Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is Canada becoming a Communist state?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 927
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My skin is the colour of this text.  Victim?  Don't ever refer to me as a victim.  The 'woke' can go fuck themselves.

The next time someone asks why they should have to be taxed to pay for the education of someone else's child, show them this post, and ask if they want their child to be outvoted by people with this l

While I don't agree with the anti-vaxers and the anti-Covid crowd, I still believe Canadians have freedom of speech.  This guy Chris Sky has just been put on the no-fly list for being an anti-vaxer, a

Posted Images

16 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I don't think history really shows anything about actual Communism, because I don't think there has been a Communistic government, only those that claim to be Communist while ignoring those principles of Communism that they find inconvenient.

Well no, there were many, many community experiments and not a single one succeeded without some form of suppression or manipulation. There's something in the idea that makes it attractive to some but not viable in the reality of the society. What could it be? Could it be that laziness and greed are coded in the human genome? Making it impossible for the majority of us to give attention to what's around above 1% of what's in our individual caves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, myata said:

Well no, there were many, many community experiments and not a single one succeeded without some form of suppression or manipulation. There's something in the idea that makes it attractive to some but not viable in the reality of the society. What could it be? Could it be that laziness and greed are coded in the human genome? Making it impossible for the majority of us to give attention to what's around above 1% of what's in our individual caves.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "community experiments" and would welcome an example or two.  The wording makes me think of anarchism.

Anarchist Organizing - Existential Comics

Anarchy in the UK - Existential Comics

There have been many violent anarchists, these comics ignore them although they are acknowledged briefly in the grey text below the second comic.  Not trying to say "anarchists were perfect angels who would have made a utopia if not for those dastardly cops and oligarchs," just trying to say "mainstream society's view of what anarchism is, philosophically and politically, is deliberately distorted to serve the needs of those with wealth and power."

Both comics have a grey box underneath them that give more historical context.  You can google the names and verify what they were arrested for.  There have been people who set up small communities based on consent and mutual aid.  Some have failed on their own merits, others have "failed" because they were unable to defend themselves from State violence.  I don't think I'd take the anti-police bias as far as the author does, but I do understand the point he's trying to make.

I get where you're going with laziness and greed - they are problems, and pretending that people aren't flawed is just that - pretending.  Hard to build a real government based on a fantasy.  For me laziness is... not false, exactly, but not a helpful term.  Strength without purpose is waste.  It would make no sense, for example, to build up a massive military if you didn't have an enemy to use it on.  It would make no sense to harvest food that you couldn't eat or store.  It makes no sense to do work unless there is a reason for that work.  This principle is in our genes, and to the best of my knowledge it is repeated throughout the animal kingdom.  The easiest, healthiest calories are the ones that are consumed first.  Like many things in life, this can be taken too far, but by itself I don't think it's a bad thing.

Likewise with greed, it's not false but maybe not helpful to see ourselves in such a negative light.  It is reasonable to fear a possible future where we do not have enough.  In this light, it makes sense to take more than we need today.  Neoliberalism has really pushed the idea that "greed is good," and that is definitely a problem, but that's not something that has been a historical constant for the majority of humans as near as I can find.  To be fair, the majority of humans never had the chance to become greedy - serfs and peasants being able to get by with very little was more about survival than virtue.

Anyways, I'm definitely not trying to convince you that we should all go become anarchists, just trying to give a richer understanding of what anarchism is and isn't.  Until a couple of years ago, I thought of "anarchy" as being "the period of chaos in between governments" like it is in the Civilization games.  Was very surprised to discover the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 2:37 PM, dialamah said:

In the meantime, I'm considering either not voting at all, or voting NDP - not cause I love their ideas so much, but purely as a protest vote against both Liberal and Conservatives.  

Very reasonable and I've been there myself.  Respectfully, I would urge you to consider a protest ballot.  The system responds to people not voting by blaming the non-voters - "if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain," is a refrain I have heard dozens of times from self-righteous older folks who were secure in the knowledge that no matter who won, their concerns would be addressed.  Vote for the Rhinos, or the Greens, or scratch out all the names and write "none of the above."  At least then those in power won't be able to dismiss you and your concerns as easily.  

It might also be helpful to keep in mind that politics isn't about voting for the perfect candidate, it's about voting for the least flawed candidate.  I have felt less anger towards politicians since realizing that, and it helps.  Not being mad at, say, O'Toole, really helps me hear what he has to say with an open mind.  Then, even if I still disagree with him, I'm better able to understand why other people choose to support him, and I'm less angry at those other people as well.  Just a thought, hope it's helpful :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote cast for Liberals does not go to PC; a vote cast for PC doesn't go to Liberals. Any other vote in this country (with one exception of Quebec) is wasted. This how it was in 1865; and this is how it'll be. In the natural world there were dinosaurs and they were a marvel of the world (for a while). And in the political one they can be found too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, myata said:

A vote cast for Liberals does not go to PC; a vote cast for PC doesn't go to Liberals. Any other vote in this country (with one exception of Quebec) is wasted. This how it was in 1865; and this is how it'll be. In the natural world there were dinosaurs and they were a marvel of the world (for a while). And in the political one they can be found too.

I really wish I could say you're wrong.  Sometimes the NDP has ended up holding the balance of power, so I suppose you could make an argument that *sometimes* votes for the NDP aren't wasted.  I guess I'd say that this seems to reveal that our democracy either isn't working properly, or was never intended to actually function as more than a way to trick Canadians into thinking we are in control of our own government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're getting there fella. Keep reading, always a good thing to do. My opinion, it's not how something works when it works good that only counts, but how it works when it works poorly. And that's what matters, on the balance of things. In other words, there is necessary evil.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I don't think history really shows anything about actual Communism, because I don't think there has been a Communistic government, only those that claim to be Communist while ignoring those principles of Communism that they find inconvenient.

I wasn't trying to sell you a revolution, as I said I really don't think Communism is workable at this point in humanity's evolution.  Was just trying to explain why I think the only reason anyone would ask "is Canada becoming Communist" is because of misinformation about what "Communism" entails.  I am curious, though, about "continual revolution."  I've never heard that phrase used to describe any society or ideology before and would be interested in knowing more about it.

Ran some googles, found this Permanent revolution - Wikipedia (Trotsky) and this Continuous revolution theory - Wikipedia (Mao), is one of those what you meant or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?

I can't say I'm surprised that the original horror story of Canada becoming a communist state, would carry on page after page for a good while before lack of any coherence or evidence would lead it to run out of gas, like all the other anti-left themes. 

How many times do paranoid rightwingers conflate every conceivable adversary who doesn't buy their bullshit, as all being enemies of FREEDUMB and part of the same plot against democracy and FREE enterprize?  Too numerous to count, I'm sure! 

But on that theme you seem to be heading towards: "I don't think there has been a Communistic government," that sounds like the usual trope that anarchists and Trotskyites pull up when confronted about the less than perfect communist governments so far.  And as far as I see, all that the Noam Chomsky-inspired critiques do is to serve the ideological rhetoric of our adversaries. The Chomskyists for example, want to have it both ways, and have a safe space to criticize everyone. But I recall that when we still had real Stalinist hardliners making arguments, that their main point was: if you want to do more than just talk, and really want a socialist internationale, you have to start somewhere! That means fighting more than rhetorical battles and confronting real enemies, like the fascists who work on behalf of wealthy oligarchs, who richly reward them for protecting them....and their wealth from the people they exploit! The problem is that, you can end up like Che Guevara, and end up hunted down and shot, if the peasants either didn't understand or weren't willing to put it all on the line for the Revolution! 

But, I don't believe this is about starting the revolution at the right time or not at the right time and other claptrap from Marxist theories of a science of history. Because I don't believe in the notion of human progress and increased prosperity as history progresses. 

Prior the the so called 'Age of Enlightenment' most earlier scholars believed that history - especially earth history was a story of cycles, not an endless line of 'progress,' leading towards some kind of materialistic heaven! In that sense, Marxism is not really distinct from other humanistic enlightenment philosophies that developed in Europe 3 to 400 years ago. Both religious or deistic and atheistic humanism, developed from a framework that the human animal was somehow distinct and superior from other life on this planet, and could rule over life on earth. This is primarily why indigenous philosophers from around the world, were not inclined to adopting Marxism, except for the latter part about political and economic organization of workplaces. 

Marxists come very close to the contemptible attitude towards nature that capitalist adherents of enlightenment values share. And both sides today don't have a good handle on the ecological predicament all of this 'progress' has put us in in recent times!   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I guess I'd say that this seems to reveal that our democracy either isn't working properly, or was never intended to actually function as more than a way to trick Canadians into thinking we are in control of our own government.

