Far left of the NDP

I'm not going to try to answer all your questions, but as to the people you are dealing with [though why bother, really?]....

To them the NDP is far left. they are not talking like you are about the 'far left' of [within] the NDP.

As far as they are concerned, the NDP is far left, socialist, communist.

Those are all interchangable you know. [And you can see here LOTS of mirror image stereotypings that see no diffeernce in anyone more or less right of centre. So its shouldn't be hard to understand it as a rheotrical and political device.]

hsfreethinkers wrote:

1) The NDP is absolutely not a socialist party. They are a pro-capitalist party, which supports strong unions and workers within a capitalist system. While they have some members who are socialist, they are a small minority.

Depends on who is defining socialism. If you mean 'true socialism', then the NDP is definitely not a socialist party. But the majority of NDP activists see soical democracy and socialism as synonomous. And social democracy is whatever we do. Should they define it that way? Frankly, I don't care enough. They do, and I deal with it from there.

If you want something else you are not talking about an electoral party in Canada. Even as a potential, not one that could exist without about 20 prior conditions of development. Thats a doable and rational discussion, but one I think I'm finished with.

Doug, please delete that cartoon before my wife sees it and posts it on our fridge

hsfreethinkers wrote:

This is apparent in those provinces where the NDP has governed. They didn't bring in socialism. Even if they wanted to, which they don't, they couldn't do so without broad public support, which doesn't exist. The NDP is somewhere between a "third way" / liberal party and a "social democratic" party. They should be a pure social democratic party, but the stronger elements of the NDP have moved them closer to the centre (so much so in my view that they are what the Liberal Party used to be before they veered right with Chretien/Martin).  

The Liberals actually veered right by the end of Trudeau's last term in power as did Liberal democrats in the US. Inflation and stagflation were issues in the 1970's, and the conservative right in North America managed to convince political Liberals that lavish social spending was the root cause. They were wrong, and economists admit it today. But it didn't stop the neoliberal agenda from being pushed through, first in Chile, and then North America and Britain. Milton Friedman was an economic adviser to Nixon's government, but Nixon refused to implement Friedman's policies for new liberal capitalism as he and his admnistration realized those policies were at cross purposes with their chances for re-election, It was evidence for the right that neoliberalism and democracy are incompatible.

Communism in the former USSR didn't collapse so much as it was pushed over a cliff. It lasted 70 years. People in those countries wanted the existing system of state socialism democratizing. What they got in the end was a revolution from above according to several authors and commentators on the subject.

The NDP are social democrats and working toward democratizing and modernizing state capitalism here in Canada. Some say the NDP are not social democrats in the same vein that Nordic country social democrats operate. And I think there is a difference of approaches and strategies, but the goals are the same: to create a modern competitive social democracy here in Canada.

Polunatic2 wrote:

Once upon a time, the "social" in "social democracy" referred to socialism - i.e. workers control of the economy.

Once upon a time, market purists believed in an invisible hand as a guiding principle of free market capitalism. Since 1929, not even capitalists themselves desire a return to real leave it to the market laissez-faire(Smith, Hayek et al). Keynesian-militarism is what drives the vicious empire since the late 1930's and 40's. And as the right has tried to move us away from mixed market state-capitalism toward laissez-faire, we move closer toward a repeat of 1929 America and 1985 Chile. Capitalism has collapsed a number of times in various world experiments since 14th century Italy. Capitalism's theoretical soul departed from the corpse some time ago. They believe in free markets and laissez-faire about as much as Roman senators and upper class believed in the old gods of prosperity and war simultaneously in paying lip service to their past connected intimately with the end.

Way to clear things up FM.  Thanks, was wondering why I was getting a headache.

FM's second sentence is fine.  Your framing of socialism is misguided.  I believe the friends are the people whose question you wasted your time in trying to answer.

Fidel wrote:

The Liberals actually veered right by the end of Trudeau's last term in power as did Liberal democrats in the US. Inflation and stagflation were issues in the 1970's, and the conservative right in North America managed to convince political Liberals that lavish social spending was the root cause. They were wrong, and economists admit it today. But it didn't stop the neoliberal agenda from being pushed through, first in Chile, and then North America and Britain. Milton Friedman was an economic adviser to Nixon's government, but Nixon refused to implement Friedman's policies for new liberal capitalism as he and his admnistration realized those policies were at cross purposes with their chances for re-election, It was evidence for the right that neoliberalism and democracy are incompatible.

 

Communism in the former USSR didn't collapse so much as it was pushed over a cliff. It lasted 70 years. People in those countries wanted the existing system of state socialism democratizing. What they got in the end was a revolution from above according to several authors and commentators on the subject.

 

The NDP are social democrats and working toward democratizing and modernizing state capitalism here in Canada. Some say the NDP are not social democrats in the same vein that Nordic country social democrats operate. And I think there is a difference of approaches and strategies, but the goals are the same: to create a modern competitive social democracy here in Canada.

