BC Ecosocialists

[rustled]

I haven't looked deeply into that "quality of life" listing, but a surface scan seems to show that despite a wide variety of governing philosophies, extensive social benefits looks to be a common thread among those near the top of the list. Sure they're expensive, but it has has the appearance that in some cases money can buy happiness.

There's that saying about appearances, though. Also the one about "if it seems too good to be true" Clichés, yes, but all clichés have some truth in them.

With regards to preserving the ruling class, I was referring more to government and "captains of industry", those who have the greatest share of wealth and want to ensure they hang on to it. These are the people who see a move to the left as a threat.

Really? I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at. Well, if that's who you're referring to, then we go back to what I mentioned in another thread - sustainable social programs rely on a strong economy, a strong economy requires strong incentives for people to take risks and invest their resources, and if the incentives for people to invest their resources are weakened the economy weakens - creating a larger demand for the social programs at a time when those social programs are no longer being sustained by the economy. Massive fail at the worst possible time, affecting first and most drastically those who need it most.

So these "captains of industry" you speak of not only require a strong incentive to keep investing in B.C., they also need to know the government of the day in the jurisdiction they're investing in will not pull the rug out from under their investment. A strong economy requires a relationship where the government and industry understand how to work together for the greater economic good of all - not a dictatorship where the investors and risk takers are only allowed to earn X annually without being penalized (reducing the capital they would otherwise have available to maintain and grow their investment), or a socialist system in which they must be prepared to hand over the vast majority of their investment's earnings to someone else for "approved redistribution".

There's a reason countries with capitalist economies and a decent social conscience work better than socialist countries.

Ecosocialism is idealistic quicksand.

[fluffy]

I've said repeatedly that I'm not calling for a switch to socialism, that's a red herring the right likes to throw into the mix anytime the slightest move to the left is mentioned. We're fine with a market economy mixed with targeted social programs, but the pendulum has swung too far to the right and some adjustment is required. A distribution of wealth that has gone out of balance has far reaching effects, it's worth a little research.

[rustled]

I've said repeatedly that I'm not calling for a switch to socialism, that's a red herring the right likes to throw into the mix anytime the slightest move to the left is mentioned. We're fine with a market economy mixed with targeted social programs, but the pendulum has swung too far to the right and some adjustment is required. A distribution of wealth that has gone out of balance has far reaching effects, it's worth a little research.

The pendulum in Canada has been swinging overwhelmingly to the left and more social programs for my entire life. It's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from when you claim it has gone "too far right" here in B.C. I can tell you of a couple of startups that were ready to launch but folded when the Greens helped the NDP turf the Liberals after the last provincial election, preferring to wait out the latest iteration of the NDP's socialist agenda - and I'm sure others could do the same. Which brings us back to: weaker investment = weaker economy = overburdened and undermined social programs = more pain for the people who can least afford it.

The forced redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of socialism, so it is similarly difficult for me to understand where you're coming from when you claim we have "gone out of balance" and that we need a greater redistribution of wealth than we already have in B.C. but simultaneously claim you are not calling for a switch to socialism. Many of us small business folk struggle with the NDP at the helm and hope for less socialism, not more. I expect those taking greater risks with more to lose feel much the same way. Which brings us back to: weaker investment...

[fluffy]

You're talking like I think this can happen with a single change of government, I'm talking decades. You need to think where we want our society to be in forty or fifty years and just keep moving in that direction.


Try a google search on "consequences of unequal wealth distribution".

[rustled]

You're talking like I think this can happen with a single change of government, I'm talking decades. You need to think where we want our society to be in forty or fifty years and just keep moving in that direction.

We've been decades of swinging further and further left for that long already, well past center. So do I want to help the country continue to move in that direction for another lifetime? Nope. I want more personal responsibility - because only with more personal responsibility will we be able to sustain our necessary social programming. The welfare state cannot grow sustainably without a growing economy, and to pretend otherwise requires a leap of ideological faith which is entirely outside the realm of pragmatic reality.

Try a google search on "consequences of unequal wealth distribution".

A google search for "consequences of unequal wealth distribution" will undoubtedly reveal the consequences of unequal wealth distribution. It won't be likely to bring up the unintended consequences of forced wealth redistribution, though, will it?

It is fuzzy thinking to assume that simply redistributing the wealth - forcing more equal wealth distribution through a formula - will rectify the myriad problems associated with unequal wealth distribution. Those problems are not solely the problems of some having less than others - to believe so would require so vast an oversimplification as to render any "solutions" formulated under that mindset not only ineffective, but highly likely to make matters worse.

Instead of looking for studies to confirm or contradict a particular position or belief, why not explore the topic through questions? This may be a good place to begin: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-should-w ... istributed

Meanwhile, we should all be wary of any ideological "solutions" which dismiss pragmatic realities. If the BC Ecosocialists require idealized solutions without regard for pragmatic realities, they're more likely to backfire first on those who can afford it least. (This is true for people, our economy, and the environment.)

