Baraka_Guru

It's not universally the case. Just mostly so. We can talk about specific systems that seem to be balanced enough to try to emulate if you wish. Maybe even how to improve them further.

I believe most of what people know of socialism is based on the corrupt rule and extreme measures taken as a means of applying it to society, which is unfortunate, considering socialism likely is going on right under their noses.

I think it's important not to overlook Sweden and, to an extent, Germany, mainly for their strong social democratic aspects.

Yes, a lot is changing in Canadian politics; however, I'm uncertain how long the current conservative influence will last. They won a majority with only around 40% of the vote. What this means, is that they control 55% of Canada's government with only 40% of the popular vote. As a comparison, the social democrats in second position have 33% of the seats with nearly 31% of the vote. How fucked up is that?

The changes from last election saw the conservatives go from a minority government to a majority by garnering a mere 2% increase of the popular vote. This extra 2% managed to increase their seat count by 23, pushing them into a comfortable majority.

The social democrats? Their popular vote total surged by about 12.5%, but their seat count increased by 66. Do the math. 1% = 12 seats vs. 1% = 5 seats.

The problem is in the electoral system being "first past the post." People blame "vote splitting" between liberals and social democrats for handing the majority to the conservatives. All together, between liberals and social democrats, the popular vote consists of nearly 60%. This means that 60% of the electorate chose either social democracy or liberalism, but the 40% of conservative voters ushered in a majority conservative government.

So the political will for left of centre to the left is there. The problem is the way the system works. (Sorry for the info dump.)

I think any pure system is less stable than a comprehensive mixed one that is managed year to year, election to election. Canada is a stable economy. Why is that? Some say it's because of all the natural resources, but the fact is that a vast majority of our wealth is generated by services and manufacturing. Our system is stable, in my opinion, because of the balance between the market economy and social democratic/liberal policies.

I don't think revolution is required. I think changes will come when the system starts to fail on a wholesale level. When people start to panic, they vote for changes they see as meaningful, especially if these changes emulate systems that are proven to work (universal heath care, for example).

A lot has to do with perspective. In Cold War America and in the former Soviet Union, people knew mostly from extremes. In a post-Cold War world, there is an opportunity to shift that perspective, as you have pointed out. In my own case, being born and raised in Canada, I know mostly deep-seated liberalism tempered with Canadian conservatism. It doesn't get much more moderate than that. This is why you get free-market principles mingling with regulatory bodies and social programs like universal health care, welfare, and social security. It's a mixed system and it has been doing us well. This is all I know. I don't know communism. I don't know what it felt like living under the Red Scare, etc. That give me a different perspective from yours, clearly.

I agree. Blind faith is never healthy. This is why it's good to look at facts and to work towards meaningful change, to measure success and to tackle problems that are a concern to the electorate. Not everyone is a free-marketer, and not everyone is a socialist. It's about doing what you can to benefit the population as a whole. Sometimes this requires biting the bullet. In the end, it also requires some hindsight to see what works and what doesn't.

* * * * *

And, guys, the whole money thing is a non-issue to me. I don't see the sense or the practicality to abolishing money. It's a medium of exchange. I don't see money as the problem. If anything, the profit model is the problem. You can look at profits as a motivator for production and development of society, or you can look at profits as "surplus value" or "overcharge." I think that's a better starting point than whether we should abolish a medium of exchange. I don't consider the medium the problem.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

The real challenge of this is how the lines between the state and the private sector have become blurred. Especially so in the States, you have a problem of influence in matters of state where you get political decisions made based on their impact primarily on the private sector. It's as though government has become merely a intermediary between the people and the private sector—one that is hired by the private sector but selected internally by the people. It's a game that's played where your score is based on the amount of capital you control personally.

It's a game with few winners and many losers.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot