The disappearing socialists

[Pliny]

NDP wishes to shed some of it's socialist appearance.

The great socialist disappearing act

Are we in trouble??? Will it become.....gulp...fascist??

[Michael Hardner]

They may christen themselves as the MDP - Mutualist Democratic Party.

[Jack Weber]

How would a socially democratic party of the centre left become Fascist?

[WIP]

I figured they would start repositioning themselves as soon as soon as they became aware of an opportunity to remove that Liberal middleground. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, considering that this is exactly what leftwing parties have done in England, France, or any country that uses a first-past-the-post election system.

We also have the added problem that the people with the money are not on the political left. Now that Harper is ending public campaign financing, everyone is chasing the same people with the bags of money, so our future NDP will look similar to the Democratic Party, which tries to be populist enough to get the votes of the majority, while currying favour of the Wall Street bankers and other sources of funding and future employment after leaving office.

[Topaz]

So would they be called the NEWER NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

[Oleg Bach]

Just like feminists who age and become comfortable and some powerful...they really don't have time for idealism. They become just like what they hated. Socialists have always wanted to have more fair advantage....eventually they become capitalists...and the cycle starts all over again...power and privledge and the established status quo always in time breed corruption.

[bloodyminded]

...power and privledge and the established status quo always in time breed corruption.

I'm not sure if this is logically axiomatic, but it might be, since history seems to bear it out.

[Shwa]

How would a socially democratic party of the centre left become Fascist?

Leftist Fascists Strike Yet Again (The silencing never stops)

Started by Shady, mind you, but it should give you a good idea.

Wait. You participated on that thread... LOL

[Pliny]

How would a socially democratic party of the centre left become Fascist?

I guess they just say they are the workers national socialist party then claim they aren't socialist or have someone determine thaey are no longer and amazingly disappear from the left and reappear on the extreme right.

It's pretty simple Jack. Socialists once established in power simply make laws that make the State all powerful for the common good, of course. Then when a majority of people start finding themselves on the other side of the common good the noose is tightened.

[Pliny]

So would they be called the NEWER NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

Maybe the New "Progressive" democratic party.

[dre]

I figured they would start repositioning themselves as soon as soon as they became aware of an opportunity to remove that Liberal middleground. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, considering that this is exactly what leftwing parties have done in England, France, or any country that uses a first-past-the-post election system.

We also have the added problem that the people with the money are not on the political left. Now that Harper is ending public campaign financing, everyone is chasing the same people with the bags of money, so our future NDP will look similar to the Democratic Party, which tries to be populist enough to get the votes of the majority, while currying favour of the Wall Street bankers and other sources of funding and future employment after leaving office.

Yeah ending public funding is a huge step backwards. One of the dumbest things weve ever done.

[August1991]

I liked this quote:

“Socialism is not an anchor, it’s a rocket,” Barry Weisleder, who chairs the unofficial socialist caucus that meets in its own room at NDP conventions, shot back.

“You can take socialism out of the preamble, but you can’t take socialism out of the NDP.”

Toronto Star

Social democrat? Socialist? What's the difference?

The NDP is foolish to be drawn into a debate of semantics but that is what Leftists often do. One reason that I stopped being a Leftist is because it dawned on me that Leftists love to argue about everything (IOW, Leftists love to have options) and yet they want to impose a system that removes choice from people.

In a nutshell, the NDP wants to distinguish itself from the Liberals and offer voters a socialist alternative. But the socialist NDP favours restricting our choice when, for example, it comes to health care and education.

Edited June 20, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

I liked this quote:Toronto Star

Social democrat? Socialist? What's the difference?

The NDP is foolish to be drawn into a debate of semantics but that is what Leftists often do. One reason that I stopped being a Leftist is because it dawned on me that Leftists love to argue about everything (IOW, Leftists love to have options) and yet they want to impose a system that removes choice from people.

In a nutshell, the NDP wants to distinguish itself from the Liberals and offer voters a socialist alternative. But the socialist NDP favours restricting our choice when, for example, it comes to health care and education.

Social democrat? Socialist? What's the difference?

Theres a pretty huge difference actually.

[August1991]

We also have the added problem that the people with the money are not on the political left. Now that Harper is ending public campaign financing, everyone is chasing the same people with the bags of money, so our future NDP will look similar to the Democratic Party, which tries to be populist enough to get the votes of the majority, while currying favour of the Wall Street bankers and other sources of funding and future employment after leaving office.

