Is Canada really that different from Greece? (Limitations on Democracy)

143 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Then perhaps the better analogy is finding the right thread to pull that unravels the entire curtain the wizards are hiding behind.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I don't think there's necessarily some "right thread to pull".  I think that real change is just a lot of hard work.  Lots of people are already pulling threads.  There's probably no thread unpulled.

Quote:
Because the only reason they are content is because there is a lot they don't know about the people who coerce governments to their will and exploit their labor and Canada's wealth.

Then I guess step one is to tell them about this.  But if they remain content once they know then there really isn't much of a step two.

Quote:
It's not suffering that causes revolt. It is believing that specific people are causing you sufficient harm, and they will be replaced by something better

I think history suggests that if all goes well and a people revolt, then the evil can be removed and replaced by something better.  Then the something better morphs into the new evil.  Google "Robert Mugabe".

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I find this thread incredibly insulting to what the Greeks are facing. It minimizes their plight through comparison to ours.

And I think you are incredibly insulting to Greeks to think that they wouldn't want Canada to learn from their example and take control of our country away from bankers and financiers ASAP through seeing some parallels.

Given that I have Greek feet I think I am better placed to know what they would find insulting than you are. Personally, I think Greeks don't give a shit about whether or not we compare anything about Canada to anything about Greece given the crisis they are currently experiencing.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Happy to engage in a discussion about Canada elsewhere but I find this context offensive.

You can engage in a multitude of other threads about Canada. No one is forcing you to stay in this one. Do you need me to start a new one for you that is more to your liking or do you think you could manage that yourself? If you start it yourself you can come back here and leave a link so everyone will know where you are discussing whatever it is you want to discuss about Canada.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I find this thread incredibly insulting to what the Greeks are facing. It minimizes their plight through comparison to ours.

And I think you are incredibly insulting to Greeks to think that they wouldn't want Canada to learn from their example and take control of our country away from bankers and financiers ASAP through seeing some parallels.

Given that I have Greek feet I think I am better placed to know what they would find insulting than you are. Personally, I think Greeks don't give a shit about whether or not we compare anything about Canada to anything about Greece given the crisis they are currently experiencing.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Happy to engage in a discussion about Canada elsewhere but I find this context offensive.

You can engage in a multitude of other threads about Canada. No one is forcing you to stay in this one. Do you need me to start a new one for you that is more to your liking or do you think you could manage that yourself? If you start it yourself you can come back here and leave a link so everyone will know where you are discussing whatever it is you want to discuss about Canada.

You have got to be fucking kidding.

This thread is not about Canadians learning from Greece --  this is about a straight up comparison between Canada and Greece. And yes, that is a minimization. And you are as slippery as ever.

And there are a good number of Greek people in Canada and they might give a shit about what other Canadians are saying. At some point they might even want a bit of solidarity  and assitance rather than me-too whining from a site that calls itself progressive.

And I don't give a shit what shape your feet are and you don't know me.

I have Greek blood -- along with the rest of the mix.

My Great Grandmother's name was Oxania Poulos. My grandfather and his father were both born in Greece.

It does not give me a leg up to know more than others here but it sure trumps your feet.

I do have friends over there as well but what I say here is informed by the same information we all have.

Asking if poor rich Canada is comparable to Greece

- with an unemployment rate of 7% comparable to their over 25% unemployed

- comparing our democracy with their when their government has lost sovereignty to a foreign power

- comparing our welfare rates that, as bad as they are, when they have actually no formal program for social welfare -- the only country in Europe without one

- when their average wage is only $300 above our social assistance

- when they are worried about civil breakdown and even war and we are fighting an election

- when large numbers of people cannot get medications for any amount of money

This comparison is insulting and it is a comparison and it is a bunch of whiney -- mostly well-off, by world standards, people insulting people who are in desperation.

And as far as you are concerned I realize that I should not tell you to Fuck off as North Report did in another thread but boy do I want to.

I will say you are fucking clueless. And I'll take any punishment meted out for that.

And I am absolutely fed up with your reframing every thread you write in to your own ends as you go.(twice in the same thread you corrected me incorrectly about what this thread is about.

It is clear what this thread is about and you proclaiming something different to defend yourself is a bag of shit. And you wonder why in hell I would never, ever, ever accuse you of being progressive.

Let your Greek feet take you anywhere but here.

As for this thread I'd sure appreciate this closed. You can start an activist thread somewhere other than on the back of a disgusting comparison between one of the richest countries in the world and one of the most desperate.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I don't think there's necessarily some "right thread to pull".  I think that real change is just a lot of hard work.  Lots of people are already pulling threads.  There's probably no thread unpulled.

Pulling many strings at once is important but someone has to follow them all until they they find the ends where they are all tied together. Or don't you believe that oligarchs have enormous influence over politics in Canada?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Because the only reason they are content is because there is a lot they don't know about the people who coerce governments to their will and exploit their labor and Canada's wealth.

Then I guess step one is to tell them about this.  But if they remain content once they know then there really isn't much of a step two. 

I don't believe people who know they are being robbed and their children are doomed will remain content if they know that there is a better alternative available. I believe Occupy showed that many people are discontent they just don't know that anything can be done about it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I think history suggests that if all goes well and a people revolt, then the evil can be removed and replaced by something better.  Then the something better morphs into the new evil.  Google "Robert Mugabe".

That is why I am not talking about changing leaders or changing our political system not that those things don't have to happen.

I'm talking about getting people angry enough to go after the oligarchs who are the key to solving a multitude of problems no matter which country they reside in.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is the name given to a protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City'sWall Streetfinancial district, receiving global attention and spawning the Occupy movement against social and economic inequality worldwide.[7] It was inspired by anti-austerity protests in Spain coming from the 15-M movement.

The Canadian, anti-consumerist, pro-environment group/magazine Adbusters initiated the call for a protest.

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

This tiny Canadian group created the Occupy movement.

https://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

Based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Adbusters is a not-for-profit, reader-supported, 60,000-circulation magazine concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces. Our work has been featured in hundreds of alternative and mainstream newspapers, magazines, and television and radio shows around the world.

