BC Ecosocialists

[fluffy]

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.

Yet both premiers flatly refuse to raise taxes on high income earners and corporations.

[rustled]

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.

Yet both premiers flatly refuse to raise taxes on high income earners and corporations.

For reasons that are compellingly obvious IF we do not ignore the drivers and cycles: stronger incentive to invest = stronger economy, stronger economy = better sustainability of social programs. Weaker incentives to invest = weaker economy, weaker economy = more pressure on social programs + less sustainability of social programs.

Idealism without pragmatism allows us to fixate on the desired outcome of more social programs, prevents us from seeking more effective solutions to more directly address specific and general problems affecting quality of life (or environment), and blinds us to the inevitability of these cycles and the consequences for all.

Idealism tempered with pragmatism allows us to better focus on genuinely sustainable solutions, solutions which are less likely to pendulum as badly between over-use of social programs and under-funding to resuscitate the economy.

[fluffy]

For reasons that are compellingly obvious IF we do not ignore the drivers and cycles: stronger incentive to invest = stronger economy, stronger economy = better sustainability of social programs. Weaker incentives to invest = weaker economy, weaker economy = more pressure on social programs + less sustainability of social programs.

That theory is not supported when you take a look at Switzerland and the Nordic countries, which all share a low rate of income inequality.

[rustled]

For reasons that are compellingly obvious IF we do not ignore the drivers and cycles: stronger incentive to invest = stronger economy, stronger economy = better sustainability of social programs. Weaker incentives to invest = weaker economy, weaker economy = more pressure on social programs + less sustainability of social programs.

That theory is not supported when you take a look at Switzerland and the Nordic countries, which all share a low rate of income inequality.

This is another oversimplification.

No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by fixating on idealism at the expense of pragmatic realities. No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by deciding "We must go further left". This can only be accomplished through a balance of idealism and pragmatism - thoroughly understanding the current and long-term realities of that country.

Again: Idealism tempered with pragmatism allows us to better focus on genuinely sustainable solutions, solutions which are less likely to pendulum as badly between over-use of social programs and under-funding to resuscitate the economy.

[fluffy]

Again: Idealism tempered with pragmatism allows us to better focus on genuinely sustainable solutions, solutions which are less likely to pendulum as badly between over-use of social programs and under-funding to resuscitate the economy.

"Over-use of social programs" is your contention, not mine. Change is achievable over time without major disruption, what is missing is the desire to do so, and the reason for that is people who think they can hang on to outdated modes of thought that are failing before their eyes. Income inequality is growing, and it has real consequences beyond economic.

[rustled]

Again: Idealism tempered with pragmatism allows us to better focus on genuinely sustainable solutions, solutions which are less likely to pendulum as badly between over-use of social programs and under-funding to resuscitate the economy.

"Over-use of social programs" is your contention, not mine. Change is achievable over time without major disruption, what is missing is the desire to do so, and the reason for that is people who think they can hang on to outdated modes of thought that are failing before their eyes. Income inequality is growing, and it has real consequences beyond economic.

And your contention is that moving steadily to the left will solve the complex problems with some of their roots in income inequality - a vast oversimplification which requires fuzzy thinking supported by clichés (e.g. the "cohesive unit" approach of the Ecosocialists) and more oversimplifications.

You've yet to show, for example, that you have considered how to avoid the over-use of social programs - instead, you simply reject it as a likely consequence of expanding social programs while moving further left toward the goal you hope to achieve.

[fluffy]

You've yet to show, for example, that you have considered how to avoid the over-use of social programs - instead, you simply reject it as a likely consequence of expanding social programs while moving further left toward the goal you hope to achieve.

I don't "reject it as a likely consequence", I reject it completely until you present a case that supports your claim that this is a forgone conclusion. This whole "expanding social programs" is all your idea, don't try to lay it off on me.

[rustled]

You've yet to show, for example, that you have considered how to avoid the over-use of social programs - instead, you simply reject it as a likely consequence of expanding social programs while moving further left toward the goal you hope to achieve.

I don't "reject it as a likely consequence", I reject it completely until you present a case that supports your claim that this is a forgone conclusion. This whole "expanding social programs" is all your idea, don't try to lay it off on me.

It seems to me going further left in BC would require expanding social programs. Are you saying we should go further left, but that we can do this without expanding social programs? Is that possible? At this point, I'm quite confused as to what you mean when you say we need to go further left.

What would going further left look like in BC, from your perspective?

[JLives]

What does going left even mean and why should anyone care? I'd rather talk about the individual programs and how they might help or how they can be improved.

[fluffy]

What would going further left look like in BC, from your perspective?

We're doing okay in BC compared to other provinces. With a left leaning government in place for the moment our "direction" is fine. Our minimum wage is 3rd highest in the country, we have seen progress in keeping two-tier healthcare under control, and some aspects of taxation are moving more in line with an "ability to pay" approach.

[seewood]

No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by deciding "We must go further left". This can only be accomplished through a balance of idealism and pragmatism - thoroughly understanding the current and long-term realities of that country.

