Skip to main content

Dicing And Slicing. Why Not BE Done With It?

One million Ontarians are on welfare. The recent report called A Roadmap for Change calls for a 22 per cent increase in welfare spending over the next three years costing an estimated 3.2 billion a year. It recommends a housing allowance akin to a voucher, a pharma-care and dental assistance plan for the working poor as well as those on welfare and proposes a rock-bottom poverty line of $22,000 for a single person and 30 per cent more for the disabled.

 As fine as this may seem, it doesn't mean a party running for office will get elected if it promises to implement such a plan. Our intrepid friends at the Toronto Star have done their research and concluded many will vote against such proposals, considering them a waste of money. They will, the Star's reporters assert, want their needs taken care of first, like hydro rate deductions, child care subsidies and a reduction in income tax.

If we take the above seriously, it means a program to considerably reduce poverty will not get its advocates elected, and even if they are, the next bunch who attempt to administrate the daily running of capitalism may abolish some of it; Mike Harris's government of the 1990's, which,' 'sliced and diced'' welfare payments, being an example.
So where does that leave us?
 It's significant that none of the major parties promise to abolish poverty because they've learned they cannot. All they can do is take steps to reduce it. So why not have done with all parties who stand for capitalist society, which by its very nature creates poverty? Why not have done with capitalism. So why not organize and work for a society where poverty and welfare payments will be a thing of the past?

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John & contributing members of the SPC.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…