What if they had thought "no point in a small Canadian magazine calling for a demonstration on Wall Street in the States. Nothing will ever come of that."

 

Sean in Ottawa

Please close this thread. It is an embarassment for a progressive site to have it open

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Pulling many strings at once is important but someone has to follow them all until they they find the ends where they are all tied together.

Wha?  I thought one just pulled the "right" string and everything unravelled??

Now it's just hard work?

Quote:
I don't believe people who know they are being robbed and their children are doomed will remain content if they know that there is a better alternative available.

Then like I said, tell them.  You can be that straw that breaks the camel's back!

Quote:
I'm talking about getting people angry enough to go after the oligarchs who are the key to solving a multitude of problems no matter which country they reside in.

Unless you have something that looks like at least the seed of an actual PLAN, I'm afraid I can only picture us "going after the oligarchs" and chasing them around, Benny Hill style.  And now that music is playing in your head.  :)

Sean in Ottawa

Or if you can't close it at least edit the title to remove Greece

Mr. Magoo

And for lulz, replace "Greece" with "Narnia".

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Then like I said, tell them.

Easier said than done. In my opinion it will take a semi-organized campaign that like the original Occupy has the potential to spread.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Unless you have something that looks like at least the seed of an actual PLAN, I'm afraid I can only picture us "going after the oligarchs" and chasing them around, Benny Hill style.  And now that music is playing in your head.  :)

That is what brainstorming is for and I do have some thoughts but there is no point in sharing unless people agree that the influence of oligarchs on government has to be defeated to end poverty and racism and sexism and environmental degradation and police brutality and invasions and selling arms and and and and.

Fighting all these battles individually is like playing whack-a-mole not that they shouldn't be fought.

If everyone thinks that we can't beat the oligarchs or we don't need to then the conversation is pointless.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Easier said than done.

Why's that?  I thought my future was catastrophic and my children were being held hostage.

Now I need some elaborate, choreographed stage show to understand this?  Just speak plainly.  If what you say is true and makes sense, why would that be hard?

And please don't say "because we've been brainwashed".  That's one of those "catch-all, does anything" explanations like "God works in mysterious ways".

Quote:
That is what brainstorming is for and I do have some thoughts but there is no point in sharing unless people agree that the influence of oligarchs on government has to be defeated to end poverty and racism and sexism and environmental degradation and police brutality and invasions and selling arms and and and and.

So people need to agree with you before you'll take the time to convince them.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And for lulz, replace "Greece" with "Narnia".

Now for laughs replace a real country that is in crisis with a fantasy.

This is not about laughs. Real people suffering.

Please close this shit thread.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
This is not about laughs. Real people suffering.

You can't have it both ways, where it's inappropriate when it's about Greece, and then it's also inappropriate when it's not about Greece anymore, because it used to be about Greece.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This thread is not about Canadians learning from Greece --  this is about a straight up comparison between Canada and Greece. And yes, that is a minimization. And you are as slippery as ever.

No it isn't. I started the thread so I am in a better position to determine my intended topic. You are the only person making comparisons between the economic situation in each country.

In my first post:

I quoted Salutin on the similarities between our three primary political parties.

I quoted an article about all the premiers agreeing to fasttrack pipelines. 

I mentioned the premiers agreeing to the terms of CETA which were kept secret from Canadians.

I concluded with this:

Canada is still rich enough that we could revolt, but because it is rich enough to revolt, it won't. 

I was very obviously not saying that Canada is in the same boat as Greece is economically. The word "democracy" in the title was the first clue.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And I am absolutely fed up with your reframing every thread you write in to your own ends as you go.(twice in the same thread you corrected me incorrectly about what this thread is about.

That is because you don't know what this thread is about. You are too busy looking up statistics that prove Canada is better off economically than Greece. Duh.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As for this thread I'd sure appreciate this closed.

So tell the mods and if they agree with you they will close the thread but I don't think they will close a thread because you don't approve of the conversation. If you want to delete your commentary I will do the same with my responses to you.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You can start an activist thread somewhere other than on the back of a disgusting comparison between one of the richest countries in the world and one of the most desperate.

I can start threads anywhere I like and name them anything I want unless the mods say otherwise.

Again, in my first post I concluded with this:

Canada is still rich enough that we could revolt, but because it is rich enough to revolt, it won't.

You are looking for excuses to attack me and disrupt any thread I participate in. Keep it up. I don't mind pointing it out every time you do it. I'd keep a collection except it isn't worth the trouble.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering -- you have been told before that the opening poster does not get to define the meaning and purpose of the thread or have any control over it. You named the thread as a comparison. You and your pretzel logic can deny it but it is in plain English.

The issue of democracy is a red herring becuase there is no comparison there either -- Greece is being dictated to from Berlin. Their internal democracy is irrelevant to the issues about Greece that are in the news.

Get a clue yourself.

This thread is sickening. Your comparisons are sickening.

I am not looking for excuses to attack you -- you have no right to presume that my reactions in this thread are for any other motive than what I have stated. I respond negatively to you becuase you keep posting shit. If you were ten different people I would respond the same way to each of your obnoxious posts.

Your last comment is absolutely reprehensible. You don't get to accuse someone who is objecting on very clearly defined and explained reasons of having a different agenda. It sure is an interesting interpersonal tactic to fight with someone by denying the foundation of their motives. It also should not shock you as to why people respond so badly to you. and attacking a persons motives rather than their argument is a personal attack -- offline it is called mindfucking.

North Report is right -- it is disgusting that you can behave this way but people cannot respond by calling you exactly what you appear to be.

Your posts in this thread disgust me. And last I checked I have a right to that feeling and a right to share it.

You have a habit of needling people and when they respond you hide and act the victim. Your posts have no standards, no boundaries and apparently no shame.

I have no idea why the moderators are softer on you than others. But nobody other than you could have gotten away with the shit in this thread.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Canada is still rich enough that we could revolt, but because it is rich enough to revolt, it won't.