In 1865 the democracy was a donation from the crown to the dominion. Today it's in part a handout and in part, interest paid by the enlightened elites to the little people who feed them provide them with their mansions, entitlements and so on. People of this country never owned and consciously built their democracy so why would they be in control of anything?

There was of course Meech lake effort but even that was more of a catch up and still by the enlightened elites. Is a democracy that's been in a deep sleep for well over a century still a democracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Right To Left said:

How many times do paranoid rightwingers conflate every conceivable adversary who doesn't buy their bullshit, as all being enemies of FREEDUMB and part of the same plot against democracy and FREE enterprize?  Too numerous to count, I'm sure! 

The biggest single lesson I learned from Trumpers is that calling people stupid will not convince them of anything.  Worth pointing out that being ignorant does not make a person dumb.  This stuff is not taught in school and the media has been actively spreading misinformation for generations.  I think the right often tries to paint the left as "lazy" and the left often tries to paint the right as "stupid."  In my experience, the best way to find out how hard a person works is to go with them to do the things they want to do, and the best way to find out how smart a person is is to talk with them about the things that interest them.  I think that "lazy" and "stupid" are not really helpful and keep the right and the left divided, angry and defensive.  I believe that if we could get to the point where people can have respectful, informed conversations, the right and left will discover that we have a lot of the same political problems, and that those problems have a lot of the same causes, and that those problems have a lot of the same solutions.  Well, that's my hope anyway, what do I know? 😕

Quote

But on that theme you seem to be heading towards: "I don't think there has been a Communistic government," that sounds like the usual trope that anarchists and Trotskyites pull up when confronted about the less than perfect communist governments so far.  And as far as I see, all that the Noam Chomsky-inspired critiques do is to serve the ideological rhetoric of our adversaries. The Chomskyists for example, want to have it both ways, and have a safe space to criticize everyone. But I recall that when we still had real Stalinist hardliners making arguments, that their main point was: if you want to do more than just talk, and really want a socialist internationale, you have to start somewhere! That means fighting more than rhetorical battles and confronting real enemies, like the fascists who work on behalf of wealthy oligarchs, who richly reward them for protecting them....and their wealth from the people they exploit! The problem is that, you can end up like Che Guevara, and end up hunted down and shot, if the peasants either didn't understand or weren't willing to put it all on the line for the Revolution! 

I follow a lot of what you're saying here.  I agree that many people have sincerely believed themselves to be "Communist" who were using violence because they had given up on conversation or because they believed the ends justified the means.  For me, that's like a person who claims to value democracy while rigging elections, or a person who values freedom while instituting mandatory minimum sentences, building for-profit prisons and militarizing police.  Those people exist, but they are not exemplars of their belief system, they are actively perverting the belief system they claim to follow. 

Violence is problematic - if you use it, you've lost moral authority, and if you don't use it you get to sit and watch while it is used unjustly by states and oligarchs against the helpless.  Pacifism can reasonably be seen as ableism coming from the privileged and slow suicide coming from the downtrodden.  I don't have a solution to that dilemna yet :(

I am curious to find who are "our adversaries" whose ideological rhetoric is served by Chomsky's critique?  From the context I'm guessing you mean the oligarchy, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I am personally not trying to foment revolution, just to give people better information.  If people knew what "leftist" actually means, no reasonable adults would think that, for example, Hollywood was leftist, or the media was leftist, or the government, or the CBC, or really any of our institutions except maybe unions.  If we were more politically literate we could have more useful conversations with our fellow citizens and it would be harder for the forked-tounged rhetoricians of the world to jerk us around.

Your point that Marx didn't really address the environment at all is a sound one.  It seems he did not foresee that particular crisis.  I like that you referenced indigenous philosophers, I think there is a lot of very useful stuff to be learned there, but it has been violently suppressed for so long that it's hard to find a good, undistorted source.  Their emphasis on intergenerationality, in particular, is keenly missing in our society.  I think if we saw ourselves as part of a community that comprised our ancestors, the living, and our descendants, we would make more responsible decisions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2021 at 9:23 AM, myata said:

Well no, there were many, many community experiments and not a single one succeeded without some form of suppression or manipulation. There's something in the idea that makes it attractive to some but not viable in the reality of the society. What could it be? Could it be that laziness and greed are coded in the human genome? Making it impossible for the majority of us to give attention to what's around above 1% of what's in our individual caves.