Uh, in Canada, the maximum an individual can contribute to a federal political party is $1100. It is illegal for corporations and unions to make donations. Third party advertising is restricted.

IOW, there are no bags of money. Nevertheless, the Conservatives (and NDP) have been able to raise millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians. In 2008 (the easiest data I was able to find quickly), the average donation to the Conservatives was $104. To the NDP, it was $59.

[Moonlight Graham]

Uh, in Canada, the maximum an individual can contribute to a federal political party is $1100. It is illegal for corporations and unions to make donations. Third party advertising is restricted.

Of course there's no loop-hole around these rules, right? A CEO, their spouse, the board of directors and their families etc. cant make donations of course.

[Smallc]

A CEO, their spouse, the board of directors and their families etc. cant make donations of course.

They'd better not do it with company money. There isn't a huge number of large donors. The large donors are, therefore, under a microscope.

[Pliny]

Social democrat? Socialist? What's the difference?

The NDP is foolish to be drawn into a debate of semantics but that is what Leftists often do. One reason that I stopped being a Leftist is because it dawned on me that Leftists love to argue about everything (IOW, Leftists love to have options) and yet they want to impose a system that removes choice from people.

In a nutshell, the NDP wants to distinguish itself from the Liberals and offer voters a socialist alternative. But the socialist NDP favours restricting our choice when, for example, it comes to health care and education.

Good quotes.

In a nutshell the NDP wants to distinguish itself from the Liberals and the socialist "rockets". A scary thing.

[Pliny]

Theres a pretty huge difference actually.

Apparently, one's an anchor and one's a rocket.

[M.Dancer]

Of course there's no loop-hole around these rules, right? A CEO, their spouse, the board of directors and their families etc. cant make donations of course.

Are they not individuals?

Should we say, exclude all spouses, CEOs directors and anyone who belongs to a union?

[WIP]

Uh, in Canada, the maximum an individual can contribute to a federal political party is $1100. It is illegal for corporations and unions to make donations. Third party advertising is restricted.

And, how long will it be that this policy remains in place? Everybody knows this is the other boot that's about to fall, since Harper Cons are just following the Republican playbook. The next step is a Canadian version of the theory behind the Citizens United Case against the FEC -- where corporations express their free speech rights through the money they throw around, and restrictions on corporate campaign donations are a denial of the artificial citizen's free speech.

IOW, there are no bags of money. Nevertheless, the Conservatives (and NDP) have been able to raise millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians. In 2008 (the easiest data I was able to find quickly), the average donation to the Conservatives was $104. To the NDP, it was $59.

Now that we have a governing party that believes in American-style election campaigning, money is going to become a bigger and bigger factor in Canadian elections. Harper started out-of-season campaigning and big spending ad campaigns weeks and months before calling an election, this is the template for all future elections unless non-brainwashed Canadians dump them out of office four years from now.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now that we have a governing party that believes in American-style election campaigning, money is going to become a bigger and bigger factor in Canadian elections. Harper started out-of-season campaigning and big spending ad campaigns weeks and months before calling an election, this is the template for all future elections unless non-brainwashed Canadians dump them out of office four years from now.

Mustn't have that....anything but "American-style"...anything (except for all the "American-style" things that Canadians do like). So that means British-style government is OK, maybe with Italian-style coalitions, and perhaps an Australian-style Senate. Why if Canada had "American-style" elections, then there wouldn't be as much fun or time spent gawking at the actual American elections and news media as is done today.

Edited June 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

.... unless non-brainwashed Canadians dump them out of office four years from now.

Four years....that's a longtime to remain unbrainwashed - do you think you can hang in there?

[August1991]

Of course there's no loop-hole around these rules, right? A CEO, their spouse, the board of directors and their families etc. cant make donations of course.

No, MG. The controls are rigourous. I suppose that Paul Desmarais could manage to have 100 people eat in a restaurant and contribute $110,000 to the federal Liberal Party. It would be difficult for Desmarais to get 1000 people to do the same. Whether $110,000 or $1.1 million, this is peanuts. (Nevertheless, I was thankful when I saw that the Tories decided not to raise the individual contribution limit to $5000.)

----

Influence in this modern North American democratic world does not work through the Koch Brothers, or George Soros.

Influence works through the ability of players like Stephen Harper/Barack Obama/Bush Jnr to raise millions/billions online from ordinary people.

It's a talent. Harper, Bush Jnr and Obama have it. Ignatieff, Duceppe and McCain don't.

Edited June 26, 2011 by August1991