That's like noting that your friend is rich enough that she could sell her grandmother's wedding band, because she's rich enough, she won't.

Sean in Ottawa

I have written to the mods about this thread. As everyone knows they have few hours and little time to get to these things. I don't know if they disagree with me or if they have not gotten around to seeing the posts yet.

And for the record this is the first time in a very long time I have written to them. I don't make it a habit of appealing to the mods. But this thread is revolting and I want them to at least look at it to see what they think.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Now I need some elaborate, choreographed stage show to understand this?  Just speak plainly.  If what you say is true and makes sense, why would that be hard? 

I don't know why it is hard but a whole lot of activists have been trying for decades. I imagine if it was easy they would be all done by now.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  

Quote:
That is what brainstorming is for and I do have some thoughts but there is no point in sharing unless people agree that the influence of oligarchs on government has to be defeated to end poverty and racism and sexism and environmental degradation and police brutality and invasions and selling arms and and and and.

So people need to agree with you before you'll take the time to convince them.

There is no point in attempting to brainstorm on defeating oligarchs if someone doesn't believe there is any need to. That would be a different conversation that should occur in a separate thread. There are people in this thread that agree oligarchs have too much power. Something that doesn't surprise me on a progressive message board.

I think your interest is in playing devil's advocate which can be useful at times but not in this case. In this case it disrupts the attempt at brainstorming on how to generate revolt against oligarchs in a democratic and wealthy country in which there is no need to violently overthrow the goverment.

If that isn't an idea you want to explore because you don't think it is necessary or you don't think it can succeed I would appreciate if you present that argument elsewhere so this thread can be about how to do it not about whether or not we should or can.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Now I need some elaborate, choreographed stage show to understand this?  Just speak plainly.  If what you say is true and makes sense, why would that be hard? 

I don't know why it is hard but a whole lot of activists have been trying for decades. I imagine if it was easy they would be all done by now.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  

Quote:
That is what brainstorming is for and I do have some thoughts but there is no point in sharing unless people agree that the influence of oligarchs on government has to be defeated to end poverty and racism and sexism and environmental degradation and police brutality and invasions and selling arms and and and and.

So people need to agree with you before you'll take the time to convince them.

There is no point in attempting to brainstorm on defeating oligarchs if someone doesn't believe there is any need to. That would be a different conversation that should occur in a separate thread. There are people in this thread that agree oligarchs have too much power. Something that doesn't surprise me on a progressive message board.

I think your interest is in playing devil's advocate which can be useful at times but not in this case. In this case it disrupts the attempt at brainstorming on how to generate revolt against oligarchs in a democratic and wealthy country in which there is no need to violently overthrow the goverment.

If that isn't an idea you want to explore because you don't think it is necessary or you don't think it can succeed I would appreciate if you present that argument elsewhere so this thread can be about how to do it not about whether or not we should or can.

Hello Pondering -- You don't own threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even shitty offensive ones like this puke-fest you have created.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I don't know why it is hard but a whole lot of activists have been trying for decades. I imagine if it was easy they would be all done by now.

Or, if what they chose to do was effective, and resonated with Canadians, it would be done by now.

Quote:
In this case it disrupts the attempt at brainstorming on how to generate revolt against oligarchs in a democratic and wealthy country in which there is no need to violently overthrow the goverment.

You give me too much credit, Pondering.  Who am I to thwart a storm?

NDPP

There is no doubt that the events in Greece are of intense interest to people all over the world, including Canada. How to fight international finance capital, its agents and governments in a class war that is very clearly on, certainly warrants a thread and discussion here.

This we have. It has long been my experience on Babble that concerns raised about thread titles are frequently attempts to shift coversations away from areas deemed dangerous by the title-changers.

If I had opened a thread on this, I might have titled it 'Greece: Lessons for Canada'. But I didn't open this thread, and whether the title stays or gos the discussion of lessons to be learned is an important one that should continue, no matter what you name the thread. This one will do, let's continue...

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

There is no doubt that the events in Greece are of intense interest to people all over the world, including Canada. How to fight international finance capital, its agents and governments in a class war that is very clearly on, certainly warrants a thread and discussion here.

This we have. It has long been my experience on Babble that concerns raised about thread titles are frequently attempts to shift coversations away from areas deemed dangerous by the title-changers.

If I had opened a thread on this, I might have titled it 'Greece: Lessons for Canada'. But I didn't open this thread, and whether the title stays or gos the discussion of lessons to be learned is an important one that should continue.

I am not disputing the value of a discussion -- but the frame is offensive. And it does matter if this frame is the container.

It has mattered here many times before. I was not aware of a ranking of the people we can offend. Anyone want to direct me to it?

Should we start a thread that asks what Canada can learn in comparing the actions of Stephen Harper to Hitler?

What about if we compare the internment of refugees coming to Canada to the Nazi concentration camps? Or if the Holocaust is the only offensive hyperbole we can avoid, how about we compare the Asian Tsunami to the fires in BC -- the fires in BC are serious -- why not? Who gives a flying fuck if they are not comparable to the point that they are offensive? Is this okay?

Why not question the safety of the parliament buildings by minimizng the deaths in the earthquake in Nepal by comparing them as if they are at all comparable?

Hey, why not compare the problems of a millionare with someone on welfare? Why don't we do that? (What is the difference between comparing our misery with a country that has no welfare program at all?)

Well becuase it is offensive. Or it would be if this place were progressive.

We compare an independent rich country that makes its own decisions with a poor country in crisis that is being treated like a colony. What could possibly be offensive about that?

Perhaps since we are so politically correct on some things we should just have a list of the people we can insult and offend and a list of those that do not matter. I see Greeks and Greek Canadians go on the don't-give-a-shit list.

Pondering

Slumberjack, NDPP, epaulo13, alan smithee, Rokossovsky, and probably a couple of others seem to understand what I am trying to get at.

It would be great if we could have a conversation that begins with the premise that oligarchs exist and have too much power over governments even in democratic countries, such as Canada.

