Machjo

Look it up in a dictionary. Sure, if it's an open consultation and sharing of ideas and not each group just trying to prove it's right and the other's wrong.

But minus established political parties, these factions comprising indepoendent MPs were likely more fluid too, with MPs willing to form new co-alitions on a bill by bill basis depending on how well an MP could argue his point, rather than just dogmatically support the party right or wrong.

And yes, to be fair, the Swedish right tends to be more moderate too.

Agreed. Honetly, I'd like to see some party arise that would be more like the Swedish model. The Green Party might be such a party in that it too tends to be quite moderate in its policies. I suppose the NDP could take on that role too if it became more eclectic. Actually, any party could fill that void if it really wanted to I suppose.

I still disagree and believe every dollar spent ought to be counted no matter how small. But that's for another thread so I'll leave it at that. Thanks. I never quite thought of the term "democratization of capitalism". Clearly Swedish social democracy is far different from the Canadian model; much less confrontational and much more collaborative. I know various terms have been thrown at Swedeish democracy; 'third way', 'democratization of society', and I'd come up with 'conservative socialism'. And now you're calling it 'democratization of capitalism'. I think they can all fit the bill, and we can certainly learn from Sweden's efforts to build bridges between the right and left rather than burning them and then manning the fortress always bracing for attack.

Their viewpoints can be as different as night and day, and they can still share their ideas without having to be confrontational about it.

This parade, that parade. It quickly adds up.

Honestly, I think Canadian socialists can learn from the Swedish experience. Socialists need not necessarily take on such a dogmatically confrontational and combative approach against all things capitalist. In Sweden, socialism has proven quite successful side by side with private schools and school voucher programmes, private clinics, etc. In fact, dare I say that is the very reason socialism has succeeded in Sweden; it is willing to take the best from all systems. Canadian socialists seem to think in black and white, as in we must be either totally socialist or totally capitalist. This kind of extremism is what I believe has held Canadian socialism back.

Certainly. But of course any government action to help the poor must be well thought out otherwise it risks hurting the very people it is intended to help. To take rent ceilings as a classic example. Paris France had tried that for awhile to help poor tenants. It worked in the short term, but the problem was that while the city's population continued to grow, there was no more incentive for companies to build more apartment buildings. As a result, as apartments became harder to come by, some landlords started looking for legal loopholes like 'key fees', or otherwise charging for every little service or cutting building services to the bone and there was nothing tenants could do about it. In fact, tenants themselves were competing with each other trying to offer a better deal to landlords while all the while buildings were left minimally serviced. Eventually, the government had no choice but to lift the ban and prices shot through the roof until the market readjusted. New York City had tried that once too, and more recently Toronto had made a similar mistake just over a decade ago (we would have thought they would have learnt from Paris' and NYCs mistake?). From my understanding, Toronto has been recovering since lifting the ceilings. One thing socialists must remember is that they are not exempted from the basic economic rules of supply and demand. I think one reason Sweden has succeeded as a social democratic state is because it has understood that principle and so its brand of socialism still abides by the basic rules of supply and demand by not introducing artificial floors and ceilings like minimum wages and rent ceilings, but rather by simply democratizing industry. To the best of my knowledge, Sweden has never introduced price ceilings on rental apartments, and I know it's never introduced any kind of minimum wage. Yes, it gives workers more power, and provides quality education for all to ensure they can succeed, but otherwise tends to adopt a much more market-friendly and collaborative approach with industry.

Though granted Sweden also has high taxes and various other regulations and tends to still be frugal in its spending by encouraging private investment in education and healthcare and focussing its spending on bread and butter issues like education, trades and professional training, health care, etc. as opposed to Gay Pride parades. We could argue that Sweden's is a 'conservative socialist' system if we can look past the oxymoron.

FYI, Sweden, a model of social democracy, has no minimum wage, and yet it has a very high quality of life. I believe that co-determination laws could work. Granted, Sweden also invests a lot in education, and with it using a school voucher system, we can also add private investment on top of the government investment. So granted Sweden has a much higher level of overall educational attainment too. It doesn't change the fact though that Sweden proves that it is possible to ensure a reasonable quality of life for all without pricing people out of the market with arbitrary minimum wages.

OK, you're right on a technicality. While some employers would still pay a fair wage, I'm sure at least a few would abuse it. But it still stands that not every single company would unfairly exploit it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_sharing I'm not necessarily saying that I support these ideas, nor that I don't support them. What I am saying though is that they could provide a base for further discussion at least. In the case of co-determination, it does not guarantee workers the right to everything, but it does give them more of a voice in the company. The problem with minimum wage is that it's too arbitrary. In bad economic times it prices people out of the market, and in good economic times, it does not guarantee raises above the minimum wage (though granted it does raise its likelihood). The advantage with co-determination is that in bad economic times, the workers would be willing to take a pay cut as long as management does too. There is no arbitrary legal minimum wage that risks pushing them out onto the streets. And in good economic times, they have a strong voice on the board of directors to raise their wages. So in essence, unlike an arbitrary minimum wage that can hurt the most vulnerable, co-determination allows salaries to float according to the free market while still ensuring just wages according to economic circumstances at any given moment. Personally, I think I'm quite fond of the idea of co-determination and would likely support our adoption of the German model in this case. As for profit sharing, I don't quite like the idea as much in a legal context for similar reasons to my opposition to a minimum wage: it's somewhat arbitrary in how much the government decides needs to be shared percentage-wise, considering that different industries might require different amounts of investment, and even the same industry's investment needs might fluctuate depending on the market situation at any given time. This arbitrariness could risk putting certain industries out of business and thus workers out of work, hurting the very people it was intended to help. Co-determination laws have the advantage of still allowing the company to adapt to the market by negotiating wage freezes or even wage cuts if necessary, and likewise for any profit-sharing agreement established between management and labour which can be renegotiated too in the event of an economic downturn while still ensuring that the workers aren't exploited (i.e. if the workers must accept these cuts, so will management). In this way, co-determination laws manage to accomplish certain socialist objectives within free-market constraints. It's a kind of third way policy if you will. Another advantage I see with co-determination laws is that, unlike labour unions, they promote more collaborative relationships between workers and management rather than confrontational ones. From a cultural perspective too, certain cultures are averse to such a confrontational approach and so do not benefit as much from unionization. This is proven by the role of labour unions in different countries around the world, their prevalence, and their effectiveness. Clearly if the government wants to help all workers, it cannot be focussed exclusively on laws that benefit labour unionists only at the expense of other workers who might not, for whatever cultural reason, be able to benefit as much from such laws. Co-determination laws essentially eliminate the need for labour unions since they require companies to consult with workers regardless of whether the company is unionized or not. From that standpoint, the union becomes redundant and a waste of money.

Or here's a better idea. Go vegetarian and suddenly it doesn't matter what laws the government passes with regards to the fisheries. Whether the government allows fishing or not, I'm not contributing to it. Whatever happened to individual initiative?

I'm not sure I understand you here. So let's say I decide to embark on a project on my spare time that I think could be of benefit to mankind, do I get to declare that time on my income taxes? Who wil decide what time is tax deductible and what time isn't.? And as for the unemployed, I don't see how a tax exemption for their voluntary labour will help them seeing that they have no salary to declare in taxes, unless of course the credit you referred to above is intended to solve that problem so that if they have to tax money to claim, then the government gives them money for their labour. But again, who decides what labour can be compensated? if I'm unemployed and can't find work, could I just embark on any project of my own that I believe could be of benefit to my fellow man and get compensated for it? Again, I'm not answering the question, but just asking to be sure I understand you correctly before commenting further. You reference benefitting from free labour. If I pay my taxes, and that money goes towards paying salaries to a Canadian Peace Corp worker who then serves the community and that benefits me, how is that benefitting from free labour?

