Solutions-Based Ideas And The S-Word

Hate to sound impudent but really, how much different is that from the stories we see posted here? When you see a story that shows government ineptitude, corruption, caving, injustice, etc., the 'solution' is usually self evident: DON"T do the thing that is inept, corrupt, caveing, unjust. The site is pretty good at what it does, solutions are never easy. Even if people agreed with the above solutions then what then? The site could become a more vocal mouthpiece for CAP, even though I don't agree on much with them I still have no problem with the 'official mouthpiece' idea, if an idea is good, then it needs a mouth. I only see sporadic CAP articles, there could be more, but then even that only accomplishes so much. Take a look at some right wing discussion boards, they often have hundreds of posters. I have serious doubts that enough canadians have been that adversely affected to suddenly join CAP, most likely they'd not bother voting first. Personally, I am most active on the sites that are provincial and local, since there you actually have a chance at affecting policy. I would agree that as a 'media' outlet the site loses some of it's impact since there are just so many 'action items', but then a site can't be everything. If I were to make a suggestion I'd suggest everybody at Vive join a support group or co-op and use it to effect policy in one province or even one locality. We hear from CAP members here, I don't even know where they're from or what their local issues are, or if they're even involved in them. I always support local causes (though not financially, I gots no money), I suppose I could seek out the info, but then there are enough causes without looking.

"Freedom is available only through the implementation of power and control (primarily at the federal level)"

Cripes, listen to yourself! Never have I seen the cult of the state represented more clearly than in the above statement. Freedom through central power and control? Incredible.

When governments "regulate markets", they do it in favour of their own friends and constituencies. They create artificial barriers to entry and tilt the competitive scales to protect and promote their favourites. And all the parties do it - Liberals, Tories, even provincial New Democrat governments! It's a fundamental part of how government works in this country. In anything administered by a level of government in Canada, the race does not go to the swiftest, but to the most connected.

"The S-word. Is it so that the very use of the word is a no-no- nowadays- unfashionable?"

Not on Vive, it would seem.

Socialism has a bad name for some very good reasons. Too much socialism and you destroy the incentives and entrepreneurial spirit that have made Canada one of the world's most prosperous nations. Centralizing power in the hands of a central government, even a democratically elected one, is an inherently dangerous act.

Use a little socialism to soften the rough edges of free enterprise if you must, but leave the free enterprise there. It's what pays for the socialism.

If CAP is promoting socialism as the solution to all problems in Canada, then I know all I need to about that party - enough to know never to mark an X beside their name on a ballot.

John, there's a difference between being poorly-informed and being reluctant to chugalug the everything-can-be-traced-to-currency KoolAid that CAP's gargling. You guys have a cult-like dogmatic approach that makes John Turmel sound like a voice of sanity and reason. Until you can come to grips with the fact that people are going to come up with different solutions to yours -- not because they're stupid, not because they're corrupt, but <em>gasp!</em> because <em>sometimes people honestly disagree with you!</em> -- you and your party are doomed to languish in well-earned obscurity and eventual political oblivion, your impact on Canada's history limited to a footnote well below Real Caouette and just above yogic flying.

>>Cripes, listen to yourself! Never have I seen the cult of the state represented more clearly than in the above statement. Freedom through central power and control? Incredible.<<

Thank God someone else is spooked by such stupidity and new-speak. An excellent post.

You've taken the statement out of context. The statement was followed by an explanatory quote:

"The function of power is to ensure the measure of conformity which is needed for the survival of the group; its ultimate source is opinion... Any opinion or desire will make us participate in the creation of power and in the constituting of economc value. No freedom to do otherwise is conceivable" (Polanyi, 'The Great Transformation')

In other words, in order to have freedom of opinion, there must be an order (structure, power) within which to have it.

Yes, the money-creation function is important- but it is only one of an array of policies that drew me to CAP. I would suggest you go to the CAP website, & click on 'Policies' to see for yourself.

As to disagreement- feel free. It is easy to be dismissive & say we're a 'cult', but that is a non-sequiter-- Tell me, which of our policies do you disagree with, and why?

Yes, appreciate your comments. Gets frustrating from time to time, yes. Vive does a good job- a great job! -No question! <br />
<br />
CAP is small, so it tends to be dismissed, or maligned as a 'cult' (as in the comment below yours) or as inefficient. <br />
<br />
I guess rather than being characterized as such, we would rather people would go to our website- <a href="http://www.canadianactionparty.ca">www.canadianactionparty.ca</a> -and see for themselves what our policies ACTUALLY are. We would be more than happy to discuss them with you or anyone else.

You are only making my argument by affirming that 'Socialism' is a no-no. Here is a definition of Socialism:<br />
<br />
"Socialism is, essentially the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society." <br />
(Polanyi, 'The Great Transformation')See also <a href="http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/polanyi/">http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/polanyi/</a><br />
<br />
What is wrong with that?

We've had the currency argument elsewhere, and that if nothing else guarantees that CAP would never form government, however, parties evolve as they get more members and there is far more than the currency interest. Everything but their monetary policy I tend to agree with, and at least they're talking about monetary policy, which everybody else avoids-and it IS an important topic.

If one policy turns people off then I have no idea how somebody would ever decide on a party to vote for. To repeat though, find me a socialist government ANYWHERE and we can discuss socialism. If citizens do not control their government then there is no socialism. Government control of production is simply that-government control of production. It was the same in Canada during world war two as it was in any monarchy where the royal family calls the shots-it was just a slightly bigger family. Government paying for medicare for everybody is NOT socialism, it is just that, just like government paving all roads is not socialism, and government connecting everybody's phone line is not socialism.