Furthermore, that if oligarchs were not monopolizing the wealth of the world there would be much less strife and social injustice.

Finally, that it is worthwhile to brainstorm on how we can rouse people to peaceful revolt againt oligarchs in Canada.

I don't care if the thread remains here or goes into activism. I would just like to be able to have a conversation on this topic if anyone else is interested.

 

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP -- Just realized the true meaning of your last post. It is just as outragious as Pondering's was. I am stating very fucking clearly why I am offended by this thread. I do not appreciate you suggesting that my motive is an "attempt to shift coversations away from areas deemed dangerous by the title-changers"

Disagree with me if you like. But I don't go around telling people what they mean and why they are doing things when they say otherwise. You are both effectively calling me out as being dishonest in my objections here. This is complete unacceptable in a place where any respect is possible.

You want to set up a lie detector for me to attend to prove I am sincere in why I think this thread is sick and offensive? Name the place.

For many reasons -- friends over there, even some kinship, I am affected by what is going on in Greece and I am sincerely fucking offended not trying to avoid a democratic discussion about Canada.

I actually agree with many of the comments made about Canada -- but I cannot and will not engage them in a thread set up to ask if we are like Greece in terms of our democratic options -- or in any other way.

Canadian progressive should be asking what we can do to help Greece, what policies, what public action but we don't have that -- we have this selfish absorbed navel gazing.

NDPP

OK, so how about this becoming 'Greece: Lessons for Canada' and another thread called 'Oligarchs & Canada'?

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

OK, so how about this becoming 'Greece: Lessons for Canada' and another thread called 'Oligarchs & Canada'?

This would be a huge improvement.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Slumberjack, NDPP, epaulo13, alan smithee, Rokossovsky, and probably a couple of others seem to understand what I am trying to get at.

It would be great if we could have a conversation that begins with the premise that oligarchs exist and have too much power over governments even in democratic countries, such as Canada.

Furthermore, that if oligarchs were not monopolizing the wealth of the world there would be much less strife and social injustice.

Finally, that it is worthwhile to brainstorm on how we can rouse people to peaceful revolt againt oligarchs in Canada.

I don't care if the thread remains here or goes into activism. I would just like to be able to have a conversation on this topic if anyone else is interested.

 

You name a bunch of people to defend yourself in an argument? Aren't you the one who runs around this site calling people bullies when they say something you don't like?

In this case naming a bunch of people to line them up against another might better be called mobbing.

They have commented in the thread but there is no indication that any of them other than NDPP were interested in this argument -- or have specifically agreed with the frame of the discussion or any of that part of the discussion.

ETA -- NDPP has now offered a compromise to take the comparison frame out of the title.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK, I'm playing the "Pondering drinking game" where everytime you say "oligarchs" I have to take a shot, and I've just finished my second 40 of Grey Goose.

 

LOL

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

A handful of us on this site could change the world. All it takes is one straw to break the camel's back. One of us here could be that straw, or create the fuse that gets lit with a match, if we could focus on brainstorming how to foment a peaceful revolution.

I don't believe this is how revolutions work at all.  They are not orchestrated or engineered.  They arise.

Occupy was orchestrated, but there was no revolution.  It was mostly just preaching to the choir.  The biggest effect it had was influencing electoral politics with language about economic inequality.

Pondering wrote:

All we have to do is vote for the NDP and leave everything in their hands.

You really don't understand us Pondering.  I don't just vote for the NDP.  I am a member, I donate, I belong to my riding association's executive, and I get involved during and outside of elections.  If millions did that, then yes, there would be change.  I don't suggest that everyone do this--because I find proclamations about how "things would change if everybody just did x" to be tiresome.  But it is clear you don't understand us much at all.  If "we" are the people and the solution is "they" (everything being in "their" hands), then yes, you've got it wrong.

If a revolution arises you can be sure I'll be taking part.  Trying to orchestrate a revolution seems like a fool's game, IMO.  While I wait for the revolution I will put my time and energy into the actions and causes that seem most worthwhile to me.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ETA -- NDPP has now offered a compromise to take the comparison frame out of the title.

No other poster has gone after me with anywhere close to the intensity you have. When you returned after a break you made it clear you have no interest in a truce so I have no reason to humour your demands.

I don't see a need for two threads or a change in title.

You don't have the right to dictate what the title should be on a thread you didn't start.

I will leave it up to the mods to decide whether or not the title is objectionable.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I will leave it up to the mods to decide whether or not the title is objectionable.

Let me just pitch one more time the idea of "Narnia".

Think of THAT discussion!

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If that isn't an idea you want to explore because you don't think it is necessary or you don't think it can succeed I would appreciate if you present that argument elsewhere so this thread can be about how to do it not about whether or not we should or can.

Hello Pondering -- You don't own threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even shitty offensive ones like this puke-fest you have created.

Hello Sean. You don't own this thread either but it hasn't stopped you from making demands and declaring what it is about. I don't have to own a thread to make a polite request of another poster.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK, I'm playing the "Pondering drinking game" where everytime you say "oligarchs" I have to take a shot, and I've just finished my second 40 of Grey Goose.

 

LOL

Then you are going to have quite the challenge because I think it's important to name the enemy.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK, I'm playing the "Pondering drinking game" where everytime you say "oligarchs" I have to take a shot, and I've just finished my second 40 of Grey Goose.

 

LOL

Then you are going to have quite the challenge because I think it's important to name the enemy.

In one crucial respect Canada is extremely different than Greece. Canada has its own currency and thus it controls its monetary system which in turn allows its economy to stabilize when its performance ebbs. During the last couple of years the Canadian economy has weakened vis a vis the U.S. economy, our dollar has lost 1/4th of its value against the U.S. dollar, and this devaluation has stabilized our economy to a great extent. If we had been tied to the U.S. dollar our economy would now be weaker and our governments would be running deficits or we would have to be undergoing an austerity program.

