Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and that wasn't just specifically aimed at you Gimpy, it just happened to be your quote.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MOD POST

Folks,
I think what I'm getting at here is when the conversation turns towards anything "Nazi" or "apartheid", etc., then its time I put on my Moderator hat and issue a warning to all that this thread is devolving into a cesspool worthy of one of those 'lower-class' websites and not army.ca.

I also apologize for being part of it.




Now, as just a regular poster.

As far as blogs and the media and their credibility, I guess anything and everything can be credible if supports your point of view. :-X

 

[dinicthus]

Last weeks light bulb moment ...

Some of the most educated people I know aren't smart. 

I got that revelation so long ago it was a "greasy bullrush torch" moment.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I simply have to go back to the blog post about the NDP and Socialist International.  To my mind, I can find no error and can appreciate the author's  argument.  To quote the founders of the CCF "WE AIM TO REPLACE the present capitalist system."  Need more be said?

http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5373-ReginaManifesto.htm

I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I simply have to go back to the blog post about the NDP and Socialist International.  To my mind, I can find no error and can appreciate the author's  argument.  To quote the founders of the CCF "WE AIM TO REPLACE the present capitalist system."  Need more be said?

http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5373-ReginaManifesto.htm

I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.

In fairness, "the present capitalist system" that existed in 1932 has been replaced, probably two or three times, by various and sundry forms of increasingly regulated, welfare state capitalism. The CCF were in good and bad company in the 1930s - more bad than good, sad to say.

 

[Gimpy]

I freely admit to being a Conservative and don't deny its capitalistic message.  I simply cannot believe that there would be a denial that the NDP would not hold itself to be a proud member of international socialism.  Perhaps some supporters cannot handle the label socialist.  Those used to be called Liberals.

Who is denying that the NDP are part of Socialist International? I'm certainly not, nor would anyone who knows anything about the NDP. There is a massive difference between contemporary socialism and historic socialism. The blog posted is falsely stating that SI are giving instructions to the NDP when the posted platform points are from the NDP Socialist Caucus. Several people discussed this pages ago, and people keep rehashing these issues when it is clearly evident that the NDP Socialist Caucus is a fringe group within the NDP Caucus whose leadership candidates received 1.1% of the vote in the 2003 NDP Leadership election and 11% of the vote in the 2009 Ontario NDP election. They won't be contributing any radical ideas to the NDP's platform or contribute in any meaningful way to the direction of the party.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Who is denying that the NDP are part of Socialist International? I'm certainly not, nor would anyone who knows anything about the NDP. There is a massive difference between contemporary socialism and historic socialism. The blog posted is falsely stating that SI are giving instructions to the NDP when the posted platform points are from the NDP Socialist Caucus. Several people discussed this pages ago, and people keep rehashing these issues when it is clearly evident that the NDP Socialist Caucus is a fringe group within the NDP Caucus whose leadership candidates received 1.1% of the vote in the 2003 NDP Leadership election and 11% of the vote in the 2009 Ontario NDP election. They won't be contributing any radical ideas to the NDP's platform or contribute in any meaningful way to the direction of the party.

Perhaps instead of throwing labels around, you can defend your point in a non-combative nature.  What does the NDP stand for?  What is their position on the economy, military, and society that will improve our lives?  Old socialism, ie- the great "bell curve" of life, has been a failure to this point (Please see USSR, Cuba, China when they still practiced true socialist economic policy) and new socialism in the western model hasn't seemed to have been a huge success either (Please see the PIIGS or the financial and moral bankruptcy of western Europe). 

 

[Gimpy]

Perhaps instead of throwing labels around, you can defend your point in a non-combative nature.  What does the NDP stand for?  What is their position on the economy, military, and society that will improve our lives?  Old socialism, ie- the great "bell curve" of life, has been a failure to this point (Please see USSR, Cuba, China when they still practiced true socialist economic policy) and new socialism in the western model hasn't seemed to have been a huge success either (Please see the PIIGS or the financial and moral bankruptcy of western Europe).

If you want to know what the NDP stands for read their platform. http://www.ndp.ca/platform. All of the positions you seek are in that platform and the benefits are clearly defined. For the military section specifically look at 6.4 and 6.5. The rest of the platform is on the economic and social points. I could regurgitate their platform points, but for me the NDP is a social democratic party and not a pure socialist party.