We the people need to take charge of our dear comrade leaders. We the people have allowed our dear comrade leaders to run and ruin all our lives because they will not do what they should be doing. And that is to mind their own f'n bloody business and stay out of we the people's hair and lives. All we the people want is to have lower taxes, less government, less rules and regulations and to keep our god given rights and freedoms. If politicians would allow we the people to decide their own fate, we would all be living in a better Canada and a better world. 

Most of all, minorities should not be allowed to be able to rule over and be able to tell the majority has to how things will get and be done. It's always a few special interest groups that seems to be able to always have the ear, and be able to rob our taxes for their communist like pet projects, of our welfare recipient politicians all the time. 

It seems like the 1% minority always seems to get their way and to run the show. Why the hell is that? :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, myata said:

In 1865 the democracy was a donation from the crown to the dominion. Today it's in part a handout and in part, interest paid by the enlightened elites to the little people who feed them provide them with their mansions, entitlements and so on. People of this country never owned and consciously built their democracy so why would they be in control of anything?

There was of course Meech lake effort but even that was more of a catch up and still by the enlightened elites. Is a democracy that's been in a deep sleep for well over a century still a democracy?

As the kids say, shots fired!  You are totally correct that we are one of the only Democracies in the world that did not need to use violence to gain suffrage.  FWIW I think it is a rare and special thing when any group that holds power is willing to share that power without a fight, even though I disagree with a lot of what they did I do respect the fact that no violence was needed.  The British at the time were IMO quite contemptuous of Democracy - "if you let the peasants vote they'll vote for a bunch of stupidity."  So they "gave" us the Senate, to make sure that we wouldn't be able to vote for things they disapproved of. 

Democracy is a funny and frustrating thing.  If you let people vote and count the ballots and the winner gains power, it's technically democracy, even if you only let a few people vote, or if you gerrymander your districts to intentionally disenfranchise their residents, or have an "electoral college" that ignores the will of the voters, or have a "first past the post" system that disenfranchises nearly half of those who cast ballots.  "Democracy" can actually describe such a variety of systems that IMO it isn't really a very useful term in modern life.  Lots of unscrupulous governments like to run their mouths about how much they value Democracy, even while they actively undermine their Democratic institutions.  It is a problem.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, taxme said:

We the people need to take charge of our dear comrade leaders. We the people have allowed our dear comrade leaders to run and ruin all our lives because they will not do what they should be doing. And that is to mind their own f'n bloody business and stay out of we the people's hair and lives. All we the people want is to have lower taxes, less government, less rules and regulations and to keep our god given rights and freedoms. If politicians would allow we the people to decide their own fate, we would all be living in a better Canada and a better world. 

Most of all, minorities should not be allowed to be able to rule over and be able to tell the majority has to how things will get and be done. It's always a few special interest groups that seems to be able to always have the ear, and be able to rob our taxes for their communist like pet projects, of our welfare recipient politicians all the time. 

It seems like the 1% minority always seems to get their way and to run the show. Why the hell is that? :(

It's worth remembering that humans invented Capitalism before we invented government regulation of Capitalists.  England used to have an industrialized, Capitalist society that was wholly deregulated.  The results were awful and can be read about in most Charles Dickens novels.  

Herbert Spencer Visits Pittsburgh - Existential Comics

The problems alluded to in this strip were solved by government regulation.  The 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week, minimum wage, safety regulations, laws against child labour and union breaking, taxation, environmental protections, and so much more, were all brought about by government regulation, and they were brought about to solve real problems that were plaguing society at the time.  I agree that government is imperfect and that politics is inherently frustrating, but if we weaken our government it creates a power vacuum that will be filled by corporations and oligarchs.

Respectfully, it seems to me that you are using "we the people" as though the views you are expressing are representative of all Canadians.  I don't think Canadians as a whole agree on very many things.  I also wonder if you've thought of who will be the guarantor of our rights and freedoms if we neuter the government.  As things are now, if a person believes their rights have been violated, they go to the government for redress.  If we defund and disempower our government, who will enforce our rights?