I'm not sure if it's that simple.  It's probably accurate to say that in Trudeau's later years he instigated fewer social programs and state control than in his earlier years, but the main priorities of his final term were fighting the Referendum on separation and passing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I wouldn't have minded if Trudeau had pushed things even farther to the left than he did, but he was governing in fairly Conservative times, and he was already called a socialist and a communist by many voters in Canada.  People were angry that he had engaged in so much social spending and had increased the deficit.

Debater wrote:

I wouldn't have minded if Trudeau had pushed things even farther to the left than he did, but he was governing in fairly Conservative times, and he was already called a socialist and a communist by many voters in Canada.  People were angry that he had engaged in so much social spending and had increased the deficit.

Even PET was convinced that hemispheric inflation of the 1970's was caused by lavish social spending. Economists now blame it on everything from oil price shocks to lavish spending in Washington on war in Vietnam. The Yanks began printing money years earlier to fund it.

Our national debt in Canada from 1867 to 1974 was around $18 billion. By 1991, Brian Mulroney ditched several of the more Keynesian methods for managing inflation, statutory bank reserves, tarrifs, wage and price controls etc. And by the 2000's, Canada's national debt had soared to $585 billion. As Siam Dave says in another thread, why would the feds choose to borrow money from foreign private banks at high interest sooner than finance social spending and infrastructure through its own bank at next to zero interest?

Fidel wrote:

 And theoretically speaking, capitalism ceased existing some time ago. Western world financial  capitalism bankrupted itself years ago. What we have today is a kind of modern feudalism on a globalized scale.

I've always thought Globalisation was a code word for Imperialism.

Fidel wrote:

State socialism ended with dissolution of the USSR. And theoretically speaking, capitalism ceased existing some time ago. Western world financial  capitalism bankrupted itself years ago. What we have today is a kind of modern feudalism on a globalized scale. The struggle for democracy continues.

You're bang on. Many think that Canada is a democracy but sadly it is not.

What is the role of the great unwashed, who think it is a democracy...does their existence help define it as a plutocracy? And the media funded by the establishment...also helps define it as such?       Just curious about "plutocracy."

Notions of left and right -- as in the physical world are relative. Trudeau remained just right of centre within a system that moved right. The NDP is left of centre in a national system that is quite to the right (globally the NDP is centre at best).

To answer the question posed quickly, you oculd ask what Conservatives feel so threatened about the NDP to insist on calling it communism or extreme socialism which it has never been. In fact the NDP spends a lot of time trying to find balances in society betweeen the public and the private; rich and poor; business and government-- how to work together, how to find fairness. A party advocating the end of private control, a single income and wealth level, only public enterprises etc. would not be so invested in the relationships between all of these.

Might be better to ask what is the right so afraid of that they refuse to engage the NDP as waht it is and insist on describing it as what it is not. If I were to take the trouble to engage someone who calls the NDP communist at all, that is what I would say. Assuming I was in a good enough mood to be polite, of course.

That was the OLD colony name.  We haven't really picked a name that denotes our place in the American Empire.  Mind you the Romans just called their closest "outer" region the Provinces

"Once upon a time, market purists believed in an invisible hand as a guiding principle of free market capitalism. Since 1929, not even capitalists themselves desire a return to real leave it to the market laissez-faire(Smith, Hayek et al). Keynesian-militarism is what drives the vicious empire since the late 1930's and 40's. And as the right has tried to move us away from mixed market state-capitalism toward laissez-faire, we move closer toward a repeat of 1929 America and 1985 Chile. Capitalism has collapsed a number of times in various world experiments since 14th century Italy. Capitalism's theoretical soul departed from the corpse some time ago. They believe in free markets and laissez-faire about as much as Roman senators and upper class believed in the old gods of prosperity and war simultaneously in paying lip service to their past connected intimately with the end."

First of all, the United States did not have laissez-faire capitalism prior to the 1930s.  What both left and right advocates against laissez-faire constantly fail to address is the government's monopoly control of money and credit which benefits the rich elite, impoverishes the weak, etc.    Inflationary monetary policy did not begin under FDR.  

This myth that is perpetuated by the left that Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire capitalist, and it was Roosevelt who was not, is actually quite reversed.  Hoover was incredibly suspicious of the capitalist system, passed numerous and debilitating bank regulations which precipitated the banking crisis through the limiting of the money supply, he single-handedly brought in the largest import tarriffs in American history, and so on and so forth. 

In fact, Hoover spent a large portion of his adult life attacking capitalism. Have you read American Individualism, written by Hoover in 1922? It is a decidedly anti-capitalist/anti-individualist book.  And any fair analysis of Herbert Hoover's policies demonstrate a continuous disregard for the free market, through regulation of the banking system, which almost all economists (Keynesians and otherwise) attribute to creating the factors that led to the economic collapse precipitating the Great Depression.   