Unlike Canada, Greece does not have control over its monetary system so its economy does not automatically stabilize when it under performs in comparison to the rest of the Eurozone, the political entity that controls its currency. Since its currency is controlled by the EU, Greece needs help from the EU in order to stabilize its economy when it under performs the rest of the EU. The Eurozone is a flawed political entity in that it does not adequately balance its fiscal system and monetary systems. To a much less extent Canada also does not adequately balance its fiscal and monetary systems. Not adequately sharing our wealth between our provinces is a weakness in our system, but it is much less of a flaw here than in the Eurozone. Provinces like Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are disadvantaged in our Canadian monetary/fiscal union but to a far less extent that Greece is within the EU. Hopefully a new NDP government this year will better balance our monetary/fiscal union.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

I didn't say that Occupy was a revolution. I say it shows potential. Not everyone participated but the occupation of parks was widely tolerated and supported for quite awhile. Ten years ago it wouldn't have been. It was not all that orchestrated either.

You were pitching the idea that Occupy was created or orchestrated by Adbusters.  Maybe it was.  I didn't see Adbusters having any significant presence at Occupy Vancouver.

Did you participate in Occupy?

Quote:

But something has to motivate people to do that in large numbers. We have a hard enough time getting people to vote. In any case electing the NDP alone will not reverse neoliberalism. The would need the support of the people for that and they don't have it so they have no choice but to support oil sands expansion and free trade deals.

From my perspective, the NDP has had a lot more support of the people than Occupy ever did (in Canada).  Occupy was really a USian movement though.

It's hard to say.  Nothing about Occupy was simple.

Quote:

Well that is wonderful I won't try to stop you but revolutions don't just erupt and I don't think there has ever been a peaceful democratic revolution although I am not a history buff so maybe it has happened.

There have been some.  Guatemala comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Revolution

Quote:

We live in a democracy. We have the means to take power away from the oligarchs and claim it for ourselves with minimal violence. I call that a revolution regardless of how it happens.

I think the biggest obstacle to that is the size of the world and the race to the bottom.  To look at Guatemala again, a successful peaceful revolution was interrupted by a US military coup.

We have the means to take the power away from some oligarchs in one part of the world but once we do we become a target.

Quote:

I agree with Chris Hedges:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

Do you agree with Chris Hedges? Open question to anyone who wants to answer.

I think mass protests have as many barriers to success as electoral activism.  That doesn't mean that I don't think they should be pursued as an option.  But just as there are conditions which limit the effectiveness of electoral activism, there are conditions that limit the effectiveness of mass protests.  Hedges is pitching a solution that requires a whole bunch of people to act a certain way.  It's like saying if everyone eliminated fossil fuel use, we could save the environment.  While perhaps that may be true, the statement itself is of little value.

Do you participate in mass protests?  You seem to be advocating them.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You were pitching the idea that Occupy was created or orchestrated by Adbusters.  Maybe it was.  I didn't see Adbusters having any significant presence at Occupy Vancouver.

The original idea was to occupy Wall Street.

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Wall-Street-1.jpg[/img]

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:
I don't believe this is how revolutions work at all.  They are not orchestrated or engineered.  They arise.

Revolutions don't just spontaneously arise either. There are common factors and there are leaders who begin it even if they don't "run it" in an organized fashion.

wage zombie wrote:
Occupy was orchestrated, but there was no revolution.  It was mostly just preaching to the choir.  The biggest effect it had was influencing electoral politics with language about economic inequality.

I didn't say that Occupy was a revolution. I say it shows potential. Not everyone participated but the occupation of parks was widely tolerated and supported for quite awhile. Ten years ago it wouldn't have been. It was not all that orchestrated either.

wage zombie wrote:
You really don't understand us Pondering.  I don't just vote for the NDP.  I am a member, I donate, I belong to my riding association's executive, and I get involved during and outside of elections.  If millions did that, then yes, there would be change.

But something has to motivate people to do that in large numbers. We have a hard enough time getting people to vote. In any case electing the NDP alone will not reverse neoliberalism. The would need the support of the people for that and they don't have it so they have no choice but to support oil sands expansion and free trade deals.

wage zombie wrote:
I don't suggest that everyone do this--because I find proclamations about how "things would change if everybody just did x" to be tiresome.  But it is clear you don't understand us much at all.  If "we" are the people and the solution is "they" (everything being in "their" hands), then yes, you've got it wrong.

We live in a democracy. We the people are the solution. A Syriza cannot rise without the support of the people and if it does achieve power it will have to battle a neoliberal system designed to prevent reversals and protected by oligarchs.

wage zombie wrote:
If a revolution arises you can be sure I'll be taking part.  Trying to orchestrate a revolution seems like a fool's game, IMO.  While I wait for the revolution I will put my time and energy into the actions and causes that seem most worthwhile to me.

Well that is wonderful I won't try to stop you but revolutions don't just erupt and I don't think there has ever been a peaceful democratic revolution although I am not a history buff so maybe it has happened.

We live in a democracy. We have the means to take power away from the oligarchs and claim it for ourselves with minimal violence. I call that a revolution regardless of how it happens.

I agree with Chris Hedges:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

Do you agree with Chris Hedges? Open question to anyone who wants to answer.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Unlike Canada, Greece does not have control over its monetary system so its economy does not automatically stabilize when it under performs in comparison to the rest of the Eurozone, the political entity that controls its currency.

That isn't the only difference. Canada is much richer in natural resources both in agriculture and fuel. If the entire world went to hell in a handbasket we could survive in a way that Greece can't. We are protected from floods of refugees as well.

Does that mean we have nothing at all in common with Greece besides a tourism industry?

Our politicians are acting in secret serving oligarchs rather than the people that elect them and Canadians passively accept it.

Examples are:

CETA:

The provincial politicians, including NDP, Liberals and Conservatives, in secrecy, signed on to this trade deal that has investor state mechanisms that threaten Canadian sovereignty. Oligarchs in the form of corporations and business leaders were consulted. Canadians were not.

Expediting Pipelines:

All the provinces signed another deal in secret to expedite pipelines. Are they reflecting the will of the people?

Neoliberalism:

We have three major parties all of whom support the basic neoliberal framework including the NDP.

Finance:

The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and /or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bank-of-canada-challenged-in-legal-action-r...

Security agreements:

Although many people don't agree with Bill C-51 demonstrations have been small or non-existant. Many agreements before it include information sharing with other countries such as The Five Eyes.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the US Army School of the Americas,[1][2] is a United States Department of Defense Institute located at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia, that provides military training to government personnel in US-allied Latin American nations.

Formerly it "served" US-allied Latin American nations now it has been expanded to include Canada, the only other part of the Western Hemisphere. Is this something Canadians want?

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dictators.html

Americans can now read for themselves some of the noxious lessons the United States Army taught to thousands of Latin American military and police officers at the School of the Americas during the 1980's. A training manual recently released by the Pentagon recommended interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned.

That was published in 1996 so it isn't a big secret.

Given how much that we know about what is going down, and the lack of government transparency, imagine what is going on behind our backs?

Corruption

Our politicians use tax money to reward the loyal in the form of contracts and patronage appointments. They blatantly weaken our electoral process and break our elections laws and even when they are finally being carted off to prison for it Canadians barely bat an eye. Massive corruption in government, municipal and provincial, and the construction industry including unions in Quebec did not result in significant change or challenge from the population. Both in Quebec and the rest of Canada citizens assume corruption as part of government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said earlier in the thread, let's assume the NDP wins a majority in October. Will they rip up CETA? Disengage Canada from the school of the Americas? Return to borrowing from the Bank of Canada interest free? Prevent further expansion of the oil sands?

Electoral politics is limited in what it can achieve. Governments are vulnerable to pressure from the powerful. Parties can't get elected on a radical platform until disaster strikes like in Greece. Disaster is unlikely to strike Canada this century.

Ergo, electoral politics is insufficient to displace the power of oligarchs.

Oligarch: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc.

Because we live in a wealthy democracy oligarchs are to some extent required to give us stuff to keep us passive, or afraid to rock the boat for fear we will lose what we have. As they siphon off our wealth they set us against each other with the presumption that improvement for one group means taking money out the pockets of another group, never out of the pockets of oligarchs.

There is no grand worldwide conspiracy of oligarchs. If there were the IMF wouldn't have split with Germany on Greece. It's more like an endless chess tournament in which deals are made, like CETA, that benefit them rather than the citizens of their respective countries.

The states have a lot of control over Canada. If they want our water they will take it without needing to invade. The oligarchs will make some deal to make it happen and Canadians will accept it. Through NAFTA we aren't allowed to reduce the percentage of oil we ship to the states although they aren't required to take it. If we find another market by getting to salt water it will have to be new production or come out of Canada's share.

We have our own dollar, but the United States could cripple us financially. They won't because there is no need to but there is a limit to the amount of socialism they will allow. That's what trade agreements are all about. Between CETA and NAFTA I'm sure we couldn't say, privatize broadband and cell towers to put service providers on an even footing.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Let me just pitch one more time the idea of "Narnia".

Think of THAT discussion!

I think those shots are working their magic. Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:
You were pitching the idea that Occupy was created or orchestrated by Adbusters.  Maybe it was.

All Adbusters did was initiate the call as noted by:

A handful of anarchists in New York decided to do it and started promoting it. It just grew from there. It was not orchestrated. There were no official leaders. Occupy proved that with the right hook a very small group of people can generate mass worldwide protest.

Occupy had a great deal of general pubic support for months because of the target and the consituency they claimed to represent. Occupy did not represent the poor and was not demanding government benefits nor protesting the party in power or supporting any particular political party although Occupy massively aided Elizabeth Warren who also indirectly aided Occupy by legitimizing their message.

Occupy didn't literally represent the 99% against the 1%.  We are really after a small percentage of the 1%. Targeting Wall Street took focus away from electoral politics which has to happen to succeed. If Occupy had been generated by a particular party or supported a particular party it would never have worked.

Occupy petered out at least partially because it had no specific demands. It was not prepared for its success.

But it did succeed in changing the conversation and making income inequality an issue. This was huge because until then any mention of income inequality immediately turned into accusations of trying to start a class war.

We have a new powerful tool that wasn't historically available to the people. Occupy would never have happened without the Internet. We have a means of massive almost instantaneous communication through twitter. The leader of a demonstration can communicate instantly with a million demonstrators or a small subset of leaders amongst them. Anything can go viral overnight.

These new tools have enormously expanded our ability to revolt.

wage zombie wrote:
Did you participate in Occupy?

Yes although I didn't sleep on site. I took part in assemblies and provided baked goods in Montreal.

wage zombie wrote:
From my perspective, the NDP has had a lot more support of the people than Occupy ever did (in Canada).  Occupy was really a USian movement though.

A US movement begun by Canadians. The NDP does have far more support than Occupy but that support is not a mandate for radical change and the NDP can't turn it into one. Modern political parties need millions of dollars to compete. Syriza was able to rise solely because of the dire conditions in Greece. We don't have those conditions here so it is virtually impossible for such a party to rise in Canada. The NDP has only gained legitimacy by renounced their focus on socialism and embracing free trade if not investor/state mechanisms. The NDP has long been caught in a vice between the desires of its members and the reality of electoral politics. If the NDP gained power, and the demonstrations Chris Hedges wants happened, the NDP would have a much stronger hand. But, generating such a groundswell of support for radical change can't be associated with a particular political party.

wage zombie wrote:
I think the biggest obstacle to that is the size of the world and the race to the bottom.

Yes, which is why I referenced Occupy, the idea for which was prompted by the Arab Spring. It connected activists worldwide. When I was at Occupy Montreal we had a visitor from an Occupy participant from Spain. Activists have never had so much power to communicate with one another both worldwide and during demonstrations through twitter. International connections were made at Occupy.

wage zombie wrote:
To look at Guatemala again, a successful peaceful revolution was interrupted by a US military coup.

 We have the means to take the power away from some oligarchs in one part of the world but once we do we become a target.