That said, I totally agree with your points about how our democracy has become subverted.  Politicians make promises, some of us believe them enough to vote, nearly half of the ballots we cast don't elect anyone, then our politicians go and do whatever they please with very little accountability to us, until the next election rolls around.  The reason that this doesn't serve as adequate accountability is because the next election isn't a choice between what we want and what we have, it's a choice between several different, imperfect politicians.  We make our choice and the whole cycle starts again with the same result.  Being able to vote out the last liar doesn't help us if all the electable candidates will continue to lie.  For me, the solution is for Canadians, as a whole, to come together and have a lot of respectful dialogue so that we can figure out what we stand for and why we stand for it.  Then we can make effective plans for how we will hold our politicians to account.  As long as it is only one group of Canadians out of many who are upset about any given problem, the ruling elite can play us off against each other instead of addressing our problems. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, taxme said:

We the people need to take charge of our dear comrade leaders. We the people have allowed our dear comrade leaders to run and ruin all our lives because they will not do what they should be doing. And that is to mind their own f'n bloody business and stay out of we the people's hair and lives. All we the people want is to have lower taxes, less government, less rules and regulations and to keep our god given rights and freedoms. If politicians would allow we the people to decide their own fate, we would all be living in a better Canada and a better world. 

Most of all, minorities should not be allowed to be able to rule over and be able to tell the majority has to how things will get and be done. It's always a few special interest groups that seems to be able to always have the ear, and be able to rob our taxes for their communist like pet projects, of our welfare recipient politicians all the time. 

It seems like the 1% minority always seems to get their way and to run the show. Why the hell is that? :(

You need to recognize that the WAY you use rhetoric, you actually CAUSE those of the other views to require using the same style of rhetoric. You misuse the term, "Communism", because it only represents a system that believes in "no (or limited) PRIVATE ownership to major universal properties that all of us on Earth have no 'right' to have ABSOLUTE POWER over. The opposite of "communism" is more appropriate to be called, "Imperialism", because 'ownership' without limits basically acts as an ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ideal that places favor to PRIVILEGED people based most signficantly on an arrogant belief in themselves as Kings or Queens (ie, 'imperial') who force their WILL upon others for believing that what they 'own' is ABSOLUTE. 

If you sincerely believe in the Imperialistic ideal, HOW is this NOT 'private government' and how can it NOT imply that those who lack such privilege are SLAVES to you. Don't declare how you think you represent the 'majority' beyond the mere fact that we are all ANIMALS. You cannot argue some religious high ground either when the very selfish drive that favors our internal desire to have absolute power is ANTI-RELIGIOUS in essence. You cannot have it both ways. If you believe that some 'god' grants you some supreme 'right', PROVE that those 'minorities' are incorrect for their own religious interpretation of using ANY means to power. 

The capitialist ideal is Darwinian. If you are religious, you likely hate the facts of evolution yet are favoring an ideal that returns power to the ANIMALISTIC part of us that IS 'Darwinian'. No government power BY the people is ENHANCED when it removes means to regulate the natural greed that we all have AND it favors an ideal that makes SPECIAL people who 'own' to have the ONLY power to rule over the rest regardless.

The extremes that ARE sincerely occurring by those who ARE exploiting the absurd defence of segregated 'minorities' that you complain about are SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT of those who 'own' and inevitably ABUSE the democratic powers of the people. It is as harmful for your ideal to exist as it is for the Communist because you both believe in an ideal that could exist without 'government'. Both of your extremes are anti-democratic. Some elites who have the same selfish genes as us all tend to get in power regardless due to your extremes. The ONLY way to reduce the very abuses you see is to STOP favoring the alternative ideal of favoring superior power to those who have wealth.

 

Note that if all that land is 'owned', those who don't are SLAVES because they are FORCED to pay the RENT and COMPLY to the landowner's PRIVATE GOVERNING rules of conduct. So we lose regardless. The extremes OF your very thinking are the SAME kind of people who are EXPLOITING government power to present laws that favor cultural arrogance. "Culture" is just a deceptive term in our government to refer TO RELIGIOUS rule. So YOU are the equal to the "communist" you complain about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, taxme said:

It seems like the 1% minority always seems to get their way and to run the show. Why the hell is that? :(

That part is easy do some reading on "great apes" and we still have 99% of their genes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrittyLeftist said:

 I agree that government is imperfect and that politics is inherently frustrating, but if we weaken our government it creates a power vacuum that will be filled by corporations and oligarchs.

So are we weakening our government then? Because isn't what you describe what we're evolving into now? 

More in America than here maybe. But where they go we follow.

Now the corporate media with what they call social media pretty much tells us what's OK to say and think and we're watching that eventually turn into legislation.

