Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP in British Columbia, Canada (was Re: Rush is...)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:24:07 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

> In article <1992Oct12.202557.24775@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washing
> >For an example of a nearby party whose policies are more like what
> >the rest of the world regards as "socialist", look at
> >the New Democratic Party in Canada.
> 
> There are many different areas a government may concentrate (in a
> relative sense, when compared to other parties) its use of public
> funds, and the way the funds are used also varies.
> 
> The NDP advocates self help with dignity as the principle aim for poor
> folk, or merely unemployed folk: battered women crisis centers, rape
> crisis centers, hot meals for poor kids, enforced alimony payments,
> unpaid maternity leave, gradual transition from welfare (social
> security) to self sustained mode so that the individual will be ENTICED
> financially to seek work, low cost housing that has a lot of the work
> done by residents, day care for poor working mothers, universal health
> care.
> 
> Most of the above issues fall under two categories:
> 
> If a citizen encounters an accident or sickness that's extraordinary
> and certainly not due to his/her own fault, or even laziness, then
> public funds are spent to help that citizen (health care, crisis
> centers).  In this case, both the rich and the poor gets publicly
> funded service. Hence it's hardly a "soak the rich" philosophy.
> 
> If a citizen is lazy, stupid, brought up without a lot of skills, or is
> displaced out of the mainstream due to some reason, whether self
> inflicted or not, public fund is used to help that citizen get back
> into the mainstream work force, by making it financially preferrable and
> also providing the counselling that may be needed to turn that person
> back into a well adjusted, productive worker.
> 
> The other major parties would rather restrict public funds in the above
> endeavors as a show of ability to the tax payer that they can cut taxes
> with Real Decisiveness. But those poor (or stupid) folk still aren't
> working. The problem is still not solved. Wouldn't it create more wealth
> for the whole country if more people are working?
> 
> The end result is a further spread between the rich and poor. This is
> not in itself an immoral thing, this widening spread. Where it really
> hurts is that it creates an unhealthy society, when eventually the poor
> will revolt and the whole state will come tumbling down. I'm not even
> argueing on either side of whether the poor at that time will have the
> "moral authority" to revolt. Perhaps they do not. But so what? It will
> happen.
> 
> Socialism is not about the above issues. It really deals with the idea
> that state-run enterprises are the preferred route for certain sectors
> of the economy, most notably in natural resources.  I do not think the
> NDP in BC have any plans to convert any sector of the economy presently
> run by the private sector into the public sector.
> 
> The coordinated state-business relationship so succesfully practiced by
> Germany and Japan can only be analyzed on its merits and pitfalls,
> rather than by first categorizing it into a preconceived model of
> socialism vs capitalism. The issue is whether collusion between
> government and Big Business, and most importantly how that collusion is
> done, is actually productive to the country in the long run.  When I
> say "country", I also include its citizens, their quality of life, and
> the enrichment of their intellectual property. Before I get a knee jerk
> response like "church/business and state don't mix", I ask you to
> consider why you have a government in the first place, how does that
> government relate to the people, is the government made up of people,
> or is it made up of computers and robots or aliens from another
> planet?  If government is something you hate, why have it? Now that you
> can't live without it, then why not steer it to benefit society in as
> many sectors as is appropriate?
> 
> The NDP in British Columbia, where I grew up, and have mostly
> supported, are out in front in the social services sector in providing
> help to those out of the mainstream to get back into the mainstream.
> They surely do not have any of the Socialist ideas (anymore) I outlined
> above.
> 
> Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada


Actually, Michael characterizes the NDP reasonably well. Rather than a 
"socialist" party, the NDP, which likes sometimes to call itself a 
"social democratic" party (presumably to avoid tainting its image with 
real socialism), is ,at best, a small l liberal reform party.

Like many European social democratic parties, NDP policies aim to 
"reform" the capitalist system, in a humanistic way. 

I realize, however, that some of the more rabid idealogues on this net 
find it difficult to perceive "degrees" of socialism. 


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

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution