Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 22:51:35 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:

> Isn't it interesting that you consider the Trudeau Liberals to be not left
> of centre. How can you explain the HUGE increases in spending if they are
> not left? How can you explain the FIRA and other intrusive regulatory
> agencies? I used to think of the Liberal Party of Drury and Sharp as being
> much more in favour of big business than the  Conservative Party which had
> the characteristic of being for the small businessman (still prefers that
> orientation to big business). The Liberal Party has driven out most of the
> people like Drury and Sharp (either because of age or because they could not
> get along with the likes of Axworthy and Gray). I would be ashamed to label
> the present party anything but left. If Chretien wants to win and hold the
> dollar from falling he will have to get many many more candidates to drown
> out Copps, Gray and those other socialists.
> 

It's a shame your political education has been so neglected that you 
don't understand what constitutes a socialist. That you can label 
Liberals as socialists boggles the mind.

A "socialist" (as distinct from a social-democrat, which is a different 
kettle of fish altogether) is someone who believes in a "socialist 
society" as a transitory stage between capitalism and small c communism.

A socialist would characterize such a society by, in the economic field, 
ownership of the means of production by society as a whole; a rapid 
increase in the productive forces; and planned production.

Furthermore, in what may surprise some of you, a socialist WOULD expect 
people to be paid more if their work was more skilled or productive - 
from each according to his ability; to each according to his WORK. 

The word "socialist", as used by many posters on this net has come to be 
nothing more than an epithet uttered to attempt to discredit a policy or 
program - whether or not it has any relation to socialism. 

For example, while it is true that nationalization of a company may be 
carried out by a socialist country, nationalization does not equal 
socialism, and companies are often nationalized for quite unsocialist 
reasons. Wacky Bennett the senior, for example, nationalized B.C. 
Electric, and formed B.C. Hydro, but he was hardly a socialist or 
promoting socialism.

To be a socialist, you must actually have the aim of re-making society a 
as a socialist society. Mere supporters of Keynesian economics (or even 
of intrusive government programs) don't qualify as socialists on that 
account alone. 

While some of the Liberal programs you describe were nationalistic (and 
intrusive as well), none of them were designed to put all the means of 
production under public ownership. They certainly weren't designed to 
overthrow capitalism.

As far as the NDP goes, it's a moderate social democratic party little 
inclined to nationalize the entire economy in the name of the working 
class. In fact, the NDP is a small l liberal reform party, composed 
mainly of the middle class and yuppies with a social conscience.
It's policies, while indeed favouring labour, working people in general, 
and what might be termed the "underdogs" of our society at best try to 
make capitalism more humane, rather than overthrow it entirely. 

Perhaps it would be easier to visualize the total spectrum as a circle 
rather than as a straight line. Starting at the centre, to the left you'd 
find the NDP somewhat left, then the Greens and some of the eco-types, 
then the Communists (if there are any left) then the Maoists, Trots, etc.
Starting at the centre again, going to the right, you'd find, 
considerably right, the Liberals, somewhat further right the
Conservatives, Social Credit, Reform Party, any U.S. political party, and 
then considerably further, the fascists, nazis, KKK and their ilk.

Since the spectrum is considered as a circle, it would meet again 
somewhere between the Maoists and the fascists, which is probably 
reasonable as both are so extreme that their effect is similar even if
their policies differ.

Let's start 1993 by using words like "socialist" with some perspective, 
rather than merely as a lazy attempt to misrepresent policies you don't 
much care for.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
Newsgroups: can.politics