Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 21:18:52 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

> In article <kwP2wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >
> >It's traditional sense was, and is perfectly clear, although you don't 
> >seem to comprehend it. From Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983)
> >come the following applicable definitions
> >
> >- liberal : of or constituting a political party advocating or 
> >associated with the principles of political liberalism; esp : of
> >or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated
> >with ideals of individual esp economic freedom, greater individual 
> >participation in government, and constitutional, political and 
> >adminstrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
> >
> 
> That sense of liberal, however, is not really applicable to any of
> the main or minor political parties in Canada...there is no "liberal"
> party in Canada. 
> 
I 'd tend to agree with that assessment, Gerald.

> >While this doesn't seem to describe the Liberal Party of Canada very
> >well, it's hard to see what YOU would object to here....
> >
> >- liberal : one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of 
> >orthodox, traditional or established forms and ways
> >
> >Well, this is probably objectionable. Someone who's open minded. Gosh!
> >And may not believe in doing everything the old way!
> >
> >- liberalism :a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from 
> >restraint and usu. based on free competition, the self regulating market,
> >and the gold standard
> >
> >Boy it sure sounds like radical "left wing" stuff, huh?
> >
> 
> The problem is Canada's "Liberals" are hardly liberal...in some
> sense "liberals" today are "conservative" (not Tory, who aren't
> really "conservative" or "liberal"), because they, "liberals" are
> trying to "conserve" what is left of "liberalism" in our society
> from the marauding statists of the right, center, and left...
> and totalitarian boomers.
> 

I agree that Canada's Liberals aren't liberals, by and large. Of course, 
that's the problem with reducing people and positions to labels - they're 
often wildy inaccurate and/or misleading.

> >
> >The Liberals, aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, socialists. 
> >I'll grant that they are to the left of the Tories and the Reform 
> >party, but that relative position doesn't make them socialists. Hell, 
> >even the bloody NDP isn't socialist. (Socialists generally scare the
> >hell out of NDP'ers, who are always afraid of being seen to be 
> >"revolutionary" in any way)
> >
> 
> All the political parties in Canada are basically statist, is the
> way I would put it.
> 
Well, my dictionary defines statism as :concentration of economic 
controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.
If this is what you mean by statism, it seems that we are arguably going 
the opposite direction. In fact, with the FTA, NAFTA and the GATT, the 
amount of economic control and planning done in Canada seems to be 
diminishing rapidly. 

> >
> >You have it wrong. I don't want to be labelled as a social democrat.
> >There's a big difference between socialists and social democrats. 
> >Social democrats SUPPORT the capitalist system. They want to make sure 
> >everybody gets looked after, and they have all kinds of, as you said, 
> >"warm 'n' fuzzy" motives. But they DON'T want to substantially alter
> >the system.
> >
> 
> Social democracy as social democrats define it is not a stable
> socio-economic system as it is an ideologically confused...it will
> either degenerate into socialism, or rise into democracy...socialism
> and democracy are ultimately incompatible...oil and water.
> 
> Gerald

There is nothing in socialism inherently incompatible with democracy. 
It's perfectly possible to be a socialist and a democrat. You are 
confusing economic systems with the form of government. It's no more 
axiomatic that socialist systems are undemocratic than to state that 
capitalist systems are democratic. Life in Pinochet's Chile may have been 
under a capitalist system, but it was hardly democratic, for example. 
Personally, I abhor totalitarian regimes of any stripe.



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