Socialist Party of Canada

[Jroc]

Hello everybody,

For those that are interested in learning more about marxism and socialism, take a look at the Socialist Party of Canada. They have been active in Canada since 1905. Visit the webage at www.worldsocialism.org/canada

Join the Facebook group

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=2379710336&ref=ts

Cheers

 

[Chiliagon]

Vote no against the socialist party!

 

[JLM]

Hello everybody,

For those that are interested in learning more about marxism and socialism, take a look at the Socialist Party of Canada. They have been active in Canada since 1905. Visit the webage at www.worldsocialism.org/canada

Join the Facebook group

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=2379710336&ref=ts

Cheers

Nah, had about 8 years of Socialism in B.C.- didn't work. As a wise person on this forum once said "The N.D.P. is an excellent political party until someone elses money runs out". :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Bar Sinister]

Isn't this spam?

 

[Jroc]

Nah, had about 8 years of Socialism in B.C.- didn't work. As a wise person on this forum once said "The N.D.P. is an excellent political party until someone elses money runs out". :lol::lol::lol:

Hi JLM, the NDP is not socialist. The NDP is generally misconceived as Canada’s Socialist Party. If it was a Socialist Party one would assume that the NDP’s goal was social or common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution, as the solution to working class problems. Furthermore, most of the measures contained in the Regina Manifesto, the foundation document of the early Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, have since been enacted by Liberal, Social Credit and Conservative Party governments, according to former NDP national leader T.C. Douglas. Despite the enactment of these measures, society is still divided. The means of life are still owned and controlled by a small minority of powerful and privileged people. The working class, the majority of people, who own no means of production and who must serve those who do, are beset by the same basic problems of insecurity and unhappiness as before. This is because the condition of being a subservient class does not allow an abundant and full life, regardless of advanced technology. No fundamental change has taken place.

As a system, Socialism means that all people own and control the means of life in common, with free access according to need, to the goods and services that everyone has produced co-operatively and voluntarily according to ability – a moneyless, wageless, warless world of individual development. The method to achieve this is political action by a conscious majority to change the basis of society. This is not the
NDP objective.

Isn't this spam?

Hi Bar Sinister,
My apologies to the site and its users if this violates any terms and conditions. My intention was to present the socialist party to Canadians interested in politics. I feel that it is important for politically minded Canadians to know that the party exists, and to understand how it is different from the rest of the political parties.

Cheers

 

[JLM]

Hi JLM, the NDP is not socialist. The NDP is generally misconceived as Canada’s Socialist Party. If it was a Socialist Party one would assume that the NDP’s goal was social or common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution, as the solution to working class problems. Furthermore, most of the measures contained in the Regina Manifesto, the foundation document of the early Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, have since been enacted by Liberal, Social Credit and Conservative Party governments, according to former NDP national leader T.C. Douglas. Despite the enactment of these measures, society is still divided. The means of life are still owned and controlled by a small minority of powerful and privileged people. The working class, the majority of people, who own no means of production and who must serve those who do, are beset by the same basic problems of insecurity and unhappiness as before. This is because the condition of being a subservient class does not allow an abundant and full life, regardless of advanced technology. No fundamental change has taken place.

As a system, Socialism means that all people own and control the means of life in common, with free access according to need, to the goods and services that everyone has produced co-operatively and voluntarily according to ability – a moneyless, wageless, warless world of individual development. The method to achieve this is political action by a conscious majority to change the basis of society. This is not the
NDP objective.

You are absolutely right, but that solidifies the reasons why it won't work in Canada. We operate on a free enterprise system and I doubt if most people (like 95%) want to change the basic system. Most people want a system where personal success is tied to hard work, and ingenuity. The N.D.P. only has a "socialist" flavor in the social services aspect. Even that small amount isn't working too well as it grants power to Unions who advocate equality in a setting of mediocrity. :smile:

 

[Chiliagon]

in a fantasy world, Socialism would be a good idea but in reality it doesn't have any chance.

 

[JLM]

in a fantasy world, Socialism would be a good idea but in reality it doesn't have any chance.

You hit the nail right on the head. It would work where everyone is willing to do their share toward the common good. The reality is the population is laced with drones, parasites and shirkers.

 

[Chiliagon]

you would have to eliminate all the Lawyers and all the rich people first.

 

[Jroc]

You hit the nail right on the head. It would work where everyone is willing to do their share toward the common good. The reality is the population is laced with drones, parasites and shirkers.

