This is the Essay prepared in the attached files and there is the remarks of the professor regarding the paper written. Can it be fixed according to the instruction.

This is the Essay prepared in the attached files and there is the remarks of the professor regarding the paper written. Can it be fixed according to the instruction.
ECONOMICS ESSAY 18 Future of capitalism We acknowledged toward the beginning of the undertaking that options can’t and don’t just show up pre-framed from outside existing society. At the end of the day, the battle to break with neoliberal capitalism essentially starts inside the authentic limits of neoliberalism. Subsequently, options must be looked for in ordinary and existing battles. To perceive the essentially recorded explicitness of battles to conquer neoliberal capitalism isn’t to forsake general yearnings for social equity or basic procedures of opposition. Despite what might be expected, by breaking down how capitalism works, supporters of this book have attempted to give an expository system inside which a procedure of progress can be formed. To this end, we share a gauge comprehension of what is expected to establish another option. That is, any adjust local must substitute sharp differentiation to any type of misuse and abuse, and it must be accomplished through working and mainstream class organization. There is no proof that entrepreneurs and their supporters will surrender their collected institutional and material force and control energetically. Reformist change must be accomplished from underneath In this weighty investigation of the budgetary emergency, famous revolutionary political financial specialists uncover the foundations of the emergency in the inward rationale of capitalism itself. Objective and point by point, this record provocatively moves the require a re-visitation of a generally legendary brilliant period of monetary guideline as a keep an eye on money capital. What’s more, it deftly enlightens how the period of neoliberal free business sectors has been, by and by, under-braced by state mediation for a gigantic scope. Contending for truly groundbreaking options in contrast to capitalism, and talking about how to construct the aggregate ability to understand these objectives, this record is an investigation of the emergency and a basic springboard for a reestablished political left. All through the book, Albo et al bring up the issue regarding whether the Left can build up the certainty to think as large and extremist as “they”— the decision class—are doing as far as both how laborers see the future and what should be done to construct the abilities to arrive. “The path forward”, they contend (p.114) be that as it may, “isn’t to make one stride first and another more extreme advance later, yet to discover methods of incorporating both the prompt requests and the objective of foundational change into the structure of new political limits.” As they remind (p.128), ‘vote-based system isn’t only a type of government however a sort of society’, which unavoidably stays partial and fragmented inside capitalism. Capitalism can be termed as an arrangement of administration for financial activities which have been established in many settings besides keeping on advancing time by time. The consequence is that it evades basic meanings. The Macmillan Dictionary based on Modern Economics identifies capitalism with Political, social, as well as monetary context whereby property like capital resources is appealed as well as controlled largely by individuals. Hence, Capitalism includes a monetary framework, feudal system, characterized by the getting cash compensation somewhat than the instant work got via custom, responsibility, or else order in feudalism. Within capitalism, the identified and valued instrument is used as a flagging framework that labels assets between employments. How much the esteemed instrument is used, the degree of force in business areas and the level of government intervention perceive exact kinds of capitalism. This bleak definition perceives free enterprise as a social, political, as well as the monetary system that succeeded feudalism reliant on the affirmation of the benefits of private get-togethers to pick how to use their work and capital in business divisions as shown by market costs instead of show. It sees the worth part as its key arranging contraption instead of request and control and suggests that business visionary structures are discernable from one another relying upon the degree and nature of regulatory interventions and the earnestness of their business segments. Nevertheless, this definition provides just a concise prologue to the thought of capitalism as a framework. It doesn’t, for instance, recognize immediate and backhanded methods of legislative intercession nor its managerial and pioneering jobs. Governments may intervene directly in business areas through such exercises as clutching land by conspicuous space or nationalizing a firm; of course, they may intercede in a roundabout way by altering the institutional foundations where market trades happen, e.g., changing the size, shape, or territory of a market, or adjusting the rights and commitments of various classes of money related performers, the standards of accounting, and so on.. A couple of inquiries, notwithstanding, may ask further unloading. Considering the moving creation of the average workers and the part of ladies’ regenerative work, how might the development of aggregate social administrations, for example, in medical care and instruction, for example, sway ladies paid and unpaid educational encounters are given their situation in the work market overall and focus in explicit segments? Given the tradition of thrashings and difficulties over the time of neoliberalism, how may associations—many caught in past social-popularity based gatherings and the limitations of formal association structures—discover some premise of solidarity that could help shape aggregate battles in common networks and interface the linkages between the utilized and jobless, and those denied an opportunity to work? What sorts of new authoritative structures and emanant types of activism all through North America and abroad convey potential? Microeconomics is the investigation of how showcases—the typical characterizing organization of capitalism—facilitate decentralized dynamic through a valuable instrument to bring gracefully and request into balance. In this tried and true point of view, capitalism is a to a great extent automatic financial framework where the correct part of government is restricted to giving certain essential public merchandise and ventures easily. Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, the writer of the main economics coursebook and previous Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, as of late helped perusers to remember the Wall Street Journal of this perspective, asserting: “Adam Smith was correct when he said that ‘Little else is needed to convey a state to the furthest extent of extravagance from the most reduced savageness yet harmony, simple duties and an okay organization of equity.'” Smith’s clarification for this moderate part for the government was gotten from his original knowledge that the evaluating instrument would facilitate the activities of private entertainers to accomplish socially ideal results. Or on the other hand, in Smith’s words: “As each person… attempts… to utilize his capital in the help of homegrown industry, thus to coordinate that industry that its product might be of most prominent worth; each works to deliver the yearly income of the society as incredible as possible he is in this, as in numerous different cases, driven by an undetectable hand to advance an end which was no aspect of his expectation.” In any case, if market costs are to organize the exercises of money related performers so they suddenly help the earnings for society similarly concerning individuals, by then those market costs must reflect certifiable social costs and favorable circumstances. While markets may well reflect such costs and points of interest, there are certain remarkable conditions where they disregard to do accordingly. Externalities, where certain costs and favorable circumstances are not associated with the market framework, are the snappiest exceptional case to Smith’s assumption. Externalities reflect imperfections in the laws and rules that make up the market structures. These flaws cannot sincerely be updated by the money related performers themselves; the modifications must be made by a political position, i.e., government. Furthermore, any structure must be modernized periodically thinking about changing conditions and changing social needs, and this again requires government. But on the off chance that the market structures are appropriately adjusted, including as conditions change, by then, there can be no insistence that the enhancement of individual vocations approximates a similar outcome for society. To state that little is required from the government yet harmony, simple duties, and okay organization is to neglect the fundamental part of the government in giving the legitimate and administrative systems that are basic to capitalism. It lessens the investigation of capitalism to the examination of how markets work in a static setting that has expected away from the administrative and political issues. This part expects to present the political economy of capitalism to observe two methods of legislative intercession, immediate and indirect, and to feature two varying functions of government, authoritative and innovative. The part starts with a severe meaning of capitalism which points out the possibility that capitalism is a socio-political framework just as one that is monetary. I will update this definition to consolidate the possibility that free enterprise is an abnormal game plan of managing an economy wherein distinctive money related performers are allowed to fight to serve the necessities of customers as shown by a ton of laws and rules, and where the accompanying competition serves to provoke the planning of human essentialness and capacity similarly as various advantages for help society similarly as the monetary performers themselves. Sorted out games give a valuable relationship through which to pick up experiences on capitalism. Composed games might be viewed as having a three-level arrangement of administration, through which a political position appoints the principles and guidelines that structure the game itself. An industrialist society can be separated into a comparative structure, in which a political authority assembles assets to give and oversee the foundation that encourages and structures monetary action. At last, firms, similar to sports groups, contend inside this structure. In the wake of introducing a three-level model of capitalism, I will glance in more detail at every one of these levels to recognize a portion of the key organs of an industrialist framework. To outline the political and authoritative parts of government in an entrepreneur framework, I present three figurative market structures to show how they can be formed or inclined for reasons of strategy. I substance out these thoughts with two instances of item advertises that have been molded for strategy reasons, and afterward a model from the factor markets (for work). All in all, I recommend that the administration plays a functioning and fundamental part in a well-working industrialist economy, and not one that is either uninvolved or fringe. The government’s indirect method of intercession in the framework might be undetectable to the undeveloped eye, however, this is in certainty its critical mode. Value flags that are communicated through business sectors can arrange the activities of financial entertainers, without the requirement for plans or requests from government, yet there are no proper business sectors without guidelines and framework, and no real guidelines or foundation except if they have been made, kept up, legitimated and, if need be, modernized by political power. Besides, the definition gives no sign that legislature has very various functions in capitalism, one generally regulatory in guaranteeing the support of the current framework, and one pioneering, in preparing capacity to accomplish administrative approval to make changes, regardless of whether parents in law, guidelines or the arrangement of such open products as foundation, the police power, schools or general wellbeing framework. In this part and the following, I will give models from every one of the four quadrants to show the different manners by which administrative activity is basic to a powerful entrepreneur framework. Capitalism, as we define the term, is an indirect administration plan depends on a complex and ceaselessly improved political deal where private entertainers are controlled by a political power to possess and control the property usage for increase in private matters to a set of laws and guidelines. Laborers