The corporates are starting to flip left. And my evidence of that is 'look around.'

Hate to go Godwin on you but when the practice of historical oopsies repeating themselves becomes obvious 'what you gonna do?'

Corporatism is how the Nazis got the trains to run on time in a larger sense. The national socialists evolved out of socialism into a corporatist supported dictatorship. It's not unforseen that groups with common interests in control will ally together.

Currently the globalists, are corporate involved and allied with progressive socialists.

Whatever name you want to give what's coming I'm against it.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, I was just reminded of something:

The corporates are also allying themselves with China, as are globalists.

I suppose you could make an argument for the idea that technically the Chinese government isn't specifically communist but again, whatever they are I'm against becoming it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I think if we saw ourselves as part of a community that comprised our ancestors, the living, and our descendants, we would make more responsible decisions.

I've only recently been exposed to this philosophy, and agree with you that it would make a tremendous difference in how we would approach environmental issues if we considered a much longer time-line, something considerably past four years, or the next election. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've only recently been exposed to this philosophy, and agree with you that it would make a tremendous difference in how we would approach environmental issues if we considered a much longer time-line, something considerably past four years, or the next election. 

Much better than a divide-and-conquer approach or a fake-nationalist approach that sells products based on patriotism, while espousing a globalist mindset.

If we're globalists then let's do it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Much better than a divide-and-conquer approach or a fake-nationalist approach that sells products based on patriotism, while espousing a globalist mindset.

And that cannot be done in a system where democracy is equivalent to a political system run in election cycles with no control by the society. There, the paradox: to do something differently we would need to change in a meaningful, essential way. But we don't like change even tiny trivial one because it works anyhow and why fixing. Cannot do both, one would have to give.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, myata said:

1. And that cannot be done in a system where democracy is equivalent to a political system run in election cycles with no control by the society.

2. There, the paradox: to do something differently we would need to change in a meaningful, essential way. But we don't like change even tiny trivial one because it works anyhow and why fixing. Cannot do both, one would have to give.

1. Your statement is too wide and too general, I think.  "Cannot be done" ?  "No control" ?  Democracy is a sound idea, and I guess you are saying ours has some flaws.  Who would disagree, really ?

2. You need to use your imagination.  In my lifetime I have seen giant changes that they used to call 'paradigm shifts'.  A vastly improved society could be achieved pretty quickly.  Think about how old and calcified the institutions and the demographic that support the status quo are.  One election could change everything.  Call me an optometrist I guess.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on...how did we get from this...

Quote
  2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I think if we saw ourselves as part of a community that comprised our ancestors, the living, and our descendants, we would make more responsible decisions.

to talking about Mike fantasizing control over the plebs to force a "Great Reset" on us.

I was almost getting ready to agree with Gritty. He seemed to be getting ready to get on board with Conservatives and the respect for tradition. 

Then Mike comes along and tells us you don't get that on your own. It has to be given by a wiser group - of which I assume, he assumes includes himself as a member. And the next thing you know they're tearing down John A's statues. What happened to respect for our ancestors?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

So are we weakening our government then? Because isn't what you describe what we're evolving into now? 

More in America than here maybe. But where they go we follow.

Now the corporate media with what they call social media pretty much tells us what's OK to say and think and we're watching that eventually turn into legislation.

The corporates are starting to flip left. And my evidence of that is 'look around.'

Hate to go Godwin on you but when the practice of historical oopsies repeating themselves becomes obvious 'what you gonna do?'

Corporatism is how the Nazis got the trains to run on time in a larger sense. The national socialists evolved out of socialism into a corporatist supported dictatorship. It's not unforseen that groups with common interests in control will ally together.

Currently the globalists, are corporate involved and allied with progressive socialists.

Whatever name you want to give what's coming I'm against it.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.  Taxme had said, "All we the people want is to have lower taxes, less government, less rules and regulations and to keep our god given rights and freedoms."  I was just pointing out that if we have less government we are creating a power vacuum and something else will fill that void.  I am not aware of anything poised to fill that void in today's world besides corporations and oligarchs - it is possible there are factors I'm not aware of.

You're right that we tend to follow America in most ways.

Reading your post it occurred to me that "social media" is all owned by oligarchs as well, so twitter, facebook etc could just as easily be called "corporate media" as CNN or Fox.  I'll have to think about that.

