I say it's time for a Bolshevik revolution! Seize control of the commanding heights of our economy. We can make comrade Lenin proud.
|
|
|
Occupy Bay street
- Thread starter thebigwoof
- Start date
I say it's time for a Bolshevik revolution! Seize control of the commanding heights of our economy. We can make comrade Lenin proud.
Yup, 'cause communism has ultimately worked so well for The Soviet Uni... ummm Russia and China.
Let's wait a little while longer to see if we're gonna be saying the same thing about capitalism in the west.
And of course I was being facetious about the Bolshevik revolution. But I'm not sure I'd disagree with 'government' (aka the people) control over key industries surrounding our natural resources.
And of course I was being facetious about the Bolshevik revolution. But I'm not sure I'd disagree with 'government' (aka the people) control over key industries surrounding our natural resources.
Right now, we're moving toward "corporate communism." Where many services are being consolidated into behemoth corporations, which eliminate consumer choice. Just look at our telecom industry. Prime example: Bell - They own a huge telephone network, a huge mobile telephone network, one of the largest residential Internet networks in the country, the only domestic Satellite TV service and they also own TV stations (CTV) and radio stations (betcha didn't know that FLOW 93.5 is owned by Bell). Or look at businesses like Wal Mart - household items, clothing, auto parts, tools, pet supplies, pharmaceuticals, auto service, hair styling, optical, photo studio, electronics and now they're providing financial services. They also only answer to Uncle Sam (in Chile, they bought a chain of stores and then, due to US policy, they stopped carrying Cuban rum there). I see one difference between real communism and corporate communism - in real communism, the leaders are officially serving the people's interests and there's hell to pay if they don't; in corporate communism, the leaders are only supposed to make more money for their shareholders and to hell with the rest.
Pure communism wouldn't work because it doesn't make true allowances for personal initiative and flexibility, which is an important part of scientific and social development. Even that's not an absolute given.. The Soviets took a couple of decade to turn their country from a pastoral feudal cluster**** into an industrial superpower, first to launch an object into space, first to launch a man into space and with well-developed medical studies. Today, we're launching "new" green technologies, that have been in use behind the iron curtain 50-60 years ago. However, I'd be more in favor of a centrist-socialist system. It allows for private initiatives, including private business, but it still makes sure that no private corporation can influence national (or provincial or even municipal) policy.
If Canadian natural resources went back under control of the Canadian people (as opposed to foreign corporations), the government coffers would be full enough to finance infrastructure improvement projects (Fiber [Internet] To The Home for everyone, better roads, better railroad network) in addition to various environmental projects (make green energy affordable, make more efficient recycling now that we can't dump our trash across the border), which would in turn create jobs. We could even invest more into the long-term goals of the human race, like space research. Those jobs would also raise salaries in the private sector and with higher salaries, there's more spending power, so private companies enjoy the benefits of increased spending.
As soon as Venezuela stopped being a capitalist dream and went socialist, Chavez nationalized the oil industry and raised more than half of the population out of poverty. Even in hard right-wing countries like Chile, the nationalized copper producer allowed the government to give the poor microcredits, some sort of health care (better than what the poor in the US are getting) and a public education system up to the high school level (not as good as private schools, but without the nationalized copper, the low income an corporate taxes just wouldn't cover giving everyone high school education).
Pure communism wouldn't work because it doesn't make true allowances for personal initiative and flexibility, which is an important part of scientific and social development. Even that's not an absolute given.. The Soviets took a couple of decade to turn their country from a pastoral feudal cluster**** into an industrial superpower, first to launch an object into space, first to launch a man into space and with well-developed medical studies. Today, we're launching "new" green technologies, that have been in use behind the iron curtain 50-60 years ago. However, I'd be more in favor of a centrist-socialist system. It allows for private initiatives, including private business, but it still makes sure that no private corporation can influence national (or provincial or even municipal) policy.
If Canadian natural resources went back under control of the Canadian people (as opposed to foreign corporations), the government coffers would be full enough to finance infrastructure improvement projects (Fiber [Internet] To The Home for everyone, better roads, better railroad network) in addition to various environmental projects (make green energy affordable, make more efficient recycling now that we can't dump our trash across the border), which would in turn create jobs. We could even invest more into the long-term goals of the human race, like space research. Those jobs would also raise salaries in the private sector and with higher salaries, there's more spending power, so private companies enjoy the benefits of increased spending.
As soon as Venezuela stopped being a capitalist dream and went socialist, Chavez nationalized the oil industry and raised more than half of the population out of poverty. Even in hard right-wing countries like Chile, the nationalized copper producer allowed the government to give the poor microcredits, some sort of health care (better than what the poor in the US are getting) and a public education system up to the high school level (not as good as private schools, but without the nationalized copper, the low income an corporate taxes just wouldn't cover giving everyone high school education).
daught
Well-known member
I must say, I was impressed how the Canadian system shut down occupy Toronto. They allowed the protesters to go to court. After loosing in court the police force evicted the occupiers quite nicely. The ones that resisted only got a trespassing ticket. No pepper spray and tear gas like the US or G8 tactics. Bravo.
+1....I'm also impressed that none of the protesters tried to make a huge thing out of it.
A small number did but they were dealt with immediately, given Provincial Offence Notices, then immediately released. The most that the other protesters did, unlike during the G20, was to chant, "Let her go! Let her go!"
Unamused cat is unamused.
"We're not hurting anyone! (sob-sob)" I love that. Effectively denying people the use of a public space, that they have damaged to the tune of thousands of dollars. Trying to take possession of that public property. Hey, can I set up my yurt in your front yard? Do you have a front yard?
I'm thoroughly disgusted to find out that my union had a part in this. How does this advance the goals of our membership? If we've got money to spend on yurts, then I think it's high time for a decrease in our dues payments.
Last edited:
. . .yes, and the point was/is that us taxpayers, the 99%, have footed the bill for a lot of other things, including plenty of things that we didn't agree with and that were also done without our consent. . .
Now HERE is what the 99%ers should protest:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...ble-status-on-school-lunch-menus-house-rules/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...ble-status-on-school-lunch-menus-house-rules/
really? we have footed the bill for a lot of other things too? no way.
what's the alternative?
Probably too late now, but the occupiers should foot the bill.
Right: They make their point that we're footing the bill, for things we didn't want, by making us foot the bill for things we don't want. Bloody brilliant way to garner support for your position. Yes, that was sarcasm.
When we elect a government, to act on our collective behalf, we don't get to vote on every little thing. We do get to vote them out if they don't do what we elect them to though. Too bad that the theory and practise aren't congruent.
Who would have thought that alienating the very people you claim to represent would be counter-productive?
They are a 1%, railing at another 1%.
I agree. It's the 1% versus the 1% while the other 98% doesn't care.
Voting would mean something if people would take it seriously, instead of just votin' like daddy done did. Voting by ideology does no good, for political parties only make the appropriate noises about ideology. They don't actually follow it, when it comes right down to it.
Hold them accountable for their actions, and things will change. How many times do we have to re-elect a liar, in this Province, before people take the hint?
|
|
|
|
|