Cutting through the right-wing Liberal, Conservative and Green nonsense on Inequality

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Cutting through the right-wing Liberal, Conservative and Green nonsense on Inequality
Sean in Ottawa

The Conservatives built many of the policies that promoted inequality. The Liebrals have added to these policies, even with their signature tax cut policy.

 

The question of course is how consistent will the NDP be in making this THE issue. From what we are seeing from Singh, there is some reason to hope. Any election the NDP does not make this the top issue is a wasted election in my view.

I would rather see Singh lose with this fought strongly than win with this forgotten. It seems many others who feel similarly spoke up enough and that Singh is in this group.

mark_alfred

Here's an op-ed Singh wrote on taxation in The Star.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an op-ed Singh wrote on taxation in The Star.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

This could also help in the populism dynamic. The rise of authoritarian racist populist movements could be held back with a democratic left populist answer that is also critical of the establishment.

People know there is a lot wrong. If the left is content to tinker with minor issues like taking GST of of x --then the left will get washed away as people insist on being heard that the system is broken. The NDP could be populist enough to prevent those populist sentiments from going to an authoritarian populist party.

The NDP may have to be populist from the left enough to protect the entire system from being taken in by a populist right getting support becuase they are the only ones saying things are very wrong.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an op-ed Singh wrote on taxation in The Star.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

This could also help in the populism dynamic. The rise of authoritarian racist populist movements could be held back with a democratic left populist answer that is also critical of the establishment.

The rise of racist right wing identitarian populist movements can only be held back if there are no longer racist left wing identitarian populist movements for them to beat on about. And I wouldn't hold my breath on either going anywhere anytime soon because it's a lucrative business and there's a lot of money and influence involved.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an op-ed Singh wrote on taxation in The Star.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/02/its-2018-and-tim...

This could also help in the populism dynamic. The rise of authoritarian racist populist movements could be held back with a democratic left populist answer that is also critical of the establishment.

The rise of racist right wing identitarian populist movements can only be held back if there are no longer racist left wing identitarian populist movements for them to beat on about. And I wouldn't hold my breath on either going anywhere anytime soon because it's a lucrative business and there's a lot of money and influence involved.

Can you give some examples of these racist left wing identitarian populist movements -- I cannot think of any significant problem of the existence of these. Can you give me a US example, a Canadian example?

NorthReport

Absolutely.

BC Premier John Horgan is doing it, and the BC NDP will probably get re-elected with a majority government next time. Any time you hear the right wing howling as they presently are in BC, you gotta know you are on the right track!

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Conservatives built many of the policies that promoted inequality. The Liebrals have added to these policies, even with their signature tax cut policy.

 

The question of course is how consistent will the NDP be in making this THE issue. From what we are seeing from Singh, there is some reason to hope. Any election the NDP does not make this the top issue is a wasted election in my view.

I would rather see Singh lose with this fought strongly than win with this forgotten. It seems many others who feel similarly spoke up enough and that Singh is in this group.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Can you give some examples of these racist left wing identitarian populist movements -- I cannot think of any significant problem of the existence of these. Can you give me a US example, a Canadian example?

I can, but it's not my job to educate you. GIYF.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Can you give some examples of these racist left wing identitarian populist movements -- I cannot think of any significant problem of the existence of these. Can you give me a US example, a Canadian example?

I can, but it's not my job to educate you. GIYF.

What an ignorant shitty reponse.

Often these come from people who do not know what the heck they are talking about and cannot back up what they write. I cannot say if this is you or you just want to be a jerk today or simply too lazy. Who knows. Best to avoid reading posts from people who write replies like this when asked a question about their posts.

ETA: Google search drags up some bullshit right wing conspiracy sites trumpeting bullshit theories in order to blame alt-right stuff on the left. Perhaps that is the garbage you are speaking of? But it is better, you think, to act like an ass and refuse to say what you mean than be direct.

In any case nothing credible except some examples from right wing nutjobs who want to blame the results of their own hate on other people rather than wear it themselves.

Rev Pesky

From Singh's op-ed piece:

Mr. Trudeau, will you commit in the next budget to tackling unfair tax rules, specifically through eliminating the preferential treatment of stock options and increasing the inclusion rate for capital gains for CEOs?

The above are the only recommendations made by Singh is his comment. A capital gains tax, apparently only to be applied to CEO's, and a tax on stock options.

To begin with stock options. Stock options are already taxable in Canada. For a reasonably clear explanation

look here

I'll just add that stock options are tricky, simply because until the day you actually sell the stock purchased via a stock option, you don't have any benefit from them. Depending on how the stock performs, you may actually lose money. However, as with capital gains and dividends, I believe money made from stock options should be taxed as income.

As to capital gains, I'm all in favour of taxing capital gains as income. In Canada, capital gains are already taxed, albeit in a slightly different way than income.

Only 50% of capital gains are taxed, but they are taxed at your marginal rate. In other words, if you are in the very top income tax bracket, your capital gains will effectively be taxed at half the highest rate.

I would prefer to see capital gains and dividends treated simply as income. That would be more fair. 