are permitted to work for compensation, capital is accepted to win a return, and both capital and work are permitted to enter or exit from various business lines. Capitalism majorly depends on the estimating component to change gracefully and requests in sectors of business; it depends on the benefits rationale to apportion openings and assets among contending providers, and it also depends on a position on political affairs (government) to create up the standards and guidelines with the aim of incorporating all fitting cultural expenses and benefits. The specialists of the government are responsible to offer physical protection to property and people just as the laws and guidelines. Industrialist improvement is worked from the interest in innovations that grant expanded profitability, where an assortment of activities is chosen through a Darwinian cycle that favors beneficial employments of those assets, and from the intermittent modernization of the lawful and administrative structure as demonstrated by changing economic situations and cultural needs. Industrialist advancement necessitates that administration assume two jobs, one managerial, in giving and keeping up the establishments that support capitalism, and the other pioneering, in assembling capacity to modernize these foundations varying. Capitalism stands out from prior financial frameworks portrayed by constrained work, independence, deal, or potentially complementary connections dependent on family, clan, or privately known connections. It additionally appears differently concerning later frameworks where governments have acted straightforwardly through possession or potentially focal intending to control the utilization of assets. The government’s method of intercession in an entrepreneur framework is essentially backhanded: it makes, legitimates, manages, and occasionally modernizes the different market systems that illuminate the conditions wherein the monetary entertainers may secure and utilize capital and work to deliver, circulate, and sell merchandise and ventures. In like manner, financial entertainers get the option to utilize their capacity in rivalry with others, subject to winning laws and guidelines. The market structures can have very unique strategy needs, from securing business as usual to the advancement of development and improvement, from ensuring purchasers to securing makers, and from securing work to ensuring capital. Governments indicate the obligations of the different members in these exchanges, e.g., for the security and usefulness of the items, just as the conditions under which they are created and conveyed. Along these lines, this aberrant arrangement of administration unavoidably encapsulates a methodology, however, this system is frequently to a great extent certain as opposed to unmistakable and made step by step after some time instead of as a stupendous arrangement. While fruitful capitalism will depend on the conceding of ability of private entertainers to contend in, enter as well as exit from industry sectors, it likewise depends upon the state’s ability to control the private entertainers with the objective that they don’t privately deal with these forces. To be real just as profitable, private financial entertainers must be limited by the standard of law, and this standard of law must be depended on the state’s coercive forces. The state’s forces are used controlling the private entertainers from defying the norms and, if need be, to settle debates. Effective capitalism is dependent upon state syndication of coercive forces. Nonetheless, the state’s syndication of authentic coercive force suggests that it can tyrannize its subjects. Thus, effective capitalism additionally relies on the formation of governing rules set up through the organizing of the state’s constituent branches (chief, administrative, and legal) and levels of government (bureaucratic, state, and nearby) to guarantee that the state doesn’t infringe on the private spaces held for the common society. Eventually, the readiness and city cognizance of society are fundamental if its chosen delegates are to restrict the state’s intercessions in the commercial center and the allurements of state authorities to guarantee an unnecessary portion of secretly earned additions. I investigate the political parts of entrepreneur administration in the following section. Entrepreneur frameworks ordinarily depend on the state to unveil direct arrangement of specific products, including expressways, schools, and law implementation, just as to cease from the compulsion to possess, work, or straightforwardly control the monetary entertainers. On the off chance that the state turns into a direct monetary entertainer, for instance as the proprietor of enormous undertakings, it turns into a player just as a ref. This puts state specialists in jobs that contention—for instance, as a controller and as a player that need not be dependent upon the order of the business sectors. There are times when states may assume the two functions, as on account of a public crisis or regular imposing business model, however, it is ideal if these medications are for reasons of state, for example, public security. If immediate mediations are boundless as well as last uncertainly, they welcome debasement and the mutilation of market systems to help a couple of to the detriment of society in general. Capitalism, as well, can be seen as a three-level framework, as recommended in the Figure below. On the main level—the business sectors—, firms contend to make sure about their work and capital just as to serve their customers. The subsequent level includes of the essential institutional establishments, including the social as well as physical foundation; physical system incorporates, in addition, transportation and interchanges, and social framework will incorporate the instructive, general health, and lawful frameworks. Furthermore, the subsequent level contains of the operators of the government who implement the principles and guidelines, including particular controllers who supervise conduct in specific enterprises, for example, those that manage food and medications or transportation, and the individuals who secure cultural assets, for example, the physical condition or wellbeing in the work environment. The third level comprises of a political position—commonly one with particular capacities, for example, leader, authoritative, and legal branches. Thusly, a lot of political foundations associate the political power to the