Imagining A Post Capitalist World

This is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis but an imagining of some of the features of a post capitalist world.

OK lets get this over with first. The first thing we will notice is the numbers we use to measure the success of a capitalist economy, GDP, GNP and economic growth will look bad. That is because the goals of the new economy will not be excessive production, consumption, energy waste and unsustainable growth. The new economy will be based on people not stuff. While our so-called standard of living will decline our quality of life will increase.

Because of higher minimum wages and a Guaranteed Basic Income everyone will have at least a comfortable modest life with adequate housing and all their basic needs met because there are enough resources to provide this when there is not excessive inequality and waste by the excessively wealthy.

Excessive inequality will be eliminated because of an aggressive progressive tax system based on the principle that everyone should contribute to the society/economy based on their ability.

Everyone, not just the very wealthy, will finally benefit from the use of machines to increase productivity and most drudge work will now be done by machines. The effect will be that everyone will have reduced working hours for a shorter period of their life. Work will no longer be a necessity to survive but something people crave for the fulfillment it brings to their lives.

Because of a societal decision all work requiring intelligence or decision making will be reserved for human beings.

Elimination of the exploitative capitalist practice of producing goods in low wage countries will see the elimination of excessive wasted energy transporting goods as most food will be produced within 100 kilometres of where it is consumed and other goods within 500 kilometres.

With increased time for themselves education will be an important part of everyone’s life and as with health care, treated as a public good and paid for collectively. Arts and culture, theatre and music, will be emphasized with the emphasis on local artists and productions (rather than overpriced “superstars”) as well as outdoor recreation.

Small businesses, where the owner earns his income by working in the business, will be encouraged and supported. For large enterprises, ownership and control of the means of production (factories, computer facilities, etc) will reside with the workers producing the products or providing the services, most often through co-operatives, except for public services like education, health care and public utilities where control and ownership will reside with the people through their democratically elected governments. All workers will have an effective, not just theoretical, right to join a union and bargain collectively.

The overall philosophy of the society/economy will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

COVID-19 Pandemic Reflections and The Next Pandemic

Well the pandemic is over, at least according to most governments, science and medicine not so much. So now it is time to look back, and to look forward.

Perhaps my biggest reflection is that governments, at least in Canada, did not receive the rational criticism for their failures that they should have. The media was intent on concentrating on the irrational response of the anti-science, anti-public health, anti-vaxer crew who were co-opted by the far right white supremacist convoy types in Canada. The left, on the other hand, felt so strongly the need to defend the principle of governments acting to protect Canadians from this deadly pandemic that they failed to properly criticize governments failures in doing so. Not that there was no rational criticism, but what there was was overwhelmed by the Freedumb Convoy Shitshow.

The biggest failure was in not being prepared, even though scientists and public health officials had predicted that pandemics would be commonplace in the future, along with not following the precautionary principle and treating it as airborne until that could be completely ruled out.

But the most egregious, and I would say unforgivable decision, was to not utilize the front line of our health care system, but rather shutting down the vast majority of family physicians’ offices pushing an even greater workload onto the overwhelmed hospital system. This was either complete negligence on the part of the health care system or a clear indication we don’t actually have a health care system but just a bunch of disconnected parts.

As far as messaging goes, we had the use of the language “social distancing” rather than “physical distancing” at a time when maintaining social connections was critical to people’s mental health. Along with that error in messaging was the message to stay inside, rather than stay away from other people, at a time when getting outdoors (with appropriate precautions) could be critical people’s mental health.

However, in the long run, if only coincidental, there is some truth to the arguments for “no more lockdowns” and “we have to learn to live with the pandemic”.

If and when pandemics become a normal part of our reality we will indeed have to learn to live with them and it will not be sustainable to completely shut down our economy and society everytime they occur. Shutdowns or lockdowns, whatever you want to call them, will have to only occur rarely and for short periods when necessary to get an initial grasp of what is happening. And they will of necessity have to be political decisions.

But living with pandemics does not mean ignoring them. It means taking necessary precautions, such as physical distancing, masking with high quality masks, extensive vaccination programs, and, at times, restricting the highest risk activities such as large indoor gatherings of people packed closely together for long periods, methods that have been proven to work and reduce the incidence and seriousness of the outbreaks and most of all save lives.

But most importantly it means being prepared beforehand.

The first step in being prepared is having a primary care system where everyone has access to a primary care physician. In Ontario everyone does not have access to a primary care physician so we urgently need to drain more family doctors, fast track the approval of foreign trained doctors to work in Ontario and increase immigration and training of doctors from abroad, along with increasing the number of nurse practitioners available. And, of course, not shutting the primary care system down during a public health emergency.

We also need to have a hospital system that is not running at over 100% of capacity during the best of times. How do we build in excess capacity without it being inefficient. By using that excess capacity. As it is now so-called elective surgery is ridiculously backlogged. But this elective surgery is not elective at all. What we call elective surgery is surgery for non-life threatening conditions. Knee and hip replacements, eye surgery and many other so called elective surgeries may not be life saving but they certainly can be life changing for many patients for whom they make life worth living again. We can then, in the case of a public health emergency, divert that capacity to save more lives during a future pandemic. Purpose built publicly funded and operated specialty clinics can be part of that solution, and can be used to treat pandemic patients separate from hospitals, reducing the risk of infecting patients in the general hospital population.