Why Singh singles out CEO's is beyond me. Lots of people who are not CEO's get capital gains. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Can you give some examples of these racist left wing identitarian populist movements -- I cannot think of any significant problem of the existence of these. Can you give me a US example, a Canadian example?

I can, but it's not my job to educate you. GIYF.

What an ignorant shitty reponse.

 

I agree with Sean. This is a discussion group. If a participant decides to post a controversial statement as a fact, then that person owes it to the other participants to be willing to at least give a link to evidence for that statement. Cody87 has failed that test dismally.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Singh's op-ed piece:

Mr. Trudeau, will you commit in the next budget to tackling unfair tax rules, specifically through eliminating the preferential treatment of stock options and increasing the inclusion rate for capital gains for CEOs?

The above are the only recommendations made by Singh is his comment. A capital gains tax, apparently only to be applied to CEO's, and a tax on stock options.

...

Why Singh singles out CEO's is beyond me. Lots of people who are not CEO's get capital gains. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish.

He's saying a lot more with substance than Trudeau did in the first months of his leadership. Singh isn't laying out his platform. 

Singh is making inequality a major topic for the 2019 election. 

It happens to be the ideal topic because it is also where Trudeau is vulnerable. Two particular clips come to mind. Morneau saying we have to get used to precarious employment and the more recent, it's a pharmacare strategy not a pharmacare plan. 

Trudeau talks a good game but he isn't actually doing anything to reverse the trend. 

Don't worry about Singh. He is doing fine. 

My perception of Singh is that he thinks well on his feet and knows his facts. There is no predicting how Canadians will react the way that I could with Trudeau, but I do believe Singh may have an opportunity to do really well.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

Singh is making inequality a major topic for the 2019 election.

​Talking about inequality isn't doing something about it. Singh can talk all he wants, but until he proposes something of substance it's just hot air.

Perhaps you're too young to remember David Lewis' 'corporate welfare bums', but that bit of rhetoric did little for the NDP.

The problem is, telling people there's inequality in Canada is like telling them there's snow in the winter. They already know that. They don't want somebody telling them what they already know. They want someone who has a solution to that inequality, and so far Singh is not forthcoming.

One last thing, I know it's a bit of dogma amongst the left that the Liberals run from the left, and govern from the right. I'll just point out that it's true for the NDP as well. Anyone who has lived with an NDP government has experienced it.

 

 

NorthReport

Enough of the nonsense. This thread is about inequality perpetuated by the right-wing Liberals and Conservatives.

Let’s nationalize dental work next. It’s long overdue.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-birth-of-medicare

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree with Sean. This is a discussion group. If a participant decides to post a controversial statement as a fact, then that person owes it to the other participants to be willing to at least give a link to evidence for that statement. Cody87 has failed that test dismally.

I don't "owe" you anything. I have said here on numerous occasions that the right uses left wing racism (and sexism, for that matter) as their primary fuel for attracting new members.

You and Sean are so ideologically partisan that you can't immediately see or recall any examples of the racism that has prompted the right wing identitarian backlash that all of these right wing parties are riding - but you both have the intelligence and resources to do a bit of oppo research and investigate it, if your interest is genuine. And if your interest is not genuine, then it's a waste of my time to try to educate you.

My belief is Sean's request was not a genuine request, but rather was an attempt to get me to elaborate so he could find a "gotcha" to seize on, or, if I chose my words carefully enough, discredit whatever source I chose to support my case. I'm not interested in playing that game.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What an ignorant shitty reponse.

Often these come from people who do not know what the heck they are talking about and cannot back up what they write. I cannot say if this is you or you just want to be a jerk today or simply too lazy. Who knows. Best to avoid reading posts from people who write replies like this when asked a question about their posts.

https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-margi...

In case you need a reminder to check your entitlement to another person's time. And don't bother trying to discredit the point because not every item in that list is applicable to this situation - I'm already aware of that. Some of does apply.

Quote:
ETA: Google search drags up some bullshit right wing conspiracy sites trumpeting bullshit theories in order to blame alt-right stuff on the left. Perhaps that is the garbage you are speaking of? But it is better, you think, to act like an ass and refuse to say what you mean than be direct.

In any case nothing credible except some examples from right wing nutjobs who want to blame the results of their own hate on other people rather than wear it themselves.

Sorry but why would I waste my time trying to educate you when this is your attitude?

Anyway, if you reflect on any of this at all, I'd like you to reflect on why those bullshit theories by right wing nutjobs are continuing to gain traction as evidenced by the increase in support of right wing extremism everywhere in the western world? Just because you don't see it, lots of other people are. Maybe they are wrong and seeing something that isn't there, but that's actually irrelevant because that's how it appears and it will influence their behaviour until they see a change.

So if it will make you feel better, I will change my original claim to: The only way to hold back right wing identitarian politics is for the left to stop giving the right wing identitarians material that looks like the left is racist (even though we all know the right is always racist and the left is never, ever racist).

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I agree with Sean. This is a discussion group. If a participant decides to post a controversial statement as a fact, then that person owes it to the other participants to be willing to at least give a link to evidence for that statement. Cody87 has failed that test dismally.

I don't "owe" you anything. I have said here on numerous occasions that the right uses left wing racism (and sexism, for that matter) as their primary fuel for attracting new members.

