Is Canada going Marxist?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, herbie said:

 It can't be considered that one supports the party's policies over another's. It's all about the cult of personality. The only time a party leader ever ran in the riding I lived in I was too young to vote, so I never got a chance to vote for a Prime Minister.
Hard to discuss things with people who can't distinguish between a Prime Minister and a King or Emperor.

I don't know if you are referring to me or Grahan but I don't think it applies to either.

I will say that personality and appearance are far too important in selecting a leader.  We get our leaders because everybody thinks that is a legitimate criterion.

[herbie]

I'm trying to say we don't vote for the person, we vote for the platform. So all the talk about the person is irresponsible.
I don't "like" any of the current party's choice of leaders but I vote for what the party stands for in their platform. And I'll defend the leaders against stupid accusations*.

 

*Unless it's a Tory... ever since their goose step away from the Progressive Conservative platform they can go to hell.

Edited March 31 by herbie

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1a. While I can get behind the general description of left-wing politics it remains to be seen how 'wokism' moves to a classless society. 

1b. It's more of a liberal take on how to treat people... nobody is proposing affirmative action programs for trans people or black people for that matter, anymore. 

1c. Most of the squawking about wokism is how it asks people to normalize treatment of certain groups and to frame our thinking of social relations.  "Equality of outcome" refers to material well-being, not social acceptance. Marxism doesn't have anything to say about DEI hiring, because that was a thing that couldn't have been conceived of at that time.  It's more of a liberal social program to spread public spending around between ethnic groups more

2. The data in both of those examples is "anonymized" meaning that individuals are not monitored, only the overall trends and aggregate qualities of the data.  Compare that to Harper's Terrorism Bill (once again which I SUPPORT) that allows arrest of individuals if the government *thinks* they are going to commit a crime, and allows more surveillance and actions to share data with the police, non-anonymized.  
https://canadians.org/analysis/whats-harpers-proposed-bill-c-51-security-canada-legislation/
 

1a.  I never argued that.  I'm not saying we're turning into a Marxist classless economic state, but i'm saying this government has been creeping to the far-left in some ways socially and culturally, using anti-liberal means, and it has ideological similarities in the moral sense to Marxism.

1b.  That's not true at all.

1c.  Look up what "equity" means and then compare it to "equality of outcome".

2.  I didn't agree with some things in Harper's bill either.

Quote

6. At least I am making my mind up on the issues and not following some paranoid and brainless slogan equating the Liberal Party with Marxists.  And when I defend things, I tend to do so on conservative principles or, otherwise, pragmatic ones such as the Harper surveillance bill.

7.  I like that you are at least redefining terms when challenged.  Yes, authoritarian governments that restrict your right to travel and ultimately to leave are seen as more unethical than countries with freedom of movement.  This is because it's thought to be ethical to allow the maximum personal freedom of an individual.  Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing and you start to get into the weeds the more you try to put everything in the same box - let alone Liberal Party policy.

8. Are you, then, acknowledging that there isn't a drift to the left ?  That we're not "going" Marxist and that we're actually moving to the right ?  Because with that statement it sure seems like it.

9. Realpolitik.  Who started Trade with Red China ?  Trudeau or Nixon ?  But I won't deny that the Trudeaus were as partial to authoritarians as Nixon or Reagan were.

10. I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau.  Why are you asking me to defend him ?  I won't.  Some of your criticisms reveal your lack of understanding of your own dilemma though.  If you think that Liberals and Conservatives aren't both elitists then you shouldn't vote.  If you think wealthy people don't support Conservative tax cutting, trust loopholes, and such then you're brainwashed.  For that matter, I will bet I have probably voted Liberal less often than you have based on your comments.  
-----
Think with your brain, not your heart.  Trudeau, Poilievre and the rest are the personification of a large body of national political intent - for the purposes of our consideration of them.  There's really no point in hating on any of them.  They're not here to make big changes to anything

 

6.  The OP is stupid, we probably agree on that.

7.  I didn't equate Marxism and communism, in fact I specifically used the terms separately for that reason.

8.  Socially and culturally this government has moved the country quite a bit to the left.  The NDP has moved us a bit to the left also with the federal dental, pharmacare programs etc.  The Liberals work for their rich paymasters economically, while spending debt money to try to buy votes without the need of having to actually do anything that might sustainable solve many of our problems.

