Federal NDP - We Are Not Socialists Any Longer - Really

[Down by the River]

The question is why do you care what people think? Vote for who ever you want.

[KoreanHockeyFan]

I hate the idea that anyone who votes for the NDP must be a socialist. If I vote NDP in the national election it is because it is in my best interests to do so. Why does having my own interests in mind make me a socialist?

[nucklehead]

An ideal time for a new improved party to form and split off and leave the orthodox saints be.

[Wetcoaster]

Good news - the BC NDP remain socialists.

The Constitution of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia

PREAMBLE

The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress in Canada can only be assured by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs.

The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as follows: a) the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit, b ) the modification and control of the operations of monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning, towards these ends, and c) where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership.

The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity, freedom and equality of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended.

The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share in the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

http://www.bcndp.ca/...tution_2009.pdf

[aGENT]

I don't like people accusing me of things that I am not (e.g., a Socialist). It is a misrepresentation of who I am and what I believe in.

[Down by the River]

Are you living in America right now? That kind of crap doesn't happen up here as much. IMO, you're simply just called a "lefty" at the worst if you support the NDP.

[RUPERTKBD]

What's wrong with social democracy? I hate how everything social- is a bad word.

[Down by the River]

Most of the highest ranked countries in the world are chockablock full of social programs FWIW. (Look in to Scandinavian countries, Germany etc).

Makes you wonder how/why so many North Americans allow corporate shills to brainwash them in to thinking socialism is this big bad boogeyman to be afraid of. It simply need intelligent implementation (something that seems to be lacking in the governance of this part of the world).

[Down by the River]

Although I'm not an NDP supporter, I agree with this. "Socialism" has come to be viewed as worse than it really is. (Thanks more to American politics than Canadian, though, IMO)

However, it begs the question: If there really is nothing wrong with it, why is the federal NDP trying to distance itself from the word?

[aGENT]

That's a fair question, but I think the answer lies in your second sentence. Perception versus reality.

[RUPERTKBD]

Totally agree with you. Social programs does not equal socialism in my opinion. Especially when these programs have empirically demonstrated economic benefit. For example, the Perry pre-school project in Flint Michigan indicated that for every $1 invested on a child their return was $16. You can't get that kind of return on virtually any other economic investment.

http://www.highscope...ev2011_02_2.pdf

[aGENT]

I would hope that even the most die-hard right wing supporter would be aware that investing in education is beneficial to society as a whole.

[Down by the River]

I would hope that even the most die-hard right wing supporter would be aware that investing in education is beneficial to society as a whole.

[ronthecivil]

They don't. But to be fair to the right, even the left is pretty hesitant to provide this type of substantial investment. Here's the reason why:

Dividends on returns for investing in children requires beginning intervention programs at an extremely early age (pre-natal even). Thus, returns on these investments do not occur until the time these children become adults who earn an income, pay taxes, don't drain the welfare system ,and don't cost tax payers dollars in prison beds. By this time, 20 years has elapsed since the intervention program began. However, a political term lasts four years. Their voters want results within those four years. So investment in children makes little sense because the returns won't be seen until they have already been tossed out of office.

[Down by the River]

It's the voters that bring in the short term policies ultimately and when the current reality of spending all of our money on old people and completely screwing over the younger generations right now is going to hurt in about ten years when a huge chunk of our tax base retires and we haven't trained the younger generation to replace them.

[Lancaster]

I would hope that even the most die-hard right wing supporter would be aware that investing in education is beneficial to society as a whole.

[Wetcoaster]

I'm right of centre and I believe that education is important.

That being said, education should be a privilege, not a right. If you really want it, you are more than willing to pay/sacrifice for it. Post-secondary should be used as a stepping stone towards a career. Hence those students should be taking more "useful" programs like medicine, business, engineering, etc. Not stuff like philosophy, Latin, or interpretive dance, lol.

I know, before I get flamed saying that some folks really want to learn about those "less tangible" studies..... that's what the libraries are for. Attending class isn't the only way to learn as the average person has unlimited access to near infinite knowledge online and at libraries. If I want to study more about Voltaire, the alliteration of the works of John Milton, etc..... I don't need to spend 20-40 grand on a 4-year degree for it.

[ronthecivil]

You're right about that. Voters do prefer short term policies, especially because too many 50 year olds don't give a damn about where their money will be twenty years from now.

Responsibility also has to be on researchers to make the public aware of the value of investing in the future. Trying to sell the idea of investing in the future to politicians is not all that worthwhile if the public is unaware of the research and the benefits certain programs have; this would just be setting politicians up to fail. Get the public aware of the benefits and then let public awareness dictate the need for politicians to adapt their platform.

[ronthecivil]

I disagree. Education is not for the privileged and the elite. There must be easily available financial assistance.

And it is not up to others to determiner what course of study may be suitable. If the courses are offered then that is all that is required. University is not a trade school.

[inane]

While it's a great idea it's doubtful we will even have the money to pay the existing retirement packages your average civil servant is owed never mind subsidizing an entire division of students and teachers trying to achieve personal enlightenment with slim to know actual return on investment for the general public.