You and Sean are so ideologically partisan that you can't immediately see or recall any examples of the racism that has prompted the right wing identitarian backlash that all of these right wing parties are riding - but you both have the intelligence and resources to do a bit of oppo research and investigate it, if your interest is genuine. And if your interest is not genuine, then it's a waste of my time to try to educate you.

My belief is Sean's request was not a genuine request, but rather was an attempt to get me to elaborate so he could find a "gotcha" to seize on, or, if I chose my words carefully enough, discredit whatever source I chose to support my case. I'm not interested in playing that game.

You have no clue as to what the word partisan means. Partisan is not about ideology but about parties. I actually spend more time criticizing the party I support normally (becuase I want the discussion, and want to improve options). I do not think I fit the bill as someone here who can be called out as more partisan than this community in posts.

The context was not about individuals but organized political movements. I was astounded that you suggested the existence of political movements that were overtly racist from the left in a North American context. I first tried to look this up as I had never heard of such a thing in any current context. It was impossible to locate. Then I asked you and you responded with extreme rudeness since I was only asking you to expand on what you chose to write.

It is true that there are individual people who may not understand their own ideology or claim to be part of something they are not. This exists on all sides. I am sure right wingers would not want to own individual actions and pronouncements from people who claim to be part of their movements but are clearly incapable of ideological organized thought. My question was about organized movements rather than individual examples of persons and actions.

You were provoking a response and not interested in conversation as you make clear here. I asked genuinely and was interested in the answer. I invested time looking up to see any example. I even read European examples like an examination of the 5-Star movement in Italy to see if they were overtly racist. I did not get a conclusive answer about the 5-star (Nothing direct unlike the right-wing northern League) and I found nothing in Canada or the US for that matter (Other than off the wall conspiracy sites from the extreme right in the US) and asked you to elaborate. When you responded refusing (acting like an ass) I called you out suggesting that you made it up. I did not start out that way.

This is a conversation not a game. I suggest that if you are not interested in this then go away. That is what people do here. They say things. Others might ask for sources, backup, explanation. They provide it and the discussion continues.

So I ask the room -- are there any examples of left racism organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group? Sure, I know individuals and cultures are racist but I have no examples of an organized movement from the left purposefully making this part of their identity. If this exists it would be a significant and important thing to discuss.

On the other hand, if nobody knows what the Hell this guy was talking about then it is clear his middle finger was raised to the entire room rather than just me. And if there is a desire to raise something, not to discuss it or defend it and then attack people interested in it, that is the very definition of a behaviour that is not well respected here.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What an ignorant shitty reponse.

Often these come from people who do not know what the heck they are talking about and cannot back up what they write. I cannot say if this is you or you just want to be a jerk today or simply too lazy. Who knows. Best to avoid reading posts from people who write replies like this when asked a question about their posts.

https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-margi...

In case you need a reminder to check your entitlement to another person's time. And don't bother trying to discredit the point because not every item in that list is applicable to this situation - I'm already aware of that. Some of does apply.

Quote:
ETA: Google search drags up some bullshit right wing conspiracy sites trumpeting bullshit theories in order to blame alt-right stuff on the left. Perhaps that is the garbage you are speaking of? But it is better, you think, to act like an ass and refuse to say what you mean than be direct.

In any case nothing credible except some examples from right wing nutjobs who want to blame the results of their own hate on other people rather than wear it themselves.

Sorry but why would I waste my time trying to educate you when this is your attitude?

Anyway, if you reflect on any of this at all, I'd like you to reflect on why those bullshit theories by right wing nutjobs are continuing to gain traction as evidenced by the increase in support of right wing extremism everywhere in the western world? Just because you don't see it, lots of other people are. Maybe they are wrong and seeing something that isn't there, but that's actually irrelevant because that's how it appears and it will influence their behaviour until they see a change.

So if it will make you feel better, I will change my original claim to: The only way to hold back right wing identitarian politics is for the left to stop giving the right wing identitarians material that looks like the left is racist (even though we all know the right is always racist and the left is never, ever racist).

Bullshit.

This was not a question of an individual experience. I do not for a second doubt that individual people associating themselves with the left have acted this way.

You suggested that there are "racist left wing identitarian populist movements." this is NOT - BY DEFINITION - an individual experince but an organized group who identify as populist, racist and identitarian.

And no. You do not get to make a bullshit claim then change it to something else and pretend that it is valid.

I would be the first to agree that people who are racist and sexist on the left are used by the right and do serious damage. I do not deny that this exists and never have. I do not deny that hypocrisy exists on the left and have called it out when I see it.

I asked for clarification on a statement that you now try to weasel away from after rudely refusing to respond. As I said before -- you are acting like an ass.

At least it is clear that you are walking back your proclamation of the existence of "racist left wing identitarian populist movements."

Ok. Why make it that painful? You did more damage to yourself than me in all this. I polite person would have apologized to me since I went looking for your wild goose chase twice -- before and after I asked and you refused to explain.

Sean in Ottawa

One more thing: cody's statements make clear that we are to hold the left responsible for the behaviour of the right. This in itself is controversial.

