As an intellectually honest NDP supporter, I feel it is necessary to explain the NDP constitution we finally posted on our website. Although it is mostly administrative happenings, there are some key points I want directed to you. I would also like to highlight that I am very smart and it is quite possible this will be the most honest and genuine explanation you will ever find; so buckle up and learn! Although I stand behind our platform, I am not arguing why our preamble is good, I am merely explaining what it means.
Please review:
Marked in red above, each number I comment on:
1. We the NDP party have laid the groundwork and foundation for wealth generation in Canada: democratic socialist principles. Although we cite public affairs as the branch in which our principles will extend themselves through, it must be known that our principles in action will necessitate serious involvement, oversight, ownership and taxation of the fee market. Read 2, 3 and 4 and incorporate said definition into our involvement and you will soon see the obvious connection. Please also note that we believe that social, economic and political progress all fall under the jurisdiction of public affairs. We do not define to what extent our powers will extend to, however, judging by how we define democratic socialism; you can take a pretty good guess.
2. This is the crux of the issue. We believe in economic, social and political progress. The context: democratic socialism. The underling foundation: production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people (see #1, administered by public affairs) within a sustainable environment and economy AND NOT to the making of profit. When the private sector owns something, its motive is profit. Profit looks after the needs of those who own it: the capitalist owners. The dog scraps are left for the low wage earner. This leaves many in a disparaging position where they are left to go without. The remedy to this is for the government to own the means of production (machines, technology etc.) and distribution (products etc.). The government then takes the rewards of ownership of said channels and offers the dignity and freedom to each Canadian, not just a lucky select few who happen to make the profit. By the public affairs controlling the means of production and distribution, we can ensure we live up to our commercials that we indeed are fighting for you. The enemy: profit had by a few, and owned privately. Our remedy? As stated: government control of economic activity and distribution of services.
3. To achieve #2, the status quo will not do. People owning business making a profit will always give the choice for some to excel and others to suffer and fall behind. This injustice ought to be remedied through action. Look at #3 and you will see how we intend to affect our vision for a fairer Canada. The quick translation: change laws for government to own and control ‘monopolistic’ organizations. Since there is no actual monopoly in Canada (other than government in business) we really mean ‘big ticket items’. Like: banks and oil fields. Large, capital intensive organizations will, quite frankly, be owned by the government. “Modify” means change from privately owned, to publically owned. “Control” means to run, oversee, direct and plan. “Social planning” means we the government will do this. Social ownership means the people benefit from large ‘profits’ from the private sector, through government planning/ownership.
4. Dignity and freedom of the individual is very hard to define accurately as we do not really explain what this means. However, in the context of what I explained so far, I can confidently tell you this: Value of a person is based on our definition of freedom and dignity being met. We require public companies ‘profit’ from the private sector to be converted to government owned/run division that releases extra money into the hands of all: especially the impoverished. This transfer of wealth increases dignity. We disagree with the capitalist who thinks learning skills (even if at lower wage) and hard work dignifies a person. We believe a person having things (regardless if it is provided by others) is what dignifies them. This is how we argue for dignity and seek ownership of private profits. Dignity is not earned by an individual, it is imputed by government. A key difference between democratic socialism and free market thinking. Under our system, everyone is dignified, not just those who 'work and get'.With respect to freedom: the impoverished is not ‘free’ to run things. They are not ‘free’ to do fun jobs. They are bound to low wage work. Under our system of shred ownership, this will empower the individual to work on jobs that pay them good money so they are ‘free’ to live with dignity. This is how we connect freedom to dignity: and it is all based on government ownership of profits.
Again, now you know exactly what our constitution means and how it will impact Canada.
Gosh, what an intellect! He starts with false premises and builds from there. The only thing he leaves out is the sheer horror of his government controlled utopia if it were to be realized.
ReplyDeleteWhat is all this nonsense about the late Jack Layton?
ReplyDeleteHe is dead full stop.
His only legacy was a letter supposedly written in his last days.
Oh and a coup attempt which sought to disinfranchise the majority of Canadians who did not vote for Jack, Dion or heaven forbid Duceppe.
there was once three russians who were thrown into the gulag. like all prisoners, they asked each other why they were there. the first russian said,"i was late for work all the time and so i was charged with depriving the state of my labour."
ReplyDeletethe second russian said," i was early all the time for work and charged with being a brownnoser."
the third russian said," i was on time everyday of my life and was accused of owning a western wristwatch."
if you think that joke is intellectually dishonest, there are first hand accounts about how the central planning office told its plant managers that they had to produce X amount of tonnes of nails annually. so rather than make nails for framing houses as well as nails for roofing or finishing nails for the interior, the managers made 10 inch spikes (easier to make, no changeovers, higher weight). people had no choice but to use spikes to attach shingles to their roofs. if that wasnt bad enough, Pravda ran a cartoon where the manager is standing by the train engineer and on the flatbed railcar is a nail thats 20ft long and 10 ft high representing the years production.
an aquaintance of mine lived in Romania during the soviet occupation. you were lucky to get food and when it came to the state car production facilities, it didnt matter whether the lots were full of unsold cars, they would keep producing them and junk brand new ones. if that is environmental sustainability, then i will be out back burning my tires for the good of Gaia.
what we have is not capitalism today. we are enjoying precisely what you and the rest of the socialist parties want: govt running the banks, govt owning a carmaker, govt running the medical system, govt running the infrastructure.
you should be happy.
brad maynard
This has been the best definition of communism I have ever seen.
