2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Fishbone Jones]

I think a lot of it is moot. The normal man on the street doesn't parse political speech into the minutiae that we do here. In fact, I'd wager most don't listen to it at all. They'll hear what they want to hear, discount what they don't want to hear and vote for the person who matches their personality and is willing to take on the problems that are their problems. The people that are broke, hungry and jobless won't listen to the guy that took all that away from them, but they will vote for the guy that says he's going to give it back. A vast majority vote for what's good for them, not someone on the other side of the country. And they certainly don't spend their time discussing what exactly a socialist or fascist is.

But it keeps the lights on here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have always seen politics like a circle with a line running N-S through it. At the top where the line intersects the circle is political centre, as you go left or right the further you go from centre. At the bottom of the circle, the far left and right meet, the words and reasons will be different the actions will be the same, they will control and kill to stay in control. At that point the words carry little weight.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have always seen politics like a circle with a line running N-S through it. At the top where the line intersects the circle is political centre, as you go left or right the further you go from centre. At the bottom of the circle, the far left and right meet, the words and reasons will be different the actions will be the same, they will control and kill to stay in control. At that point the words carry little weight.

Great analogy Colin

 

[The Bread Guy]

(Scandinavian countries) have a thriving market economy with many successful private companies. I would consider them “welfare states”.

Agree 100% - some would also call them "nanny states."

I would argue that the Scandinavian countries are not “socialist”. The governments do not own the means of production.

Many definitions of socialism is that the "people" (government) either owns or regulates/controls the means of production. As others smarter than me have said in other threads around here, most governments have some socialism because the government has to control some things, but the mix of state-vs-market control is different in different countries.

For example, supply management (especially of dairy), has been considered (generally by opponents) a form of socialism ...

Time for this socialist supply management to end. I'm cattle farmer. We are on open market. You should be also. - Alberta Milk

I can tell you why supply management is working just fine for us

albertamilk.com

Maxime Bernier slams supply management in B.C. dairy country

Among other topics, PPC leader in Chilliwack calls industry a ‘cartel’ using a ‘socialist system’

www.abbynews.com

Time to dump antiquated socialist programs

With the so far inconclusive NAFTA negotiations currently stalled, it would make sense for Canada to throw in the “supply management system,” where — to paraphrase Winston Churchill — so many suffer on behalf of so few.

www.pqbnews.com

Hell, some hard-hard-left wingers say supply management isn't socialist enough

... The large corporate farms would be nationalized, and put under the democratic control of the labourers who work them. This would serve as a stepping stone towards co-ordination of the economy on a national level, run along the lines of a rational and collective plan. The wealth of the large dairy capitalists, as with other large capitalists, could then be invested to create jobs, fund social programs, strengthen pensions, and so on and so forth. This blanket approach, however, cannot be applied in the same way for small farmers. Marxists are not in the business of evicting small farm owners from their properties, some of which have been held by families for generations. Many small farmers would voluntarily enter into a planned economy, but there are others who would not. These farmers should be able to retain ownership of their property if they so choose. What we would do is explain the benefits to amalgamating agriculture, such as increasing the level of productivity to reduce the working day. When and if they do decide to make the transition, the state should supply the necessary resources to help facilitate it. In the meantime, a nationalized state bank would be used to provide low-interest loans to the small farmers, who would also continue to be guaranteed a stable income. It is an absolute necessity that the farmers’ associations play a role in determining these rates ...

A lot of those bits I've highlighted sure sound a lot like (at least the rhetoric) of USSR 1.0 or China - socialism at the more Communist/full state control end of the spectrum.

In that respect, I think there can be a range to compare how socialist country x is to country y. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, for example, appear to still have tuition-free university. To me, that would put them as more socialist than Canada. Canada has single-payer government-funded health for all, making more socialist than the U.S.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The people that are broke, hungry and jobless won't listen to the guy that took all that away from them, but they will vote for the guy that says he's going to give it back. A vast majority vote for what's good for them, not someone on the other side of the country.

