Canadian 'Labour Socialism' or European 'Social Democracy'?

Fidel wrote:

Sweden hasnt passed and enacted 175 pieces of anti-labour legislation since 1982 either. And something like 85% of workers in Sweden are unionized. The Swedes believe in free labour markets, whereas here, governments of the two old line party persuasion intervene in markets on behalf of employers. That's a fascist tendency of our two big business parties who tend to mollycoddle their friends in industry instead of nurturing competitive free markets. You have to first begin to appreciate just how out of whack things are here compared to there.

I will grant you that. Just as the left in Sweden is less hostile to the right, the right is also less hostile to the left, and I'm sure this has helped in making both sides feel comfortable enough to borrow ideas from one another.

I don't see why the NDP couldn't make overtures to the right though, why it couldn't offer an olive branch. In Sweden, though it was the Christian Democrats who'd introduced the school voucher system, the Social Democrats haven't opposed since.

Why couldn't the NDP take the best ideas from the right, blend them in with socialist ideas, remove anti-labour legislation, etc. and come up with something that could be attractive to the centre?

remind wrote:

Wonderful right wing sentiment trying to be normalized on babble!

If Sweden of all countries can feel comfortable with school vouchers and a two-tiered health system, how can it not be good enough for the NDP?

As for concerns over the private sector exploiting the situation, we could allow the vouchers to be used only by public schools, schools owned by not-for-profit NGOs and, depending on how far we wanted to go, maybe even workers' co-ops (i.e. schools owned by the teachers and staff themselves).

I understand what your saying. As for Sweden opposing further privatization since 2006, I did not know that but am not particularly surprised too. If it's already more privatized than the US, then it really can't privatize much more now can it?

Also, I was not suggesting that just because Sweden does something that we should copy it unthinkingly, but rather simply saying that we should learn from European countries' example and not be antagonistic towards the private sector just to be antagonistic towards the priavate sector.

remind wrote:

No, they actually only privatized 1 hospital and I believe a clinic, and so much more  tax payer money was spent, which was not spent before, that they did not go further down the privatization route.

I do not believe in school voucher systems. Nor in the religious right having more school choices.

When I was talking about government ownership, I was not talking about hosppitals specifically, but all ownership across the economy.

Alwo, why do you equate vouchers with religious schools? What would be the harm in allowing students to learn First Nations' languages or sign language as a second language instead of French? Or what about First Nations languages as mediums of instruction off-reserve? None of this is possible in the current government-run system in Ontario.

And if anything, the Ontario system even discriminates in favour of the Catholic Faith, and the NDP says nothing about it. One would think that in an officially secular state, it should be all or none, not one over others.

Fidel wrote:

Machjo, I believe, and I know the NDP believes that Canada has so much more natural wealth and potential for economic prosperity than Sweden does. Canada could, theoretically, blow the doors off countries like China and India and Singapore with economic growth, if that's indeed what we wanted to do. Growth is for developing countries, as we know. Canada has all kinds of potential to become a world beater in high tech and green economy. We've been held back in this country for various geopolitical reasons. And that's another discussion altogether. Canada could be a world beater and world leader in so many ways. Decades ago the Swedes looked at the competition between Japan and Germany and US for electronics and cars. They decided that a smaller country like Sweden should allow larger economies to compete for those lucrative industries. Instead the Swedes focussed on things like medical research, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, health care, tourism etc. Canada's leaders have to sit down and figure out what it is Canadians can do well in and dominate.

I can support growth as long as it's sustainable. And yes, I agree that each country should specialize according to its natural economic advantage.

Quote:

We have to do something about the $130 billion dollar infrastructure deficit in this northern Puerto Rico. A strength of the Nordic countries is infrastructure and investment in people. Post-war Chicago School of economics genies once told US government that Japan and Germany would be capable of rebuilding their economies quickly because most of the academics, engineers and scientists survived the war. The devastation of those countries during WW II was thought to have put them behind by decades in terms of development. But Nobel laureates then realized just how valuable investments in people and infrastructure are. We are behind in Canada today, but things could be different with the right people in government. I'm voting NDP because I believe they have the best overall plan.

As for the federal and provincial debts, I can see only two solutions to that:

1. increase taxes, and/or

2. reduce spending.

As for investing in people, I fully agree with that. In fact, I'd be very much in favour of increasing government spending on education, as long as it's fair and all benefit from it equally. Now, in order to increase government spending on education AND pay off the debt, we'd have no choice but to cut spending elsewhere and/or increase taxes. The right today hates tax increases, so that would be a very tough sell. Now I could see a few solutions to that (I'm not saying they'd work, but just a brainstorm: feel free to correct me as I may be wrong on some assumptions here):

1. At least some members of the social left (both religious and secular I'd presume) would support increased spending on education.

2. Those in favour of putting Aboriginal languages and sign languages on an equal footing with French and English might be to granting schools more freedom to choose their language of instruction and their second-language.

3. The religious right might be willing to tolerate a tax increase if it means more freedom to choose via a voucher system.

