Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:24:11 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <1993Jan11.033446.24974@julian.uwo.ca> <93010.2300022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan11.050859.1296@julian.uwo.ca>

In article <1993Jan11.050859.1296@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN
LAROCQUE) says:
>
>In article <93010.2300022893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>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.
>
>There are some communists who actually believe (how deluded they are)
>that Canada will get communism at the ballot box. No I am not kidding.

The Communist Party has always seen elections as a propaganda device,
Eurocommunists started to take them seriously which is why they became
more democratic socialist than communist. Read what Lenin says about
parliament if you want the communist line.

>Not all of them want to start the kind of revolution that you are
>implying (although some of them might have no problem joining one).
>
>>The NDP is against revolution, violent or not. They are not aiming to
>>abolish capitalism by overthrowing Parliament or by winning a majority of    s
>seat
>
>Then what is the NDP for? Or are they not sure themselves. The object of

(sigh) the NDP is for reforming capitalism to make it more equitable
and to reform society to ameliorate the advantages and disadvantages class
has on individual opportunity.

The NDP is not in favour of abolishing capitalism which is what Marxists
advocate as a minimum.

>politics is to get the policies you want passed in the legislatures. And
>those policies are based on party programmes with some limited consultation
>with party members. And the only way the NDP will ever get its policies to
>become law is by getting a majority of seats - something they have done
>in every provine west of Quebec at one time or another. (oh what a piss
>poor job they are doing to Ontario)
>
>>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?
>
>They do behave communistic when they raise taxes and introduce expensive
>programs and tell us that this is what we want or need. As for transer

Than you do not know what Communism is if you think all it is is raising
taxes or spending money.

>payments - its that corporate welfare bum situation. If it is bad to bail
>out big business gone bust, why continue to do the same vis a vis the
>poorer provinces. Hell, NFLD will never make any money of cod or offshore
>drilling.

I'm speaking of Ontario which has had its transfer payments cut causing
the Ontario deficit to increase accordingly, a result thus not of NDP
policies but of a decision by the Tory government in Ottawa.

>
>>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.
>
>What both you and they want is the government on the hands of all the
>economic levers. No difference.

And you want the government to decide who is worthy of health care, literally
who can live and who can die. Once again, it is highly simplistic to equate
any policy of government intervention in the economy with Communism or
Fascism.  The NDP does not speak of a "planned, centralised economy"

>
>>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.
>
>Hey, you just whined about productivity vis a vis Hitler. Maybe you ARE the
>same.

I'm saying that not only do individuals benefit from healthcare and
care for children, society benefits too.

>
>>But they are part of society, they have a right to be treated fairly and
>>to have an equal opportunity.
>
>Equality - what a repugnant concept. I certianly do not consider anybody
>my equal. We are all different, with different abilities and needs. Any

No, few people sink that low:) In any case, while I believe in equality before
the law I am not arguing sameness, I am just saying that all people should
start from a level playing field and thus have the equal opportunity to
succeed or fail on their merits, not start with marks against them because
they grew up in poverty, in poor health and without an education. 19th century
liberalism aimed to remove legal and social disabilities which inhibit equal
opportunity and the ability for individuals to reach their potential,
social democracy aims to remove the economic barriers as well so that children
from a poor and disadvantaged background have as much a chance to succeed on
their merits and reach their full potential as children of privledge.
As I've said before, social democrats aim not to abolish capitalism, merely to
try to make it fairer.

>plan to make us equal will fail because we are notcrobots, but human beings.
>This is my proposition for equal opportunity. End restrictions on all
>entereprises. More often than not current restrictions - like against
>unregistered taxi companies - are passed into law to put down the
>entrepreneur and kill competition. Essentially to keep the rich rich and
>the poor poor. Yes, economic restrictions are a cause of poverty. Not the
>solution.
>
>>Who decides who is worthy of health care and who isnt?
>
>Private insurance companies who know what a liability smoking and heavy
>drinking is....

So instead of state socialism you advocate corporate socialism? Instead of
the state running our lives it should be corportations?

>
>>>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.
>
>Genetics is not eugenics. Unless you regard David Suzuki as a Nazi. No I
>didn't think so. As hard as you may want to admit it - the answers to a
>lot of diseases are IN YOUR GENES. If curing illnesses is a Nazi concept
>then I guess I am a Nazi, and so are you.

You said a lot of this stuff is here today because parents didn't know, what
do you suggest they do?

>
>>What if individuals aren't to blame for their situation but were born into
>>it, are they still responsible for it?
>
>That is for private charities to decide. Certainly not bean counting
>bureaucrats.

Their is no social responsibility? Do you really think charity is the answer.
Certainly we can decide on a policy as a population and not leave it to
the private sector.

>
>>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?
>
>Or having Planned Parenthood preaching much the same in the Third World.
>Forced sterililisation is like taxes and rape - against freedom of choice.
>But if people want it or seee the need for it - why get in the way. And I

Why get in the way of forced sterilisation? Because it prohibits choice.

>don't believe in subsidizing people who are just going to ask for more money
>with each new member of the family.
>
>>>How about rewarding people who look after their health?
>
>>Your dodging the issue.
>
>Private insurance not public is the answer. And much less intervention than

Private insurance tends to gouge as much as it can and actually drains more
money from the economy than public plans.

>in the "evil" US of A. If Doctors cost too much, than find someone who can
>cure you for less. I read in Actualite about Montreal's underground economy.

The US' "competitive free enterprise" medical system spends much more per
capita on health care while providing adequate care for a much smaller
percentage of the population than our system. This makes sense? This is
economical?

>A qualified medical professional chose to look after people with no hassles,
>and no medicare - all underground - and give quality care. The
>way I see it - restrictions on the other end are forcing costs up. Patients

Look at the US where a lack of restrictions have forced costs far higher
than here or in Europe.

>are not always to blame (although in the case of the heavy smoker, they
>definitely are). My solution is to ease control of this sector. Government
>is not always the answer.

Again, "easing" control has allowed costs to soar in the US, as long as
enough people are willing to pay, the medical profession makes money, that
literally tens of millions of people are without health care in the US is
irrelevant as the bottom line is not to provide quality care to the maximum
number of people but to maximise profits all around. "What the market will bear
" is a median and always means some, indeed many will be unable to afford the
service offered. Profits are maximised not by making something universally
affordable but by charging the highest price which a great enough number are
willing to pay, thus maximising profit.

>--

>***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