A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

[thermo]

It may have been 75 years ago, but that was what spawned the NDP, those were the principals that party was founded on. May of the people were at the heart of the CCF were also at the heart of the NDP and their legacy lives on through those that have suceeded them.

easy mcarthy - there is no one currently in the party old enough to have been around for that, i assure you.

and there is nothing - literally nothing in the ndp charter that would imply any sort of shadowy dedication to a communist agenda of any sorts.

[Alta4ever]

easy mcarthy - there is no one currently in the party old enough to have been around for that, i assure you.

and there is nothing - literally nothing in the ndp charter that would imply any sort of shadowy dedication to a communist agenda of any sorts.

So your telling me that the party of Tommy Douglas, a CCF member of parliment, and leader of the NDP didn't bring any of the CCF with him?

David lewis the next leader of the NDP was CCF theorist.

How many others were carried over from the CCF, they did exist until 1961.

I would think that these two key people shaped those who suceeded them in the party.

[Alta4ever]

There could very well be a few legacy members left from the CCF as those that would have been old enough to see a couple of years in the CCF would now be in their 60's.

[Oleg Bach]

There could very well be a few legacy members left from the CCF as those that would have been old enough to see a couple of years in the CCF would now be in their 60's.

Socialism is the capitalist's henchman --- sorry - hench person! Sure the left has ideals - and so does the right - some of which are admirable - BUT - ultimately who ever has the food controls the dog - and that food is money...those that run the federal reserve and the canadian banks are neither left or right..they are dead center and dead serious about having total control AND - they laugh at politics - when it comes to money and the god Mammon - politics plays second fiddle.

[Pliny]

Communism is the achievement of the totalitarian state by revolutionary means. The ends of socialism and communism are the same.

Socialism was very popular in the 1930's. Tommy Douglas's thesis in 1933 was very similar to Hitler's, heavily into social engineering with eugenics and sterilization. Alberta, with a Social Credit government, had sterilization laws on the books. Tommy Douglas was a socialist but not a communist by the above definition. After visiting Germany Mr. Douglas became less enamored with right wing socialism but still staunchly socialist. Every socialist thinks the country should be run how they believe it should be run. The problem only lies in getting everyone to agree he is right.

[Oleg Bach]

Communism is the achievement of the totalitarian state by revolutionary means. The ends of socialism and communism are the same.

Socialism was very popular in the 1930's. Tommy Douglas's thesis in 1933 was very similar to Hitler's, heavily into social engineering with eugenics and sterilization. Alberta, with a Social Credit government, had sterilization laws on the books. Tommy Douglas was a socialist but not a communist by the above definition. After visiting Germany Mr. Douglas became less enamored with right wing socialism but still staunchly socialist. Every socialist thinks the country should be run how they believe it should be run. The problem only lies in getting everyone to agree he is right.

I do agree but you have to remember that your typical idealog commie does not have any money..and to finance the "revolution" usually rich capitalist will invest in the mayhem that they will profit from latter. Look at the backers of Hitler..I knew an extrememist socialist in our old neighbourhood...it was a semi-private rural place...well this socialist bought up properties after running off a few families...his favourite line was "we are all one" and "equal" - well eventually he turned the former family dwellings in to rentals and stupulated that he have the use of the living rooms..and your wife if you did not keep an eye on this nut...with all socialism based on equality - eventually you have a tyrant take power - JUST LIKE CAPITALISM...There seems to be no escaping the lunitics who lust for power - socialist and capitalist. To me both extremes are the same.

[Pliny]

easy mcarthy - there is no one currently in the party old enough to have been around for that, i assure you.

and there is nothing - literally nothing in the ndp charter that would imply any sort of shadowy dedication to a communist agenda of any sorts.

My neighbour used to drive Tommy Douglas around during some of his campaigning. He said he was a very charismatic man but couldn't buy into some of his politics because he had family that disabused him of socialism.

They weren't done well by it.

There is definitely a motion toward socialism in their charter. I don't think they are likely to incite revolution.

There is a big push to re-invent socialism and it will probably be in the form of Environmentalism so populations can be controlled, both in size and in activity. Political solutions from the likes of David Suzuki will over ride any innovation towards encouraging any kind of development. "Sustainable" being a key word in any societal activity but I would prefer they be labeled "stagnant" communities rather than sustainable, I think it closer to the truth.

[Pliny]

I do agree but you have to remember that your typical idealog commie does not have any money..and to finance the "revolution" usually rich capitalist will invest in the mayhem that they will profit from latter. Look at the backers of Hitler..I knew an extrememist socialist in our old neighbourhood...it was a semi-private rural place...well this socialist bought up properties after running off a few families...his favourite line was "we are all one" and "equal" - well eventually he turned the former family dwellings in to rentals and stupulated that he have the use of the living rooms..and your wife if you did not keep an eye on this nut...with all socialism based on equality - eventually you have a tyrant take power - JUST LIKE CAPITALISM...There seems to be no escaping the lunitics who lust for power - socialist and capitalist. To me both extremes are the same.

Oleg, I believe you are closer to the truth than you know. Capitalism did indeed finance the Bolshevik revolution and Hitler. I suppose the common thread is in monopoly. The corporate monopolist of capitalism wishing to megalomaniacally own everything and the power monger of socialism, who knows exactly what society needs and how it should be run and no one owns anything. Of course, the Capitalist buys the socialist, to take from the rich and give to the poor, to ensure the failure of any other capitalist who may have dreams of a monopoly of his own. Nothing remains stagnant though, no matter how hard one may try to "sustain" the status quo.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Pliny

[BubberMiley]

There is no such thing as an "open" market. Our markets are propped up by socialist New Deal policies cooked up during the social democracy movement of the 1930s. Just in the last few weeks we have seen the degree that so-called "capitalism" would fall apart if not for government intervention and control.

[MontyBurns]

Oleg, I believe you are closer to the truth than you know. Capitalism did indeed finance the Bolshevik revolution and Hitler. I suppose the common thread is in monopoly. The corporate monopolist of capitalism wishing to megalomaniacally own everything and the power monger of socialism, who knows exactly what society needs and how it should be run and no one owns anything. Of course, the Capitalist buys the socialist, to take from the rich and give to the poor, to ensure the failure of any other capitalist who may have dreams of a monopoly of his own. Nothing remains stagnant though, no matter how hard one may try to "sustain" the status quo.

So true. Human nature is the same in either conservatism or socialism. These are just two different ways of achieving power.

That being said, if given a choice between the two I would choose conservatism. Conservatism comes naturally while socialism does not. All great cultures in history have been conservative. Once a culture becomes socialist it becomes sick. The people stop working for themselves and rely on the government too much. Another problem is that socialist countries are notorious for small families, abortion, divorce, feminists, anti-religion, etc. This causes the birth rate to fall and then the population begins to contract. The social programs promised cannot be provided as the population ages and things fall apart. Immigration is then needed to keep it running but this further destroys the original culture.

[BubberMiley]

So true. Human nature is the same in either conservatism or socialism. These are just two different ways of achieving power.

That being said, if given a choice between the two I would choose conservatism. Conservatism comes naturally while socialism does not. All great cultures in history have been conservative. Once a culture becomes socialist it becomes sick. The people stop working for themselves and rely on the government too much. Another problem is that socialist countries are notorious for small families, abortion, divorce, feminists, anti-religion, etc. This causes the birth rate to fall and then the population begins to contract. The social programs promised cannot be provided as the population ages and things fall apart. Immigration is then needed to keep it running but this further destroys the original culture.

Socialism doesn't create small families, wealth does (along with the availability of education and birth control). There goes your argument.

Check out Aboriginal reserves, where no one even owns their own land and they often live off the government. I think they're averaging 10 kids per woman.

[normanchateau]

I'm saying equating the ndp with communism is as off the mark as calling the cons authoritarians.

The cons meet many of the criteria for authoritarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

[MontyBurns]

Socialism doesn't create small families, wealth does (along with the availability of education and birth control). There goes your argument.

Check out Aboriginal reserves, where no one even owns their own land and they often live off the government. I think they're averaging 10 kids per woman.

The aboriginal reserves are hardly a success story for socialism. In my opinion the future belongs to groups such as Christian evangelicals, Mormons and Muslims. These people see a future for themselves wheras secular people don't. For example, the Europeans (generally secular and socialist-minded) don't even see the point in reproducing. The Muslims are only too happy to come in and fill the void that the Europeans are leaving because of their defeatist thinking.

[Pliny]

Socialism doesn't create small families, wealth does (along with the availability of education and birth control). There goes your argument.

Check out Aboriginal reserves, where no one even owns their own land and they often live off the government. I think they're averaging 10 kids per woman.

I would agree but for the fact that socialism dictates small families, wealth doesn't. Although admittedly, there is an inclination toward smaller families among the wealthy.

Poverty and scarcity seem to be a signal to propagate in order to attempt to preserve the species through sheer numbers.

[Pliny]

The cons meet many of the criteria for authoritarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

But in the Soviet Union, high RWAs tended to support the Communist Party--which most people consider a very left-wing political movement.

Of course, this is supposed to close the circle. But to me it is just the usual psycho-babble.

Right and left wing are positioned on a dreamed up political spectrum that isn't really a spectrum if one looks at it.

The author has positioned right and left as though they are a natural order of things and as though they were polar opposites in a circular wheel that met because opposites attract. Sounds great.

In reality they are not opposites. A full range spectrum designed to run the gamut of political ideology must go from anarchy to totalitarianism - No government to total government. Since individuals like to be in charge of themselves, I would say that the preference would be toward anarchy. But we like a little security....maybe some government would be ok. Well, you know what....while we are at peace why don't we pool our resources and have government run some other things? It would be good if everyone got an education...let's do it! And we won't have to worry about it! And so on and so on......

Extreme right and left wings are both totalitarian. They have different social concepts but some are similar. Who cares when totalitarianism is running things? What difference does it make if the citizen is ordered to perform his duties by a right wing dictator or a left wing politburo? It is the same oppression under a different name. It helps if you have friends but that is true of any political or organizational structure.

A good policy might be, and one that may keep government from becoming oppressive, is to intentionally do no harm unless force is intitiated against you.