Certainly, the left can be hypocritical and they can fail to help and they can as individuals make matters worse. But are they responsible for the direction, frequency and continued existence of the right's excess? I don't think so.

This is a strange argument coming from the right -- an ideology that is focus on individual responsibility above all else.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One more thing: cody's statements make clear that we are to hold the left responsible for the behaviour of the right. This in itself is controversial.

Certainly, the left can be hypocritical and they can fail to help and they can as individuals make matters worse. But are they responsible for the direction, frequency and continued existence of the right's excess? I don't think so.

This is a strange argument coming from the right -- an ideology that is focus on individual responsibility above all else.

Sean, if you want to know where Cody gets his ideas, try googling "liberals are the real racists". Click on a few of the results, and take a stroll through the fever swamps where Cody seems to spend most of his time when he isn't busy posting bullshit here.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

One more thing: cody's statements make clear that we are to hold the left responsible for the behaviour of the right. This in itself is controversial.

Certainly, the left can be hypocritical and they can fail to help and they can as individuals make matters worse. But are they responsible for the direction, frequency and continued existence of the right's excess? I don't think so.

This is a strange argument coming from the right -- an ideology that is focus on individual responsibility above all else.

Sean, if you want to know where Cody gets his ideas, try googling "liberals are the real racists". Click on a few of the results, and take a stroll through the fever swamps where Cody seems to spend most of his time when he isn't busy posting bullshit here.

Most who have come here with fringe conspiracy theories take a moment to explain what they are talking about when directly asked. And sometimes they can make you think. It is unusual for a person be angry when someone asks them what they are talking about. I was completely unjudgmental about it. I thought there might be something interesting to what he was saying. His reaction made it clear that he was not interested in backing up what he said.

Even if you disagree with soemone -- what is the point of not explaining somethign taht was far from obvious. I might have been the only person to care what he wanted to say at the time, but I am sure I was not the only person not to know what he was getting at.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You have no clue as to what the word partisan means. Partisan is not about ideology but about parties. I actually spend more time criticizing the party I support normally (becuase I want the discussion, and want to improve options). I do not think I fit the bill as someone here who can be called out as more partisan than this community in posts.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/partisan

1.

an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisan

1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

  • political partisans who see only one side of the problem

Perhaps it is you that doesn't know what the word partisan means, since it is clearly legitimate in the context I used it.

Quote:
The context was not about individuals but organized political movements. I was astounded that you suggested the existence of political movements that were overtly racist from the left in a North American context.

Okay, to be fair, maybe I misunderstood your original point. You talked about an authoritarian, identitarian right wing movement. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were referring to what is colliquially known as the "alt-right."

Do you think the alt-right is an organized political movement?

In my opinion (just an opinion), the alt-right is a loose collection of reactionary individuals and small entities (eg. Breitbart) who share similar objectives and methods. I would not go so far as to call them "organized", but YMMV.

In any case, if you are referring to the alt-right, then I don't see how you can call them organized and similarly say there are no similarly constructed organized groups on the left that might also contain racist elements (as you admit that there are individual racists on the left).

If, however, you were referring to some other authoritarian right wing racist group which is formally organized (of which I can only think of the KKK, but they're not growing to the degree implied in your original post), then I apologize because I misunderstood to whom you were referring.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You have no clue as to what the word partisan means. Partisan is not about ideology but about parties. I actually spend more time criticizing the party I support normally (becuase I want the discussion, and want to improve options). I do not think I fit the bill as someone here who can be called out as more partisan than this community in posts.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/partisan

1.

an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisan

1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

  • political partisans who see only one side of the problem

Perhaps it is you that doesn't know what the word partisan means, since it is clearly legitimate in the context I used it.

Quote:
The context was not about individuals but organized political movements. I was astounded that you suggested the existence of political movements that were overtly racist from the left in a North American context.

Okay, to be fair, maybe I misunderstood your original point. You talked about an authoritarian, identitarian right wing movement. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were referring to what is colliquially known as the "alt-right."

Do you think the alt-right is an organized political movement?

In my opinion (just an opinion), the alt-right is a loose collection of reactionary individuals and small entities (eg. Breitbart) who share similar objectives and methods. I would not go so far as to call them "organized", but YMMV.

In any case, if you are referring to the alt-right, then I don't see how you can call them organized and similarly say there are no similarly constructed organized groups on the left that might also contain racist elements (as you admit that there are individual racists on the left).

If, however, you were referring to some other authoritarian right wing racist group which is formally organized (of which I can only think of the KKK, but they're not growing to the degree implied in your original post), then I apologize because I misunderstood to whom you were referring.

First the context of this was political parties and electoral success. It had nothing to do with so-called all-right. Perhaps before trying to prove how much of a jerk you can be, you might want to read the opening of a conversation and the articles linked at that point.

Second, you still have no clue about what partisan means. A cause is not some loosely defined mob of alt right or general left.

Now I asked you to provide examples -- not of individuals or hypocritical actions but of organizations on the left that are overtly racist. They clearly exist on the far right. You declares some kind of equivalency -- in fact went so far as to suggest that the left bears responsibility for the actions of these alt right conspiracy types. Now, since it is obvious that there are many alt-right groups from nazis to kkk that are organized around being racist you have been asked to provide soem examples of similar left organizations that are comparable.

