MLW federal election poll

[blueblood]

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.

Nope, it took the complete fall of the soviet union. Grain production has steadily grown thanks to private ownership and the black sea area is a major player in the grain export market. It took a massive drought to make them stop exporting this crop year. They can now export far more efficiently than canada can and what's more interesting is that they are not yet at our levels of production.

Communism+grain production= failure

[Guest Derek L]

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 can agree that not only Soviet farming policy, but all poicy was out to lunch under uncle Joe

Now Khrushchev did start bringing western influnced reforms to the USSR, better pay and living conditions for thoses associated with their space program for example. In turn, The Soviets led early in the "Space race". One would have to wonder, what would have happend if the Soviet hardliners didn't sack him so early. Perhaps the farming quotas may have improved twenty years earlier? None the less, after Khrushchev, the Soviets repeated the failings of Stalin in many ways, took a hard turn to the left, and things didn't imporve until the 80s under Gorbachev and Perestroika.

Same could be said about Red China, post Mao.

[Evening Star]

I didn't say extreme socialists would be right...

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

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

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't say extreme socialists would be right...

I agree. IMO, this just proves that "extreme" government control is not a good thing, just as "extreme" Libertarian socialism/Anarchism {see Mad Max} isn't the key either. The trick is finding the so called balance.

I've always felt, that you, me and the guy/gal down the street, are indivdually smarter and more effective than government at looking after things that directly effect us, be it healthcare, daycare, education, "the arts" and retirement. Wouldn't you agree?

The Obama administration won't solve "climate change", it will be a rich fellow like Sir Richard Branson whom funds privatly a bunch of eggheads in a room with an algal culture that will do it........and make billions off it in the process

[wyly]

Nazis have more in common with socialists than Libertarians.

[bloodyminded]

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.

We've all heard this thesis in recent years.

Fewer of us have heard what scolars on fascism have to say about the subject; they are quite derisive about it.

Fascism borrows heavily from left and right ideologies, but has historically been the province, mostly, of conservatives.

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

1. Fascism is not about the Right, it's about the Left.

2. How can one say it's Right-wing? It's not about the left-right political axis.

??

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I can agree that not only Soviet farming policy, but all poicy was out to lunch under uncle Joe

Now Khrushchev did start bringing western influnced reforms to the USSR, better pay and living conditions for thoses associated with their space program for example. In turn, The Soviets led early in the "Space race". One would have to wonder, what would have happend if the Soviet hardliners didn't sack him so early. Perhaps the farming quotas may have improved twenty years earlier? None the less, after Khrushchev, the Soviets repeated the failings of Stalin in many ways, took a hard turn to the left, and things didn't imporve until the 80s under Gorbachev and Perestroika.

Same could be said about Red China, post Mao.

I'm sure you'd agree that even terms like "hard left" get easily confused; since we think of the Soviets as "hard left," this makes sense, but the left-right axis itself is problematic even as shorthand.

The fact is that the Leftists--the original Soviets--were profoundly disturbed by Lenin (and Trotsky shortly after) as early as 1917, considering him an "authoritarian deviation" from "leftist" democratic principles.

[bloodyminded]

The Obama administration won't solve "climate change", it will be a rich fellow like Sir Richard Branson whom funds privatly a bunch of eggheads in a room with an algal culture that will do it........and make billions off it in the process

This is essentially Ralph Nader's assertion as well. Billionaire philanthropists, inspired by populist movements, are going to be more effective and positive than government, ultimately.

However, Nader's is not quite a "free market saviour" thesis, because he believes capitalism at large is the main problem, and that governemnt and business are not distinguishable...but that individual "progressive" rich folk, who can learn to distance themserlves from the Establishment, government/corporate nexus, are going to make a huge difference.

[Bonam]

Actually, chances are the choice is there because some MLW members aren't Canadian (BC, JBG, BONAM!!!) heh, heh

I'm Canadian, just so you know.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sure you'd agree that even terms like "hard left" get easily confused; since we think of the Soviets as "hard left," this makes sense, but the left-right axis itself is problematic even as shorthand.

The fact is that the Leftists--the original Soviets--were profoundly disturbed by Lenin (and Trotsky shortly after) as early as 1917, considering him an "authoritarian deviation" from "leftist" democratic principles.

For sure, I've found (but can't find the link) that the vote compass model (Not CBCs) works the best......