I think they got there for the most part via proportional representation. You want that, we get this....

[fluffy]

No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by fixating on idealism at the expense of pragmatic realities. No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by deciding "We must go further left". This can only be accomplished through a balance of idealism and pragmatism - thoroughly understanding the current and long-term realities of that country.

You're arguing semantics here. If, through an idealistic and pragmatic analysis the solution arrived at does represent a philosophical move to the left then it is what it is. Making a move to the left for the sake of moving left makes about as much sense as voting right because you've always voted right. Times change and so must the ways we adapt to those changes. This pandemic has shone a spotlight of some of the ways out current path is failing, and having our system stripped to the bones as it has been is the perfect time for a course correction.

Back to topic, the BC Ecosocialists are on the right track in my mind, but they are just a little too radical for most voters in that the speed with which they would want to institute change would like cause more problems that it solves. But their website does identify some key areas of concern: Income and wealth inequality, housing and homelessness, increase in overdose deaths (which in turn leads to the issue of mental health and addiction treatment), and global effects of climate change. Matters such as these all too often get only token lip service at election time while politicians try to divert our gaze with promises of "money in your pockets", as if the real problems can be cured with a bigger TV.

[rustled]

No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by fixating on idealism at the expense of pragmatic realities. No country with stable, sustainable social programming got where they are by deciding "We must go further left". This can only be accomplished through a balance of idealism and pragmatism - thoroughly understanding the current and long-term realities of that country.

You're arguing semantics here.

Yes, it's clear we're not using language the same way. You've repeatedly said we've moved too far right and moving to the left is moving in the right direction, which is why I've asked you to define what you mean when you use these terms.

If, through an idealistic and pragmatic analysis the solution arrived at does represent a philosophical move to the left then it is what it is. Making a move to the left for the sake of moving left makes about as much sense as voting right because you've always voted right.

Bear in mind you're having this conversation who has always voted as close to center as possible and often voted what many would consider left. I was a politically engaged activist in my teen years and have always, always been fully supportive of sustainable social programs. I've seen first-hand the consequences of a weakening economy on those who can least afford to lose social programs, and I've seen first-hand these social programs strained to the max by folk who feel entitled to rely on them rather than take personal responsibility.

Recognizing the consequences of over-use of social programs and the consequences of cutbacks to ensure viability during economic downturns are issues of significant importance to me, and it ought to be an issue for everyone who wants "change" in any direction that will increase the availability of, and use of, social programs.

Times change and so must the ways we adapt to those changes. This pandemic has shone a spotlight of some of the ways out current path is failing, and having our system stripped to the bones as it has been is the perfect time for a course correction.

Reading this, you have simply accepted verbatim what the federal Liberals and people who are pretty far left of center have been telling Canadians - that redistribution of global wealth is the only way forward. There are many ways to correct our course. Better preparedness and greater efficiency in existing systems would be the most logical solution - instead, they want to skip straight to implementing an agenda they were working toward long before the pandemic.

This is opportunism, not good sense.

Back to topic, the BC Ecosocialists are on the right track in my mind, but they are just a little too radical for most voters in that the speed with which they would want to institute change would like cause more problems that it solves. But their website does identify some key areas of concern: Income and wealth inequality, housing and homelessness, increase in overdose deaths (which in turn leads to the issue of mental health and addiction treatment), and global effects of climate change.

Are you able to explain how ANY of these issues would be addressed WITHOUT the expansion of social programs?

Matters such as these all too often get only token lip service at election time while politicians try to divert our gaze with promises of "money in your pockets", as if the real problems can be cured with a bigger TV.

There's a reason politicians love to "play hero" with "matters such as these" at election time. These are all "motherhood" issues that have greatest influence on kind people with good hearts and the best of intentions but limited experience with how applying idealistic solutions to complex problems actually works out in real life. It's unfortunate they are so often successful in convincing well-intentioned people to go along with them.

[fluffy]

There's a reason politicians love to "play hero" with "matters such as these" at election time. These are all "motherhood" issues that have greatest influence on kind people with good hearts and the best of intentions but limited experience with how applying idealistic solutions to complex problems actually works out in real life. It's unfortunate they are so often successful in convincing well-intentioned people to go along with them.

You don't think it fosters the idea that "how good we are doing" is equivalent to "how good I am doing" ?

[rustled]

What does going left even mean and why should anyone care? I'd rather talk about the individual programs and how they might help or how they can be improved.

Sorry I missed your question, JLives - I must appear rude for not responding. Given the many carefully worded posts from fluffy and myself in the discussion preceding your question and the statement following your question, I've taken your question to be rhetorical. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know and I'll do my best to explain it in simpler terms - although fluffy and I are not necessarily seeing "going left" in the same way, so you might want to ask him, too.

Since you'd rather talk about the individual programs and how they might help or how they can be improved, I'll be interested to see your take on the BC Ecosocialists' platform in this regard.