Instead you acted like an ass. That is where this stopped.

Do you want to re-enter a conversation which is the point of being here, dial back the ridiculous comment or continue to act like an ass? I can't make you go into any one of these directions.

Nothin I said in this thread was partisan. I have been here near 15 years and while I find more in common with the NDP, I am no loyal soldior and prefer to analyze what I consider toe be the issues of interest and what is best for people. I am generally to the left but that cannot by any definition be considered partisan in itself. I dropped my membership in the NDP due to Mulcair and have not rejoined. I have seen soem things I like but consider myself left and independent and I speak from that point of view. You throwing around the term partisan here are just slinging garbage out of context and perhaps with an inadequate understanding of what that means. Some of this goes beyond dictionary definitions as well. Most can explain what the term means and it about some kind of loyalty to some organization over reason and personal belief. Yes that organization can be a cause (for example a yes or no side in a referendum).

Mobo2000

Sean asked the room:

"So I ask the room -- are there any examples of left racism organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group? Sure, I know individuals and cultures are racist but I have no examples of an organized movement from the left purposefully making this part of their identity. If this exists it would be a significant and important thing to discuss."

The room asks back:   Give us some examples of influential right wing organizations, that are rightwing racists where their racism is overt and that racism is part of the ideology of the group (and purposefully made part of their identity)?    Overt and purposeful, remember, not dogwhistling or our interpretation of "what they really mean" when they speak their issues.   

Sean asks:   "One more thing: cody's statements make clear that we are to hold the left responsible for the behaviour of the right. This in itself is controversial."

We are responsible for the predictable reactions to our actions.   This includes actions we take in an effort to dismantle systemic racism, reduce racial tension, reduce inequality, reduce violence or war.  

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Sean asked the room:

"So I ask the room -- are there any examples of left racism organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group? Sure, I know individuals and cultures are racist but I have no examples of an organized movement from the left purposefully making this part of their identity. If this exists it would be a significant and important thing to discuss."

The room asks back:   Give us some examples of influential right wing organizations, that are rightwing racists where their racism is overt and that racism is part of the ideology of the group (and purposefully made part of their identity)?    Overt and purposeful, remember, not dogwhistling or our interpretation of "what they really mean" when they speak their issues.   

Sean asks:   "One more thing: cody's statements make clear that we are to hold the left responsible for the behaviour of the right. This in itself is controversial."

We are responsible for the predictable reactions to our actions.   This includes actions we take in an effort to dismantle systemic racism, reduce racial tension, reduce inequality, reduce violence or war.  

I see you quoting me and have no idea what your point is.

Did you miss the context? There are many people listing examples of right wing racist organizations. We are not short of those. Cody spoke of left organizations doing this. I was cusrious and aksed for an example. All hell broke lose. And then we get to this.

Are you objecting to my curiosity? Do you think I should not be probing a statement that this exists on the left?

The fact that the poster did not back this up does not mean the quesiton should not be asked. The fact that the question should be asked does not mean that it is okay not to answer. But I have no idea, the way you laid all this out what your opinion is on the existence of left organization that fit the description or your opinion on asking the question. So this cute reply does nto answer the quesiton or give an answer on the posing of the question -- but it is cute -- I guess?

 

Mobo2000

Not trying to be cute, I was hoping you would answer my question.   I didn't see this statement by Cody as controversial, I agree with it:

"The rise of racist right wing identitarian populist movements can only be held back if there are no longer racist left wing identitarian populist movements for them to beat on about. And I wouldn't hold my breath on either going anywhere anytime soon because it's a lucrative business and there's a lot of money and influence involved."

You asked the room to provide examples of racist left groups that were "organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group".    I asked you for examples on the right that meet this criteria to see if we are on the same page.

I don't see anyone above in this thread listing organizations on the right that are racist and "organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group".     Could you give me some?

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Not trying to be cute, I was hoping you would answer my question.   I didn't see this statement by Cody as controversial, I agree with it:

"The rise of racist right wing identitarian populist movements can only be held back if there are no longer racist left wing identitarian populist movements for them to beat on about. And I wouldn't hold my breath on either going anywhere anytime soon because it's a lucrative business and there's a lot of money and influence involved."

You asked the room to provide examples of racist left groups that were "organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group".    I asked you for examples on the right that meet this criteria to see if we are on the same page.

I don't see anyone above in this thread listing organizations on the right that are racist and "organized, overt and where that racism is part of the ideology of the group".     Could you give me some?

 

Okay.

Here is a list of "white nationalist groups" These are all identitarian and racist by definitions of the people who created and participate  in them. It is sorted by country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations

I do not think it is difficult to establish that they are right wing. If you think this needs to be established please point to any of the most famous examples. (I am not going to copy and paste this given that it would be a massive thing to scroll over.)

I am truly interested in this contention that there are comparable left wing organizations.

So are any on this list meeting a definition of left wing? Of those are any in a North American context as Cody suggested? He says they are influential but I cannot even name one and asked him to.