Someone such as myself would be found on the extreme "hard right" (further than a Thatcher or W.) on economic issues/defence/forgin policy, but still rather "liberal" on social issues. If made without bias (like CBCs), it's a rather intresting and useful tool to help voters.

This is essentially Ralph Nader's assertion as well. Billionaire philanthropists, inspired by populist movements, are going to be more effective and positive than government, ultimately.

However, Nader's is not quite a "free market saviour" thesis, because he believes capitalism at large is the main problem, and that governemnt and business are not distinguishable...but that individual "progressive" rich folk, who can learn to distance themserlves from the Establishment, government/corporate nexus, are going to make a huge difference

I disagree with Nader for the above reasons you mentioned. In Bransons or any Billionaires case, for it to work they will have to have some ties with the "Establishment" for any plan to work, well being economically viable.

I've always felt that when the demand and technology is there, the energy companies would make likely candidates to become industry leaders.

[RNG]

For sure, I've found (but can't find the link) that the vote compass model (Not CBCs) works the best......

Someone such as myself would be found on the extreme "hard right" (further than a Thatcher or W.) on economic issues/defence/forgin policy, but still rather "liberal" on social issues. If made without bias (like CBCs), it's a rather intresting and useful tool to help voters.

I disagree with Nader for the above reasons you mentioned. In Bransons or any Billionaires case, for it to work they will have to have some ties with the "Establishment" for any plan to work, well being economically viable.

I've always felt that when the demand and technology is there, the energy companies would make likely candidates to become industry leaders.

Few people believe it but Shell, Chevron and Suncor all are doing extensive renewable energy research. And this list is not complete.

[cybercoma]

Shell has also slaughtered innocent civilians in Africa. But hey, can't make a omelette without cracking a few eggs, right?

[RNG]

Shell has also slaughtered innocent civilians in Africa. But hey, can't make a omelette without cracking a few eggs, right?

I don't know if your claim is true or not, but it is irrelevant to the current topic.

[cybercoma]

I don't know if your claim is true or not, but it is irrelevant to the current topic.

It's true and irrelevant, but I thought I would throw it out there.

They, of course, claim they're not responsible, but...

Royal Dutch Shell has agreed a $15.5m (£9.7m) out-of-court settlement in a case accusing it of complicity in human rights abuses in Nigeria.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8090493.stm

So yeah. They're responsible enough to pay out millions.

[Tilter]

It's true and irrelevant, but I thought I would throw it out there.

They, of course, claim they're not responsible, but...

So yeah. They're responsible enough to pay out millions.

From what I read about Nigeria's pollution problems Shell has caused BILLIONS of dollars (whatever currency) and are paying millions which, of course, will be drained off by their co-conspirators in this massive ecological calamity.

It'll be like the pollution caused (to a far lesser degree) by the Steel companies here in Hamilton ON. There is a toxic mix that has made the Hamilton harbor a stinking green polluted lake & the city, province 7 federal governments are now on the hook to clean it up which means the Hamilton, Burlington, Ontario and Canadian taxpayers.

To show their appreciation the steel companies have either closed, sold out to American & German interests, some of which are shipping business out to the American plants along with the associated jobs.

[cybercoma]

Externalize costs. That's the corporate way. Until we put an economic value on the environment, it will never end.

[TimG]

From what I read about Nigeria's pollution problems Shell has caused BILLIONS of dollars (whatever currency) and are paying millions which, of course, will be drained off by their co-conspirators in this massive ecological calamity.

Of course this just goes to show how brain dead environmentalists are when they oppose energy development within developed countries where there would be some accountability. We need energy and the world will get it.

[kimmy]

The Obama administration won't solve "climate change", it will be a rich fellow like Sir Richard Branson whom funds privatly a bunch of eggheads in a room with an algal culture that will do it........and make billions off it in the process

Aside from "billionaire philanthropist", I'd suggest that "powerful corporation sensing opportunity" is a likely model for change.

People complain that the oil companies will never support alternative energy research... but Intel has invested billions in it. Key word being invested. They know where the parade is heading, they want to get there first. I believe that Cisco is similarly involved in "smart grid" technologies that will be key to our energy future.

Companies like Apple and Google are examples of the same kind of thinking. "Here's things that we're good at... there's an industry that looks like it's ripe for change... our expertise could change that industry. Why not give it a try? We could make a ton of money!"

-k