ReplyDeletethanks. I was not trying to slant anything, just explain the acutal thinking of a real life 'democratic socialist'.
DeleteAll I can say is what you have written makes me more frightened than ever of your party. You single handedly convinced me NEVER, EVER to vote for the ndp.
ReplyDeleteThe pretend "my". I wrote this so people can see for themselves how a socialist (who thinks through matters), actually thinks.
DeleteUh, perhaps I should have made things more obvious. I am not a real NDP dude. I think NDP policy is both evil and devaluing to people. I was pretending to be a hard-core NDP person. I simply got frustrated that only stupid explanations exist for socialist projects...so to keep my sanity, I thought it would be cool to pretend to be a socialist so at least I can understand the justification they use...not by being bias or mean...just accurate. Hey, if any socialist out there can do a better job, send me the link.
ReplyDeleteoh......ok..well then...........carry on. :)
Deletebrad
you are not being accurate.i quote, "dignity and freedom of the individual is very hard to define accurately as we do not really explain what this means"
ReplyDeletedig·ni·ty [dig-ni-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural dig·ni·ties.
1.
bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
2.
nobility or elevation of character; worthiness: dignity of sentiments.
3.
elevated rank, office, station, etc.
4.
relative standing; rank.
5.
a sign or token of respect: an impertinent question unworthy of the dignity of an answer.
and
free·dom [free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
do you see? just by looking in the dictionary, i figured out what this means. however i would already have known anyway, so i presume it is just to those whom you suspect of being idiots that you were speaking.
i will add that the value of a person is not discussed in the original quoted statement, so when you go on to discuss the value of a person you are simply applying conservative values to an imagined socialist scheme.
your condescending tone and lack of real arguments is insulting to me. what i see here is not even satire because there is no wit to be found within, implied or otherwise. it is the same hyperbole that one can come to expect from fox news. if i had the time i would go further and pick apart every piece of this self indulgent work of propaganda. for now i am content to say it is unsightly and rude.
Socialists do not define it well. I know a dictionary does. Many agree.
Delete(thanks for your comments though...no intention on being rude...I think it is honest and accurate)
ReplyDeletewhy even bother getting mad about socialism? just why? it isnt the problem anywqy. it amounts to a bunch of poor people paying 25% income tax to pay for police fire depts and health care. how does that affect you personally? you get the same benefits and you dont have to live poor. it makes no sense to me. if the poor people are fine with parting with all that money as a means of social security, why arent you because you can clearly get by, and you can do it off the backs of hard working people. and you can do it without investing your time in pooping on the system. this is an honest question and i hope i get an honest answer, because i dont believe you really think people in general , and our society as a whole, would be better off without the government
ReplyDeleteThanks. Honest answer: I care about people not just myself. I believe (right or wrong) that socialism devalues people and hurts human potential. I believe (again, right or wrong) that it destroys wealth by denying how we were built to function (consequences to choices: good or bad). I believe compassion needs to be shown from the free will of people, not force taxes. This is why I do not like socialism. I employ 40 people and want people to grow and excel: by gaining skills in the marketplace
Deletethe inherent flaw in this reasoning seems to me clear as day. how we were "built to function", and in the same sentence "free will". the two can never exist simultaneously. there will always be consequences to our actions, regardless of our system of government, and taxes are in a political way, voluntary. taxes do not force us to help the needy, they enable it. compassion on the other hand means understanding what other people are feeling and feeling it yourself. therefore wanting to relieve the suffering one beholds. it is an emotional response that enables people to live together in peace. it is an automatic human response to suffering but i will maintain that in the current system it is denied because companies that employ thousands of people cannot feel it because the employers ha e never met the employees. do you see where i am going here? you might not be the norm, you may be the exception. your beliefs can achieve great good when applied to your certain set of circumstances, but not necessarily to an entire country.......... the same might be said for my beliefs. two sides of the same coin. just riffing here i hope you understand.. the discussion is pointless unless we might help one another understand. thanks for posting and i hope the negativity will not fester.
Deletelike, to put it casually, we all know that communism screwed up. but what is much more frustrating and to my mind more pertinent, is how bad we are all screwed Right Now. in an ideal world, i would expect to see everyone living happily ever after. hhere are enough resources and there is enough work and there is enough money for everyone to be livin large right now especially in our country. if you believe even for a second that we could all get on the same page we might be able to plan a society in which the average person is living comfortably. no, all people. the only people who really get negative on this notion are the ones who want control. or the ones who feel like they are working harder and paying more of the tab. either way, in socialism and in capitalism the problem is bad people doing bad things for personal gain. it shows up everywhere and the only sane response to this inevitable failure of extreme opposites was democracy. show me a better way and i will sign up todsy.
ReplyDeleteSocialists are just capitalists with a mob to back them up and a bunch of bs excuses of why it's moral to extort the productive people. Government is a mob and anyone that disagrees is deluded. Let the socialists rage on - I'll keep busy being productive while they prattle on about how unfair It all is.
ReplyDeleteso you agree with me. btw, "extorting the productive people" is a bs excuse unto itself. produce one thing that advances society. prove that you have done it. then claim again that you are productive.
ReplyDeletebtw producing a turd in a bowl doesn't count.
I relish, lead to I discovеreԁ exactly what I was looκіng for.
ReplyDeleteΥou have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Blеѕs
you man. Нavе a nice day. Byе
Here is my sitе ... Same Day Payday Loans