JlM, it is the current system of society that is responsible for making people what you call 'drones, parasites and shirkers.' Under capitalism people are dehumanized through the process of production. People are not individuals, they become a commodity, to be used in order to produce. Owners of companies purchase our labour power in the same way they purchase a ton of steal for the production of, say, a car. In this way the individual is no different than other commodities which are necessary for the production of a thing.
Further, it is not surprising that our current society is laced with drones, parasites and shirkers. Unlike all other modes of subsistence, capitalism is the only one where the producers of wealth (the working class) are completely detached from the wealth they produce. Whereas in food-foraging, agrarian, and pastoral societies, an individuals labour is directly connected to their survival, capitalism alienates people from the product of their labour. Instead of labour being directly connected to means of survival, it is instead commodified. Individuals receive wages in which the use to purchase the things they need. Its no wonder we have drones; the system treats us as machines. The parasites you speak of must be the owners of wealth, the capitalists, for they are the ones who get rich off the hard work of millions of people. And the shirkers you talk about, well it is unfortunate that they cannot recognize their own degrade and exploited position in society.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Socialism has never worked successfully on a grand scale without authoritarian governance and its ultimate despotism and corruption, (if you want to call that success). Each according to his ability and each according to his need sounds like a utopia; but who determines need? The government? Socialism is falsely touted as being classless, but there will always be the proletariat class and the ruling class, who of course will be more priveleged, they will see to it, it is human nature, and we see it all the time in all forms of government.

Socialism works on a small scale as in Hutterite and Amish communities, but they are groups of like minded folks held together with a common faith based bond. But their members are free to leave if they wish, a get out of jail free card if you wish.

As for each according to his ability, no one works for free. I remember an old Soviet era saying, "they pretend to pay me, I pretend to work". Commerce makes the world go round, socialism is the enemy of commerce, and eventually makes the world go flat.

 

[JLM]

Socialism has never worked successfully on a grand scale without authoritarian governance and its ultimate despotism and corruption, (if you want to call that success). Each according to his ability and each according to his need sounds like a utopia; but who determines need? The government? Socialism is falsely touted as being classless, but there will always be the proletariat class and the ruling class, who of course will be more priveleged, they will see to it, it is human nature, and we see it all the time in all forms of government.

Socialism works on a small scale as in Hutterite and Amish communities, but they are groups of like minded folks held together with a common faith based bond. But their members are free to leave if they wish, a get out of jail free card if you wish.

As for each according to his ability, no one works for free. I remember an old Soviet era saying, "they pretend to pay me, I pretend to work". Commerce makes the world go round, socialism is the enemy of commerce, and eventually makes the world go flat.

You have it pretty well pegged, Bob. Most humans by nature are aggressive and will try to outdo each other. That is mainly a good thing. That is why we can find superior products and services. :smile:

 

[Jroc]

You have it pretty well pegged, Bob. Most humans by nature are aggressive and will try to outdo each other. That is mainly a good thing. That is why we can find superior products and services. :smile:

Again, this is not true. Humans have been on this earth in their present evolutionary form for around 200,000 years For 99.9% of that time, we had an egalitarian and communal society in which there were no leaders, no social stratification, and the products of labour were shared equally. So if you want to base human nature off of the last 450 years or so, or in other words, .1% of human history, that is your own misguided prerogative. I know hundreds of anthropologists and sociologists would disagree with you.

Greed, aggressiveness, and selfishness are not products of human nature. Rather, they are learned behaviors, instilled in us by the current system of society; capitalism.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

JlM, it is the current system of society that is responsible for making people what you call 'drones, parasites and shirkers.'

You are correct up to this point, but the reason you give is false. It is society's, ( or certain members of it) confusing of rights and freedoms with entitlement. The right to work has been confused with the entitlement to a job., among other things. We are already a very left leaning society, it is human nature. People are naturally lazy, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, for without laziness we would not have inventors coming up with labour saving inventions. But they need and want compensation for their wares. It is the chronic laziness of todays society, though, that will bring our downfall, and socialism is the prefect vehicle for it.

The parasites you speak of must be the owners of wealth, the capitalists, for they are the ones who get rich off the hard work of millions of people. And the shirkers you talk about, well it is unfortunate that they cannot recognize their own degrade and exploited position in society.

The faulty view of socialists is that the rich are the parasites; have you ever had a poor man give you a job? Wealthy individuals or corporations, hate them if you will, are the only ones with the means to invest, produce, and create wealth and jobs. The fallacy is that the means of production should be owned by the people, government actually. Govenments have never produced wealth, at best they redistribute it, but at a heavy cost. The government mandarins will become the robber barons, and they will be worse because they have no stake in the business.

Right now, if you hate your job you have the freedom to leave, under socialism you will have no such freedom.

