what i was hoping was that this government would see the economic logic in supporting a carbon transition, so that we would have this kind of two-handed approach, where the government was both supporting ecological sustainability and environmental destruction at the same time - and, yes, it would be a terrible contradiction, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

what is defining this government is that it is actually defining it's environmental policy in lockstep with industry; we are not seeing the perpetuation of this contradiction, but rather the elimination of it. the most substantive legal changes they've made are an industry-friendly overhaul of the regulatory process (which the ndp also supported, btw); everything they've been doing is designed with the intent to reduce the government to a rubber stamp, and to act as a pr agency for the oil industry. it's not climate denial, it's climate apathy.

at least if there was an actual contradiction here, we could point to substantive, meaningful movement. but, there isn't. the infrastructure bank that was supposed to fund large scale transition projects is a joke. they're squandering a huge opportunity to industrialize marijuana waste products into petroleum alternative products. and, the carbon tax is just making environmentalism look bad, as it taxes consumers while giving industry a free pass.

i guess i underestimated the power of the oil lobby. renewables will need to find a way to bribe this government if it wants it to act.

as it is, the consistency is in truth very clear: oil matters, the environment doesn't - because money talks.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/06/21/Trudeau-Climate-Policy-Inadequate/

when we talk about "regulated capitalism", we often neglect to ask the question: who is doing the regulating? and, this is exceedingly important to stop and ponder, because in a system where property rights are enshrined as quasi-religious dictates, there is no possible answer to that question besides industry.

so, these "progressives" produce this false dichotomy, where they pit free markets and self-regulation against government regulation, as though the government isn't completely bought and paid for by industry - and has no choice but to be for capitalism to function.

"regulated capitalism" is consequently a contradiction in terms; the only possible regulators are the people that you're trying to regulate.

and, to a large extent, understanding this specific point is what socialism is really all about: we have to take control ourselves.

it really is socialism or barbarism. there is no third way.

so, when bernie talks about full employment as a human right within a system of regulated capitalism, there's three ways to interpret it.

1) he's just flat out full of shit.
2) he hasn't actually thought it through.
3) he's more radical than he's suggesting.

i think the right answer is (2).

so, what might an actual socialist say about something like a "jobs guarantee", or, as it is sometimes referred to by left-capitalists, "full employment"?

well, let's begin by understanding that labour is a commodity like anything else, and a capitalist always seek to reduce costs by any means in order to maximize profit. so, the capitalists - here, meaning those that own capital - are constantly seeking to reduce the cost of labour in order to maximize their own profits, that's just what capitalism is. and, this is what the class war is about: workers needing to band together to find ways to stop capitalists from exploiting them, which they will do in ever increasingly surreal ways if left to their own devices. there are no good capitalists - the game is that you cheat and lie and steal to get ahead.

as labour is a commodity, and capitalists seek to reduce it's cost, the law of supply and demand dictates that they ought to desire there to be a surplus of labour. when there is a deficit of labour, as there was after the small pox epidemic in america or after the plague in europe, then the price of labour goes up, which cuts into profit. capital wants to avoid this by always ensuring that there are more people than are required to do the jobs that need to be done for the society that exists around us to flourish.

(as an aside, an understanding of this is a part of the reason i don't work. if the capitalists want there to be more people than are required, then i'll volunteer to be surplus labour and go do something else, instead.)

how does capital ensure that it is maximizing it's own interests in creating a labour surplus? the answer to that question is via government regulation. through direct or indirect financing, the interests of capital (largely articulated through banking institutions) will do something called "capture" the government to behave in it's interests. that is, they work via systems of bribes and incentives, as well as through the revolving door. immigration policy in the united states (as well as in canada) has long been designed by the interests of capital to encourage excess amounts of immigration in order to reduce the price of labour. establishment politicians will then hold on to power by blaming the immigrants for "stealing jobs" and suppressing wages, in order to distract from the fact that the system is designed this way - this is what the capitalists actually want.

so, do you use government regulation to ensure a job guarantee? well, it's hard to make sense of such a thing, when you understand that the way it actually works is that the banks use government regulation as a tool to suppress wages with.

socialism does indeed call for full employment, but it does so not as a human right but as a consequence of the abolition of property. it is only when we take collective control of the means of production, that is when we abolish capitalism, that it will make sense to talk about full employment.

so long as the banks control the government via what is called "regulated capitalism", you will never see a jobs guarantee. it doesn't make sense within the constructs of the existing economy.