10.  I'm not comparing the Liberals to the CPC here.  If don't disagree with the terms I used to describe the Liberal Party then I'll take it to mean you concede the point.  All of the terms I used were carefully and thoughtfully laid out, despite what you assume.  Trudeau is probably the worst PM in the country's history and has eroded this country in a wide variety of ways, he deserves a lot of criticism.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

It can't be considered that one supports the party's policies over another's. It's all about the cult of personality. The only time a party leader ever ran in the riding I lived in I was too young to vote, so I never got a chance to vote for a Prime Minister.
Hard to discuss things with people who can't distinguish between a Prime Minister and a King or Emperor.

Technically yes, in reality no.

[Venandi]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

we vote for the platform

16 hours ago, herbie said:

And I'll defend the leaders against stupid accusations

16 hours ago, herbie said:

Unless it's a Tory

I know I'm cherry picking here (out of context and all that) but the points are well taken and worthy of reflection I think.  That's why I did it.

I probably qualify as a political agnostic, and It may just be me... but:

1.  I want to vote on the "policy" supporting that platform. The platform itself is way too vague and I see that as deliberate. Call me crazy but I happen to think that elections are actually a good time to discuss policy.

So, if you plan to radically reduce emissions in support of accord targets and you plan to do it in less than 6 years, you better tell me how you hope to achieve that. Seriously now, when you compare what needs to be done with the time left to do it, people should exercise caution around open windows lest they be sucked into the vortex. 

2.  As it stands now, most of the accusations I hear aren't stupid, most of the defences are suspect though.

Assuming I have a few (grade 13 level) biology questions about SP toxicity and lipid nano particles please understand that I'm looking for answers... not ridicule.

If my neighbours and the ruling party of my country asses my character based on those questions and their response  is in the form of another question, like "should I even be tolerated as a citizen?" well... the discussion with me is over.

I'll just bide my time and vote you gone. When that happens, expect to be treated with the same respect you extended to others. I'm not advocating for that BTW, I simply see it as a likely outcome. 

3. This one speaks to me of narrative, I see it as a close relative of religious dogma and think it contributes to the polarization and division we see now. Those deliberately manufactured wedge issues don't help either. In fact, they only serve to undermine any and all attempts to resolve the first two observations. 

We haven't lost the compass as a nation IMO, we simply doubled the magnetic declination, added an extra 10% for progressives and proceeded to apply the correction (that little brass screw) in the wrong direction.

Follow the breadcrumbs back, reset the compass and try again. But expect a long day and a few blisters along the way, because we earned them. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Socially and culturally this government has moved the country quite a bit to the left.  The NDP has moved us a bit to the left also with the federal dental, pharmacare programs etc.  The Liberals work for their rich paymasters economically, while spending debt money to try to buy votes without the need of having to actually do anything that might sustainable solve many of our problems.

2.  I'm not comparing the Liberals to the CPC here.  If don't disagree with the terms I used to describe the Liberal Party then I'll take it to mean you concede the point. 
3. All of the terms I used were carefully and thoughtfully laid out, despite what you assume.  Trudeau is probably the worst PM in the country's history and has eroded this country in a wide variety of ways, he deserves a lot of criticism.

1. Ok - there's a lot I agree with in this paragraph, and maybe it constitutes our resting point: socially and culturally, there's a leftist veneer to the Liberals' politics; the NDP has successfully lobbied for two big social benefits, and the Liberals work for wealthy stakeholders.  
2. You should.  How could Canada's most successful PM, by many measures, the late Mulroney not be seen as elite ?  How could Harper, Poilievre... people who spent virtually their whole careers in the politics not be seen as elite ?
3. Carefully laid out opinions are different than carefully laid out facts.  How can I possibly challenge your opinion that Liberals are yuppies ?  I can't.

