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.
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.
(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
ReplyDeletelike, 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.
ReplyDelete