And, though it need not be said, when the problem is the lack of doctors and nurses adding profit into the system is not going to solve the problem, only add unnecessary costs.

It also should not have to be said that the lives of vulnerable elderly persons should not be routinely sacrificed to ensure the profit margins of private long-term care facilities, creating a situation where those needless deaths increase exponentially during a pandemic. Being prepared for future pandemics requires that all health care should be publicly funded and operated. Private profit has no place in health care because that profit always has to come at the expense of patient care.

The other need for preparedness is economic. During the COVID pandemic the government scrambled to implement makeshift assistance programs for those economically impacted by the pandemic, and though it helped many it was a very messy solution. What we need is a permanent solution that will not only deal with public health emergencies but also with the economic disruptions of a transition from a fossil fuels based economy to a sustainable energy based economy. What we need is a guaranteed basic income along with a fair progressive taxation system.

There is no justification for not being prepared for the next pandemic.

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.

Lessons We Must Learn From COVID-19 to Build a Better Society

Community is the key to the future. Those societies that are fairing best in responding to COVID 19 are those with a strong sense of community. America's dismal response is not just because of Trump, but also due to the country's overemphasis on individualism over community.

Our public health care system, part of our collective sense of community, was key to our response. It made our ability to control the outbreak possible. But it is still flawed and could not respond was well as it should have because it is underfunded and incomplete. We saw that particularly in the for profit long term care sector, measured in body counts. We must complete the system by extending it to prescription drugs, vision and dental care and most importantly long term care of the elderly and home care. We must eliminate profit from the provision of health care so that patient care and profits are never competing for funds. Most importantly we must realize that health is the most important priority for everyone and under-funding health care in order to promise lower taxes is in nobody's best interest.

Our economic safety net was the next most important factor in our successful response. Unfortunately we did not have a proper system in place to respond and the government had to respond with a series of patchwork measures put together quickly which, while it managed to avoid the worst of our southern neighbours problems, it still left the most disadvantaged, well still disadvantaged. That series of measures, as necessary as they were, increased both the deficit and national debt because the government, that has been under-taxing the wealthy for decades, did not have the financial capability it should have.

What we needed and what we need is a basic guaranteed annual income, and not just one to keep people barely above the poverty line but one designed to provide a decent quality of life for everyone.

We say 'we are all in this together" but we clearly are not equally in this together and never will be as long as we live in a society of massive economic inequality.

We talk about groups such as seniors being more at risk but in reality the biggest risk factor with COVID 19 is economic status. Those placed at highest risk, our so-called front-line heroes, those responsible for producing and providing our food and goods, are working in cramped and unsafe conditions, along with those working in high risk long term care facilities, are the biggest group of COVID 19 victims. And these are the people most susceptible to the economic consequence of COVID 19, often living from paycheck to paycheck. A few extra dollars per hour for a few weeks is not the solution.

We must deal with the economic inequality in our society by raising incomes at the bottom and reducing them at the extreme top end. CEOs of corporations who make their profits and fortunes from minimum wage earners simply do not earn the millions of dollars per year they are paid. They are paid that because of an unequal economic and political system. We must reform our tax system so that those that can afford to pay more do and those at the bottom pay less at the same time as we reduce the gap between the bottom and the top.

We need to raise minimum wages to a level that provides a decent quality of live and use the tax system to redistribute the wealth of the excessively overpaid. We cannot build the type of community and society we need on a basis of extreme inequality.

We also cannot build the society we need without concern for the environment it lives within and without addressing the challenge of climate change.

We need to build a new society, based on community rather than individualism, if we want to meet the challenges of the future and this includes a move from more individual spending to more collective spending. Fundamental change is required if we are to survive the challenges of the future and thrive within it.

Also of Interest:

THE FIFTH COLUMN: Towards a Green Social Democratic Economy

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Democracy

The Pensioner and the Pandemic and ...

The Government Wants to Lock Me in My Room

Well this blog post is taking somewhat of a change of direction from that planned, which was to focus on the benefits of being a retired pensioner at this time, since the Ontario government is telling me that I will suddenly be at risk for COVOD-19 on my birthday in a few days and should (or must, depending on the source) self-isolate for 14 days after which I will be fine again (or maybe not, depending on the source).

This puts me in a strange position as someone who has been critical of those who do not listen to the experts and health authorities on the verge of engaging in civil disobedience by ignoring them. I am put in a position where they want me to change my healthy lifestyle and lock myself in a room for two weeks (or longer) presumably because of a statistical relationship between age and a presumed greater degree of risk COVID-19.

From the Ontario government website.

Self-isolating means staying at home and avoiding contact with other people to help prevent the spread of disease to others in your home and your community.