In my opinion contemporary socialism is more focused on the social structures in place for citizens and much less (read: minimal) to do with controlling economies. Old socialism as you put it is a failure, and I agree completely. But the modern forms of socialism such as social democracy combine a capitalist means of production with providing strong social well-being for citizens. I don't see how this type can be classified as a failure when the countries that practice it have some of the highest life expectancies, the best standards of living, and the highest education results just to name a few.

 

[Infanteer]

TV,

Your excerpt seems to me to provide a perfect one-line explanation of the NDP.

 

[Gimpy]

This brings me back to my previous post about sources for information, vice the author, as a source of soundness of an argument.


Now, remembering that I have no dog in this fight, could you provide some examples of countries that have these traits?


(I am NOT trolling you, I mostly post this to illustrate my point that the author, eg: you, is irrelevant in determining the truth of your argument.  If you provided independent sources, well, then, that just makes your argument that much better)

No problem! Here are the numbers for standard of living, life expectancy, and education index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf

We can see that many of the countries listed in the top 10 countries either have a social democratic party leading the country (Norway's Labour Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Labour_Party and Iceland's Social Democratic Alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Alliance) or are in the opposition and not far behind the government (Sweden's Social Democrat Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party and Finland's Social Democratic Party:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Finland)

Those were the examples of the Scandinavia countries listed in the rankings (which are the hallmark of social democracy), but we can also see Australia in there while their current government is the Australian Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party) who are also a who a member of Socialist International.

Furthermore, I very much agree with your point on what social democrats are and along with Infanteer's point, what the NDP stands for.

 

[Edward Campbell]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875

It's a wonderful sentiment and it lies as the very foundation of all socialist projects: Fabian, Marxist-Leninist and Maoist alike. It has only one flaw: it depends upon the perfectibility of mankind. Given that man is not perfect and that human perfection is impossible, then socialism, in all its forms, including democratic socialism, cannot work and is, therefore, a silly political doctrine. See e.g. Sweden and, now, Greece et al.

 

[Infanteer]

That little thing called "laziness", along with "desire", tends to get in the way....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I have, in fact, had the "pleasure" of reading the NDP platform.  It's an interesting document, but like any of these sites, is more of a window glossing, and not exactly the "communist manifesto" (As some would suggest that the NDP are).

What the platform lacks is the real "guts" of the political thought.  For example, in the defence statement it says,

"We will draft a Defence White Paper, redefining our military’s role, its priorities and needs, to be completed within 12 months. During that time, all major defence projects will be reviewed".  So my question is thus- what does a redefinging of our military's role mean to the NDP.  More peacekeeping? Out of NATO? Out of NORAD?  And if so, where does the NDP see projecting military strength?

As for economics.  I would disagree that socialism in the modern sense can truly be separate from capitalism as you seem to suggest.  For example, for all the NDP additions to tax, EI, and pension benefits, the companies paying the bill have to either recoup the losses or raise prices, hurting the poorest part of the population.  Adding more social programs by taxing the rich (or the people actually taking risks) DOES and ALWAYS WILL have an impact on the economy. 

As for your assessment of the western European socialist experiement... I would suggest that Greece being bailed out by the Germans could, and should  be, considered a horrible failure. The saddest thing I have ever seen is people protesting for their "right" to retire at 55 while their country goes bankrupt.  The ties between the NDP and the unions are similar in creating an entitled society.  And end the same.... the money provider going bankrupt (see the CAW)

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Thanks for that, Gimpy.

Anyway, I would offer that further analysis of the causes of life expectancy, etc in those countries would need scrutiny.  I mean, if it's only coincidental that the current governments are Social Democrats and the life expectancy is x, then those stats mean nothing.  But, if it's the case that Social Democratic regimes cause longer lives, etc, then of course that's just more appeal to that political stripe.


I'm going to have to look deeper into this on my own. 

In the meantime, thanks! 

I agree... the Blue Jays haven't won a world series since Princess Diana died either... DAMN HER!!!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency.  It is easier to share and agree with people with whom one shares many ideals.  The election of social democratic governments is probably a consequence of well-being, not vice versa.

 

[Gimpy]

Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous and have long-established habits of hard work and self-sufficiency.  It is easier to share and agree with people with whom one shares many ideals.  The election of social democratic governments is probably a consequence of well-being, not vice versa.

