On democracy and the market: A different kind of state?

This has been a busy couple of months. The school semester has been going by so fast that I had to double check that I wasn't at a NASCAR event. This school year, I have been teaching one course on the politics of Ontario. I have been enjoying teaching it, but I need to think of ideas to make it more exciting, as I think some of the material may be dry. Yet, that said, the politics of Ontario keep me on my toes these days. If only there was more up-to-date materials!

Teaching in St. Catharines, however, has been a really fabulous experience. It is really nice to get a feel for Ontario communities outside of Toronto. Needless to say, the economic changes associated with deindustrialization and globalization has really affected this community, and it has been sad to witness the auto companies decision to arbitrary close plants and lay off workers. Getting to know this community, I can only ask where the government is in all of this. Why do they allow an American company to destroy Canadian communities and Canadian workers? Why have they sat by and done nothing?

In my research on post-war labour policy it has been interesting to see some of the resolutions that trade unions passed in order to stop companies from making these type of decisions. For instance, at the 1960 OFL convention, a resolution was passed to lobby both the federal and provincial government to implement an administrative board that would be responsible for limiting the ability of businesses from making arbitrary decisions about closing or moving plants.

Why is this impossible today? Imagine a democratic experiment of this kind! A board, which could be elected in each community in order to regulate local economies. In the OFL's 1960 resolution, companies would need to get permission from this board in order to make decisions (such as closing down plants!) that would adversely affect the community.

Can democracy challenge the market? I can't see a credible argument against it, save for the neo-liberal line that we need keep markets free from interference in order to attract foreign investors. But is the money of nameless, faceless investors a good enough argument to stifle true democratic reform?

Democratic administration. Market democracy. Call it what you like. But it would truly be revolutionary if we could allow a democratic check on unaccountable market decisions.

Naive? Perhaps. Crazy? Almost certainly. But a worthwhile experiment? Most definitely.