----

Like I say, with the modified terms and my understanding of your feelings - and this is mostly about feelings - here, we are likely at a resting point if not agreement on many points.  What does it mean to the big picture ?  Practically nothing.  But if we don't do our parts as nobodies, as members of "the" public, to understand issues in real terms (rather than parroting the slogans and snipes of political masters and their public channels) then we sure as hell can't accuse the politicians of being lazy or hypocritical.  

We have a job to do too, and this is it.

[eyeball]

On 3/30/2024 at 11:12 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

It's not so much "Marxism" that's taking hold in Canada, it's the far-left moral philosophy behind it, which is equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity.

Let's break it down. Leftwing politics is defined as such by wikipedia:

...Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished"

I guess this is why I focus so much on lobbying and access to politicians - the opportunity to influence politicians should be equal. Which is to say a corporation should have no more opportunity to access or influence a politician than anyone else.

If governments want to seek advise directly from influencers fine, just make it public.

[Zeitgeist]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

I'm trying to say we don't vote for the person, we vote for the platform. So all the talk about the person is irresponsible.
I don't "like" any of the current party's choice of leaders but I vote for what the party stands for in their platform. And I'll defend the leaders against stupid accusations*.

 

*Unless it's a Tory... ever since their goose step away from the Progressive Conservative platform they can go to hell.

The only problem with the Conservatives is that they aren’t conservative enough.  I want them to be more socially conservative too, but as Canadians have been fed a steady diet of cultural Marxist BS through state-funded media and education, which have been hijacked by the radical left, Canada seems locked into left wing governments.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

The only problem with the Conservatives is that they aren’t conservative enough.  I want them to be more socially conservative too.

So were thinking something more like an Augusto Pinochet, Recep Erdoğan or Benjamin Netanyahu?

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

So we’re thinking something more like an Augusto Pinochet, Recep Erdoğan or Benjamin Netanyahu?

I’m fine with Ronald Reagan.

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The only problem with the Conservatives is that they aren’t conservative enough.  I want them to be more socially conservative too,

More conservative than they already are? Well they're already at the right edge of leaving 'conservative' territory altogether. You're definitely not a 'conservative'.

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

 I want to vote on the "policy" supporting that platform. The platform itself is way too vague and I see that as deliberate. Call me crazy but I happen to think that elections are actually a good time to discuss policy.

So, if you plan to radically reduce emissions in support of accord targets and you plan to do it in less than 6 years, you better tell me how you hope to achieve that.

Exactly. Other than criticize the Liberal plan, I've been listening closely for any peep of an alternative plan of action and heard dick. What I have seen clearly is opposition to any and every step involving environmental or climate issues.

 

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

As it stands now, most of the accusations I hear aren't stupid, most of the defences are suspect though

Oh really? Is Canada Going Marxist? etc? Didn't plan for thing that never happened before ie pandemics and massive forest fires, things not within federal jurisdictions, court rulings?

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m fine with Ronald Reagan.

I know. That's because you're a pious right-wing Christian cawksucker. If you've seen one you've seen them all.

Not only did Reagan embolden torturers and murders, the CIA, following his order to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who were trying to oust the socialist Sandinistas), worked with suspected drug traffickers. Who said so? Not conspiracy-theory nuts, but the inspector general of the CIA. Years after the contra war, the agency's IG produced two reports that conceded the CIA had enlisted the assistance of alleged drug-runners. At the same time Nancy Reagan was preaching "Just Say No" to drugs. ...

https://hnn.us/article/david-corn-reagan-supported-dictators-as-long-as-t

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I know. That's because you're a pious right-wing Christian cawksucker. If you've seen one you've seen them all.