As for extreme environmentalists, I agree.

Perhaps. I rememebr reading that concern for the environment was in fact part and parcel of right wing nationalism historially. The Nazis placed much emphasis on maintaining a clean urban environment, picking up rubbish and putting it in its proper place, maintaining clean and sanitary cities (and even concentration camps to a surprising level considering the death rate and high population density in thoses camps), etc. Conservatives of the past also placed a high premium on personal, urban, and environmental cleanliness too, as a part of nationalism. Even among non-political and non-partisan entities such as the boy scout movement, this emphasis for caring for the environment has been part of the movement since its inception. So you are right, it would seem that this concern for the environment has simply shifted from the right to the left over the years, with exceptions of course. There are still some on the right who've maintained that concern, and we will find some of them forming the right wing of Canada's green movement (the so-called blue-greens, to be distinguished from teh red-greens). And of course, we have some on the left (though a small minority now I'd imagine) who would still see the left to be about workers struggling against the management class in a proletariat revolution, focussed on controlling the means of production and paying little concern for the environment and perhaps even seeing the environment as a distraction from that labour struggle. So I'm sure there are various camps on both sides of the ideological spectrum there.

We often read heated right-left discussions concerning welfare vs workfare. I don't wee why workfare should be such a hot issue. If we look at it from a right-wing point of view, it at least gets some work for the money spent. And from a left-wing point of view, it ensures everyone has work and no one goes without while giving people work experience to boot. Welfare could be viewed as cruel as it imposes a stigma on the recipient and holds him back from gaining valuable work experience(and I'm sure many on welfare would love to get a foot in the door in the workforce and feel like a contributor to society). Looking at it that way, what are the objections to workfare? For example, let's say we introduced a Canadian version of the US Peace Corp that the unemployed could join if they wanted to. At least it would give the unemployed a choice. If he needs help but can't accept a hand out, then at least he'd have the alternative option of joining a Canadian Peace Corp where he could learn news skills, serve the community, etc. Right now he has no such option,. If he cant find work, a hand out is the only option for him with no opportunity to earn that money and serve his community. There is much more to a person's needs than just getting enough money to serve his material needs. There is also the spiritual need of feeling needed, or of having a chance to serve others. Why hod people back from that opportunity?

I would guess that categories 3 and 4 above, in various forms, are likely to be more common on the left of the religious spectrum. Some of the so-called 'religious left' would likely fall into category 3 in various forms thereof of course. And I've found many from categories 2 and 4 on the right, albeit with a different understanding of our national traditions of course. Again, these are generalizations, but I think there is still a wide range of views among the so-called 'social conservatives'.

Thanks for your response, especially with regards to number 6. It clearly shows that it's not easy defining right and left, where number six could fall into either category. the Religionist universalist above I think would be a tough one to classify too. After all, his religious streak along with his support for freer trade would likely brand him a conservative, while his more liberal views on the movement of people across borders, such as immigraiton, travel, etc. woudl likely brand him a lefty. To some degree, this thread is a spinoff from another thread I created asking why we like ot stereotype the right and the left. I figured this thread should help to highlight how the left-right division is excessively simplistic. I'm sure we could probably create a similar thread on socialists for example. For example, I know of self-labelled 'socialist' who opposes labour unions, though he is in favour of more government funding for education, free universal education including post-secondary education, etc! Whether right or left, once a group is disected, it can reveal much greater complexity than many party hacks and ideologues can fathom. In fact, I'm sure were likely to find many people in society to mix and match ideas from various ideologies.