Again, this is not true. Humans have been on this earth in their present evolutionary form for around 200,000 years For 99.9% of that time, we had an egalitarian and communal society in which there were no leaders, no social stratification, and the products of labour were shared equally. So if you want to base human nature off of the last 450 years or so, or in other words, .1% of human history, that is your own misguided prerogative. I know hundreds of anthropologists and sociologists would disagree with you.

Greed, aggressiveness, and selfishness are not products of human nature. Rather, they are learned behaviors, instilled in us by the current system of society; capitalism.

Hmm, don't know what history books you've been reading, but all through written history there were monarchs, military leaders, conquerers, and the classes that go with them. Relying on artifacts and unwritten history to determine a society's governance is a mugs game, you can make it up as you go, shouting it from the rooftops doesn't make it true.

 

[Jroc]

Hmm, don't know what history books you've been reading, but all through written history there were monarchs, military leaders, conquerers, and the classes that go with them. Relying on artifacts and unwritten history to determine a society's governance is a mugs game, you can make it up as you go, shouting it from the rooftops doesn't make it true.

Perhaps a cursory look at the study of anthropology will educate you on this. Hunter gatherer societies that are still in existence today are a more or less sufficient example of what human societies looked like before the neolithic revolution. Further, your math is wrong. As I said, humans have been around in their present evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. It was not until the neolithic revolution, circa 10,000-5,000 BC that civilization developed. If you do the math you will see that from the neolithic to current day is only approximately 2.5-5% of our history as modern homo sapien, not to even mention our evolutionary ancestors. Not a very large percentage to make an argument about the nature of mankind.

you would have to eliminate all the Lawyers and all the rich people first.

Chiliagon, this would not be needed. The working class (vast majority of people in society) already produce all the wealth in society. Rich capitalists have no real power over us if we were to take ownership over the wealth WE produce. The only reason they are powerful and rich is because we allow them to be. We produce the wealth, why shouldnt we have ownership over it.

The faulty view of socialists is that the rich are the parasites; have you ever had a poor man give you a job? Wealthy individuals or corporations, hate them if you will, are the only ones with the means to invest, produce, and create wealth and jobs. The fallacy is that the means of production should be owned by the people, government actually. Govenments have never produced wealth, at best they redistribute it, but at a heavy cost. The government mandarins will become the robber barons, and they will be worse because they have no stake in the business.

The rich owners of wealth are, by definition parasitic. They do not produce, yet they posses, while the working class produces and possesses nothing. Many people use the absurd argument that we need rich people to give us jobs. This is nonsense. Work is carried out socially because, as a society we need to produce things. Even if there were no capitalists, rich people, work would still take place, albeit, production would be organized in much more democratic and horizontal way. What you are confusing, and fail to understand is this;

All wealth is produced through the labour of the working class. The working class has no ownership over the wealth THEY produce, rather it is appropriated into the hands of capitalists. Capitalists do nothing except for siphon off wealth that is created through the labour of workers.

 

[lone wolf]

Greed, aggressiveness, and selfishness are not products of human nature. Rather, they are learned behaviors, instilled in us by the current system of society; capitalism.

If it isn't greed, aggressiveness and selfishness when animals fight over kill or territory, what is it?

 

[Jroc]

If it isn't greed, aggressiveness and selfishness when animals fight over kill or territory, what is it?

That is the nature of a specific animal you are talking about say lion or a wolf. Humans on the other hand have survived so long by learning how to cooperate and share. If it were not for that how else would we have been able to hunt dangerous animals, and procure enough food to feed an entire village. You cannot link the behavior of animals such as a lion or a wolf to that of humans. We live under different material conditions than they do, and as such adapt to that environment differently. In fact, the whole crux of my human nature vs human behaviour argument surrounds the idea that the behaviour of people is molded by the material conditions they live under. Hunter-gatherers must be cooperative and egalitarian because general reciprocity is beneficial to the society as a whole. In other words, with such minimal resources, sharing what you have ensures that you will have access to the communities food in the future. Agrarian societies are more stratified. In this type of social organization, large irrigation works allow for the production of a surplus of food, which is coordinated and distributed by chiefs and tribal leaders.

My point is, if there was such a thing as human nature, it would not be greed and selfishness, but rather compassion, and cooperation. Moreover, our behaviour is molded by the way our society makes its living

 

[TenPenny]

Each according to his ability and each according to his need sounds like a utopia

It actually sounds like a way to punish those with more ability.

 

[JLM]

If it isn't greed, aggressiveness and selfishness when animals fight over kill or territory, what is it?

Wealth doesn't necessarily translate to greed.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf

 

[Jroc]

Wealth doesn't necessarily translate to greed.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf

I never claimed that wealth translated to greed. In fact, I recognize that the biggest philanthropists are the extremely wealthy... they should be.