Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:00:02 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <1993Jan10.222143.12528@julian.uwo.ca> <93010.1835102893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan11.033446.24974@julian.uwo.ca>

In article <1993Jan11.033446.24974@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN
LAROCQUE) says:
>
>In article <93010.1835102893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>>Means and ends. Why don't you get off your high horse and admit that they
>>>both want the same thing but are going about it differently.
>
>>The NDP and communists do NOT want the same thing, the latter want to abolish
>>capitalism, the former want to make it more equitable, there is a world of
>>difference between wanting to get rid of something and wanting it to work
>>better. The NDP are social democrats, the communists are revolutionary
>>abolitionists.
>
>There are such things as democratic communists - some guy who ran in London
>Center in one of our all too many provincial elections in Ontario. Yes, he
>ran against the big Dave Peterson. I've met actually living breathing
>communists. No they don't tote guns and kill people - the ones I've met

Where did I say they did? All I said is that Communism aims to abolish
capitalism through revolution, that doesn't mean a communist can't be nice,
it also doesn't mean you don't want to bring about a type of democracy.


>personally are wonderful human beings. I say hi they say hi. You are
>misrepresenting the Canadian communists I know. Deceit is a virtue in the

I'm not misrepresenting the communists I know, I don't care if their nice
I'm talking about the programme, read some Lenin and Marx before you
tell me what Communism stands for based on the "niceness" of its advocates.

>NDP. And your brand of communism is "better" then theirs. At least they
>are honest when they tell you what kind of government they prefer. Wishy

You honestly haven't a clue what you speak of, do you?

>washy "reform capitalism" crowd. The NDP doesn't know its own a**hole from
>a hole in the ground.
>
>>>>The NDP is not in favour of violent revolution and thus are not Communists,
>
>I define violence as an act that goes against my will. Kind of like taxes
>or rape. No means no - right?

The NDP is against revolution, violent or not. They are not aiming to
abolish capitalism by overthrowing Parliament or by winning a majority of seats

>
>>>Social democrats or democratic communists? According to the NDP and their
>>>ilk in this country, the state is God and individuals mean nothing.
>
>>According to whom in the NDP? What have the provincial NDP governments
>>nationalised in the past two years?
>
>Your paycheque as if you haven't noticed with every freaking budget.

The Tories have cut transfer payments, this has increased provincial
deficits, in any case that has nothing to do with nationalising the means
of production, something the NDP has no intention of doing. Tories and Liberals
have increased taxes far more than the NDP, are they communists too?

>
>>It means trying to end poverty and economic hardship, it means trying
>>to give people equal opportunity regardless of their economic origins.
>
>I'm just crying. If only these so-called NDP "social democrats" actually
>met living and breathing working human beings instead of preaching their
>filthy gospel. What you are saying sounds like Hitler's new order. Or the
>latest Soviet Five Year Plan

No, it doesn't. Five year Plans and Hitler's new order were geared towards
increasing production, not improving the lot of the poor and disadvantaged.

>
>>Didn't he also say that a rich man has as much chance of going to heaven
>>as a camel does to pass through the eye of a needle?:)
>
>Sorry I'm an atheist. :-)

You brought up Christ.

>
>>and what of their children, how do we give them an equal opportunity to
>>children of privledge?
>
>We actually owe these people something? They have kids and I'm supposed to
>pay. Almost like divorce and alimony without marriage and kids. Sorry but
>only financial incentives like depriving bad parent(s) of money will force
>changes.

Fine, let the kids starve, not only does that result in a less ethical
society, it also results in a less competitive, less productive society.

>
>>and are children to blame for their parents problems?
>
>No, but they are not my children.

But they are part of society, they have a right to be treated fairly and
to have an equal opportunity.

>
>>>If we cut taxes by 20% accross the board, we wouldn't need all of this
>>>social junk. Healthy people wouldn't have to pay for all of those idiots
>>>in the hospital who smoke a pack a day and are now dying of lung cancer.
>
>>and the children of the poor struck with curable ailments would just die
>>or be permanently disadvantaged.
>
>Think about it Mr Universal Health Care. Every dollar saved by not taking
>care of stupid people like smokers can be used to help real people with
>real problems. Since we'll never really get of the Health Care system,
>why not streamline it so only people who deliberately abuse their health
>get turned away or have to pay directly out of their own pocket. Call it
>my compromise.

Who decides who is worthy of health care and who isnt?

>
>>People are to blame for diabetes or meningitis?Children are to blame for
>>congenital heart, liver or kidney problems?
>
>Have you heard of genetic ailments? A lot of this stuff is here today
>because the parents just didn't know. Genetic research is moving
>places.

Ah, eugenics, what a pleasent Nazi concept you espouse.

>
>>Talk about the state dictating the lives of individuals! Some individualist
>>you are.
>
>No just a guy who believes that people are responsible for their own actions.
>And how can you call depriving peole of money they didn't earn as "the state
>dictating blah blah" ?

What if individuals aren't to blame for their situation but were born into
it, are they still responsible for it?

>
>>>is right - make them pay. People who care for their health should stop
>>>bankrolling those people who don't.
>
>>I hopeyou never need a transplant, heck, I hope you never get ill.
>
>There was this guy a couple of years ago in London. He drank and he smoked.
>And he happened to get a new lung and heart from some young person who died.
>And we paid for it. He promised to clean up - but guess what happened? A
>couple of years later he was back at it - a pack a day smoker and an
>alcoholic. People like these should just die on the operating table. Real
>people who get sick don't abuse their health like all of those idiot
>smokers and drinkers - these guys should get the health care that slob
>got.
>
>>AIDS has a long incubation period, many got it before "safe sex" was an
>>issue.
>
>Safe sex has been around for generations. Take a disease like AIDS to make
>it "hip" for young people. Instead of sleeping during sex ed classes in
>grade eight - they should listen once and a while. Just to survive.
>
>>Why blame the families if they are not supported, why blame the children for
>>the misdeeds of their parents?
>
>A happy child is a wanted child......
>Show you care - give the parents some condoms.

You dodge the point, you cant retroactively abort the children, what do you
do with children born into poverty, or do you advocate that other great
Nazi concept, sterilisation of the poor?

>
>>Systems with universal health care are more productive as adults are less
>>likely to beeffected by inadequate health care when they were children and
>>as there are fewer days off due to illness or disease.
>
>How about rewarding people who look after their health?

Your dodging the issue.

>--
>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING*
>*
>**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be
>**
>**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW
>**
>***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING*
>*
Newsgroups: can.politics