[fluffy]

Meanwhile, we should all be wary of any ideological "solutions" which dismiss pragmatic realities. If the BC Ecosocialists require idealized solutions without regard for pragmatic realities, they're more likely to backfire first on those who can afford it least. (This is true for people, our economy, and the environment.)

I doubt the BC Ecosocialists will garner a significant share of the votes this time out, let alone actually elect a member to the legislature. They are viewed as extreme and that scares too many people away, but their focus on people, environment and economy as cohesive unit is basically where we need to be going.

I also think that a refusal to consider ideals as part of the equation is what is taking us down the path we are on. One need look no farther than the US to see what our future holds if we continue to let the top one percent run the show. Canada is still sitting pretty good, about the middle of the pack globally, but there are undeniable indications that the turmoil that has gripped the US is spilling across the border.

A google search for "consequences of unequal wealth distribution" will undoubtedly reveal the consequences of unequal wealth distribution. It won't be likely to bring up the unintended consequences of forced wealth redistribution, though, will it?

I take that to mean you won't be looking into it then ? Consider this review of an excellent book on the subject written over ten years ago:

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, the book highlights the "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption". It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

Inequality is not just about rich or poor, the haves and have-nots, it is a societal illness that has dire consequences, consequences that are already showing themselves in Canada.

[rustled]

Meanwhile, we should all be wary of any ideological "solutions" which dismiss pragmatic realities. If the BC Ecosocialists require idealized solutions without regard for pragmatic realities, they're more likely to backfire first on those who can afford it least. (This is true for people, our economy, and the environment.)

I doubt the BC Ecosocialists will garner a significant share of the votes this time out, let alone actually elect a member to the legislature. They are viewed as extreme and that scares too many people away, but their focus on people, environment and economy as cohesive unit is basically where we need to be going.

I also think that a refusal to consider ideals as part of the equation is what is taking us down the path we are on. One need look no farther than the US to see what our future holds if we continue to let the top one percent run the show. Canada is still sitting pretty good, about the middle of the pack globally, but there are undeniable indications that the turmoil that has gripped the US is spilling across the border.

A google search for "consequences of unequal wealth distribution" will undoubtedly reveal the consequences of unequal wealth distribution. It won't be likely to bring up the unintended consequences of forced wealth redistribution, though, will it?

I take that to mean you won't be looking into it then ? Consider this review of an excellent book on the subject written over ten years ago:

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, the book highlights the "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption". It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

Inequality is not just about rich or poor, the haves and have-nots, it is a societal illness that has dire consequences, consequences that are already showing themselves in Canada.

I have always, always said we need an appropriate balance of idealism and pragmatism. Contrary to what you've chosen to believe about me, I actually did the google search you suggested and looked through the first page of results - prior to posting what it brought up. I then performed the google search I felt one with an open mind would realize one would have to do to balance out an unbalanced perspective, which brought me to the very interesting "let's think more broadly about this concept" link I provided.

Isn't it interesting that the google search you prefer gives one side - the pros - , and the opposite google search provides both pros and cons.

Perhaps it is your own confirmation bias that has led you to see what's happening in the U.S. through the "this is capitalism's fault" prism, and perhaps it is your own confirmation bias that has led you to believe I am the one not open to considering all possibilities and all possible outcomes.

I mention again the BC Ecosocialists because they are, after all, the topic of this thread. People are not scared of them - people are sensible about the pernicious nature of a thought process through which one assumes they have the moral high ground and closes their mind to the unintended yet fully predictable consequences of overly simplistic solutions to complex problems, and idealism un-tempered by pragmatism.

To believe so firmly one knows best which direction we should be going that one would close their mind to continually rethinking and reassessing their own mindset is the height of hubris. For sensible people to elect BC Ecosocialists - people who embody and champion that same closed groupthink mindset - would be the height of folly.

[fluffy]

To believe so firmly one knows best which direction we should be going that one would close their mind to continually rethinking and reassessing their own mindset is the height of hubris.

Your opinion, and of course you are entitled to it. I don't see my position as unreasonable, I just don't think our current direction is one that will lead to improvement in our overall health as a society and I've arrived at that conclusion through research and reason. For anyone willing to see, our governments are self-serving machines wholly dedicated to perpetuating a concentration of power at the very top of the food chain, and are willing to employ any number of tools to achieving that goal. The flavour recently is "divide and conquer" by fostering divisiveness on any number of fronts, partisan, racial, economic, you name it. In the end all that matters to them is your vote.

[rustled]

To believe so firmly one knows best which direction we should be going that one would close their mind to continually rethinking and reassessing their own mindset is the height of hubris.

