LEAP Manifesto, would you sign?

[?Impact]

Since the LEAP Manifesto made headlines from the recent NDP convention in Edmonton, I thought it was time I actually read this document. Not to worry, it is not some 1000 page study that you will need to devote a lifetime to read, but a simple short document (5 pages total, only 4 pages with text). It does raise some good ideals, but there are some obviously contentious parts as well. While it acknowledges that we will still be carbon dependent for at least 20 years, it does call for an end to new infrastructure projects in fossil fuel extraction. Here is the paragraph I think was responsible for derailing the NDP Convention:

There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.

I wouldn't sing the document because of that paragraph, but most of the rest is about positive goals and where we should be focusing our efforts.

The LEAP manifesto can be found at: https://leapmanifesto.org

[TimG]

It does raise some good ideals, but there are some obviously contentious parts as well.

Good ideals? I really depends on the definition of the word "good". I find the document much closer to "evil" because it actually advocates turning Canada into a hell hole that won't be able to keep its own people fed and sheltered.

Communism does not work. Everywhere that has tried it has failed and caused its people great suffering in the process. The people who wrote that document don't seem to understand these basic realities and want to double down on Communism by outlawing economic development that fails to meet the politburo's approval.

On top of that this document is actually promoting something much worse than Communism because Communists in the past would at least pay lip service to the idea that all people are equal. This document, OTOH, seeks to create a feudal state where people with the right DNA are given many more privileges just because they have that DNA.

"evil" may be too kind of word for it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[DFCaper]

The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard.

The LEAP manifesto can be found at: https://leapmanifesto.org

I hate the wind turbines I can see from my house.. Should we stop those as well? Nobody wants them in their backyard now!!

[PIK]

The eco freaks are out of control in this country. And we are going to pay thru the nose if someone does not put these people in their place.

[eyeball]

Communism does not work.

We don't know that yet because its never had the chance to operate in a state of transparent accountability. Capitalism appears to be failing for the very same fundamental reason.

Edited April 15, 2016 by eyeball

[TimG]

Capitalism appears to be failing for the very same fundamental reason.

I reject your premise. Capitalism is not failing by any reasonable measure.

[?Impact]

I find the document much closer to "evil" because it actually advocates turning Canada into a hell hole that won't be able to keep its own people fed and sheltered.

Care to share any specifics from the manifesto to support your argument? That is why I showed the paragraphs I don't support. A blanket "it's all communism" is a cop out, you are better than that Tim.

[cybercoma]

The eco freaks are out of control in this country. And we are going to pay thru the nose if someone does not put these people in their place.

So dramatic. This document isn't even remotely controversial and it's far from radical. The Netherlands are considering banning petrol and diesel cars by 2025. Now that's radical change.

[Guest]

The LEAP manifesto can be found at: https://leapmanifesto.org

I think it's time for another look at this...

How to do it!

[cybercoma]

I reject your premise. Capitalism is not failing by any reasonable measure.

I like your reasonable qualifier because you've shown time and again that you care not one bit about reason and will reject any facts that don't fit your ideology. This allows you to call literally anything you disagree with as unreasonable. It's sheer intellectual dishonesty.

[Guest]

So dramatic. This document isn't even remotely controversial and it's far from radical. The Netherlands are considering banning petrol and diesel cars by 2025. Now that's radical change.

But you can cycle from one end to the other in twenty minutes.

[TimG]

Care to share any specifics from the manifesto to support your argument?

Pretty much every paragraph spouts nonsense of proletariat taking back the means from production from the bourgeoisie. For example:

As an alternative to the profit-gouging of private companies and the remote bureaucracy of some centralized state ones, we can create innovative ownership structures: democratically run, paying living wages and keeping much-needed revenue in communities.

They have updated the rhetoric must not much of the substance has changed from the time of Lenin. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

I like your reasonable qualifier because you've shown time and again that you care not one bit about reason and will reject any facts that don't fit your ideology.

I don't reject facts. I reject opinions I disagree with. Your problem is you keep insisting that your *opinions* should be treated as facts. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

It'll never pass. I'm just giving an example of radical policy. Saying we need to place our public efforts into transitioning away from fossil fuels is hardly radical. The oil industry is profitable and can take care of itself. But as far as public welfare goes, ignoring the fact that we can't rely on oil forever is irresponsible. Public money should be going to research and implementation of new ideas that will help us transition, not going to welfare for the old, well-established, and profitable processes we're already using. The world is going to transition with us or without. The only question you need to answer is whether you want to follow the parade or be where the parade is going.

[cybercoma]

I don't reject facts.