I am not saying that left wing organizations are all peaceful and nice -- I am just saying they are not racist identitarian -- that I know of. Please correct me.

Wiki is pretty fair source since this is not about proof of an individual organization since many are recognizable.

Again I ma not saying that no such left wing organization exists but if we are going to discuss how their behaviour is responsible for the right, then shouldn't we be able to name some? Perhaps not the literally hundreds here but at least a few?

Before going on about the effects of  these " racist left wing identitarian populist movements" shouldn't we be able to illustrate this with examples? I did not dispute what Cody said at first -- I just wanted to find out what he was talking about.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Okay.

Here is a list of "white nationalist groups" These are all identitarian and racist by definitions of the people who created and participate  in them. It is sorted by country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_white_nationalist_organizations

Of those in Canada and the U.S., the only two I've heard of are the KKK (obviously), and Heritage Front. According to the page, Heritage Front disbanded in 2005 and the KKK has a whopping 8000 members "split among dozens of different organizations that use the Klan name." Neither of those fit my definition of rising, nor your requirement of "organized".

Can you please pick one from that list that you feel is "rising", as you suggested in post #4?

Quote:
I do not think it is difficult to establish that they are right wing. If you think this needs to be established please point to any of the most famous examples. (I am not going to copy and paste this given that it would be a massive thing to scroll over.)

No, just please establish that at least one of these groups is "rising" and a legitimate force to contend with. Are any more influential than the Rhinocerous party, or the Pastafarians? I've actually heard of those.

Quote:
I am truly interested in this contention that there are comparable left wing organizations.

I never said there were organized political racist left movements. You only started demanding that I cite organized political movements in post #17, that wasn't mentioned prior. In your original post you referred to "authoritarian racist populist movements", which as I have already explained I incorrectly assumed meant the alt-right, which actually IS rising.

Quote:
Before going on about the effects of  these " racist left wing identitarian populist movements" shouldn't we be able to illustrate this with examples? I did not dispute what Cody said at first -- I just wanted to find out what he was talking about.

Sorry, but your response in #9 suggests you do know what I'm talking about, and I think I addressed this adequately in #16:

Anyway, if you reflect on any of this at all, I'd like you to reflect on why those bullshit theories by right wing nutjobs are continuing to gain traction as evidenced by the increase in support of right wing extremism everywhere in the western world? Just because you don't see it, lots of other people are. Maybe they are wrong and seeing something that isn't there, but that's actually irrelevant because that's how it appears and it will influence their behaviour until they see a change.

So if it will make you feel better, I will change my original claim to: The only way to hold back right wing identitarian politics is for the left to stop giving the right wing identitarians material that looks like the left is racist (even though we all know the right is always racist and the left is never, ever racist).

 

quizzical

what a bunch of bs cody and mobo.

you are couching what you know is a wrong notion or you wouldn't be dancing the bs dance  about how supposedly the left supports racism against white people which makes some white people upset so it's the lefts fault they're upset.

 

 

quizzical

what a bunch of bs cody and mobo.

you are couching what you know is a wrong notion or you wouldn't be dancing the bs dance  about how supposedly the left supports racism against white people which makes some white people upset so it's the lefts fault they're upset.

 

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Thanks for calling it what it was quizzical. I was having a hard time understanding what they meant by left-wing racism.

NorthReport

Thanks for calling out their absurdness quizzical. They are quickly approaching their best before date here at rabble 

quizzical wrote:

what a bunch of bs cody and mobo.

you are couching what you know is a wrong notion or you wouldn't be dancing the bs dance  about how supposedly the left supports racism against white people which makes some white people upset so it's the lefts fault they're upset.

 

 

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

what a bunch of bs cody and mobo.

you are couching what you know is a wrong notion or you wouldn't be dancing the bs dance  about how supposedly the left supports racism against white people which makes some white people upset so it's the lefts fault they're upset.

I never said anything about racism against white people. I'm pretty sure that according to the principle of racism = power+prejudice, that doesn't exist.

Mobo2000

Sean:  OK this clarifies.   I was curious if you meant the Republican party/Trumpism, the Proud Boys, etc - groups where the racism is not overt (but often asserted by the left, or in the US, by the Democratic party and DNC media).   I don't think the KKK have much power or influence.   I will not be able to satisfy your curiousity -- I don't think there are comparable groups on the left to the ones you linked in wikipedia.  I intially thought like Cody you were intially talking about the "alt-right" or groups the left identifies as racist that do not self-identify as racist.

Quizzical:  "you are couching what you know is a wrong notion or you wouldn't be dancing the bs dance  about how supposedly the left supports racism against white people which makes some white people upset so it's the lefts fault they're upset."

I recognize this is a contentious issue here and I'd like to talk about it more, but will need some time to do it right.   Perhaps I will start a thread over the weekend when I'm away from work and leave North Report's thread here to it's intended purpose.   But for now -- I would not couch this as generally as you have at all.   To use your framing, for me it's not that the left is responsible for the reactions or backlash from the right.   But i feel there is an obligation and a responsibility for the left to use it's words as carefully as possible to mitigate the backlash, and to understand and address any legitimate issues on the other side.   I think a big part of the problem now is that the media environment, and DNC-led left talking points are incentivized to be as extreme or attention grabbing as possible, for clicks and profit.  

quizzical

"Self identify as racist" wtf?