Not only did Reagan embolden torturers and murders, the CIA, following his order to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who were trying to oust the socialist Sandinistas), worked with suspected drug traffickers. Who said so? Not conspiracy-theory nuts, but the inspector general of the CIA. Years after the contra war, the agency's IG produced two reports that conceded the CIA had enlisted the assistance of alleged drug-runners. At the same time Nancy Reagan was preaching "Just Say No" to drugs. ...

https://hnn.us/article/david-corn-reagan-supported-dictators-as-long-as-t

Stooping to insults, huh?  Okay I’ll call you out as basically an amoral whiner   You’re sitting on the fence trying to live the pleasurable life as the elitist you truly are while paying lip service to caring about workers and poor people. Hardner is another mamby-pamby enabler. Herbie is a Marxist because he likes getting free stuff and being a layabout.  You’re all pretty transparent.

The CIA, Pentagon, and a slew of agencies run the US. Reagan couldn’t penetrate that and either could Kennedy or Trump.

The reason I cite Reagan is because he won the Cold War and in many ways represented the American spirit. For a brief time the world seemed quite united.  Life was pretty good under Clinton too.  The American Dream of getting a decent job, owning a home, and having kids if you want them, was alive and well.

People understood the value of democracy and generally knew the difference between right and wrong.

We’ve gone backwards since at least 2019.

Edited April 1 by Zeitgeist

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

What I have seen clearly is opposition to any and every step involving environmental or climate issues.

 

And if 66% of Canadians stand opposed to a relatively modest carbon tax increase on "April Holiday Monday" I think you'll be seeing lots more of it. I'm guessing some of that group are liberals... no? 

If they cringe at that, wait till they hoist aboard the costs associated with 45% lower emissions than 2005. With only 6 years to go and a huge amount of ground to cover, I think it will be a challenge making your case, but I'm rooting for ya.

Make the rich pay sounds great to voters until they discover who's actually in the crosshairs of a liberal "rich" reticle.

Edited April 1 by Venandi

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stooping to insults, huh?

Fu ck you. You're an insult. Especially in light of your blather about how nice it would be to live in a pious god-fearing society modelled according to the values and loving forgiving nature of your filthy religion. And then you hold up a monster as your ideal leader. Another Christian who  believed and said your filthy god wanted America to be a beacon of hope, faith, freedom, and democracy — “a city on the hill”.

A man who is also responsible for visiting horrible deaths on thousands upon thousands of people at the hands of dictators who behaved much like the demons you imagine god sics on evildoers. Theses were kids all to often in Reagan's case.

I can't think of anything more disgusting or evil than a leader of the Shiniest Beacon on Earth for liberty and freedom supporting some of worst abusers of liberty and freedom on Earth. About the only thing more grotesque than that is celebrating it.

My niece's family suffered at the hands of one of these drug lords Reagan's policies helped create and enrich. So yeah fu ck you too. 

[Zeitgeist]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Fu ck you. You're an insult. Especially in light of your blather about how nice it would be to live in a pious god-fearing society modelled according to the values and loving forgiving nature of your filthy religion. And then you hold up a monster as your ideal leader. Another Christian who  believed and said your filthy god wanted America to be a beacon of hope, faith, freedom, and democracy — “a city on the hill”.

A man who is also responsible for visiting horrible deaths on thousands upon thousands of people at the hands of dictators who behaved much like the demons you imagine god sics on evildoers. Theses were kids all to often in Reagan's case.

I can't think of anything more disgusting or evil than a leader of the Shiniest Beacon on Earth for liberty and freedom supporting some of worst abusers of liberty and freedom on Earth. About the only thing more grotesque than that is celebrating it.

My niece's family suffered at the hands of one of these drug lords Reagan's policies helped create and enrich. So yeah fu ck you too. 

Poor baby.  What does Reagan have to do with your niece?  Nada.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.  Turn that frown upside down.  Lol

I don’t even think Reagan is especially great.  I do think he’s better than many of the clowns running today.   