100%

And they certainly don't spend their time discussing what exactly a socialist or fascist is.

Probably true in general, at least compared to the discussion in these parts.

There wasn't tooooooo much uncertainty, though, about the difference between Nazis and Communists/Socialists when the discussion percolated (and not just on these means) about this guy last year ....

Yaroslav Hunka scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So it may not always be as simple as the Tweets saying "fascist, socialist - it's all the same shit." Nuance still doesn't make for good memes

 

[brihard]

Agree 100% - some would also call them "nanny states."

Many definitions of socialism is that the "people" (government) either owns or regulates/controls the means of production. As others smarter than me have said in other threads around here, most governments have some socialism because the government has to control some things, but the mix of state-vs-market control is different in different countries.

For example, supply management (especially of dairy), has been considered (generally by opponents) a form of socialism ...

Time for this socialist supply management to end. I'm cattle farmer. We are on open market. You should be also. - Alberta Milk

I can tell you why supply management is working just fine for us

albertamilk.com

Maxime Bernier slams supply management in B.C. dairy country

Among other topics, PPC leader in Chilliwack calls industry a ‘cartel’ using a ‘socialist system’

www.abbynews.com

Time to dump antiquated socialist programs

With the so far inconclusive NAFTA negotiations currently stalled, it would make sense for Canada to throw in the “supply management system,” where — to paraphrase Winston Churchill — so many suffer on behalf of so few.

www.pqbnews.com

Hell, some hard-hard-left wingers say supply management isn't socialist enough

A lot of those bits I've highlighted sure sound a lot like (at least the rhetoric) of USSR 1.0 or China - socialism at the more Communist/full state control end of the spectrum.

In that respect, I think there can be a range to compare how socialist country x is to country y. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, for example, appear to still have tuition-free university. To me, that would put them as more socialist than Canada. Canada has single-payer government-funded health for all, making more socialist than the U.S.

Along those same lines, It can be useful, I think, to see what services and programs different countries regard as a public good, and fund/ensure access to accordingly. The different levels of education is a great barometer for that. Different levels of supplementary healthcare is another- the Nordic countries, for instance, have different funding formulas for dental care, though generally free for under-18s.

The nuance between regulation of versus ownership/control of the means of prediction is an important distinction when trying to apply simplistic terminology to complex political and socioeconomic systems. Any desceiption of something or someone as “Marxist”, for instance is almost inevitably doomed to immediately fail even the most basic analysis against what Marx and subsequent theorists actually promoted. “Socialist” is much more nebulous and open to many different flavours of integration into other political or economic systems. It gets hard to apply terminology meaningfully to a whole system while simultaneously looking granularity at a multitude of different goods and services that are treated quite differently. And that’s before even getting into level of government and division of power questions…

 

[dimsum]

Opinion: By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Discussions around important topics are degenerating into the type of nasty exchanges we see in the comments of YouTube

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

Opinion: By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Discussions around important topics are degenerating into the type of nasty exchanges we see in the comments of YouTube

www.theglobeandmail.com

If I've learned anything since 2020 it's that 'experts' is a loose term.

 

[dimsum]

If I've learned anything since 2020 it's that 'experts' is a loose term.

Maybe. Or that confirmation bias makes people believe (or not believe) what the experts are saying.

To be clear - there is rarely a 100% consensus between experts, but there is usually some consensus. Also, on scientific matters, experts can amend their views based on new evidence - FAFO is literally the scientific method.

 

[Remius]

Maybe. Or that confirmation bias makes people believe (or not believe) what the experts are saying.

Confirmation bias and access to the internet where anyone can peddle anything. Andrew Wakefield did enough damage in print, imagine now that being done at a far more expansive reach on any subject.

To be clear - there is rarely a 100% consensus between experts, but there is usually some consensus. Also, on scientific matters, experts can amend their views based on new evidence - FAFO is literally the scientific method.

