MLW federal election poll

[TimG]

Of Of course, the extreme right isn't only made up of libertarians. Nazis probably have the most in common with right wing fascists.

The Nazis are facists by definition. Your comparison is meaningless. Right wing today in Canada means libertarian. There are a very few people who subscribe to the extreme nationalism which typical of facist movements. The extereme nationalists tend to be found on the left. Edited April 22, 2011 by TimG

[Evening Star]

Right wing today in Canada means libertarian.

There are many religious or socially conservative people who would probably identify as "right-wing", though.

Really, the Chretien/Martin Liberals were probably 'closer' to libertarianism than the current CPC...

[TimG]

There are many religious or socially conservative people who would probably identify as "right-wing", though.

Yet you cannot compare to compare social conservatives to the Nazis either. Facism is an extreme form of nationalism where the state dominates the individual. The only people that come close to this in Canada are the extreme left.

[Shady]

Facism is an extreme form of nationalism where the state dominates the individual.

Which isn't any different than totalitarian or communist governments as well.

[TimG]

Which isn't any different than totalitarian or communist governments as well.

I have never understood why facism is considered extreme right. It has nothing to do with the left-right political axes that exist today.

[Smallc]

I have never understood why facism is considered extreme right. It has nothing to do with the left-right political axes that exist today.

There is far more to the right than libertarianism. Also, extrem libertarianism is equally as wacky, and stands on its own as a bad thing.

[Evening Star]

Yet you cannot compare to compare social conservatives to the Nazis either. Facism is an extreme form of nationalism where the state dominates the individual. The only people that come close to this in Canada are the extreme left.

I wasn't comparing social conservatives to Nazis. I was just questioning the claim that "'right-wing' means 'libertarian' in Canada today".

I agree that the left-right spectrum is pretty inadequate for describing the range of political ideologies. Political Compass/Vote Compass-style two-axis models make much more sense to me.

[jacee]

Yet you cannot compare to compare social conservatives to the Nazis either. Facism is an extreme form of nationalism where the state dominates the individual. The only people that come close to this in Canada are the extreme left.

i'm uncertain about these characterizations and my questions are these:

- is fascism not the state being controlled by corporations and in turn controlling the people, with profit the motive?

- if the 'left' is heavily influenced by unions and leans toward extending social benefits to all citizens, must they not also support conditions that facilitate healthy businesses/corporations and thus employment?

I guess I'm leaning toward a parliament that is not one extreme or another, but a balance of powers, with the ability to work together. Who these days has absolute power anyway, and where does that leave democracy? I admit i am distressed by Harper's apparent unwillingness to collaborate, costing us these repeated elections.

Healthy business conditions are necessary for healthy social conditions. Where does that put me? On the right and the left? I'm not sure these distinctions describe ordinary, well-rounded Canadians.

[M.Dancer]

- is fascism not the state being controlled by corporations and in turn controlling the people, with profit the motive?

No...corporatism in the fascist sense means "body". The state is a body, the church is a body, unions are a body...

Fascism never turned a profit...

[Evening Star]

- if the 'left' is heavily influenced by unions and leans toward extending social benefits to all citizens, must they not also support conditions that facilitate healthy businesses/corporations and thus employment?

The Keynesian liberal 'left' - which includes every major party that we categorize as 'left' - does believe that its interventionist policies work better for promoting healthy businesses, economic growth, and employment.

A more extreme socialist leftist would probably argue that some sort of collectivized ownership either works better for providing stable employment and productivity or else would argue that a collectivized system is less productive but more sustainable than the capitalist model of economic growth.

[TimG]

is fascism not the state being controlled by corporations and in turn controlling the people, with profit the motive?

The key elements of facism are extreme nationalism and the requiremnet that personal freedoms be sacrificed in order to advance the objectives of the state. We see this in Canada within the Quebec nationalist movement which is largely left wing. We see it also in the environmental movement which wants the state to ration what people are allowed to consume. You could argue that a tough on crime policy shares some attributes with facism but that simply confirms that facism exists along all parts of the left-right spectrum in Canada. It is wrong to call facism a 'extreme right wing' philosophy. The extreme right in this country is occupied largely by libertarians.

[cybercoma]

On the left in this forum we have several are hardcore socialists.

Who?

I haven't seen any hardcore socialists, nor anyone that suggests we need to have a violent revolution and take control of the economy.

[cybercoma]

There is no answer to this debate without metrics. If you are to the left of me, you're leftist. If you're to the right of me, well, there really aren't any to the right of me.

That's actually a good point. I may see the board as notoriously right wing because I'm probably one of the furthest left here.

[kimmy]

Who?

I haven't seen any hardcore socialists, nor anyone that suggests we need to have a violent revolution and take control of the economy.

Well, William Ashley, depending if he's had his meds or not.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

A more extreme socialist leftist would probably argue that some sort of collectivized ownership either works better for providing stable employment and productivity or else would argue that a collectivized system is less productive but more sustainable than the capitalist model of economic growth.

One could cite the Soviet example (and failure) of their large collective farms....

As for the topic, voting (in about an hour) Conservative.

[ToadBrother]

Nazis have more in common with socialists than Libertarians.

I'd hesitate to even use Nazi and Libertarian in the same sentence. By the same token, National Socialism itself doesn't have that much in common with classical socialism. It certainly called for a centralized managed state like some strains of socialism, but everything I've seen in my years suggests heavily that Nazism was basically a populist nationalist movement, and it's leaders basically said whatever they thought would further their own ends. They were pretty vehemently anti-Communist, which they shared with a lot of the German Far Right at the time, and certainly attracted many of them, but not a lot of socialists, seeing as so many either kept their mouths shut, fled or ended up in concentration camps.

[ToadBrother]

One could cite the Soviet example (and failure) of their large collective farms....

It's more complicated than that. Coupled with the Collectivism was the bizarre allegiance that the Soviets right up to Khrushchev had for that fraudster Lysenko, which tainted agrarian policy in the USSR for decades.

[RNG]

There is far more to the right than libertarianism. Also, extrem libertarianism is equally as wacky, and stands on its own as a bad thing.

In my experience, extreme anything is bad.

(Can you patent a brilliant thought?)

I call myself a libertarian by the US definition. I visited the Canadian Libertarian website. Those guys are way worse than the original Reform stuff.

Edited April 22, 2011 by RNG

[cybercoma]

Well, William Ashley, depending if he's had his meds or not.

-k

I'll have to pay closer attention to his posts. I didn't notice, but I might be working on a different definition. Hardcore socialist to me would be someone that wants to nationalize everything. If you're not familiar with the NB Waffle Movemenet, take a look into it. Here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle . They were so socialist that the NDP had to come to NB and clean house. That to me is hardcore socialism and I don't really see anyone here fitting that mould.

[punked]

I'll have to pay closer attention to his posts. I didn't notice, but I might be working on a different definition. Hardcore socialist to me would be someone that wants to nationalize everything. If you're not familiar with the NB Waffle Movemenet, take a look into it. Here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle . They were so socialist that the NDP had to come to NB and clean house. That to me is hardcore socialism and I don't really see anyone here fitting that mould.

Did you know the CCF first implemented an individual member system so Ontario could deal with all the socialist trying to take over the party? They demanded it because they couldn't tell who at their meetings was an NDPer and who was a socialist.

Edited April 22, 2011 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

It's more complicated than that. Coupled with the Collectivism was the bizarre allegiance that the Soviets right up to Khrushchev had for that fraudster Lysenko, which tainted agrarian policy in the USSR for decades.

Maybe so, but the Soviets net Grain/meat production only started coming closer to reaching quotas in the 80s when the average wage of the workers roughly doubled. Now perhaps these quotas were lowered (not sure to be quite honest), or a "Adam Smith like" reaction occured with an increase in incentive, an increase in production (and profits in the form of food stuffs) occured.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe so, but the Soviets net Grain/meat production only started coming closer to reaching quotas in the 80s when the average wage of the workers roughly doubled. Now perhaps these quotas were lowered (not sure to be quite honest), or a "Adam Smith like" reaction occured with an increase in incentive, an increase in production (and profits in the form of food stuffs) occured.

I'm not defending Collectivism per se, but just saying that the Soviet agrarian policy from the 1930s and into the 1960s was completely out to lunch. It honestly wouldn't surprise if it took twenty years after Lysenko's nonsense was finally discredited for things to recover.

[cybercoma]

Did you know the CCF first implemented an individual member system so Ontario could deal with all the socialist trying to take over the party? They demanded it because they couldn't tell who at their meetings was an NDPer and who was a socialist.

I didn't. That's interesting. The NDP is a member of Socialist International because they're a labour party, but they're far from being hardcore socialists. The members on this forum that support them, likewise, are far from being hardcore.

[RNG]

I'm not defending Collectivism per se, but just saying that the Soviet agrarian policy from the 1930s and into the 1960s was completely out to lunch. It honestly wouldn't surprise if it took twenty years after Lysenko's nonsense was finally discredited for things to recover.

I worked with a Russian petroleum engineer in the early '80's who somehow got permission to emmigrate to Canada. In the early '70's he would get pulled out of his Moscow office and sent to a collective farm, spring and fall. He and multi-thousands of others were drafted to help the planting and the harvest. He says most were so angry about this that the deliberately sabataged the planting, and stole as much or more of what they harvested. He says it was a total fiasco.

[punked]

I didn't. That's interesting. The NDP is a member of Socialist International because they're a labour party, but they're far from being hardcore socialists. The members on this forum that support them, likewise, are far from being hardcore.

It is documented pretty well The Life and Political Times of Tommy Douglas. I encourage all to read it.