To say that that Great Depression was the result of failed laissez-faire economics, is to intentionally ignore the effects that the government's monopoly control of money and credit had on the economy, leading to a shortage of money, which lead to runs on the banks, which lead to bank collapses, and when the government flooded the markets with an excess supply of cheap credit in an attempt to dampen the mess, which set a massive asset bubble into motion which culminated in the stock market collapse.  Not unlike how cheap credit in the United States led to the real estate bubble which collapsed in 2007.  And not unlike what will happen to Canada within the next two to three years if monetary policy is not changed

The date that you're actually looking for, which was the final nail in the coffin of laissez-faire economics is 1913 -- the creation of the United States Federal Reserve system.  Which ever since, has served nobody but the banking cartels, and provided the government with the printing presses to fund it's foreign wars.

The truth of the matter is, true blue liberal capitalists like myself, share 95% of the criticisms of our current system with socialists.  We both agree that the system is setup to benefit the rich and powerful.  We both agree that the system -- as it is -- has served to increase the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.  We both agree that the system built around the military industrial complex is an immoral, imperialist venture.

Our system of corporatism is decidedly not capitalist and not free market.  In a free market, government would not provide unlimited cheap credit to the banking cartels so they can engage in undo risk taking, and get rich off the backs of middle-class and the poor by being able to take advantage of access to the free money at it's peak purchasing power, since as the money enters the system (as monetary inflation) it debases the currency and decreased purchasing power.  The result? Consumer prices rise, and wages lag. Wealth gap increases.

There is nothing capitalist about that.  Nothing capitalist about the government having control of money and credit.  Most people do not understand that about 95% of all mortgages, credit card debt, and what have you is provided by the government.  Not the banks.  The government (The Bank of Canada, or the US Federal Reserve, specifically) provide banks an unlimited supply of short-term loans at near-zero interests rates, which the banks, in turn, lend to you in the form of mortgages (which the government buys most of with the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US).  Without government control of money and credit, consumers would not be buried in tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, the housing crisis never would have happened, and the poor wouldn't keep getting poorer as their wages continued to lag further and further behind the rising cost of living caused by the above.

It is ironic in a sense to call the above situation the result of capitalist forces.  When in fact, everything I just explained is a form of government central economic planning, a form of corporate socialism, which is absolutely not capitalist in the least.

"Anyway, I think brockm is wrong on government control of monetary policy."

You think or you know?

"The Federal Reserve is essentially private and works in the interests of its member banks."

You are certainly right, that it's private in theory. But you're ignoring the fact that the Federal Reserve chairman is appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.  You're also ignoring the fact that the Federal Reserve's mandate -- giving it a monopoly over money creation -- is given to it by the Federal Reserve Act, that it's required to report regularly to Congress  and the fact there is a long history of low interests being correlated with election seasons.  To say it's purely private and has nothing to do with government is absurd.  That's like saying the LCBO in Ontario has nothing to do with the government because it's a crown corporation.

"In Canada, I understand, our debt grew massively once we stopped using the Bank of Canada to finance public works and started borrowing from private banks"

I don't blame you for being confused here.  Most people are.  Most politicians are.  But the Bank of Canada provides almost all of the credit.  Where do you think the banks get the money from to lend out to the government?  They have fractional reserves on spreads of 17:1, and why does the Bank of Canada overnight interest rate affect the interests rates of mortgages, lines of credit and credit cards if the government is not providing the credit?  That makes no sense.  The Bank of Canada target lending rate is a measure of the money supply, and the credit used to inject dollars into the system.  When interests rates are low, that means the bank is, in essence, creating money.  When interest rates are high, the bank is, in essence, contracting the supply of money.

Most people, even most bankers have no idea how this works.  But fundamentally, private capital cannot compete with money creation by central banks that have the ability to print money and fix interest rates at no risk.   Banks risk losing their depositors money if they do that.  No bank would lend out money at 0.5% interest like the Bank of Canada does.  For one, they couldn't make a profit, and two they'd run out of money due to the increased demand for their capital reserves.

So no, I'm not wrong.

By the way, that video you posted.  His entire thesis is that the problem with the banking system is that it doesn't care about "social issues" it only cares about profit.  This isn't an economic critique of the problem, it's a social critique of the problem.  He doesn't really understand the economics of the banking system, and he falls into the trap of believing what the vast majority of people already believe.  

There's nothing terribly interesting about what he says.  Having the thesis that banks should be "people before profit" is nothing more than typical left-wing rhetoric.  It's not anything close to a scientific analysis of the problem.  

This isn't to say that making social versus economic arguments are invalid.  They're not.  But some people like myself believe that arbitrary attempts to structure economics to fit desirable social outcomes is not possible, is bound to failure, and damages economic progress.  

For what it's worth, I'm not against the welfare state.  I support using a progressive taxation system to ensure a basic standard of living for everyone.  But I don't support the government going any further than that.  I don't believe government should regulate the happenings of businesses and the voluntary associations between people within a market.  

hsfreethinkers, I edited my last comment.  Read it.

And I think I understand the economics of banking, central banking and fiat currencies quite well, thank you very much.  When the US dollar collapses in two to three years, come back and re-read my posts here.