Edited April 2 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What does Reagan have to do with your niece?

The same thing he had to do with thousands of innocent people that were affected by his foreign policies.

Have you noticed how many are trying to migrate here now? A lot of that's just straight blowback.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The same thing he had to do with thousands of innocent people that were affected by his foreign policies.

Have you noticed how many are trying to migrate here now? A lot of that's just straight blowback.

I assume that you’re referring to Iran-Contra?  No doubt that was bad and the Americans propped up some dictators to fight the Soviets and communists.  How much those events 40 years ago had to do with the drug lord who hurt your niece’s family is pretty hard to quantify.  My guess is very little. There were multiple operations underway fighting drug lords but many governments were in bed with drug lords throughout central and South America, so these are complicated situations. Now if you wanted to talk about the matter of Chavez’s influence and the various American involvements for better and worse, yes those are far more recent and relevant events that have impacted current migration.

There’s a lot of poverty and corruption in those regions that you can’t blame on America.  You’ll try though.

Anyway, I’ve weighed in on countless wars and interventions funded or led by America that I thought were dubious   Unfortunately you have to make decisions in life that involve supporting politicians.  No one’s hands are clean but some are much better than others.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok - there's a lot I agree with in this paragraph, and maybe it constitutes our resting point: socially and culturally, there's a leftist veneer to the Liberals' politics; the NDP has successfully lobbied for two big social benefits, and the Liberals work for wealthy stakeholders.  
2. You should.  How could Canada's most successful PM, by many measures, the late Mulroney not be seen as elite ?  How could Harper, Poilievre... people who spent virtually their whole careers in the politics not be seen as elite ?
3. Carefully laid out opinions are different than carefully laid out facts.  How can I possibly challenge your opinion that Liberals are yuppies ?  I can't.

----

4.  Like I say, with the modified terms and my understanding of your feelings - and this is mostly about feelings - here, we are likely at a resting point if not agreement on many points.

1.  Ok, some progress.

2.  Yes they're all elites, but some more than others.  Spending your whole adult life in politics is much different than literally growing up as a child at 24 Sussex and being the wealthy son of Canada's version of JFK and having Fidel Castro, the Aga Khan, and many other of the most powerful and well-connected people in the world as "family friends".  Brian Mulroney's dad was a paper mill electrician, there's little comparison here besides the connections they both made while in politics.  It's like comparing you and I to Prince Harry if we all ran for public office.  How do you govern a country properly when you've never in your life experienced most of the problems of the average Canadian?  Let them eat cake!

3.  Which voters do you think share more values with Justin's Liberal Party.  Young, urban, well-educated, fashionable and wealthy types that drive Tesla's and use Apple products for the social cred, or middle-aged plumbers who live in small towns?  We can agree to disagree if you like.

4.  Yes of course these are my opinions.  Subjective opinions are typically supported by evidence and logic, and aren't objective facts.  Marxism and wokeism and darwinism and E=MC2 are all just "theories" too, not sure what your point here is.  And yes i'm comparing my opinions to Einstein's, jk.

Edited April 2 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

1.  Yes they're all elites, but some more than others.   

2.  Which voters do you think share more values with Justin's Liberal Party.  Young, urban, well-educated, fashionable and wealthy types that drive Tesla's and use Apple products for the social cred...

3.  Yes of course these are my opinions.  Subjective opinions are typically supported by evidence and logic, and aren't objective facts.  Marxism and wokeism and darwinism and E=MC2 are all just "theories" too, not sure what your point here is. 

 

1. I was also going to bring up Mulroney, but also Bill Clinton and christia freeland come to mind.

2. The people you're describing, all the ones I know, vote NDP.

3. You want me to prove you're wrong, but since it's an opinion I can't by definition.

Edited April 2 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I assume that you’re referring to Iran-Contra?