political business sectors (decisions, which might be pretty much law-based) and in the long run to common society, to which such authority is eventually responsible. I will associate the financial and political frameworks in more prominent detail in the following part. Hitherto to have contended that composed games and capitalism are practically identical frameworks that work on three levels. Yet, while there are numerous likenesses between sorted out games and capitalism, there are some critical contrasts, the greater part of which originate from central contrasts in the motivation behind the separate frameworks. The reason for sorted out games is to encourage occasional rivalry among competitors, regardless of whether as people or in groups, both to energize and perceive athletic greatness and to give a diversion to the general population. To this end, each wearing challenge begins again, groups are of equivalent size, and the preferences picked up by a group during a game or a season are relinquished toward the finish of a season or year. Moreover, and significantly, the passage of new groups is constrained by an arrangement of establishments that may just be conceded by a donning authority, which acts under an antitrust exception, and along these lines has power over its brandishing alliance, similar to a state. New classes can be sorted out, yet each has its purview. Capitalism is intended to advance the profitable utilization of cultural assets all together address shopper issues in the short run and to increase the expectation of living through time. Thus, its administrative systems offer the need to advancing profitability as opposed to the fine purposes of balancing serious assets on a given day or during a given season. Simultaneously, with uncommon special cases, capitalism is directed afterward, and not progressively how composed games are. The controllers don’t stop the play to evaluate a foul, nor end the opposition to analyze a questionable occasion through “moment replay.” The economy proceeds onward and debates are settled sometime later, in court if need be. Since economies of scale will upgrade profitability, it follows that capitalism for the most part allows the collection of preferences, subject to specific exemptions, and certain cutoff points on satisfactory conduct. It likewise follows that capitalism licenses “groups”— i.e., firms—of fundamentally various sizes to enter and leave ventures without the endorsement of different members, and it allows the section of new contenders with new advancements that may give them a bit of leeway over every single other contender. Accordingly, capitalism allows and energizes multifaceted rivalry among firms of various sizes utilizing various assets on more than a solitary battleground (or industry) at once. As referred to in the prologue to this section, costs arrange choices as far as gracefully and interest for all ways of products and ventures. Furthermore, they facilitate flexibly and request factor markets, for example, for work, capital, innovation, and, most as of late, information. This recommends we need a more nitty-gritty model of capitalism that perceives various sorts of business sectors and the functions of different monetary entertainers. What’s more, it likewise recommends that we need a model that adds different components to every one of the levels in the framework. The idea of the level battleground is utilized in capitalism as in sports, however, entrepreneur rivalry, controlled, isn’t intended to unfurl between equivalent groups, nor conditions that must be “level.” Advantages, for example, a battleground inclined in support of oneself, become potential wellsprings of extra—and possibly combined—favorable circumstances. Since capitalism is intended to advance efficiency, it tends to be required to advance disparities of salary and riches, and first movers in innovation may maintain their preferences for quite a long time. Entrepreneur rivalry is for a long time, not for sport. Bibliography Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state, and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of sustainable tourism, 19(4-5), 459-477. Braun, B., Gabor, D., & Huber, M. (2018). Governing through financial markets: Towards a critical political economy of Capital Markets Union. Competition & Change, 22(2), 101-116. Duke low, F. (2020). Debt, austerity capitalism, and the welfare state. In Handbook on Society and Social Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. Garrod, J. Z. (2018). Imperialism or global capitalism? Some reflections from Canada. Studies in Political Economy, 99(3), 268-284. Morgan, J. (2018). Culture and the political economy of schooling: what’s left for education? Routledge. ÖZDEMİR, O., & KAYHAN, F. (2019). The Effect of Global Financial Crisis on Securities Portfolio of Deposit Banks: A Difference-In-Differences Method for Turkey. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(1), 444-466. ÖZDEMİR, O., & KAYHAN, F. (2019). The Effect of Global Financial Crisis on Securities Portfolio of Deposit Banks: A Difference-In-Differences Method for Turkey. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(1), 444-466. Panayiotis, C. (2020). Neoliberalism, the Left and the Rise of the Far Right: On the Political and Ideological Implications of Capitalism’s Subordination of Democracy. Democratic Theory, 7(1), 48-72. Yagi, K., Yokokawa, N., Hagiwara, S., & Demoski, G. (Eds.). (2013). Crises of Global Economies and the Future of Capitalism: Reviving Marxian Crisis Theory (Vol. 110). Routledge.
This is the Essay prepared in the attached files and there is the remarks of the professor regarding the paper written. Can it be fixed according to the instruction.
Remarks of the professor: Alas, this is a very poor submission and universally deficient at almost every level. For example, your introductory remarks (similar to much of the other content in your essay) make very little sense to me, and there is no genuine indication that you have actually conducted any research – save for the Albo reference and the obvious ‘padding’ of your ‘references’ page. Indeed, you have to do more than simply list a few books – you need to cite them and demonstrate an understand of why they are relevant or useful within the context of your own analysis. As it stands, you have submitted an F paper.
This is the Essay prepared in the attached files and there is the remarks of the professor regarding the paper written. Can it be fixed according to the instruction.
