New Economy

New Economy

By Rick Smith

Under the guise of economic prosperity, the upper class interests of Canada have attached a siphon to the resource of the general public. In this way, they have been able to consistently post record profits while simultaneously inflicting insufferable damage on the working class, the environment and the social fabric of Canada to distract the average person from their ravenous crusade for an infinite supply of wealth. To recover from this, Canadians must use the ideas of New Democracy to implement a new way to run the economy that allows for common ownership of the means of production (Mamlaka), community and individual management of smaller businesses, and democratic rule at the workplace. It is only through these ways that life can be enjoyed instead of remaining a trek to produce wealth for others while one waits their turn for riches that will never come.

Mamlaka is a concept drawn up to refer to community ownership of the means of production, but could go as far as to include national ownership. It is a Swahili word that means “right of ownership” and was selected because of the natural right of all people to control the mechanisms by which wealth is produced. This fits into the New Economy in several different ways. First off, it is important for a community to own the means of production that lie within their boundaries and extend little beyond them. The best example for this is a steel mill or other type of plant or factory, with the reasons for being placed in the hands of the community multitudinous. The discharge of the steel plant can have acute repercussions on the community, including environmental damage and health hazards. Not only would compensation through the profits earned be put into the community, but excesses could be avoided because of the loss of the reckless pursuit of profit. Factories typically surround poor neighbourhoods, so whatever money is made from production at the factory would go into improving the adjacent community’s aesthetics, structures, infrastructure and public services. In terms of what’s good for the workers, having to deal with members of a community as opposed to those with gold in their eyes would remove the burden of facing a financially powerful and aggressively oppressive collection of owners and their upper management puppets would likely mean greater results in the ongoing fight for good pensions, benefits and pay. It is well-documented that a common corporate practice is to take the money made at their individual chains at the end of every week and transfer it to their headquarters. This exploits communities not only of the profits that they earned but of the base of wealth and labour that they had to being with. With the means of production in the hands of the community, profits would not even leave town let alone transcend international borders. Essentially, Mamlaka is the belief that communities have a natural right to own the means of production within their borders, and that the same applies to different levels of government where the ownership must be of a wider scope, such as the case with railways being owned by the federal government.

Similar to Mamlaka, it is also advisable for Community Associations or Neighbourhood Congresses to seek out ownership of businesses. This could include convenience stores, grocery stores, ice cream parlours or anything of the kind. Unlike the means of production, however, these types of businesses do not qualify to be under Mamlaka under the principle that they are not depended upon for the finished product. Anybody who has taken a stroll in a more traditional marketplace than a mall (think of a Farmer’s Market) knows that the availability of independent retailers can be a good thing. Furthermore, opposition to big business and rampant competition is necessary because their reckless pursuit of cost-cutting leaves the workers as the inevitable victims while touching nothing of the multi-million dollar paychecks of the bosses. However, in a smaller marketplace whose products come from sources that are not competing for cheap costs, prices do not dip so low as to necessitate worker victimization. For this reason, while the marketplaces should be in public hands, the various stands should be managed by those with a good knowledge of the product in order to maximize the efficiency of the system. In order that this may happen, a degree of private business must be allowed, but the key is to limit their extent so as to limit competition. After all, what good is a marketplace that only sells one product? Ideally, this marketplace would have each stand selling unique products rather than place various stands in competition who sell the same produce, meat, dairy, baked goods or clothing. Additionally, there is a common practice in the business world that involves chains wherein the ownership transfers all profits made at the franchise to headquarters, effectively sapping the community dry of their money. Wal-Mart in particular is a common practitioner. Thus, chains should be discouraged and instead business should get back to its roots of being local and working for the community.

It is a common argument from the capitalist pundits that competitiveness is good because it keeps prices low for the consumer. While this is in some ways true, it is inescapable that competitiveness inevitably reaches the point where workers in the means of production become the victims, as has come to be the reality. Even with the means of production in the hands of the people, there is no guarantee that the retail sphere will not become a cataclysmic battleground. The solution to this problem is not without its complexities: small businesses must be encouraged and supported wholeheartedly by the community. To do this requires that the community councils and all members of the community alike donate their undivided support to local, small butchers, bakers, mechanics and convenience stores and turn away from chain stores. The advantages of small businesses as opposed to big businesses are many. For one, small business owners tend to live in the community that they operate in and are unlikely to take the money away from the community. This ensures that if the business does well, so too does the community. Another advantage is that small business owners tend to also work in their stores, as opposed to the investors and executives in large businesses who contribute nothing to the business yet make the most money off of it. Yet another advantage is that they are often more personable and integrated into the community than franchisees are and are unlikely to ruthlessly overcharge and more likely to provide quality service. Lastly, the bonds that they form in the community lay the foundation for the means of production being more interwoven with the business for the good of the common person. With the means of production in the hands of the community, the business is therefore answerable to the community, unlike large corporations who often dictate to their suppliers the prices that the retailer will pay – again, a common Wal-Mart practice.

In everything, the New Economy that will emerge must be made to work for the common person. The pursuit of profit for individual greed leaves communities shattered, tainting them with bitter divisions as well as sucking dry their wealth and placing it in the hands of a few manipulative people. For this reason, Mamlaka is desirable for the means of production and small businesses and marketplaces desirable as the means of distribution. In everything, people must look out for one another, and for this to happen there can be no allowance of greed.