[Cartertonian]

Something of this order must have given birth to companys like Brit rail etc., did it not?

Yup, but it has been an evil rightist malaise that has done for most enterprises.

A post office, for example, must be profitable to endure. Doesn't matter whether the local community depended on that post office. Tough shit, You'll have to spend half your day getting a bus to the nearest big town if you want to draw your pension, access your savings or...post a letter?

God bless free market economics...

[Stormsmith]

First they shut down unprofitable rail lines, now post offices...whatever next?

Whats with the Post Office and pensions? Can people not have their pension cheques sent directly to their bank accounts? PS does the PO still do 2 deliveries a day, 6 days a wk? Email and ridculously cheap telephone service has made me lose touch on some of these issues.

Is there a feeling over there that the Labour Party has cozied up to the Right?

[Cookie Parker]

Bush's corporate socialism seemed to please a lot of people...anyone here fascismphobic?

[Red Rebel]

There was a poll taken in the US a few months after the last election. Older voters were pretty much locked into their long held politcal views, but what was interesting was that the 18 to 30 year old group indicated a seriously less negative response to socialism. Wish I could remember the source...memory of a goldfish, me, some days.

I recall the poll as well; however, what the poll didn't give is a definition. Socialism nor capitalism were defined. With the common conception of "Obama being a socialist" going around it is less promising.

[William_H_Dougherty]

In Canada, we almost always have a majority government, which is the 20/21st C's version of absolute power. (and why I write government all the time) The ruling party hammers out policy behind close doors, and when they present on the floor, it is done so usually as unanimous, or nearly so.

Policy development in Canada is complicated. To be honest, I don't think the "party" hammers out much any more. They hammer out an election platform, definately. This is theoretically based on policy conventions and membership input. But it is the civil service which takes these platforms and proposes legislation to the government based on it.

Yes, our "take it or force an election" approach to governance is responsible for the ability of our Prime Ministers to accomplish so much, from the Canada Health Act to the North American Free-Trade Agreement.

For example, if you vote against the President in the States, you aren't technically putting your own job on the line .

If you don't like it, you've to change government. We hold elections fairly often, usually 3 to 4 years apart. What's been happening in parliament since the liberals left office is a bit of an anomoly.

It became an anomoly before the Liberals left office (Prime Minister Martin 'won' a minority government in 2004). However, the back to back majority government phenomenon was really an artifact of the later 20th Century. Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, and Clark all had to deal with minority governments at one point as PM (Perason and Clark never had anything but).

Chretien and Mulroney were the anomalies if you ask me.

Funny thing is, health care is pretty much everyone's favourite system. It was proposed by Tommy Douglas, a communist. I don't think his party ever achieved more than one seat, and that was Douglas', but he certainly left his stamp on the landscape.

Tommy Douglas a communist? Doubt it. #1. He sympathized with some aspects of the "other socialism" of the 1930s (if you catch my drift). #2. It is a misnomer to consider Canadian healthcare "socialist" (no matter what Glenn Beck says). #3. The guy was very very religious (a Rev. I believe).

As for his electoral record. He won gov't in Saskatchewan provincially, federally he was never really competitive (i.e. able to have a realistic shot at becoming PM).

I almost didn't answer the question!!!

A couple of things. #1. Toryism can be quite progressive. The brand of conservatism of Chamberlain and Thatcher are quite quite different. One seeks compromise and stability, the other radical liberalization of the economy!

#2. Why socialism is unappealing? People can moan about capitalism and watch Micheal Moore and complain to their friends in the coffee shops, but my experience has been that these very same people are still out there buying the DVDs, CDs, sneakers, clothes, cars, etc. as everybody else.

Socialism is unappealing because most of its practitioners (in North America at least) are sanctimonious hypocrites.

For the true believers, their ideology has not advanced much since the 1940s. Truthfully, capitalism is going to have a hard time adapting to the 21st Century, but it is in a much better position to do so than socialism.

- WHD

[Reichstraten]

Socialism as an ideology does not attempt to appeal to anyone.

How come? Isn't socialism by nature populistic?

[Vera Politica]

How come? Isn't socialism by nature populistic?

This is true - but what I think Eauz meant (I may be wrong) is that socialism does not have any moral component. It seems, then, that any attempt to appeal to anyone, certainly at a time when the conditions for class consciousness and revolution are generally moot, may inevitably take on a moral character and condemnation of capitalism. Socialism, in a sense, predicts that the workers will themselves become aware of their own class realities and will themselves create the conditions for revolution - it is not up to socialists to artificially create these conditions, although it is up to socialists to organize and carry out what is necessary when those conditions arise. Marxism, for one, is not an ideology that needs to be dressed up and paraded for the workers to revere. Sadly, many Liberal pseudo-Marxists have done exactly this.

I think this is limits the role socialists can play and perhaps ignores what they already do. Nevertheless, there are many utopian socialists out there.

[Eauz]

How come? Isn't socialism by nature populistic?

Socialism, as an ideology, does not have its goal of obtaining the most votes or attempting to gain any ground within the political structure of bourgeois democracy. As Lenin once wrote, democracy for which class?? I may have not understood properly the definition of appeal, when it was originally posted, however, the concept that as socialists we should attempt to appeal to people in general to support socialism has its roots within the bourgeois concept of democracy (which is in itself, class specific).

[Reichstraten]

This is true - but what I think Eauz meant (I may be wrong) is that socialism does not have any moral component. It seems, then, that any attempt to appeal to anyone, certainly at a time when the conditions for class consciousness and revolution are generally moot, may inevitably take on a moral character and condemnation of capitalism. Socialism, in a sense, predicts that the workers will themselves become aware of their own class realities and will themselves create the conditions for revolution - it is not up to socialists to artificially create these conditions, although it is up to socialists to organize and carry out what is necessary when those conditions arise. Marxism, for one, is not an ideology that needs to be dressed up and paraded for the workers to revere. Sadly, many Liberal pseudo-Marxists have done exactly this.

