Actually, this has been my dilema for years. At heart, I'm an international socialist. But in reality, the NDP is national socialist. In many ways, the NDP's policies benefit poor Canadians at the expense of other countries. For example, if the government should provide social assistance to Canadians, then it must also limit immigration to avoid putting an excessive burden on the system. Yes, the NDP is more in favour of immigration than any other party, but even it wants restrictions. And I agree that the more generous our social services are, the more restrictions we need, and that limits the opportunities of people from poorer nations.
Also, mosre social services means more taxes. The NDP then has to be stricter on trade relations with other countries to protect Canadian jobs at the expense of jobs abroad. Sure the NDP supports giving poorer countries more money, but that also promotes a cycle of dependence by not allowing them to trade and develop industry.
With this in mind, I believe the best strategy to help poorer nations is to reform the global capitalist markets so as to put everyone on a more equal footing. Ironically enough, though, this then pushes me towards freer markets, not more government regulation as we'd normally expect with a socialist government.
For instance, according to Francois Grin, a specialist in language economics from the university of Geneva, Switzerland, the EU subsidizes the UK economy by from 17 to 18 thouasand million euros annually on second-language education alone, even though the UK is the wealthiest member. He goes on to say that an easier language like Esperanto, a logical language that is 100% phonetic, logical, and free of exceptions, could save the EU (including the UK and Ireland) 25 thousand million euros annually on second-language instruction alone, not including savings in interpretation and other costs.
I'm sure Canada is benefitting from the worldwide spread of English too. What's the point of giving some money to third world countries if the very economic system we're functioning in favours us so much anyway. For every dollar we give them, 2 dollars comes back to us. Would it not make more sence to restructure the international system of communication so that through the free markets themselves the money doesn't come back to us. Then even if we stopped giving them money, they'd still be better off because they wouldn't be subsidizing our own economy anymore. What's the point of just giving them a dollar back for every 2 dollars we make form them. Pure hypocricy.
If we look at it that way, then it would make more sense for socialists to achieve their fundamental goals through the free market economy.
Other areas to consider that could help the poor by saving money and making the world system more efficient would be:
a common world currency. This would no longer allow more powerful nations to try to manipulate the world currency markets to their advantage.
a common second language that is easy to learn by design, such as Esperanto (the UN general assembly alone spends about 1/4 of its budget on translation and interpretation services alone, not cheap and this money could help the starving).
A common world military comprising a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men. This would allow countries to discard their own national military forces and rely on the international force if they wish. This again would save poorer countries some money. Heck, it would save wealthier countries money too, and we'd need it if we should suddenly accept working with the rest of the world on an equal footing with no more unfair advantage to us thanks only to our mother tongue.
Living on an equal footing. Imagine that. Scary, isn't it. Even the NDP fears it.