4. Egalitarians would most certainly support a voucher system over university subsidies that benefit only those who attend those institutions.

5. The secular right might not be too happy with this, but might grin and bear it if they have the chance to invest in education, or at least not complain too much about it.

6. The socialist left might accept it if participating schools could be limited only to government-owned, owned by not-for-profit NGOs, and maybe workers' co-ops (though granted this would limit the secular rights investment opportunities considerably if we allow the co-ops, and totally if we don't).

So could such a trade-off between a tax increase and a voucher system help gain some support from the right? Hard to say. It would likely lose some support from the socialist left (privatization), but maybe gain some support from the cosmopolitan left (freer choice of language in school, including Aboriginal, putting Aboriginal languages and sign languages on an equal footing with their European counterparts), with some of the socialist left supporting it because of increased government funding for education. On the other hand, it would likely gain support from some of the religious right while losing support from some of the secular right (with some supporting it because of privatization). Hard to say, but this is my brainstorm on this.

Another problem I can see, a little off topic or maybe not, has to do with public awareness. For example, a person who has a job might not mind paying taxes for a 'good cause' if you will, and might never imagine that he'll be among those who'll need government services.

But when disaster strikes, be it unemployment, debt, bad credit blacking him from educaiton, etc. he doesn't know where to turn, panics, and his whole experience is a disaster for him. Once he gets back into the workforce, do we honestly think he'll have a high regard for the social safety net. Obvioulsy his first priority then will be to just want the government to cut his taxes so he can give to private charities to see if maybe they could do better, or otherwise look for some alternative solution. The question then is how to convince him that the social safety net can be restructured within the system itself.

Another problem has to do with culture, beliefs and upbringing. A person raised to be ashamed of asking for social assistance might choose not to ask for it until he's absolutely desperate for it, when he's already flat broke and disillusioned with everything, whereas another may have been raised to know all the loopholes to exploit the ssytem at every moment. Needless to say when the first person sees how tough his experience was while the other one benefits more, he won't think it too fair anymore, and will turn against the system at the polls. How do we deal with psychological resistance to asking for social assistance from those who do qualify so that they don't resent the system later? I remember reading of a case in Sweden where they had street people! They tried to figure out what the problem was and as it turned out, some chose to end up on th streets. I cant rememebr the details of the study, but I remember vaguely making reference to various psychological and emotional reasons for not asking for help.

These are all issues that cannot be resolved by simply putting more money into the social safety net, but rather by educating people about it more.

It also doesn't help when it appears some groups benefit more from others, such as students benefitting from government university subsidies, but those who don't have the chance to go to university not benefitting from the same subsidies, even though their own minimum wages are paying into it!

Or alternatively, government education spending favouring one religious group to the exclusion of others (as is the case in Ontario with Catholic schools), or government policy excluding Aboriginals from cultural equality within the school system. Needless to say, this doesn't bode well for respect for the integrity and equity of government.

By the way, I did have to rely on social assistance at one point, so I have first-hand experience of how the system works.

As for university educaiton, I have heard some complain that they've never benefittted from those subsidies because they never had the chance to go to university. One solution I could see would be, instead of government subsidizing the universities directly, to give each person a school voucher for an extra year, that he could use for university, college, trade school, whatever. This way none benefits unfairly from subsidies to university. Everyone gets an EQUAL share of the educational pie. Yes, this would mean tuition would be higher for those who do chose to go on to higher educaito, but at least then they wouldn't be benefitting from a subsidy others arent' benefitting from.

If one year isn't enough, then we could make it two, or three or four, or five years. That part is less important than the principle of equality and that all benefit equally from the subsidies. From that standpoint, I thin a voucher system would be the most egalitarian and least elitist.

As for free trade, I fully agree that it should go hand in hand with free movement of labour agreements, making it easier for foreigners to apply for work in Canada and vice versa.

What did I say so far that is ant-labour? I'd actually support giving workers the right to vote on the board of directors.

Anti-labour? How so? Rad the line above.

Right-wing? If you read above, I did express support for tax increases along with increased funding for education. If that's what you call right-wing, then yes, I'm right-wing.

I also support equal freedom for Aboriginal languages in the school system even off-reserve, as well as sign language, and not force students to learn French as their second-language or, in Quebec, English. This woudl also help to put not only Aboriginals, but also the deaf, on an equal footing. If that's right-wing too, then I'm very right wing.

To some degree, I try to find policies that achieve left-wing objectives (mainly social justice) but in such a way as to be at least somewhat palatable to the right. I do frequent right-wing forums just as much as left-wing, and do often try out new ideas on both sides, always trying to fine-tune them. At first, boy were people explosive. Now, people will usually not like my ideas, but some will consider them reasonable compromises sometimes.

Anyway, that might also explain my unusual views. After all, if we can't convince both the left and the right, we cdon't form a government, simple as that.

remind wrote:

Machjo wrote:

remind wrote:

Wow, babble is so becoming the hot bed of anti-labour, right wing discourse these days.