[BubberMiley]

The aboriginal reserves are hardly a success story for socialism.

I wasn't referencing Aboriginal reserves as a success story; I was referencing them as an example of how your theory that socialism breeds low birth rates is completely false.

[MontyBurns]

... I was referencing them as an example of how your theory that socialism breeds low birth rates is completely false.

Canada and the Europeans are both heavily influenced by socialist policies and have low birth rates. USA is more conservative and has highest birth rates in developed world. It isn't completely false. Conservatives are more family oriented and thus have more kids.

[BubberMiley]

Canada and the Europeans are both heavily influenced by socialist policies and have low birth rates. USA is more conservative and has highest birth rates in developed world. It isn't completely false. Conservatives are more family oriented and thus have more kids.

The "developed world" is the key phrase in your sentence. Do you have any kind of data that indicate conservatives have more kids or is it just a notion you came up with by yourself?

[August1991]

The "developed world" is the key phrase in your sentence. Do you have any kind of data that indicate conservatives have more kids or is it just a notion you came up with by yourself?

I don't know about conservative but religious people have higher birth rates:

Religious societies tend to have higher birth rates than secular ones, and richer, more educated nations tend to advance secularization. [3] This may help explain the Israeli and Saudi Arabian exceptions, the two notable outliers in the graph of fertility versus GDP per capita at the top of this article. In American media it is widely believed that America is also an exception to global trends. The current fertility rate in America is 2.09, higher than most other developed countries, [4] [5] but not as exceptional as Saudi Arabia and Israel. This may be due to the United States having a high percentage of religious followers compared to Europe as a whole.

Wikipedia

(I know it's wikipedia but it was easily at hand.)

[Peter F]

If a farmer plants plows land, plants a crop, tends to the crop, then harvest the crop, has he created wealth by turning something which was useless into something useful?

What was useless? The farmers labour? The crop he planted? He got out of it what he put into it.

The audience is richer because they value the information you have given them more than the 50 bucks they paid. If the informaiton is of economic value, they can further translate that into monetary wealth.

and I would certainly try to convince them of it. The value of my information is worth 50 bucks - please pay here. A simple transfer of wealth. Perhaps they can use the alleged newfound knowledge to get somebody to transfer some wealth to them. Maybe-maybe not. But nothing has been created.

Presumably before man was on this earth, no "wealth" existed. If it exists now it somehow must have been created. Please explain how this is possible since "Wealth is not created but transferred".

If wealth exists it has always existed - The game has been accumulating that wealth.

[Peter F]

As jbg asked, "What is wealth?". I am going to explain it in terms of it being the individual's own consideration and valuation system....The consideration that one's life has been benefitted in a trade is an increase in that person's wealth. And he is the sole judge of that. Mistaking wealth as being in the possession of a fiat currency or a plus sign in your bank account is where the error lies, it is a measure or yardstick we all use but we know intuitively that possession of it is superficial to real "wealth".

Ok. So I create more wealth (in my own subjective opinion) than anyone else on the block. In more than Walmart itself.

So discussions about who creates wealth and who doesn't are useless since wealth is indefinable except as judged by ones own personal experience.

The term 'creating wealth' is nebulous and economically meaningless .

I can live with that interpretation.

[Peter F]

By all rights then, since if you are making money then someone MUST be losing money...there can only be justice if we are all unemployed.

Yes someone is paying me for my labour (such as it is). Thier wealth is being transferred out of thier bank account and into mine.

I am not calling that thievery. I am calling that Capitalism. The guy givning me his money considers that a fair exchange for my labour and my labour is part of my wealth.

He gets some of my wealth and I get some of his. He hopes to be able to get more wealth from the product of my labour from a third party who will hopefully transfer more wealth to him than he transferred out to have the product produced.

Again...no wealth has been created - only transferred. So give up the fallacy that you're a boon to society because you 'create' wealth. No doubt you are a boon to society, but you don't create wealth.

[jbg]

I mean - i hope to god no one tracks down some of the dumb crap I wrote back in highshcool and that was only 25 years ago!

When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all.... Paul Simon, Kodachrome, 1973

[Peter F]

surely this is a joke, right?

The man who invented the assembly line just transferred wealth? Didn't make any?

Un.be.liev.eable.

That is correct. Ford's wealth was entirely derived from what people would give him for his automobiles.

But he had to sell his cars - otherwise there would be no wealth coming to him - despite the invention of the assembly line.

Ford's assembly line allowed Ford to produce vehicles affordable by the masses. And those masses transferred lots of wealth to him in exchange for his cars. Again - no wealth created, only transferred.

Otherwise Ford wouldn't have bothered selling anything but have watched his wealth accumulate from his magical wealth generating machine. I think thats called 'Alchemy'

[jbg]

There is no such thing as an "open" market. Our markets are propped up by socialist New Deal policies cooked up during the social democracy movement of the 1930s. Just in the last few weeks we have seen the degree that so-called "capitalism" would fall apart if not for government intervention and control.

After Bear Stearns sure seems that way. I hate the idea of the 27 year old cellphone blabbermouths driving BMW's being bailed out.