The 1-notch-left-of-center progressive hybrid version of democratic socialism has to learn from it's mistakes and evolve.It was kicking the right-wingers ass over there folks, it really was, for over a decade, UNCHALLENGED.

This is the word on the street, on the ground from my contacts, relatives and general concensus.

Things were going so very well (with a B+/A- rating economically and socially), until the left ignored 2 policy aspects which are the trigger (CONSISTENTLY !!!) of it's own demise.

Regarding the elections in Holland, France, Sweden and Helsinki (what's next Fidel, our beloved Norway ?)... the momentuous shift to the right happened...

1) because the majority of the populace dislikes high taxes ***when applied to the middle class, and to small and medium sized businesses : NOT when applied to millionaires, billionaires and large corporations*** (note the distinction).If I may generalize, all of Europe, HATES high taxes for those who haven't hit the jackpots, and subsequently are squeezed and drained incrementally financially.

2) because of hyper-lenient, hyper-liberal immigration policies forced on countires that are relatively small in size with high population densities.

The synergistic and cumulative effect of both leftist policies is high youth unemployment, and lack of cohesive integration of immigrants.This creates implosive cyclical momentum.

Being a progressive social democrat, I would like those of us who want to counter the Neo-Con insanity, to take a lesson form overseas.They HAD it.It was in the bag.Over.Done.They won.But they (the left) grew oblivious and dogmatic (in a Republicultian kinda way) to it's policy of high taxation across the board (when it should ONLY be high taxation for the rich and mega-rich), and it's commonly accepted policy of omni-benevolent immigration.And lay off the xenophobia argumentative trap, ok ? If violent Sikhs enter a country unchecked they WILL cause problems, whereas peaceful Sikhs will NOT (the latter will actually benefit the said country).Highly scrutinous and demanding screening of all immigrants is a MUST... those promoting/using violence, conflict, demonization, and clannish attack mobs should be excluded and/or deported.

Even a MASSIVE country like ours can have too high an immigration rate, and too lenient a standard of immigration.Imagine a comparatively puny country like France, Sweden, Finland, or the Netherlands (with a VERY high population density)... it's simply a recipe for societal deconstructionism, unrest, fractionalization and a whole host of deleterious social-economic manifestations.

2 simple issues / policy aspects : high tax rates on the non-rich, and a hyper-lenient high immigration rate.If the left addresses them and changes course, the left will win again, if not, well then the populace (even in Europe) will shift to the right, as is evidenced by recent developments.

------------------------------------------------

Medium to high taxation for the rich and mega-rich alone is also ruled out by the globalized/Euro-ized "mixed" economies most of the middleclass centre also support. May not be feasible anyhow, as there really arent that many of the truly rich either. Probably still need to go after the middleclasses and the institutions we work at for much of it too, if, that is, SDs still want the kind of economy and services we still say we do.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

Immigration Rate Dial : set it from 1 - 10.Set it at 0 if you are a pure xenophobe, set it at 10 if you don't mind violent Sikh militants and others permeating your society.European popular concensus *currently* wants the rate to be measured, and moderate (at 3,4 or 5), not exorbitant and exponential (7,8,9,10).Many voicing that measured request are actually social democrats.

Middle Class Taxation Rate Dial : same thing... 3 or 4 out of 10.Not 6 or 7.

It's about finding the happy medium between the extremes.If the left in North America isn't willing to do this non-ideological tweaking of the sliders, and instead abides by dogmatic principles (ala Bush or Stalin), then the left here will never become a force.And if you dismiss this *measured non-ideological tweaking* as capitalistic xenophobic colonialism, then you do so for the inevitable demise and collapse of the established left in Europe, and for the continuing impotence of the left here in North America.

The problem is when any given party or person has rigidly entrenched preconceived notions, philosophical in nature, and they are going to implement them in policy no matter what the populist sentiment or practical consequence is.

By staunchly abiding by SUPPOSEDLY REQUIRED cherished notions (of high tax rates for ALL, including the non-rich, and a very high immigration rate even for small countries with high population densities), you actually will keep the NDP out of power, and take the social democrats in Europe out of power.

You may have a preconceived principle that you are are going to be a headbanger.Fine.If you do it against a wall of rice paer, no bad.You do it against a wall of concrete, there WILL be negative consequences.If you want to put on the ideological blinders and dismiss reality, it's your perogative, but there are consequences, and there is the science of non-ideological measurement to alleviate those negative consequences.

------------------------------------------

Watch Bush dogmatically cut taxes for Millionaires, because it's part of his party policy playbook.Consequences, and pragmatic/practical concerns be damned.Watch Bush launch pre-emptive military strikes.Same.