So has Canada reached the point of no return? This also touches on our ability to do things world wide. That is why Chris Hedges is calling for demonstrations across the US and Europe. A couple of countries in Europe are against the investor state protection so Canada isn't being forced by them to accept that aspect of the deal. Activists in some countries in Europe are fighting it but nothing much is happening here.

Someone here was promoting acting through trade deals, only having them actually benefit the people rather than corporations. If activists work across borders we can coordinate opposition so neither country can use the excuse that the other country is demanding it. It's the only way to fight multi-national organizations.

We the people, as individuals, don't know what to demand in detail but we don't need to. For example, we can demand that unions have a seat at the table for trade deal negotiations. Unions are far from perfect but they have the expertise to address labor laws and formulate better deals for workers in both countries. Even if they are just there as observers they can inform the public on the impact of the deals. Consumer protection bureau could also be an effective observer.

wage zombie wrote:
Do you participate in mass protests?  You seem to be advocating them.

I am neither a student nor a union member but I still attended almost all the student protests. I also participated in the daily pot banging.

Between that and Occupy I believe the potential for what Chris Hedges says is necessary exists. Its time for a new age 21st century mode of rebellion to emerge. Occupy just cracked the egg.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I agree with Chris Hedges:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

Do you agree with Chris Hedges? Open question to anyone who wants to answer.

I think in Europe, U.S., and Canada, public political advocacy will continue to be required to bring about more left-wing changes. I also think progressive political advocacy may be successful in Canada without massive protests. Policies such as a national childcare program, affordable post-secondary education, putting a price on CO2, electoral reform, better pensions, pharmacare, home-care, improved E.I., a national social housing program, livable wages, increased social assistance rates, enhanced Medicare, etc... may well happen if the NDP is able to be in government for an extended period of time.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I agree with Chris Hedges:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

Do you agree with Chris Hedges? Open question to anyone who wants to answer.

I think in Europe, U.S., and Canada, public political advocacy will continue to be required to bring about more left-wing changes. I also think progressive political advocacy may be successful in Canada without massive protests. Policies such as a national childcare program, affordable post-secondary education, putting a price on CO2, electoral reform, better pensions, pharmacare, home-care, improved E.I., a national social housing program, livable wages, increased social assistance rates, enhanced Medicare, etc... may well happen if the NDP is able to be in government for an extended period of time.

You didn't answer the question. I have already said, for the sake of argument, assume the NDP is elected with a majority.

Are you saying as long as the NDP is elected we're done? No need for demonstrations, activists can all go home?

How is the NDP going to achieve all that with just a small increase in corporate taxes and balanced budgets?

Are you actively against having demonstrations or do you just think we don't need any if we elect the NDP?

Are you saying the global speculators and finanical elites Chris Hedges is referring to don't exist in Canada or that they can be controlled by the NDP?

iyraste1313

with the NDP in government? will the wholesale slaughter of our ecosystems to the profit of the mining/hydro/ petro elites stop?

Watch carefully now what the capitulationist SYRIZA will do to supress the opposition...

yes having the NDP in some form of power in Canada is important, just to demonstrate the capitulationsist nature of its leadership...but if so called progressives in Canada do not get it together to offer a serious alternative to the finance capitalist global system, and prepare its transitions program, from the get go...and begin educating the public!! then look out as we regain a more extremist fascist political party to the NDP! (

And as Canada's economy goes down, built on supplying the failing global economy with its expensive resource inputs?...whew!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there was a rabble blog written a year ago maybe 2 that spoke of the bc government locked into the deals that it had made for years to come..that any new government had very little room to manoeuvre. the same applies to the feds. last year harper signed a fipa deal that will last 31 years. while some may argue that this can change the political will just isn’t there.

..the multiple crisis that canada faces are structural. canada is a neolibiberal state and remains so no matter which party governs. unless something is done about it. no party today is calling for those structures to change. and that is a major contradiction. you can't have trade deals that are negotiated in secret with corporations and expect to have no austerity or climate catastrophe. you can't contribute to nato and the industrial war machine and have peace or money for a just redisdistribution. pretty much all global economic institutions canada is involved with are geared towards the betterment of banks and corporations.

..while the ndp can shuffle some of the money around. while they can offer much needed reform. their environment remains fragile. the electoral process is rigged and this adds to the fragility of any party who would dare try to make change. we look at greece and say no way here. but greece represents the advanced stages of austerity and where we may be heading.

..the square occupations where more than protests. as was pointed out earlier they created the division of the 99% vs the 1%. but more importantly it highlighted the concept of participatory democracy. we no longer had to be in the hands of political parties that operated top down regimes. and that are locked into running an economy where the elite have enormous control and advantage. and that we can make major decisions at a grassroots level that are contrary to the will of governments or political parties. and then back them up with actions that can shut things down real quick.

..so today, in canada we see this in practice. a diverse que and first nations allied with very diverse communities and groups have halted the advance of pipelines and the demands of the global energy sector. now that is power. but that is not acknowledged because it isn't tied to a political party. imho this is what our struggles looks like now and will look like in the future. this is participatory democracy. the goal as was pointed out in spain will not mean a traditional revolution but building a new world inside the old. which in itself is a revolution.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Why would anyone want a Canadian Syriza?  Greek bailout deal highlights monumental scale of Syriza’s betrayal

Quote:

Syriza, elected just six months ago on the basis of a pledge to end austerity, is set to endorse by a large majority of its parliamentary deputies measures that go far beyond those agreed by the New Democracy and PASOK government it replaced.

I'm guessing they would have been better off with either PASOK or at least the PASOK/New Democracy coalition.  In Canada, people would be better off with the NDP or at least an NDP/Liberal coalition rather than the Conservatives or Liberals or some left-right "radical" mish mash. 

But anyway, as Sean pointed out, Greece and Canada are two different ballgames regarding the severity of the situation.  Also, democratically speaking, we still have our own currency and are not relying on bailouts from external sources (to my knowledge, anyway).  Government here is still capable of providing stimulus when needed to assist important sectors of employment for working Canadians (IE, the auto industry, as both the Ontario Libs and federal Cons did a few years back). 