All persons over 70 years of age and individuals who are immunocompromised are advised to self-isolate for a period of 14 days. This means that you should only leave your home or see other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands. (The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) | Ontario.ca)

From the results page for the COVID-19 self-assessment with all questions answered in the negative except for age over 70. (Coronavirus (COVID-19) self-assessment)

Self-assessment result

You must self-isolate at home and monitor your health because you are part of an at-risk group.

You are in an at-risk group because you said one of the following applies to you:

• are over 70 years of age

You must self-isolate, which means:

• only leave your home or see other people for critical reasons (like a medical emergency)
• seek services over the phone or online or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours
• do not go into a hospital or clinic to get a COVID-19 test unless you are asked to by a health care provider

The first thing one notices if one reads carefully is that the first references uses “advised” and “for a period of 14 days” and the second reference uses “must” and has no reference to a time period.

And the latest, as reported by CTV News refers to “strongly recommending”.

TORONTO -- Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health (Dr. David Williams ) is now recommending that all people over the age of 70 self-isolate given the elevated risk of "severe outcomes" should they contract COVID-19.

"Given the greater risk of severe outcomes to Ontarians who are elderly, I am also strongly recommending that individuals over 70 years of age self-isolate," Williams wrote. "This means only leaving home or seeing other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands."

Meanwhile people over 70 comprise only 14% of COVID-19 cases in Canada as reported in this Ottawa Citizen article: "New data: Middle-aged Canadians most likely to catch COVID-19, so far". The percentage of Canadians over 65 was 14% in 2010 and growing (Statistics Canada) making it clear that the percentage of COVID-19 cases among those over 70 today is clearly below that of the general population. We are at less risk statistically not more risk.

But that really is not the point. There clearly is a subset of older Canadians with health concerns that require them to be more cautious and take more precautions, as there are within all age groups, in particular those that are immunocompromised and those that smoke or vape, due to the respiratory nature of the disease.

A blanket policy based on age discrimination does not seem to be the way to deal with health concerns that are specific to individuals and is not going to sit well with my comrades in this generation.

Fortunately there has been no indication that the province will use legal instruments to enforce this which is probably a good thing because we are a generation that grew up with civil disobedience.

COVID-19 and Poverty/Inequality

At the same time another important factor of this pandemic is one that has almost entirely been ignored by the establishment press, or mainstream media as it is sometimes called, and that is economic status.

When it comes to underlying health factors that make individuals more susceptible to the virus and less able to combat it economic status is a big determinant. It determines the quality of nutrition, as well as housing conditions (overcrowding, etc.) and other lifestyle factors, as well as the quality of health care one has access to. This is not just on an individual basis but also on a societal one with poorer countries in a much more difficult position to fight off the pandemic. Yet we see very little written about that in the media.

As we see with the rapid response to COVID-19, compared with the feeble response to climate change, governments are much better at reacting to acute crisis than to chronic problems. We see this as governments quickly jump in to deal with symptoms of climate change like flooding or hurricanes while their response to the real problem is feeble.

COVID-19 has brought with it not just a health crisis but an economic one, one that has affected the group governments claim to care most about, the middle class. Governments are scrambling to deal with the loss of jobs and income while also trying to deal with a major health crisis.

But what if they had taken inequality seriously. What if we had a guaranteed basic income (such as that proposed by Conservative Hugh Segal) in place. The government would not have had to scramble and stumble into implementing make shift programs. The solution for those displaced from employment and income would already have been in place

Postscript: The Great Outdoors is Closed

And apparently now the outdoors is closed in Ontario.

In a news release on Monday night, Ford announced a new emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The order closes all outdoor recreational amenities, such as sports fields and playgrounds, effective immediately.

He said the extension of the declared emergency and the new emergency order are based on the advice of Dr. David Williams, Ontario's chief medical officer of health.

According to the news release, the new order closes all communal or shared, public or private, outdoor recreational amenities in Ontario. These include playgrounds, sports fields, basketball and tennis courts, off-leash dog parks, beaches, skateboard and BMX parks, picnic areas, outdoor community gardens, park shelters, outdoor exercise equipment, condo parks and gardens, and other outdoor recreational amenities.

Green spaces in parks, trails, ravines and conservation areas that aren't closed are to remain open for people to walk through, but people must maintain a distance of at least two metres apart. Ontario's provincial parks and conservation reserves remain closed. (Ontario extends state of emergency by 2 weeks as number of COVID-19 cases now 1,706 | CBC News)

Healthy lifestyles are what will create a population most resilient to health challenges such as COVID-19. Being out in nature and exercising contribute greatly to this. At a time when we are encouraging, indeed requiring, physical distancing (previously referred to as social distancing) it seems counterproductive to close those areas that provide the space for people to practice physical distancing without locking themselves up in their homes in fear.

Final Words

None of this is to say that we should not take this seriously and listen to the health experts when they tell us to practice physical distancing to reduce the spread of the disease.

Background

Coronavirus - Wikipedia

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - Wikipedia

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Wikipedia