I think this is limits the role socialists can play and perhaps ignores what they already do. Nevertheless, there are many utopian socialists out there.

This is how I see it:
1) The principal socialist/communist starts with the false assumption of objectivity and a supposed scientific worldview.

Then there are two choices:
2) Getting 'mugged' by reality and chosing to become a populist socialist.
3) Getting 'mugged' by reality and giving up the socialist position altogether.

Which road do you chose?

[Cartertonian]

I may have not understood properly the definition of appeal, when it was originally posted, however, the concept that as socialists we should attempt to appeal to people in general to support socialism has its roots within the bourgeois concept of democracy (which is in itself, class specific).

For...fuck's...sake!!!

Maybe it's this sort of inane, nit-picking pedanticism that puts me off all ideologues, whatever their stupid fucking ideology.

OK - why should I support socialism?

Is that clear enough?

x 10

[Potemkin]

OK - why should I support socialism?

Is that clear enough?

Okay then... if you join us, we'll give you a free biro pen and a paper hat. Is that good enough?

[Dave]

You are a conservative, Cartertonian. Not in the sense that you support bombing the f@#% out of Arabalonians and worshipping at the altar of gross national product, but in the sense that for you things like place, tradition, family, and honor are very important to you. You're in the armed forces, you hate urban centers, and you have a large family. You perhaps agree with the socialists on some questions, but you find them overall to be rabble with no appreciation of what it means to be human and to be part of a community.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Which is unfortunately the fault of liberals claiming to be socialists. By no means are all forms of socialism inherently opposed to the "appreciation of what it means to be human and to be part of a community."

[Vera Politica]

You are a conservative, Cartertonian.

This is not reason enough, Dave. I am conservative - and even Potemkin has shown himself to be a conservative socialist (although I do not want to misjudge so I will reserve calling him one outright). I, too, place great importance on certain forms of tradition, family and decency - a consequence of my generally catholic, working class upbringing - this despite being raised, for the latter part of my adolescence in a 'broken' home.

Remember, it is capital and its development that has 'torn the family asunder' - not socialists or their adolescent, pseudo-counter parts.
There is nothing remotely incompatible with conservative cultural values and Marxism. Stalin is a prime example.

[Dave]

This is not reason enough, Dave. I am conservative - and even Potemkin has shown himself to be a conservative socialist (although I do not want to misjudge so I will reserve calling him one outright). I, too, place great importance on certain forms of tradition, family and decency - a consequence of my generally catholic, working class upbringing - this despite being raised, for the latter part of my adolescence in a 'broken' home.

Remember, it is capital and its development that has 'torn the family asunder' - not socialists or their adolescent, pseudo-counter parts.
There is nothing remotely incompatible with conservative cultural values and Marxism. Stalin is a prime example.

see...

Which is unfortunately the fault of liberals claiming to be socialists. By no means are all forms of socialism inherently opposed to the "appreciation of what it means to be human and to be part of a community."

Most people don't investigate issues you and I do, VP. They make their judgments based more on what they perceive the persons advancing certain arguments to be like and their social status. If we take one of my own areas of expertise, race, most (upwardly-mobile white) people find correct opinions on race to be awful because they are linked with low social status.

Socialism is not only linked with low social status, but further with historic failure, evil (Stalin), and liberalism given that most socialists will babble about ending various forms of social oppression...

Thus for Cartertonian, someone who finds many of my arguments correct but fears that I'm some sort of reptile overlord, it is absolutely reason enough.

[Cartertonian]

if you join us, we'll give you a free biro pen and a paper hat

What colour would the hat be...?

Thus for Cartertonian, someone who finds many of my arguments correct but fears that I'm some sort of reptile overlord, it is absolutely reason enough.

Reason enough for what...

[Vera Politica]

Thus for Cartertonian, someone who finds many of my arguments correct but fears that I'm some sort of reptile overlord, it is absolutely reason enough.

Reason enough for what...

To despise socialist ideologues

This is how I see it:
1) The principal socialist/communist starts with the false assumption of objectivity and a supposed scientific worldview.

Then there are two choices:
2) Getting 'mugged' by reality and chosing to become a populist socialist.
3) Getting 'mugged' by reality and giving up the socialist position altogether.

Which road do you chose?

It is a mistake to treat socialism as some sort of infantile disorder. Moreover, your post isn't all that insightful. Rather, it demonstrates only that you have caricatured my position, which helps you keep some sense of maturity. So, as to your question I answer simply: be wary of mature socialists.

[grassroots1]

Nevertheless, as I remarked to Verv in another thread, "When you're walking a tightrope over the Niagara Falls of Life, leaning too much to the left, or to the right, will get you killed."

The only people who get hit by the train are the ones who walk in the middle of the track.

And as Howard Zinn says, so long as we're on tight-rope, train, politics metaphors:
No one is neutral on a moving train.

Okay then... if you join us, we'll give you a free biro pen and a paper hat. Is that good enough?

[Dave]

[Admin edit: Using racial slurs is a violation of Forum Rule 3. You have been warned.]

[Cartertonian]

To despise socialist ideologues

I despise all ideologues, socialist or otherwise.

The closer one gets to 'ideological purity', the more one will dismiss out-of-hand any notion which is not congruent with one's particular ideology.

In other words, once indoctrinated, the convert will perpetuate and reinforce their ongoing indoctrination.

Seems pretty imbecilic to me...