Why are socialists so different between countries?

[Second-class Canadian]

And, yes, this is probably also why they don't need minimum wage laws: when unions have this kind of power and are able to bargain collectively on behalf of the majority of workers, the government does not need to set a minimum wage for unprotected workers. (Even un-unionized workers who work in unionized workplaces get the wages that the union bargains for.)

Yes, but Sweden was smart enough to legislate the appropriate laws to create a social-corporatist structure withing the non-government sector, thus still allowing to respond quite efficiently to the whims of the market. Much of their system involves regulation of the private sector, not the expansion of inflexible one-size-fits-all national bureaucracies. The NDP could learn a lot from them.

[Second-class Canadian]

What do you think the federal NDP's chance of winning would be if they campaigned on turning EI over to the unions, greatly increasing the size of the public sector, jacking up income taxes, bringing the HST closer to 25%, moving towards two-tier health care (but expanding drug coverage), and leaving NATO? Would you vote for them? Electable parties in stable and prosperous democracies tend to advocate for gradual and incremental changes from the status quo.

Scandinavian governments are also able to do certain things because they have small populations, are more culturally homogeneous than Canada, and are somewhat isolated, geographically and linguistically. If we had a 25% sales tax, it is likely that people would just start shopping across the border much more often, for example.

By the way, Sweden's educational performance, as measured on international tests, has clearly declined in the time period since school vouchers and privatization were introduced. Their contemporary educational system is referred to by writers of differing ideological stripes as a cautionary tale. Some blame these market-driven reforms, some don't, but, either way, it is not necessarily a model to refer to.

I'd read about the decline. It's difficult to isolate one cause though since many changes had occurred alongside the vouchers. It is interesting to note though that though the first political party to support vouchers was the conservative-leaning Christian Democratic Party, the first to start campaigning for it were language rights activists and indigenous and other linguistic minorities. This adds to the confusion since then they had an unlikely alliance between conservatives and language-rights activists supporting the voucher program but likely for different reasons.

I agree with incrementalism. For example, start by raising the GST somewhat for this election. Introduce co-determination laws, eliminate the minimum wage, and the Canada Health act. That might be a good initial start for the first mandate. The Ghent system? Maybe, though the NDP might want to give it a few years to get people used to the idea. The important thing is to ensure the structures are responsive to the arket. For instance, Swedes have been known to negotiate their wages downward in the past through a very efficient collaborative sysyem. This is unimaginable in Canada except only when companies are at the brink and then it's too late. Most NDP policies are more bureaucratic and rigid and in conflict with the market.

[-1=e^ipi]

What do you think the federal NDP's chance of winning would be if they campaigned on moving towards two-tier health care.

Never going to happen. A one-tier health system is one of the NDP's sacred cows.

[Evening Star]

I agree with incrementalism. For example, start by raising the GST somewhat for this election. Introduce co-determination laws, eliminate the minimum wage, and the Canada Health act. That might be a good initial start for the first mandate. The Ghent system? Maybe, though the NDP might want to give it a few years to get people used to the idea. The important thing is to ensure the structures are responsive to the arket. For instance, Swedes have been known to negotiate their wages downward in the past through a very efficient collaborative sysyem. This is unimaginable in Canada except only when companies are at the brink and then it's too late. Most NDP policies are more bureaucratic and rigid and in conflict with the market.

They do want to implement a cap and trade system, which is not worlds away from a consumption tax, even if it's not exactly a boost to the GST. They also advocate something pretty comparable to 'co-determination laws', which I quoted earlier.

I still feel like you are being disingenuous with those other two suggestions. It would make no sense at all to eliminate the minimum wage without first creating the conditions that make them unnecessary in Sweden. The labour movement would need to be tremendously empowered first. If you would seriously propose eliminating the minimum wage before doing this, I would start to wonder whether you have no real interest in social corporatism or practical, effective social democracy and are just concern trolling to push an extreme-right economic agenda. Minimum wage laws are under provincial jurisdiction anyway, I thought? I start to see red flags too if eliminating the Canada Health Act is one of your 'incremental' suggestions, with no mention of e.g. adopting the sorts of maternity and disability benefits that are provided in Sweden. (And, besides, I like a lot of things about our health care system, although it could be improved, in part with more funding. Just because two-tier is done in Sweden doesn't mean we need to adopt it.)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Evening Star

[Second-class Canadian]

They do want to implement a cap and trade system, which is not worlds away from a consumption tax, even if it's not exactly a boost to the GST. They also advocate something pretty comparable to 'co-determination laws', which I quoted earlier.

I still feel like you are being disingenuous with those other two suggestions. It would make no sense at all to eliminate the minimum wage without first creating the conditions that make them unnecessary in Sweden. The labour movement would need to be tremendously empowered first. If you would seriously propose eliminating the minimum wage before doing this, I would start to wonder whether you have no real interest in social corporatism or practical, effective social democracy and are just concern trolling to push an extreme-right economic agenda. Minimum wage laws are under provincial jurisdiction anyway, I thought? I start to see red flags too if eliminating the Canada Health Act is one of your 'incremental' suggestions, with no mention of e.g. adopting the sorts of maternity and disability benefits that are provided in Sweden. (And, besides, I like a lot of things about our health care system, although it could be improved, in part with more funding. Just because two-tier is done in Sweden doesn't mean we need to adopt it.)

Increasing or reducing government revenue or expenditure is one discussion. The structures within which such increases occur is another.