We have valuable resources and government has the means to impose greater control over those.  Likewise we have the ability to elect a government that has the means to require corporations to pay a fairer share of the country's taxes.  Alberta is an example of this as the citizens there elected the NDP to conduct a royalty review of their resources and to increase corporate taxes (the federal NDP will do likewise with corporate taxes if elected). 

Right wingers like to encourage hyper-criticality and apathy within those (youth, women, working class) who are more likely to elect social democratic parties that will provide better policies via bizarre declarations that it's all hopeless ("If so, it will not happen through electoral politics").  Thus, right-wing parties receive a greater proportion of their supporters showing up at the polling station, and slowly but surely (IE, the last 30 years in Canada) many egalitarian programs are weakened.  However, Alberta is the first glimmer that this can change.  Next stop, Canada.

We have hundreds of threads discussing electoral politics. What you and --- seem to be saying is that electoral politics is the answer to all our problems. No need for demonstrations. No need to block pipelines. No need for occupy. Certainly no need for any kind of revolution, even a peaceful one, against neoliberalism. All we have to do is vote for the NDP and leave everything in their hands. 

NDPP

#This Isn't Quite A Coup: What Canadians Must Learn From Greece  -  by Nora Loreto

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/nora-loreto/2015/07/this-isnt-quite-coup...

"But for Canadians, the lessons to be learned from the events in Greece should be gleaned from the actions of people on the ground, not at the top.

More importantly, the Left needs to break our obsession with leadership, especially now that popular force has returned to the streets of Athens.

Instead of #thisisacoup it's actually just sophisticated capitalism, where democracy is seen as an anti-market force that needs to be mitigated by anti-democratic measures.

Canada is NOT immune from these forces..."

An activist citizenry should adopt a 'more stick, less carrot' approach with ALL their representatives. Especially given the well known tendencies of  politicians to desertion, treachery and forgetting we are the public and they are our servants.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Our democracies require popular resistance to push governments to the left

Or, just people voting for the left.  Of course I mean the real left.

Do their ballots not have the names and parties of the real left on them?  And if they do, then why do the parties of the real left seem to fare so poorly at election time, when so many demand their presence in government?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I agree with Chris Hedges:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

Do you agree with Chris Hedges? Open question to anyone who wants to answer.

I think in Europe, U.S., and Canada, public political advocacy will continue to be required to bring about more left-wing changes. I also think progressive political advocacy may be successful in Canada without massive protests. Policies such as a national childcare program, affordable post-secondary education, putting a price on CO2, electoral reform, better pensions, pharmacare, home-care, improved E.I., a national social housing program, livable wages, increased social assistance rates, enhanced Medicare, etc... may well happen if the NDP is able to be in government for an extended period of time.

You didn't answer the question. I have already said, for the sake of argument, assume the NDP is elected with a majority.

Are you saying as long as the NDP is elected we're done? No need for demonstrations, activists can all go home?

How is the NDP going to achieve all that with just a small increase in corporate taxes and balanced budgets?

Are you actively against having demonstrations or do you just think we don't need any if we elect the NDP?

Are you saying the global speculators and finanical elites Chris Hedges is referring to don't exist in Canada or that they can be controlled by the NDP?

IMHO, if the NDP forms a majority FPTP government there will still be a dire need in Canada for activists and demonstrations to further important causes.

I believe that the global speculators and financial elites Chris Hedges refers to exist in Canada and that an NDP federal government would be able to "control" them.

I think that an NDP majority government would be able to move Canada significantly to the left. If they failed at it, there would rightly be very many activists and demonstrations against them.

We have never had an NDP government in Canada, majority or otherwise, so I think it's very rash to say that an NDP government is doomed to fail the left.

It seems to me that the aim of this thread is to make the case that an NDP government is doomed to failure. I disagree with that premature and pessimistic outlook. It seems to me that the aim of this thread is the suppression of votes toward the NDP. Just in time for an election that's about to start in a few weeks.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
 

We have never had an NDP government in Canada, majority or otherwise, so I think it's very rash to say that an NDP government is doomed to fail the left.

It seems to me that the aim of this thread is to make the case that an NDP government is doomed to failure. I disagree with that premature and pessimistic outlook. It seems to me that the aim of this thread is the suppression of votes toward the NDP. Just in time for an election that's about to start in a few weeks.

No not at all, but now that you mention it... My argument is that whichever party is in power, including the NDP, is limited in how far they can go. The NDP can't campaign on shutting down the oil sands. Mulcair can't condemn CETA. The overriding importance of balanced budgets is accepted as a fact. Mulcair can't campaign on increasing the deficit even though Harper himself will have to do it if he stays in office.

Aspects of neoliberalism have been accepted as factual common sense by the general public without even knowing it. Taxes are bad, deficits are bad, CEOs earn their income.

The NDP may well be doomed to failure. We don't know how badly Harper has cooked the books. The public has a low tolerance for deficits and those may happen without any new social spending. The NDP can't fail as spectacularly as Syriza but they may not be able to live up to supporter's expectations through no fault of their own.

A mass movement would most likely indirectly help the NDP but it couldn't be directed at that because then it becomes partisan and turns everything you say suspect. Whatever goals a mass movement like this has must be non-partisan. It also can't focus on racism or feminism or any other isms.

Pondering

P.S. Nothing I say on this board is going to result in someone not voting. That isn't the kind of audience Rabble attracts.

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ETA -- NDPP has now offered a compromise to take the comparison frame out of the title.

No other poster has gone after me with anywhere close to the intensity you have. When you returned after a break you made it clear you have no interest in a truce so I have no reason to humour your demands.

I don't see a need for two threads or a change in title.

You don't have the right to dictate what the title should be on a thread you didn't start.

I will leave it up to the mods to decide whether or not the title is objectionable.

 

I have but you play your typical victim card and then attempt to bully me. You are a fucking keyboard coward. Hey asshat you also don't get to decide how a thread should go, even one as shitty as this one, though not any different from your usual baiting.

Pages