Lost in the hullabaloo about "cancel culture" is the fact that there have always been groups of people trying to regulate the speech of others.  Think of the "moral guardians" of the past.  You may remember the Comics Code Authority - from the preamble in their wikipedia article, "At the height of its influence, it was a de facto censor for the U.S. comic book industry."  The Ninja Turtles movies were highlights of my childhood - in the second one they never actually use their weapons, because concerned parents were worried about their children fighting with weapons, so they pressured the corporation that owned the intellectual property to refrain from having the Turtles fight with weapons.  Organizations such as the National League of Decency, the Parents Television Council, the Parents Music Resource Center, and many, many others, have been working to try to limit some types of free speech to make society more "Christian," "decent," or to combat "obscenity," for decades.  I think reasonable adults can debate when and why censorship is desirable - for instance, most people would probably support removing books that taught how to make bombs from school libraries, and most people would probably oppose a government that tried to make a religion mandatory, or forbid it entirely.

For Corporations to lean left, they would need to, at the very least, advocate for using democracy to bring about socialistic policies (this would make them Social Democrat, or "left-of-centre").  The "culture war" going on right now isn't really about left-right policies, it's about dog whistles and distractions, and keeping reasonable adults arguing with one another instead of realizing that we have much more in common than we think.  If a profit-driven corporation freely decides, all by themselves, that it will make more money by not printing, say, a few Dr. Seuss books, that corporation has not changed on the left-right spectrum.  It is still a for-profit corporation, it is just doing different things to get its profit.

"Left" and "right" are not about culture, they are about how a person or organization believes wealth should be distributed.

You are correct that "Nazi" comes from "National Socialist."  The reason they included "Socialist" in their name is because socialism was very popular in Germany at the time, so they were trying to get people who would have opposed them to side with them, or at the very least, remain neutral.  In reality, Hitler *hated* Communism and Socialism.  To this day, Fascists and Socialists are like oil and fire.  From Wikipedia: 

"German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the first to be sent to concentration camps."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust (press ctrl+f, type in socialist, press enter until you get there)

I'm not sure who the "progressive socialists" you refer to are.  I guess the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jagmeet Singh?  Don't want to put words in your mouth though.

Agree 100% with your post about the censorship of the Chinese government and how corporations are aligning themselves with China.  For me, this is a good example of an issue that 95% of the right and left would agree on if we had better political vocabulary - sometimes a word that I think means X means Y to someone else, and then we end up shouting past one another instead of having a useful conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've only recently been exposed to this philosophy, and agree with you that it would make a tremendous difference in how we would approach environmental issues if we considered a much longer time-line, something considerably past four years, or the next election. 

With apologies to any Haida folks for any inaccuracies, here is my best attempt at explaining part of their philosophy.

Yahguudang

Translates literally as "respect."  A very useful idea that binds together elements of many ethical frameworks.   My (limited) understanding is that "respect" applies to ourselves, other individuals, other peoples, animals, the land, water and air, and the interconnectedness and intergenerationality of all life.  When we give all of these types of respect we become worthy of it ourselves.  

I agree that those in charge of our society are too short sighted.  If I had my druthers, our elected politicians would be responsible for short-term, tactical decisions, and the Senate would be responsible for long-term, strategic decisions.  That said, I'm not really sure exactly what that would look like in practice, so at this point it's sort of pie-eyed dreamscaping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Hang on...how did we get from this...

to talking about Mike fantasizing control over the plebs to force a "Great Reset" on us.

I was almost getting ready to agree with Gritty. He seemed to be getting ready to get on board with Conservatives and the respect for tradition. 

Then Mike comes along and tells us you don't get that on your own. It has to be given by a wiser group - of which I assume, he assumes includes himself as a member. And the next thing you know they're tearing down John A's statues. What happened to respect for our ancestors?

 

I don't have a position on the "Great Reset," myself.  It's hard for me to distinguish between what it actually is, and what various other people say it is.  I do think that the wrong people are in charge of society, and I would welcome some radical changes, provided they are well thought out and we are able to gain a broad consensus of support.  Any paradigm shift that is not consented to (and I mean informed consent) by at least 70% of the population is IMO doomed to fail.  Right now I think there are few changes that 70% of Canadians would agree on.  My hope is that if more Canadians understood rhetoric and were more politically literate, we could build that consensus on our own, from the bottom up, then force our government to implement whatever changes we could agree on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...