During an election, I tend to cringe at any party that promises expenditure increases (e.g. NDP universal childcare) or revenue reductions (e.g. Libertarian Party tax cuts). What if things change and they can't afford it? I don't mind them saying it's in their plans, as long as they don't promise it.

Now as for revenue increases (e.g. NDP cap and trade) or expenditure reductions (e.g. Libertarian elimination of official bilingualism), that's fine t promise because we know the government can afford it.

That said, I could agree with funding increases to health care in principle, with caution. Adding dental would be a nice touch. Universal daycare is a nice idea in principle too, as a plan, tentative if conditions are met, but not as a promise.

I find the Libertarian promise of a maximum 15% income tax and raising the tax free limitequally cringeworthy. Sure have it as a goal if you want but not at the expense of the national debt.

Now back to the question of structures veris funding. In Ontario, why would I be motivated to increase funding for a school system which the UN High Commission for Human Rights has found o violate the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, referring to the separate school syatem. Prior to WWI, German Ontarians could send their children to school in German. That right was abrogated after WWI and never returned to this day. Don't you think a German Canadian would be more motivated to support increasing school funding if we introduced a voucher program so as to allow them to regain their prior right? Scott Reid, now a Conservative Backbench in Parliamt, had proposed this on in his Lament for a Notion.

There is plenty of evidence to show two-tiered health care is more effective than totally public. Don't you think people would be more motivated to poor their taxes into a more efficient system?

Prior to the CBC/SRC, media funding was mostly private, resulting in many alternative media, especially Ukrainian in the prairies. Scott Reid had proposed in his book Lament for a Notion, that we could introduce media vouchers which could help to break the Anglo-French monopoly in media funding. Why make it so exclusive?

In the same book, Scott Reid had also proposed abrogating the language provisions of the Labelling and Packaging Act which would also help to allow more culturally diverse competition in the market.

The Bloc Québécois has long requested that Federal offices in Quebec serving only residents of Quebec be officially monolingual. Given that this cold open government jobs to all French speakers regardless of their first language and so end the Anglo-French monopoly in Federal government hiring in Quebec, why not support this. I remember Preston Manning in his day proposing that Federal Institutions in the prairies could function bilingually in English and Ukrainian instead of French. Though I'd prefer official monolingualism, Ukrainian would still be more logical than French in most of the prairies.

We can ask the same about Federal Funding for dycare. Would it be constrained by the Official Languages Act or would it allow Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial linguistic communities to establish their own schools? And if so, what would be the checks and balances in place to ensure the market decides and not an ethnocentric bureaucrat?

I think the above examples are more than enough to distinguish the discussion between funding and structures. Sometimes it's not that the person opposes funding increases in principle, the real question is what it is that we are funding. A system that seems to benefit only the two dominant ethnic groups could easily push even a social corporatist to the Libertarian Party in the idea that that way he could develop his own culture free from the ethnocentric constraints of the separate school system or official bilingualism. It also frees him from the dogma of a one-tiered health care system at all costs independently of the evidence.

In other words, he'd likely support a Libertarian government to purge the system from its ethnic entries and to really shake the NDP up, and then go back to voting for a new NDP that is more welcoming of the non-French and non-English.

[Second-class Canadian]

In fact, it might be legitimate to ask ourselves just how many Ukrainian, German, and other social corporatists (and maybe even labour socialists) might be voting CPC or Libertarian more as a protest against the NDP's ethnocentrism. I don't know the answer to that question. They may be few indeed. But then again, maybe not. If the NDP were smart, it might want to try to gather statistics on this.

[Second-class Canadian]

That said, I won't deny that the Libertarian Party's opposition to official bilingualism can attract francophobes, but we should also consider that I'm a French-speaker willing to consider them and that they have French speakers running for them in Quebec. In the end, I'm more concerned about my local candifate's policy statements than the xenophobic rants of a member of the same party in a different riding. In the case of the NDP, indifference to separate schools and support for the right to sue for a 7-Up in French on an international flight in spite of the fact that many other linguistic communities are not afforded the same benefit is a matter of official party policy.

[Evening Star]

I hate the provision of public funding for Catholic schools with all my heart but: i) that is a provincial issue and ii) even I would not let this keep me from supporting adequate funding for schools. It was one reason why I voted Green in the last Ontario election, though.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Evening Star

[PrimeNumber]

I hate the provision of public funding for Catholic schools with all my heart but: i) that is a provincial issue and ii) even I would not let this keep me from supporting adequate funding for schools. It was one reason why I voted Green in the last Ontario election, though.

I hate the provision of funding for any school founded by religion. Public schools should be free of any and all religious beliefs. Want to inject religions into learning? Do it on your own dime.

Otherwise we open the floodgates to any number of religious beliefs being forced upon children as early as 5. This is not the way forward as a society.

Edited July 9, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[-1=e^ipi]

I hate the provision of funding for any school founded by religion.

I agree, but arguably our public schools do preach religion, be it SJWism or climate change alarmism.

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree, but arguably our public schools do preach religion, be it SJWism or climate change alarmism.

I agree too...keep the religion stuff out of public schools, but climate change needs to be addressed, and making kids aware is a good start.

[-1=e^ipi]

I agree too...keep the religion stuff out of public schools, but climate change needs to be addressed, and making kids aware is a good start.

Yes, teach them climate science, teach them physics, teach them the scientific method. Far better use of time than preaching climate change alarmism.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, teach them climate science, teach them physics, teach them the scientific method. Far better use of time than preaching climate change alarmism.

Agreed. The reality is that teaching them the science will reveal we have a climate change problem. Hopefully they can get a handle on it before its too late.