Another nice one-liner. Could you elaborate?

It is the same one liner you commented on before, not another one. :D

Sure I do bigger gigs too, but not when not necessary and/or a waste of time.

Was not refering in specific to your postings in this thread and the anti-labour comment was for the post above yours, you got in between said poost and my response.

Sorry.

remind wrote:

NP, 

I think it would be much easier to just  input FN's languages, beyond that of just English and French, directly into the  public school system, no vouchers required, it would just be another choice.

 

Yes, that's a possibility too. I would add sign languages too though, including American Sign Language (most common among the deaf raised in English as their written language) Quebec Sign Language (most common among the deaf raised in French as their written language), and International Sign (aka Gestuno), the official sign language of the International Federation for the Deaf. I would also add Esperanto as an international auxiliary language, and possibly others. In fact, in Hungary, schools can teach any second-language of their choice to fulfil graduation requirements as long as they first present a course plan to the Ministry of Educaiton for approval, to ensure its pedagogic quality. Hungary's is probably the most open system in taht respect, and would likely be a good system to emulate as far as the principle of language equality in second-language learning goes.

As for languages of instruction, I'd probably be more restrictive to just written French (with the option of spoken French or LSQ), written English (with the option of spoken English or ASL), and the written local Aboriginal language (with the option of the spoken local Aboriginal language or its signed version).

I'd support this, but in Ontario it would be a tough sell. First off, since I believe in equality, I'd want to ensure thet the Ministry of Education fund no religion or all religions. If we go for cutting Catholic funding, the Catholic lobby would certainly shoot it down. If we go for public schools for all religions, the secular lobby would most certainly shoot it down. There is the Green-Party's option of allowing elective World Religions  courses in the secular school system. That might work. Maybe. Worth a shot.

My concern with the public system though is that the right would likely oppose it on the grounds that it would fear that the government would give more money to FN languages over others. One solution I suppose could be a public school voucher system (i.e. vouchers that can be cashed in only at public schools). Maybe that would work and could reassure the right that FN schools would get no more funding than any otehr per pupil according to parental choice and popularity. That would still be an improvement over what we have now whereby FN languages are completely shut out off-reserve.

That would be an option worth trying as a kind of plan A. If the right opposes that though on the grounds of 'we-re-one-country-and-so-we-should-have-but-one-language-and-that-s-English-so-the-FNs-can-take-it-or-leave-it', then we could maybe offer the option of schools owned by not-for-profit NGOs to accept school vouchers too, as a kind of olive branch to the right on behalf of the FN. To oppose that would just undermine equality for the FN's languages, and I believe that we owe it to them to be willing to sacrifice ideological dogma for the sake of principled pragmatism. And let's face it: the Catholics won't give up their privilege without a fight, and a voucher system allowing NGO-owned schools to accept vouchers could be a way to at least give them an olive branch whereby Catholic NGOs would have the option of filling the void left by the government.

I'm just looking at different angles and trying to see what the right would be willing to accept. Let's not forget, Canada has become quite right wing over the years and so without the right, not much is likely to get done.

Frmrsldr wrote:

remind wrote:

Sweden also has a monarchy should we follow that too?

Sadly, Canada is not a republic. The Crown (currently, Queen) of England is Canada's monarchy.

And Quebec can so identify with the Queen

remind wrote:

I actually give a rat's ass about consideration for the right religious peoples and their wanting to opt out of public school eduication.

Even at the cost of FN rights in the school system? Who are we to make that sacrifice on their behalf?

Quote:

All public funding to catholic schools should be ceased.

Good luck with that. Even the NDP has shied away from it.

Quote:

No vouchers, not needed, just include FN's languages into the official languages laws.

If I were an MPP and someone presented that last option, I'd vote for it on principle, but I doubt many would vote alongside me.

I understand you, Remind, but like I'd mentioned above, I've visited right-wing websites too and eschanged ideas there, and I can tell you that the my-way-or-the-highway solution will only hurt the FNs rights in the school system because many on the right would simply not accept what you've repsented here and, like I said, even many in the NDP wouldn't because they'd be afraid to lose votes.

I'm just trying to be realistic. I want more freedoms for FN and sign languages in schools at least on an equal footing with French and English, and the religious right want their religious education. We can't have one without the other. May on the religious right are just as opposed to the FN, often on racial or other prejudice, as many on the left are opposed to religious freedoms. As a result, each side sabotages the goals of the other, thus preventing any kind of advancement of social justice in the education system.

If we gave the right what it wanted, we could then give the FN what we owe them.

remind wrote:

No, it is not either or, it just is.

Nunavut has already started the process, the precidence is set, it will happen, no matter what the "religious right" states.

So no to publiucally funded religous education of any type.

 

As for the precedent, I hope your right. But we could speed up the process.

As for the religious schools, I can't imagine Catholics abandoning it without a fight, and if they do fight, I'm sure others will jump in too asking for the same for them. In short, the fastest way to grant FNs their rights is to just give the religious right what it wants.