Sure you don't. I only have to go through literally any conversation you've ever had with Waldo to show you rejecting facts that disagree with your opinions over and over again.

[TimG]

Sure you don't. I only have to go through literally any conversation you've ever had with Waldo to show you rejecting facts that disagree with your opinions over and over again.

And I will show you case after case where you arrogantly call opinions facts and then accuse me of rejecting facts. I am not interested in playing your game. A little hint: facts are data. Facts are NOT interpretations of data. Interpretations of data are opinions even if these interpretations are published in a paper by an academic. You need to learn the difference. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

I reject your premise. Capitalism is not failing by any reasonable measure.

Do you reject the premise coming out of the Panama Papers? It seems to suggest that a lot of capitalists can't stand on their own two feet without resorting to cheating and lying. Remember this is just one firm in one haven.

[TimG]

Do you reject the premise coming out of the Panama Papers? It seems to suggest that a lot of capitalists can't stand on their own two feet without resorting to cheating and lying.

The Panama papers exposed more people from 'socialist' countries trying to escape the rules of their regime than from 'capitalist' states. If anything those papers of evidence of the failure of socialism. Those paper provides no evidence of capitalism failing. That is a nonsensical interpretation you invented. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

It'll never pass. I'm just giving an example of radical policy. Saying we need to place our public efforts into transitioning away from fossil fuels is hardly radical. The oil industry is profitable and can take care of itself. But as far as public welfare goes, ignoring the fact that we can't rely on oil forever is irresponsible. Public money should be going to research and implementation of new ideas that will help us transition, not going to welfare for the old, well-established, and profitable processes we're already using. The world is going to transition with us or without. The only question you need to answer is whether you want to follow the parade or be where the parade is going.

I agree with you that the transitioning away from fossil fuels is both desirable and inevitable. Only the methods and the timing are in question as far as I'm concerned. I don't think any country is going to suffer unduly in order to make the difference they are capable of making, given their lack of a say in what anyone else is doing. "Leaving it in the ground" in Canada just to boost the profits of other Oil and Gas companies elsewhere on the planet who move in to make up the loss is not a good plan.

[dre]

Pretty much every paragraph spouts nonsense of proletariat taking back the means from production from the bourgeoisie. For example:

They have updated the rhetoric must not much of the substance has changed from the time of Lenin.

I look at innovative ownership structures being more like this...

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/09/23/BC-Mill-Success-Story/

[TimG]

I look at innovative ownership structures being more like this...

What is innovative about that? You had an asset that was abandoned which a new group of owners took over and made profitable. The worker-owner is a model that can only work when someone else provided the capital necessary to build the abandoned asset in the first place. Worker owner groups are not set up to build any business that requires a lot of capital investment. Exceptions show up from time to time but they are not the basis for a sustainable economic model. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

The Panama papers exposed more people from 'socialist' countries trying to escape the rules of their regime than from 'capitalist' states.

I'm glad it's exposing socialists. Nothing pisses me off more than finding out the people in charge of something I support are being exposed for doing things that undermine what I support.

Those paper provides no evidence of capitalism failing. That is a nonsensical interpretation you invented.

These papers provide evidence of the opacity that surrounds power and wealth be it communist or capitalist. The thing that's harming both systems.

I'm perfectly willing to investigate socialist crookedness with a forensic audit. How do you feel about doing the same for capitalists?

Edited April 15, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

I reject your premise. Capitalism is not failing by any reasonable measure.

Nor does communism work, nor has it worked, anywhere. Attention on this idiotic document has focused on its anti-oil message, but much of the rest involves nationalizing industries and doing everything which can be done to do away with capitalism. It's sheer idiocy.

[Wilber]

But you can cycle from one end to the other in twenty minutes.

Ya, a Tesla could drive across it and back on one charge, plus it is dead flat.

[?Impact]

Nor does communism work, nor has it worked, anywhere. Attention on this idiotic document has focused on its anti-oil message, but much of the rest involves nationalizing industries and doing everything which can be done to do away with capitalism. It's sheer idiocy.

I quote from the document:

As an alternative to the profit-gouging of private companies and the remote bureaucracy of some centralized state ones, we can create innovative ownership structures: democratically run, paying living wages and keeping much-needed revenue in communities.

That is not nationalizing, it is more akin to building co-ops, or possibly other corporate structures we haven't seen yet. You might call that communism, but then you must call Mountain Equipment co-op, Calgary co-op (food distribution network), and countless others as communist, but they certainly are not nationalization. The roots of some of today's largest corporations were cooperatives (e.g. Canada Life, before demutualization in the 90's and then being acquired by Great West Life.