Your opinion, and of course you are entitled to it. I don't see my position as unreasonable, I just don't think our current direction is one that will lead to improvement in our overall health as a society and I've arrived at that conclusion through research and reason. For anyone willing to see, our governments are self-serving machines wholly dedicated to perpetuating a concentration of power at the very top of the food chain, and are willing to employ any number of tools to achieving that goal. The flavour recently is "divide and conquer" by fostering divisiveness on any number of fronts, partisan, racial, economic, you name it. In the end all that matters to them is your vote.

I'm not surprised that's what you see, fluffy. From what you've posted, it seems unlikely to me that you have ever served in the political arena, or that you are close to anyone who has. I could be wrong on both counts - still, it seems to me to be a lack of real experience that's allowed you to form and hold firm to these beliefs.

I'd also think it's much easier to voice one's support for the BC Ecosocialists' agenda while knowing it's unlikely they'll achieve unfettered access to power.

[cyruslosco66]

The ndp is running several eco socialists this cycle, which surprised me and predict most of them will win their seats.

The problem is will big john listen to them ?

[fluffy]

I'm not surprised that's what you see, fluffy. From what you've posted, it seems unlikely to me that you have ever served in the political arena, or that you are close to anyone who has.

I'd also think it's much easier to voice one's support for the BC Ecosocialists' agenda while knowing it's unlikely they'll achieve unfettered access to power.

No, I've never served in public office, but I do have a vote, and I try to use it responsibly. I don't support the BC Ecosocialist agenda, and have tried to be clear on that from the outset. I do maintain that I believe the course to improving our societal health lays to the left, and that recent moves to the right in the last few years are taking us further towards the same trouble that the US is neck deep in right now.

[rustled]

I'm not surprised that's what you see, fluffy. From what you've posted, it seems unlikely to me that you have ever served in the political arena, or that you are close to anyone who has.

I'd also think it's much easier to voice one's support for the BC Ecosocialists' agenda while knowing it's unlikely they'll achieve unfettered access to power.

No, I've never served in public office, but I do have a vote, and I try to use it responsibly. I don't support the BC Ecosocialist agenda, and have tried to be clear on that from the outset. I do maintain that I believe the course to improving our societal health lays to the left, and that recent moves to the right in the last few years are taking us further towards the same trouble that the US is neck deep in right now.

To me, insisting upon using what's happening in the U.S. to scare folk into supporting more vigorous leftward movement is a really odd choice.

What moves to the right have you recently seen in B.C. that trouble you so deeply?

[cyruslosco66]

I'm not surprised that's what you see, fluffy. From what you've posted, it seems unlikely to me that you have ever served in the political arena, or that you are close to anyone who has. I could be wrong on both counts - still, it seems to me to be a lack of real experience that's allowed you to form and hold firm to these beliefs.

I'd also think it's much easier to voice one's support for the BC Ecosocialists' agenda while knowing it's unlikely they'll achieve unfettered access to power.

The above is exactly why the rightwing is dying out , they see public service as power instead of what it is , public service .

[fluffy]

To me, insisting upon using what's happening in the U.S. to scare folk into supporting more vigorous leftward movement is a really odd choice.

Canada has always shared close ties with the US, mainly through trade and the huge degree to which American media saturates our viewing choices. It's pretty much inevitable that the bad comes along with the good.

What moves to the right have you recently seen in B.C. that trouble you so deeply?

Not so much BC with an NDP government, but nationally for sure. The election of Jason Kenney in Alberta and Doug Ford in Ontario were both significant steps to the right, both imposing considerable cuts on social services upon election, and both taking steps towards two tier healthcare.

[rustled]

To me, insisting upon using what's happening in the U.S. to scare folk into supporting more vigorous leftward movement is a really odd choice.

Canada has always shared close ties with the US, mainly through trade and the huge degree to which American media saturates our viewing choices. It's pretty much inevitable that the bad comes along with the good.

IMO, it's fuzzy thinking to believe what's happening in the U.S. is a good reason for moving BC further left.

What moves to the right have you recently seen in B.C. that trouble you so deeply?

Not so much BC with an NDP government, but nationally for sure. The election of Jason Kenney in Alberta and Doug Ford in Ontario were both significant steps to the right, both imposing considerable cuts on social services upon election, and both taking steps towards two tier healthcare.

Both premiers are dealing with the inevitable fallout of the cycle I spelled out previously - social programming is only sustainable with a strong economy, and with a weakening economy the social programming becomes less sustainable at the time when we need it most. Both provinces ought to serve as cautionary tales for those who would encourage over-reliance on social programming: the inevitable cuts to balance the equation (restoring strength to the economy) will always most hurt those who most need the social programs too many others with more ability to be more independent have chosen to rely on.

There's no easy solution, no simple formula to balance economic drivers and social spending - none of it happens in a vacuum. The NDP governments never want to admit this and continue to sell us their idealized solutions, when the corrections inevitably come the idealists blame the pragmatists (who sought to make the social programs SUSTAINABLE) rather than recognizing the all-too-obvious consequences of too much idealism, and round and round we go again.

The BC Ecosocialists ought to understand this, but will sell the idealized solutions anyway.