Acknowledged, but where did this well-being originate and do these social democratic governments not maintain the well-being through social democratic policies and funding? Even if their election is a consequence of well-being they are still supporting the social structures in place that allow for the citizens well-being to thrive through social democratic methods.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My point is that the well-being originates with the people because they are industrious and there is an essential willingness to extend trust and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the family/clan/tribe; they would be prosperous under any system of government which does not treat people brutally.  I am confident the system breaks down when there enters into the citizenry any significant number of people who eschew contribution and effort, exploit benefits, and adopt the position of "my race/religion/ethnicity before theirs".

 

[dinicthus]

Most of the countries in the top 10 which often elect social democratic governments are culturally homogeneous

"Culturally homogeneous" countries that are abject failures in every possible imaginable way of measuring success abound, however. It all depends on which culture is the one pervading the country.

I realized, while travelling in Central America, that Canada is a great place, BECAUSE of the Canadians historically making it a great place.

I used to view despotic or crummy countries as being full of nice people who were being oppressed by a few. But, I realized that people create whatever environment they live in. Thus Central America is loaded with people gibbering in fear behind locked gates at night, and in Canada, in most places, flimsy wooden fences are mainly necessary to keep our pets in our space. Yes, I know that Canada has places that are more suited to locked and barred iron gates, but not the entire country, and in Latin America, at least the parts I've seen, it's universal.

I never really appreciated my country until I travelled and lived quite a bit in theirs. Now I REALLY appreciate Canada. Especially the RCMP. And our ways of doing things make a lot more sense, now that I've seen more of the world out there.

 

[Kirkhill]

I hope JM has lots more popcorn.  It seems to have been an interesting day.

I think one of the possibilities that the relative demise of the Liberals has created is the discovery that despite "radical" thinking by supporters of the Left and the Right there is the possibility of reasonable accomodation by reasonable men (and women) of the Left and reasonable women (and men) of the right.

The secret to the success of the Liberal Party of Canada was that they arrogated to themselves the mantle of the "reasonable man".  They argued that only they had a reasonable, central path.

They arrived at that reasonable path behind closed doors and then presented a united front in public.  With that united front and a reasonable path they maintained the active support of 30 to 40% of the population and the implicit support of the 30% of the population that wasn't exercised enough to vote at all.  In the process they managed to relegate both "Dippers" and "Neanderthals" to the lunatic fringes.

Now there is no "Reasonable" Liberal hogging the camera to voice the centrist position arrived at "in camera".  Now the debates that were had in caucus will (I hope) be had in the open, in committee, in the House, in the Senate and in the Press.  And (I hope) the resultant policies - whether reasonable accomodation where possible - or majority decision when divided on principle - will be clear to Canadians.

And with that clarity an understanding that no party has a monopoly on reason.

I believe that the reason for the Liberals downfall was that people never saw the debates, therefore never understood the debates and therfore never understood the principles at stake.  With that the public lost faith in the Liberals decisions.  Over time their policies seemed to be more arbitrary, less rational, more scattered and while it can be argued that one faction seemed to get the best of most of those internal arguments, the overwhelming impression left was not one of reasonable accomodation by rational people but, instead, government on whim with the sole purpose of staying in power.

I believe (hope)  that loud and vigorous debate  in the House, with the bellowing of the fringes in the Galleries and the Press in the background, will make  the argument for the necessity of reasonable accomodation.

 

[Nemo888]

My point is that the well-being originates with the people because they are industrious and there is an essential willingness to extend trust and cooperation beyond the boundaries of the family/clan/tribe; they would be prosperous under any system of government which does not treat people brutally.  I am confident the system breaks down when there enters into the citizenry any significant number of people who eschew contribution and effort, exploit benefits, and adopt the position of "my race/religion/ethnicity before theirs".

Are you saying that people are naturally social and cooperative? That leads down an interesting road politically.

Do you think multinational corporations would fall into the first group or the second? If a CEO of a corporation took the first stance they could be put in prison for failing to ensure shareholder rights. But by ruthlessly following the second get a multimillion dollar bonus. I like to think that limited liability may have been a huge error allowing these immortal entities, soulless by design, to rule our destinies.

I worked for a major corporation before I joined the Army. If you want to feel soulless and expendable that is where you want to work. Love the Army by comparison. Treated much more humanely.