Written Assignment Length: Approximately 3500-4000 words (about 15-17 pages) In their book, In and Out of Crisis: The Global Financial Meltdown and Left Alternatives, Albo et al. (2010, p. 114) argue that the time has come to move away from discussions about alternative policies and toward discussions of an alternative politics. What do they mean by this, and are their arguments convincing? Do the authors examined in (“The Revival of Critical Political Economy and the Future of Capitalism”) find the future of capitalism compelling? Why or why not? In your view, does the future of capitalism appear promising? Why or why not? essay must include the following components: a brief introduction that provides an overview of the topic to be discussed; a main section that develops and substantiates the issues mentioned in the introduction; a summary/conclusion section that pulls together or summarizes what your essay discusses; it should briefly outline the significance of the topic as well as any conclusions you may have reached; and a “References” page that properly cites the source of the material referenced in your paper. Readings  In and Out of Crisis In its historical sense, to be radical means to get to the root of the problem. McNally (2011) reminds us that it is important that we “grasp the present as history” in order to situate and understand contemporary phenomena. He notes that “the present is invariably saturated with elements of the future, with possibilities that have not yet come to fruition, and may not do so—as the road to the future is always contested” (p. 1). Hence, this unit seeks to make use of the theoretical insights gathered to this point and apply them to an analysis of contemporary events. It does so by focusing on the global financial crisis or global slump that occurred in late 2007 and early 2008.  As McNally (2011) vividly describes, what began in the summer of 2007 as a housing crisis centered in the U.S. quickly spread throughout the rest of the world, and “by the fall of 2008 the global financial system was in full-fledged meltdown. Worldwide credit seized up . . . stock markets plummeted . . . global trade collapsed . . . banks toppled and corporations found themselves on the brink of bankruptcy” (p. 13). All across Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific, capitalism appeared to be on the edge of disaster. Between 2007 and 2008, more than 3.5 million people in the U.S. lost their homes, $35 trillion in financial assets disappeared, unemployment skyrocketed, and the credibility of mainstream economists evaporated. How could they not have seen this disaster coming? For McNally, the answer lies in the failure of neoliberal policies to prevent economic instability and in the underlying reality of capitalism—profits come before everything, else regardless of the consequences.     However, just as capitalism was about to implode, the largest coordinated bailouts in history were initiated in an attempt to avert total disaster, at least in the short term. More than $20 trillion of public funds from governments around the world was deployed to halt the bank failures, to bailout bankrupt corporations, and to stave off cascading sovereign debt crises. As a result of capitalists’ reckless spending, a mismanagement of funds, and the obscure nature of several exotic-sounding financial instruments (e.g., derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, etc.), the public sector had to come to the rescue of the private sector. However, as McNally (2011) emphasizes, “the bad bank debt that triggered the crisis in 2008 never went away—it was simply shifted on to governments. Private debt became public debt. The economic crisis of 2008-9 did not really end. It simply changed form. It mutated.” (p. 4) After having taken on private capital’s bad debts, developed new subsidies, and undertaken a stimulus program to offset the recession, the economic downturn was redefined as one that began with the unions, overly generous social service programs, an inefficient government bureaucracy, and just about any user or producer of public services. Paradoxically, but perfectly logical in capitalist terms, the banks, corporations, and capitalist classes that precipitated the crisis were now demanding austerity measures.  Austerity refers to government cutbacks and retrenchment in services delivery, social programs, and public expenditures. It often includes reductions to education, social welfare, pensions, health care, public sector employment, and income security provisions.  As a result of shifting the blame for the crisis from the private to public sector, it was estimated that at least a “decade of austerity” would follow. According to McNally, those who will suffer the most are the poor and the working-class people who had nothing to do with creating the crisis. Clearly those who pay for the crisis differ from those who profit from it. As McNally (2011) notes, “The ultimate purpose of all this is to preserve capitalism and the wealth and power of its elites” (p. 5). According to the 2010 World Wealth Report by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch, millionaire’s assets have already rebounded to close to pre-crisis levels. In 2009, the value of Asia-Pacific assets grew 31 percent to $9.7 trillion (US), while the number of millionaires rose 26 percent to 3 million. The value of North American assets increased 18 percent to $10.7 trillion, while the number of millionaires rose 16.6 percent to 3.1 million. Assets in Europe climbed 14.2 percent to $9.5 trillion and the number of millionaires increased about 13 percent. Even in China, which was hard hit by the drop in world demand for commodities, increased the number of its millionaires by 31 percent. Finally, the net worth of individuals who had more than $30 million to invest, saw their wealth rise by 21.5 percent in 2009 (Capgemini & Merrill Lynch, 2010). The disproportional outcomes of neoliberalism have become even clearer, particularly in light of this latest Great Recession.  