There is no 'self regulating market'. A market is made up of players, it is not some ethereal god like structure. Want to find control? Take a look at what speculators do.

For the other comment if we're going to start talking about 'freedom' we'll really have to drag out the philosophy texts. A central government granting 'freedom'? Hmmm. I think it depends on how we define freedom. Anybody wants to get into that freedom debate I'll want in on it:)

I'd respond to your question if that "definition" conveyed any real information. It's a platitude, not a description of a political and economic system. It's like saying that the economy should serve society, not the other way around. Makes sense. But nobody I know has ever argued that society exists solely to benefit the economy.

As with many things, the devil is in the details.

If your definition of socialism is really "the market doesn't always get the last word", then fine. But what does "subordinating" mean in this context? Does it mean that government chooses what gets produced and who consumes it? Does it mean that literally nothing is left to simple supply and demand? Or is the state simply a beat cop making sure people don't cheat, steal or otherwise take advantage of one another in their economic activities?

Without more clarity on Polanyi's definition of socialism, I can't really answer your question.

I have to ask why would CAP be considered a cult, as opposed to the Liberals, Cons or ND's ? What exactly consitutes a cult in the political sense? Cult in dictionary terms is a religious group, or even a group following a faddish idea; I fail to see any of that in CAP policies. If I was going to use simple words to describe CAP policies I would call it common sense, because there is nothing involving a complicated doctrine of policy that isn't easily understood. No back-room deals or pay-offs, no undue influence on policies, simply a response to the problems facing the citizens of the country.

Why should we keep sinking under $500 billion national debt when we don't have to be? Why should we keep NAFTA in place when it is clearly screwing over Canadians? Why should we lay down while our government imposes laws that invade our privacy and make us all suspects? Why should we accept the corporate influence on our food and drug supply? Why should we accept the current political spin coming out of Ottawa? Why should we stand by and accept Sponsorship, Gun Control, Unemployment,and the like scandals? CAP is not a cult, nor is it interested in having government control every aspect of our lives, what we believe is that government should govern, and they aren't doing that, they are instead reacting to pressure from corporations and lobbyists. Why would it be objectionable to people, if a party was finally willing to stand up for the people of Canada?

What we need in government is people who can think about things today and plan for the future, not just sit around talking about or waiting for another country or a company to say do this or that! It is an abomination that children are dying of cancer in this country, they are living with Autism, and obesity, diabetis, and learning disabilities, poverty and homelessness, because our government can't invest in common sense solutions. They won't look at the connections between the rates of pollutions and illnes, they won't ensure that our drugs are safe before we become guinea pigs to pharma, they won't do anything when they do make mistakes to rectify the situation, they refuse to stand for a healthy food supply and society is getting sicker, while the healthcare system is in decay and they sit on their hands! It is outrageous and disgusting to say the least.

Government is suppose to assist in society to make sure that the people have protections against exploitation for profit, that doesn't mean you can't have corporations, just that they must follow rules, that don't harm the public or environment. If we keep allowing profit to be the deciding factor we are going to continue to erode society. But everybody says corporations create jobs and that gives you a tax base, sure, but you have to be able to think outside of the box.

If corp A says they will create a factory exporting water, which will create jobs, low paying, no benefits but lots of jobs for the community, does government say yes? What about the fact that water is a basic life sustaining necessity, and that the workers will be having to buy the water to live, but won't be able to afford it because they have a low paying part-time job, and the factory now creates a pollution by-product which is making their kids sick. Yes that is a fictional example, but it is part of the equation that should be considered before a company is allowed to operate in Canada. I don't believe any questions are asked before a company is allowed to exploit the people or environment in Canada. If the people ask, they are told the company is following regulations, if the government is asked they will tell you there are codes of conduct, the b.s. goes on and on.

Just look at the people in Southern Alberta fighting with Comptons over Sour Gas Wells, and the EUB has plenty of explanations for their conduct, but are they protecting the people? The way I see it in Canada today, people are getting in the way of business and they must be quieted because the sole purpose of Canada, is a resource for raw materials, the fact that people inhabit the place is not their problem, that is what I see and that is what I feel must be changed!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

I think you should read Polanyi. He argues that the market has become "disembedded" from our society, & in fact that the needs of the market transcend those of society (subordinate the latter to the former). Even this may be ok, except for the fact that a self-regulating market (which Polanyi feels to be "a stark utopia" [an unrealizable fantasy]) has only ONE aim: profit. This (Polanyi says) wreaks havoc on the society. Let me quote you his thesis, put forward on the first page:<br />
<br />
"Our thesis is that the idea of a self-regulating market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness."<br />
<br />
Sound familiar? It can be argued that in fact we do have 'a self-regulating market', as a great many NEEDED controls have been removed because of De-regulation... <br />
<br />
There has been a revival of interest in "The Great Transformation" It looks as though Polanyi may have got it right. The book was published in 1944. The Polany Institute <a href="http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/polanyi/">http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/polanyi/</a> was opened in 1987. In 2001, a new edition of the book appeared, with a forward by Joseph Stiglitz. Also in 2001, in her "All You Can Eat" Linda McQuaig speaks very highly of Polanyi's work.