"a responsibility for the left to use its words as carefully as possible" seriously get real

"Legitimate concerns" a bigger wtf.

Sean in Ottawa

When I was speaking about these groups I defined them as those that by definition of the group are identitarian and racist. So when you say self-identify as identiarian racist either that could mean that they group identify in terms that objectively are racist (to others) or that they use the term itself themselves which is ridiculous since they will use other language. The Nazis, KKK et al are unlikely to identify with the terms but they will use racial terms to describe themselves.

There is a lot of difference between an individual acting in an organization that does not endorse an identitarian characteristic  and one that might call it something else but condone it, and make it central to what they are. This is about what they are as a group not what they call themselves. And the inclusion of a member does not in itself make a group automatically what that member is.

This is, I think, different from the reality of systemic and cultural racism and the responsibility that states organizations and white people generally have. This is about overt stated goals that are racist (the word identitarian meaning they define themselves by race) -- I say this since the original comment was "Identitarian groups." We are not talking about equating systemic racism with white supremacists in this conversation.

I do not seek to define racism generally since I have not been a victim of it -- my reaction was to the term that included identitarian. I do not think that white people should even attempt to define what racism is and means.

Mobo2000

Well, the KKK and many of the groups you linked on wikipedia do self identify as advocates of racial superiority, directly.  Apart from that I mostly agree with your logic/categories above although I would word some of it differently.  But it does somewhat sidestep the intial distinction my question to you was trying to draw between a) groups that are racist, and b) groups that are called racist by the left, that are not popularly or commonly seen as racist by much of the general population.   I do much appreciate your measured, wtf-free response.   I don't agree with your last sentence, it strikes me as bizarre, but I don't really want to argue it on this thread.   I'll try again on this topic on a different thread.

quizzical

Sean racism imv based on my life experience is when you are blond with blue eyes like your mother but you get squinted at and asked just what your non-white heritage is.

and your're left with the sense you'd better have the right answer.

i have been treated differently immediately after disclosure. and what's weird for me is it happens whether i say Aboriginal or Jewish or both. my hair is extremely curly so many want to why if i am Aboriginal.

i look white to most but the discerning anti-Semitic racist eye can sniff it out.

systemic racism on the other hand is a conditioned social norm that leaves Aboriginal children feeling they are worth less at best.

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Well, the KKK and many of the groups you linked on wikipedia do self identify as advocates of racial superiority, directly.  Apart from that I mostly agree with your logic/categories above although I would word some of it differently.  But it does somewhat sidestep the intial distinction my question to you was trying to draw between a) groups that are racist, and b) groups that are called racist by the left, that are not popularly or commonly seen as racist by much of the general population.   I do much appreciate your measured, wtf-free response.   I don't agree with your last sentence, it strikes me as bizarre, but I don't really want to argue it on this thread.   I'll try again on this topic on a different thread.

I think that the last sentence is related to the entire question -- the distinction between a dynamic or belief that prefers or gives advantage/disadvantage to one declared race over another and movements who explicitly argue a biological argument for race.

We know dna differences among so-called races are greater than those between them. We understand that we do not look like the distant ancestors we have decended from. Race exists as a socially constructed reality; it has significant implications to the lives and opportunities of people so identified.

I did not seek to define or limit the reality or experience of those affected by the social construct of race. My participation in this conversation was a reaction to the concept of racist identitarian movements on the left. To me this can only mean  movements where  participation is defined as an identification with and belief in some biological basis for racial division. I questionned that this exists on the left.

I acknowledge the impact generated by the social construction comes from left and right and individuals who identify with either. However, I do not know of contemporary left organizations who explicitly accept the false concept of biological defences for racial determination as they exist on the right. I do not believe that such left organizations exist and trigger right wing responses.

The identitarian movements I believe, are, by definition, those who identify with this false biological definition. I don't define the boundaries, experience or the effects of socially constructed race. I do not think this is needed to have a discussion about the existence of organizations who believe in a biological basis for race existing on the political left.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:
Sean racism imv based on my life experience is when you are blond with blue eyes like your mother but you get squinted at and asked just what your non-white heritage is. and your're left with the sense you'd better have the right answer. i have been treated differently immediately after disclosure. and what's weird for me is it happens whether i say Aboriginal or Jewish or both. my hair is extremely curly so many want to why if i am Aboriginal. i look white to most but the discerning anti-Semitic racist eye can sniff it out. systemic racism on the other hand is a conditioned social norm that leaves Aboriginal children feeling they are worth less at best.

 

Thank you for this.

I was trying to speak only to the issue of movements that are identitarian and if they come from the left, but I appreciate this. I did not see your post before my last one.

Sean in Ottawa

BTW -- I had a storekeeper argue with me that I looked Jewish. As if I could look like a religion. I have some Greek ancestors and of course may have semitic ancestors. Or I may just have some stereo-typical features that trigger anti-semites. It is not something I know about although I have heard it a couple times in my life. It seemed to really bother that person, unfortunately, and he seemed to think that I ought to know -- and care --  and was lying to him.