Over the past quarter-century, the erosion of income security policies and labour market protections has contributed to growing economic polarization in Canada. However, the strategies that have emerged as responses, or “exits” from the crisis will likely exacerbate these trends. For instance, in the 1970s, the wealthiest ten percent of the Canadian population received 23 percent of the total market income. This figured increased to 28 percent by the 1980s and to 37 percent by the 1990s. By 1999, the wealthiest ten percent of Canada’s families held 53 percent of the country’s wealth. Furthermore, between 1970 and 1999, the wealthiest ten percent saw their average wealthincrease by 122 percent, while the poorest ten percent saw their debts increase by 28 percent. In 2009, income disparities in Canada had reached levels not seen since the 1920s (Yalnizyan, 2010, pp. 3-4). Canada’s richest one percent took home 32 percent of all growth in income from 1997 to 2007. Compare this with the situation in the 1950s and ’60s when the income share taken by the top one percent of earners was less than eight percent; by 2007 this number had grown to 13.8 percent. A significant contributing factor has been the continuing regressive overhaul of the Canadian tax system. For instance, in 1948, the top marginal tax rate for incomes of $250,000 ($2.37 million in today’s dollars) was 80 percent. However, by 2009, the top tax rate for incomes above $126, 264 averaged 42.9 percent across Canada. These measures eventually helped to produce a situation where 3.8 percent of Canadian households controlled $1.78 trillion of the financial wealth or 67 percent of the Canadian total (ibid). With the onset of the Great Recession, these historical trends have only intensified. In the years since the recession, the quality of work in Canada has continued to degrade. Most new positions are part-time, temporary, or due to a lack of any other alternatives, self-employed. This situation has hit women, youth (ages 15-24), the elderly (age 55 and over), and racialized persons especially hard as long-term unemployment has surged from 15 percent prior to the downturn to nearly 25 percent since (Grant, 2011). The deteriorating quality of jobs as well as the mounting cost of food, utilities, and rents are significant factors in the increased dependence on food banks, particularly by single-parent households. Food bank usage has risen 28 percent since 2008 (Monsebraaten, 2011). Between 2009 and 2010, Statistics Canada reports suggest that Canadians’ debt-to-disposable income ratio rose to 148.1 percent (an amount higher than in the U.S., which sits at 147.2 percent) along with a 6.7 percent increase in household financial obligations (Matthieu, 2010). There were also fears of a potential housing bubble in Canada as it had been estimated that houses were over-valued by anywhere from 10 to15 percent (CTV, 2011). Given the mounting debt-to-financial assets and rising numbers of bankruptcies, a sudden depreciation in the value of property could have disastrous implications as many households continue to substitute consumption from income with consumption from credit and/or debt (CGA, 2010; Macdonald, 2010).  This situation has left Canadian policymakers with a Herculean dilemma—their choices are to restrict spending by raising interest rates and risk hampering the recovery, or to do nothing and risk a cascading future economic crisis. Both options are complex. A sudden financial shock, such as sharp increases in interest rates, a drop in the value of homes, and/or deterioration in labour market conditions, could trigger unprecedented personal and corporate bankruptcies. It could also lead to a banking crisis similar to that which ravaged the U.S. and other global economies. As serious as many of these concerns are, the reality is that many other countries have suffered much worse than Canada (McNally, 2011, pp. 19-24; Panitch et al., 2011). However, it is important to emphasize the extremely unequal consequences of the recession and remember that “the rich have come through the recession with flying colours.” As McNally (2011) notes, it is instead the “children, the elderly, single-parent families, the homeless, the unemployed, and the underemployed—who will be hammered hardest by cuts to health care, education, and social assistance programs. Capitalism is attempting to right its ship at their expense, by punishing its victims for the system’s latest crisis” (p. 23).  As McNally (2011) and Albo et al. (2010) state, those under attack are the public and private sector workers and the unions that strive to defend the interests of labour. Amidst exceptional uncertainty and populist rage, neoliberals are regrouping in order to take advantage of this historic opportunity. As McNally’s (2011) introductory blurb emphasizes, “The crisis has been a transformative moment in global economic history whose ultimate resolution will likely reshape politics and economics for a generation” (p. 1). New waves of national and sub-national budget deficits, which have been the result of over three decades of neoliberal fiscal and monetary policy, are once again sweeping the globe from Tucson to Toronto, Ankara to Bangkok, and Rome to Johannesburg.  Attacking the “lavish” lifestyles of “big labour” and “big government” has been a dishonest and insidious way of pitting public and private sector workers against one another in an all-out push for total privatization (Traub, 2010). Rescuing capital, then, has come at great costs. But what can be done about it? What are the alternatives to austerity? If we are to do more than hope for the crisis to be over so we can return to a capitalism that didn’t address our needs earlier, and more than passively watch as capitalism narrows our lives even further, then a new historical project must be placed on the agenda. (Albo et al., 2010, p. 89, emphasis added) Rather than producing a crisis of neoliberal legitimacy for capitalism, the capitalist classes have become recalcitrant and more emboldened throughout this Great Recession. In fact, the capitalist classes, supported in many instances by state-sanctioned legislation and policies, have reinvigorated their unconcealed efforts at undermining the collective bargaining rights of the unions. For Albo et al., this “employers’ offensive” is an attempt to further enshrine capitalist control over the workplace as it seeks to restrain wages and benefits, to increase precarious and marginal work, and to transform state policy so that populist pressures to extend workers’ rights and protect people’s investments are mitigated.  For Albo et al. (2010), Unless unions develop new strategies and organizational strength, competition between firms will continue to fuel competition between workers. . . .  Business and governments have used the crisis not just to roll back particular gains, but as an opportunity to try and weaken unions as the key working class organization and so more permanently weaken the ability of working people to defend themselves. For these reasons, resisting the attacks on past gains in the public [and private] sector is a crucial matter. (pp. 95, 98) In their view, this is about more than protecting workers’ rights alone, it is also about extending such rights to the unemployed, the unwaged, and those who are denied a chance to work; it is about building a different society, one premised on social justice unionism.  According to Albo et al. (2010) for unions to do so, “entails democratizing the internal practices of unions, expanding education of members, encouraging rank and file activism in leading strategic orientations and struggles, and examining union practices on gender and race, and incorporating a diverse membership into an equally divers leadership” (p. 99). In a sobering assessment of the past shortcomings of unions, they go on to remind us that:  What unions face today is rooted in the way North American unions failed to organize themselves in much better economic times to prepare themselves for times like the present. Workers are now suffering for this lack of preparation. While corporations have become more radical and aggressive, the labor movement has become more cautious and defensive. The most important question for the labor movement is to come to grips with those past failures and the need to become as radical as the other side. If we don’t develop a vision that fundamentally questions the anti-social logic of capitalism, and build the collective capacities that can challenge corporate power, things won’t just stay the same. They are likely to get worse. (p. 100) Rebuilding the labour movement, however, means more than just strengthening the individual locals or supporting labour organizations. It means building unions that form part of the working class as a whole, something that, if done, could be a way out of the present crisis.  For Albo, Gindin, and Panitch, it is necessary that we come to terms with the reality that a return to Keynesianism is unfeasible. This means that we must recognize the intimately, intertwined relationship between the state and the marketplace. In order to begin resisting austerity, Albo et al. (2010) believe that we must think ambitiously and begin acting independently of the logic of capitalism. First, they make a case for the provision of public services, particularly “those that should carry the largest strategic weight today pertain to health care, public pensions and public infrastructure, all of which have the potential to reduce working class dependence on markets and the private sector” (pp. 106-107). They argue that an emphasis on publically provided goods and services raises the prospect of democratic demands by workers and provides communities with affordable and extensive public transportation, access to public spaces, and so on. Albo et al. (2010) also argue that in order to begin undertaking some of the initiatives they identified, it is necessary to democratize finance, that is, to bring it under public authority and control, especially as the private banking system is already publicly supported. They state, “This is also why it is so important to raise not merely the regulation of finance but the transformation and democratization of the whole financial system. What is in fact needed is to turn the whole banking system into a public utility so that the distribution of credit and capital would be undertaken in conformity with democratically established priorities, rather than short term profit” (p. 110). They go on to describe how such a transition has the potential to address other issues that fall outside of the logic of capitalism, such as making production capacities part of an ecologically sustainable future.  Albo et al. (2010) remind us that If democracy is a kind of society and not just a form of government, the economy—which is so fundamental to shaping our lives—will eventually have to be democratized. . . . The way forward is not to take one step first and another more radical step later but to find ways of integrating both the immediate demands and the goal of systemic change into the building of new political capacities. (p. 114) This type of change inevitably requires moving from alternative policies to alternative politics.  They stress enhancing the capacity of the unions to fight against concessionary demands in several ways: organizing movements inside the unions that lobby for enhanced democratic participation and control over the direction, content, and politics of the unions themselves; developing a radically feminist, anti-racist, class struggle-oriented political praxis that engages with and supports the efforts of the broader community; and enhancing educational efforts so as to produce a cadre of workers and activists that are both intelligent and politically active.  Albo et al. (2010) also stress the importance of establishing an “ independent infrastructure of socialist media that can contest the daily mainstream interpretation of events, sustain more critical analyses of capitalism, and articulate and discuss alternatives” (p. 119).  Finally, it is important to think about the critical insights articulated by Slavoj Zizek in his online lecture, What Does It Mean to be a Revolutionary Today? Zizek is dismissive of analyses that isolate particular effects of capitalism such as poverty, inequality, ecological degradation, and so forth. Instead, he stresses the necessity of understanding capitalism as a totality. In this regard, Zizek is critical of those who want to see “capitalism with a human face,” which he maintains is logically incongruent and environmentally and materially unachievable. Like McNally and Albo et al., Zizek’s ruminations on the future of capitalism are dim. He sees the “four horsemen of capitalism” leading us to an ever-more unstable and insecure world, one that includes ecological catastrophes, a deteriorating politico-economic global architecture, the negative impacts of the biogenetic revolution, and social divisions leading to worldwide protest movements (Zizek, 2011). Indeed, for Zizek, unless we overhaul the capitalist system, the future of humanity and the eco-sphere itself are all in serious jeopardy. All things considered, perhaps it is best to recall the words of Karl Marx who reminds us that while the political economy theoretical and methodological perspectives remain important, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
This is the Essay prepared in the attached files and there is the remarks of the professor regarding the paper written. Can it be fixed according to the instruction.
