the gradual end of inequality. The lack of desire for the consumption of excessive stuff will put less stress on the planet's resources and environment and avoid future environmental disasters.

And finally Karl Marx and Jesus Christ will rest easily in their graves.

Postscript:

For those asking what about our democratic institutions. That is a completely different blog post. See: THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Democracy

Primitive vs Civilized Societies

As someone born in 1950 and raised and educated in a Eurocentric culture I learned early that civilized societies are intellectually, socially, and technologically superior to primitive societies. This despite the fact that the indigenous peoples of this land I was born on have for centuries had their own distinct languages, long tradition of passing down oral history, sophisticated social structures, and technologies well suited to the land they live on.

Reflection on actual facts indicates the reality is that the real difference between civilized and primitive societies is that one is based on trying to conquer nature while the other is based on living in harmony with it and only one by it's very existence threatens the future of the human species.

Beliefs That Will Destroy The World