NorthReport

 

The NDP needs to walk the talk here. I realize they are a new minority government but hopefully this issue is on their radar.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/03/08/Minimum-Wage-Liquor-Servers-Worsens-BC-Wage-Gap/

NorthReport

 

Yes, Mr Weaver, let’s worry about the 1 percenters whose home prices have risen so much they are bellyaching about having to pay a bit of their massive profits in property taxes. 

https://www.straight.com/news/1042541/bc-green-leader-andrew-weaver-eviscerates-ndp-government-tax-policies

Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

Yes, Mr Weaver, let’s worry about the 1 percenters whose home prices have risen so much they are bellyaching about having to pay a bit of their massive profits in property taxes. 

Which is not what Weaver is saying. What he is saying is that the speculation tax was proposed, but would not apply to BC residents.

Now the NDP says the speculation tax will be returned as a tax credit, which means the speculation tax will only be paid by BC residents who have little or no income. People with higher incomes will be able to use the credit against their existing income tax bill. 

And by the way, whatever the current value of a property is, compared to what it was in the past, is not profit until it's realized. I may have bought a house in Vancouver after WW2 for 50 thousand dollars, which is now worth, say, a million-and-a-half dollars. But that means nothing to me until I sell.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Now the NDP says the speculation tax will be returned as a tax credit, which means the speculation tax will only be paid by BC residents who have little or no income.

Am I misunderstanding the term here, or how does anyone with little or no income have the income to speculate on real estate?

Quote:
But that means nothing to me until I sell.

On that I agree.  I'm glad that my income tax is based on what I actually earned, rather than on what the government projects that I could possibly earn if I only applied myself.

brookmere

Actually the tax applies only to secondary personal residences in BC's large urban areas. That is, it doesn't apply to primary residences, nor does it apply to second properties that are tenanted. The only exception to this is for "satellite families" (BC gov't terminology) which have an offshore earner who doesn't pay BC taxes.

I would say that if you own a party pad in Vancouver or Victoria in addition to your own home you are certainly in the 1% of something.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Just to clarify:  the second part of my post above was referring to the way that property tax is indexed to the sale value of a home that's not for sale.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If you had a $1.5 million house, you could sell it and use the money to make an eternal $60,000 a year in low-tax bank dividends. Plus you would benefit even more whenever the banks raised their dividends. You could move into a decent apartment at 25% of your income (which in Montreal would get you quite a lot) and say bye bye to the eternal headaches of "home ownership". 

Even better, you could trade your $600-800 a month car for an $85 OPUS transit card, and when you got your hydro bill, you would laugh your head off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgjfi1DU1mQ

NorthReport

Absurd. Try telling that poor me nonsense to a judge when one is being sued.  One thing for sure, before the judge rules against the homeowner, there will be a lot of chuckles in the courtroom. I have a four letter word for extremely rich homeowners: MOVE

One thing for sure: If the one percenters are whining, they are good at that, btw, the government must be doing something constructive towards addressing the massive inbalance between the rich and the poor. 

Rev Pesky wrote:

From NorthReport:

Yes, Mr Weaver, let’s worry about the 1 percenters whose home prices have risen so much they are bellyaching about having to pay a bit of their massive profits in property taxes. 

Which is not what Weaver is saying. What he is saying is that the speculation tax was proposed, but would not apply to BC residents.

Now the NDP says the speculation tax will be returned as a tax credit, which means the speculation tax will only be paid by BC residents who have little or no income. People with higher incomes will be able to use the credit against their existing income tax bill. 

And by the way, whatever the current value of a property is, compared to what it was in the past, is not profit until it's realized. I may have bought a house in Vancouver after WW2, which is not worth,say, a million-and-a-half dollars. But that means nothing to me until I sell.

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

Am I misunderstanding the term here, or how does anyone with little or no income have the income to speculate on real estate?

My understanding is the tax will apply to untenanted properties. But at least some untenanted properties are vacation homes which may have been bought years ago (for a much lower price). 

The point is, that if you return the tax as a tax credit, only those who have high incomes will be able to use the credit. Those with low incomes won't. By the way, properties that are not principle homes already pay more property tax than is paid on a principle residence. Also, while a principle residence is not subject to capital gains, non-principle residences are, so if the property is sold, tax will be paid on the capital gain.

Further form Mr. Magoo:

Just to clarify:  the second part of my post above was referring to the way that property tax is indexed to the sale value of a home that's not for sale.

Which merely means that people are already paying increased taxes on their property, which I am not opposed to. but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Rev Pesky

From NorthReport:

One thing for sure: If the one percenters are whining, they are good at that, btw, the government must be doing something constructive towards addressing the massive inbalance between the rich and the poor. 

But it is not the one percenters who are whining. In fact, they will do fine, because they will be able to use the tax credit as proposed by the NDP. It is those who pay little or no income tax who will suffer the most.

I should be clear about this, I am not opposed to the speculation tax as it was orginally proposed. By changing it to a tax credit type of refund it means those who pay the least income taxes will pay the most speculation tax. That is not redressing an imbalance between the rich and poor, that is making it worse.