As McNally (2011) and Albo et al. (2010) state, those under attack are the public and private sector workers and the unions that strive to defend the interests of labour. Amidst exceptional uncertainty and populist rage, neoliberals are regrouping in order to take advantage of this historic opportunity. As McNally’s (2011) introductory blurb emphasizes, “The crisis has been a transformative moment in global economic history whose ultimate resolution will likely reshape politics and economics for a generation” (p. 1). New waves of national and sub-national budget deficits, which have been the result of over three decades of neoliberal fiscal and monetary policy, are once again sweeping the globe from Tucson to Toronto, Ankara to Bangkok, and Rome to Johannesburg.  Attacking the “lavish” lifestyles of “big labour” and “big government” has been a dishonest and insidious way of pitting public and private sector workers against one another in an all-out push for total privatization (Traub, 2010). Rescuing capital, then, has come at great costs. But what can be done about it? What are the alternatives to austerity? If we are to do more than hope for the crisis to be over so we can return to a capitalism that didn’t address our needs earlier, and more than passively watch as capitalism narrows our lives even further, then a new historical project must be placed on the agenda. (Albo et al., 2010, p. 89, emphasis added) Rather than producing a crisis of neoliberal legitimacy for capitalism, the capitalist classes have become recalcitrant and more emboldened throughout this Great Recession. In fact, the capitalist classes, supported in many instances by state-sanctioned legislation and policies, have reinvigorated their unconcealed efforts at undermining the collective bargaining rights of the unions. For Albo et al., this “employers’ offensive” is an attempt to further enshrine capitalist control over the workplace as it seeks to restrain wages and benefits, to increase precarious and marginal work, and to transform state policy so that populist pressures to extend workers’ rights and protect people’s investments are mitigated.  For Albo et al. (2010), Unless unions develop new strategies and organizational strength, competition between firms will continue to fuel competition between workers. . . .  Business and governments have used the crisis not just to roll back particular gains, but as an opportunity to try and weaken unions as the key working class organization and so more permanently weaken the ability of working people to defend themselves. For these reasons, resisting the attacks on past gains in the public [and private] sector is a crucial matter. (pp. 95, 98) In their view, this is about more than protecting workers’ rights alone, it is also about extending such rights to the unemployed, the unwaged, and those who are denied a chance to work; it is about building a different society, one premised on social justice unionism.  According to Albo et al. (2010) for unions to do so, “entails democratizing the internal practices of unions, expanding education of members, encouraging rank and file activism in leading strategic orientations and struggles, and examining union practices on gender and race, and incorporating a diverse membership into an equally divers leadership” (p. 99). In a sobering assessment of the past shortcomings of unions, they go on to remind us that:  What unions face today is rooted in the way North American unions failed to organize themselves in much better economic times to prepare themselves for times like the present. Workers are now suffering for this lack of preparation. While corporations have become more radical and aggressive, the labor movement has become more cautious and defensive. The most important question for the labor movement is to come to grips with those past failures and the need to become as radical as the other side. If we don’t develop a vision that fundamentally questions the anti-social logic of capitalism, and build the collective capacities that can challenge corporate power, things won’t just stay the same. They are likely to get worse. (p. 100) Rebuilding the labour movement, however, means more than just strengthening the individual locals or supporting labour organizations. It means building unions that form part of the working class as a whole, something that, if done, could be a way out of the present crisis.  For Albo, Gindin, and Panitch, it is necessary that we come to terms with the reality that a return to Keynesianism is unfeasible. This means that we must recognize the intimately, intertwined relationship between the state and the marketplace. In order to begin resisting austerity, Albo et al. (2010) believe that we must think ambitiously and begin acting independently of the logic of capitalism. First, they make a case for the provision of public services, particularly “those that should carry the largest strategic weight today pertain to health care, public pensions and public infrastructure, all of which have the potential to reduce working class dependence on markets and the private sector” (pp. 106-107). They argue that an emphasis on publically provided goods and services raises the prospect of democratic demands by workers and provides communities with affordable and extensive public transportation, access to public spaces, and so on. Albo et al. (2010) also argue that in order to begin undertaking some of the initiatives they identified, it is necessary to democratize finance, that is, to bring it under public authority and control, especially as the private banking system is already publicly supported. They state, “This is also why it is so important to raise not merely the regulation of finance but the transformation and democratization of the whole financial system. What is in fact needed is to turn the whole banking system into a public utility so that the distribution of credit and capital would be undertaken in conformity with democratically established priorities, rather than short term profit” (p. 110). They go on to describe how such a transition has the potential to address other issues that fall outside of the logic of capitalism, such as making production capacities part of an ecologically sustainable future.  Albo et al. (2010) remind us that If democracy is a kind of society and not just a form of government, the economy—which is so fundamental to shaping our lives—will eventually have to be democratized. . . . The way forward is not to take one step first and another more radical step later but to find ways of integrating both the immediate demands and the goal of systemic change into the building of new political capacities. (p. 114) This type of change inevitably requires moving from alternative policies to alternative politics.  They stress enhancing the capacity of the unions to fight against concessionary demands in several ways: organizing movements inside the unions that lobby for enhanced democratic participation and control over the direction, content, and politics of the unions themselves; developing a radically feminist, anti-racist, class struggle-oriented political praxis that engages with and supports the efforts of the broader community; and enhancing educational efforts so as to produce a cadre of workers and activists that are both intelligent and politically active.  Albo et al. (2010) also stress the importance of establishing an “ independent infrastructure of socialist media that can contest the daily mainstream interpretation of events, sustain more critical analyses of capitalism, and articulate and discuss alternatives” (p. 119).