We often hear the phrase 'social conservative', but seldom is it clearly defined. So I decided to start this thread looking at various alternative terms we could use to distinguish between varied groups which until now seem to just be thrown under the same label of 'social conservative'. Among them could include (and none of these are necessarily exclusive): 1.Religionist conservative: intends to legislate religious laws. Obviously this can vary from religion to religion, and can even vary within the same religion depending on how one understands or interprets his sacred texts. Essentially a moralist conservative. 2. Scientific literalist: believes that science must not conflict with a literal interpretation of his sacred texts. 3. Religionist universalist conservative: similar to '1' above except also supports breaking down barriers between countries with regards to trade, tourism, immigration, travel, etc., either in a belief in the oneness of mankind as a religious principle or wants to simply promote closer ties between co-religionists from around the world. Such a person might even support world federation as a means to that end. He might also view nationalism to be in conflict with his religious faith, believe in that a choice must be made between the state and the worldwide religious community or, alternatively, between the wellbeing of his compatriots and mankind. He's also likely to be more focussed on religious laws as they are explicitely expressed in the sacred texts, while being quite liberal otherwise. 4. Secular social conservative: has a social conservative steak that stems more from nationalist, ethnicist, racialist or other secular traditional values, which may revolve around singing the national anthem in school or elsewhere, restricting immigration, imposing certain nationalist symbols be they a national language, script, holidays (which could include religious ones that have permeated the secular culture to a significant degree), etc. 5. Law-and-order conservative: sees the police, courts, and the prison system as the main way to enforce his social views. 6. Strategic social conservative: willing to consider the legalization of certain undesirable activities, likely in combination with alternative laws or government programmes aimed at combating that activity, not out of an intent to surrender to the activity, but rather as a temporary strategic retreat, if sufficinet evidence suggests that it might work. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that various persons who identify with one or more of the categories above would strongly oppose others of the categories above. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that persons who could fall into any of the categories above could be ideologically right, left, or centre ideologically. I think the term 'social conservative' has been abused by both the right and the left as a vague catch-all phrase able to mean such a wide range of ideas as to be virtually meaningless. I think a new terminology would be preferable to distinguish between various kinds of so-called social-conservatives, many of whom are likely to disagree just as profoundly with one another as with anyone else. I'm sure other categories of 'social conservative' could be mentioned too, but the ones above are among the ones that come into my mind at least.

I disagree with opposition being necessary in discourse. Two persons can share ideas without being argumentative about it.

And again, there are different kinds of social conservatives. There are what we might call the moralists, who believe in government preserving certain moral values of whatever religion in society, but who otherwise can be quite open to metaphorical understandings of their sacred texts and accept science. Then we have literalists who insist the earth is flat based on various interpretations of their sacred texts. But again, the literalists might be more than willing to come up with very liberal interpretations of the moral codes of their sacred texts such as the Sermon on the Mount. And then you have those who are both moralists and literalists, and what we might call popular or religionists who are just religious in name, etc. etc. etc. So again, even the term 'social conservative can have various meanings'.

The post I was referring to had made mention of 'separatists', and that reminded me of Harper's choice of words in his speech when proroguing Parliament, even though in his French version, he chose sovereigntist. Clearly he was manipulating his words to suit the audience. He should have provided an accurate transaltion either way, and not say one thing in English and another in French. Otherwise, I fully agree that many on the left use terms manipulatively too, such as referring to a moderate conservative as a Nazi and such, and yes it's equally unacceptable. I hope that clarifies that.

Of course. But hey, we're all American from Canada to Argentina anyway, right.

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/actualites-en-societe/279661/nouvelle-strategie-pour-retenir-les-militaires According to this article, though the situation has certainly not reached any kind of crisis level, the military is still being affected by a rise in the number of soldiers leaving the forces early in their career or in mid career. The military is now studying the possibility of adopting a whole system of incentives to keep its toops. Among the recommendations is to give troops more say in the development of their military career, along with more control over transfers. Certainly this will make the military less efficient in terms of troops putting the needs of the military before their families, meaning a need for more recruits and a further expansion of military recruitment. According to the article, another big issue has to do with the strains put on the family, and so this would involve providing more services to military spouces especially, such as the military providing daycare services, etc.