Amongst other things.  But the topic is your admiration for a monster that you wouldn't mind having for a leader. It's dystopian and dark - a sign of the times I guess.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Amongst other things.  But the topic is your admiration for a monster that you wouldn't mind having for a leader. It's dystopian and dark - a sign of the times I guess.

I would be content as a starting point to wind the clock back to around 2010 or 2012.  Things really came apart a couple of years into Trudeau’s government and got intensively worse during the pandemic.  Probably the late 90’s was the golden age for liberal democracy and the nation state.  From 2001 on, including the War on Terror, 2008 market meltdown, and worst of all the C-19 shutdown, we have seen major challenges to freedom, democracy, and basic morality.  

[eyeball]

58 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I would be content as a starting point to wind the clock back to around 2010 or 2012.

There's no going back. It's fantasy.

Quote

Things really came apart a couple of years into Trudeau’s government and got intensively worse during the pandemic.  Probably the late 90’s was the golden age for liberal democracy and the nation state.

It was decades before Trudeau was even born. You have to back in 1953 when Britain talked the US into overthrowing democracy in Iran and installing a ruthless autocratic tyranny.  In a way it was kind of like Eve telling Adam to take a bite of the proverbial apple. America knew it was wrong but did it secretly anyway and the success of the operation emboldened the US to make regime change and the installation of dictators as the preferred method of spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

The world's increasingly gone sideways ever since resulting in 70% of humanity now living under the thumbs of dictators. Good job.

Quote

From 2001 on, including the War on Terror, 2008 market meltdown, and worst of all the C-19 shutdown, we have seen major challenges to freedom, democracy, and basic morality.

The thing that really stands out thru this period is how dramatically the right-wing has collectively lost its shit over everything and Donald Trump became the new standard for morality in the governance of what's left of the free world.

It's particularly hilarious however listening to the occasional chud say that going into Iraq was a mistake. Saying that used to get you cancelled as a terrorist sympathizing commie Islamo-fascist around these parts.

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's no going back. It's fantasy.

It was decades before Trudeau was even born. You have to back in 1953 when Britain talked the US into overthrowing democracy in Iran and installing a ruthless autocratic tyranny.  In a way it was kind of like Eve telling Adam to take a bite of the proverbial apple. America knew it was wrong but did it secretly anyway and the success of the operation emboldened the US to make regime change and the installation of dictators as the preferred method of spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

The world's increasingly gone sideways ever since resulting in 70% of humanity now living under the thumbs of dictators. Good job.

The thing that really stands out thru this period is how dramatically the right-wing has collectively lost its shit over everything and Donald Trump became the new standard for morality in the governance of what's left of the free world.

It's particularly hilarious however listening to the occasional chud say that going into Iraq was a mistake. Saying that used to get you cancelled as a terrorist sympathizing commie Islamo-fascist around these parts.

I always opposed going to Iraq and I marched with Jack Layton against it.  Was I a commie dingbat?  Probably, but I stand by opposing that invasion.

I agree that Trump is a strange standard of preference, but he was right that Obama’s backing of a Shi-ite unelected government in Iraq only added to the creation of ISIS, though W certainly got the US in deep over there.

My issue with Biden is that his whole Ukraine strategy is yet another warmongering move directed from the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, and God knows what other unelected scriptwriters.  Canada is along for the ride.  I don’t think Putin would’ve seen a need to get more invested in Ukraine if Trump was at the helm.  We had no wars under Trump.  That whole saga can be traced back to NATO’s move eastward after Secretary of State James Baker promised the opposite.

 

 

Edited April 2 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

My issue with Biden is that his whole Ukraine strategy is yet another warmongering move directed from the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, and God knows what other unelected scriptwriters.  Canada is along for the ride.  I don’t think Putin would’ve seen a need to get more invested in Ukraine if Trump was at the helm.  We had no wars under Trump.  That whole saga can be traced back to NATO’s move eastward after Secretary of State James Baker promised the opposite.