Most people I know that distrust experts in a casual manner suddenly have no issues going to experts when they really need them.

 

[Quirky]

If I've learned anything since 2020 it's that 'experts' is a loose term.

It’s a media problem, they’ll call anyone they have on an expert.

 

[lenaitch]

Most people I know that distrust experts in a casual manner suddenly have no issues going to experts when they really need them.

If I were looking for medical or public health advice, I know which one I would listen to.

 

[Remius]

If I were looking for medical or public health advice, I know which one I would listen to.

No different than people who hate cops until they actually need them…

 

[brihard]

No different than people who hate cops until they actually need them…

And sometimes continue or spontaneously resume hating cops in the middle of the call they themselves made. Good times.

 

[RangerRay]

I always love it when people call me for my advice, then proceed to tell me I’m wrong. Well if you’re so goddamned smart, why did you call me?

Going back to the nursing union spokesperson in the article, she opened herself up by making a hyperbolic claim. The fact is harm reduction as adopted here in Canada has been a disaster and the public is done with being told they want addicts to die if they don’t want supervised consumption sites in their neighborhoods or human misery on their streets and parks. I don’t like how PP goes after some people doing their jobs, but if you enter the political arena in an attempt to shame and bully people to your position, expect to get called out on it.

 

[FSTO]

Maybe. Or that confirmation bias makes people believe (or not believe) what the experts are saying.

To be clear - there is rarely a 100% consensus between experts, but there is usually some consensus. Also, on scientific matters, experts can amend their views based on new evidence - FAFO is literally the scientific method.

Until someone says "Actually the science is not settled and here's why".

And then the fight started.

Edit to add - In the scientific community

 

[The Bread Guy]

August 9, 2024

Bring Home Our Jobs - Conservative Party of Canada

Ottawa, ON – The Hon. Pierre Poilievre, Leader of Canada’s Common Sense Conservatives and the Official Opposition, is announcing a plan to bring home Canadian jobs by matching American tariffs on Chinese-produced electric vehicles (EVs) and EV components. The plan means tariffs on steel...

www.conservative.ca

August 26, 2024

Surtax on Chinese-made Electric Vehicles - Canada.ca

The Government of Canada intends to implement a 100 per cent surtax on all Chinese-made EVs, effective October 1, 2024. This includes electric and certain hybrid passenger automobiles, trucks, buses, and delivery vans.

www.canada.ca

Coincidence? You decide ...

 

[captloadie]

Should we not wait until we have an established industry, that has seen international investment sunk into Canadian operations before we start throwing these tariffs in place (regardless of the gov't in power)? I get the tariffs on finished products, but putting tariffs on the primary materials to which we do not already have a thriving domestic industry to produce them seems a good way to drive away investors who would create those better paying jobs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Should we not wait until we have an established industry, that has seen international investment sunk into Canadian operations before we start throwing these tariffs in place (regardless of the gov't in power)? I get the tariffs on finished products, but putting tariffs on the primary materials to which we do not already have a thriving domestic industry to produce them seems a good way to drive away investors who would create those better paying jobs.

If you think in the longer term, for sure.

Politically, though, that'll take a looooooooooooot more time than doing something now that they can say next year, "see, we did something"

 

[Brad Sallows]

Opinion: By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Discussions around important topics are degenerating into the type of nasty exchanges we see in the comments of YouTube

www.theglobeandmail.com

"Experts" are to blame when they state uncertain claims with certainty, and degrade themselves when they do so with exaggeration. They taint themselves and everyone else in the "guild of experts" - all the people who have expertise hang together in public perception.

"If we know you lied once - usually for political advantage - how are we supposed to know when you lie in future? If those flawed human experts lied, how are we supposed to know we can trust these other flawed human experts?"

The only way the "distrust-trust" slider can be moved right is if they all police themselves and their peers, openly and fiercely, on the op-ed pages.