Watch the European Social Democrats in gov't raise taxes for the lower AND upper middle class, and let in as many immigrants as possible.Youth unemployment rates of 25 % ? "Don't matter cuz we are playing according to the stated principles in our party policy handbook."

_______________________________________________

Again, just 2 policies I think the left should reconfigure.Tax rates on the middle class and immigration rates.Not abolish, just reconfigure.

On the other hand, the immigration issue is FAR more difficult for me. I remember the confused shock I had when I started reading about Pim Fortuyn after he was murdered, and the conundrum that faced the European left was one that we're just starting to see here. The point of his anti-immigration stance was NOT to stop immigrants for the sake of immigrants, but the issue of preserving their hard fought for social progresses in the face of a continually growing immigrant population that had not lived with the style of freedoms available and in their shock, started to push the government to take away some of those freedoms. Mind you, this was a great overexageration as most of the immigration into Europe was a free thinking population with open views, and simply want a peacaeful, meaningful and employed existance. However there are some immigrants with the intent of creating a society closer to their religios beliefs, and these people work in concert with our own home grown groups of people trying to create a society based on their own faiths (see the Conservative Party for more details on taking away YOUR rights).

*France - had a rightwing President and legislature and now they still do - no change
*Netherlands - had a rightwing coalition, but after the left gained ground they now have a grand centre-left coalition - swing to the Left
*Germany - went from a Socialist-Green coalition to a Christian Democrat/Socialist grand coalition - slight swing right
*Austria - went from a rightwing coalition to a centre left social-led coalition - swing to the left
*Sweden - tossed the Socialists after 14 years in power - swing to the right (PS: six months later polls already show the left would regain power in a landslide if an election were held now)
*Finland - the rightwing parties gained some ground - swing to the right
*Norway - the Labour Party crushed the rightwing coalition in elections last year - swing to the left
*Italy - Berlusconi lost to Prodi last year - swing to the left
*Spain - Zapatero won after the Madrid bombing - swing to the left
*Portugal - Socialist won a landslide over the incumbent rightwing gov't last year - swing to the left.

Forgive me Pepper-Pot if I'm suspicious about anti-immigrant talk from "the streets" tied in with talk about "too high" taxation. It's not ideology, it's something I've heard too often before with too predictable a result. (eg: read Babble thread on France's election)

Do you have anything more than "word on the streets" to draw a corrolation between the higher levels of xenophobia in Europe with higher taxation or higher immigration levels? And did you also listen to any words from any of the immigrants? If no to either, then it just looks like another personal anecdote to me. One that probably doesn't apply to lower tax, low immigration Canada anyhow.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

If you cannot or will not, I fully respect that, and will research precise dates of the list you gave, but it would likely take me 2-3 days.

quote:

---

First of all recent elections in Europe have been a mixed bag:
*France - had a rightwing President and legislature and now they still do - no change
*Netherlands - had a rightwing coalition, but after the left gained ground they now have a grand centre-left coalition - swing to the Left
*Germany - went from a Socialist-Green coalition to a Christian Democrat/Socialist grand coalition - slight swing right
*Austria - went from a rightwing coalition to a centre left social-led coalition - swing to the left
*Sweden - tossed the Socialists after 14 years in power - swing to the right (PS: six months later polls already show the left would regain power in a landslide if an election were held now)
*Finland - the rightwing parties gained some ground - swing to the right
*Norway - the Labour Party crushed the rightwing coalition in elections last year - swing to the left
*Italy - Berlusconi lost to Prodi last year - swing to the left
*Spain - Zapatero won after the Madrid bombing - swing to the left
*Portugal - Socialist won a landslide over the incumbent rightwing gov't last year - swing to the left.

When you add it all up - more countries have swung left in recent European elections than have swung right!!

---

This is true. SO, things may not be as abysmal as previously thought.

The other aspect of this is the whole political dynamic in Europe. With the exception of France's Sarkozy, who seems to be quite the little goose-stepping drip, many of the rightist political leaders in these countries appear to be about as "right" as the UK's Tony Blair is "left" (which means they're pretty much indistinguishable from each other).

Even Berlusconi, who was a total fascist by Italian standards, would appear somewhat moderate compared to Canada's Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and certainly Gordon Campbell.

"The Tax issue is a tough one. First, if you overtax the rich, they leave. They have the ability to easily find somewhere else to go, and then you have to start taxing the wealthier middle class, who also can find ways out, and all the way down the scale until you end up taxing the middle class to pay for the social structure you've built up. In a free moving society of ours, this is a very difficult question."

"Overtax", according to what standard ? Certainly not a drastic increase in the rate, but gradual, small and incremental.If you're speaking of multi-millionaires and billionaires, just a slight increase can lead to vast amounts of revenue to combat abject poverty, and you wouldn't reduce the quality of life for the mega-rich at all, but you'd drastically increase the quality of life for the catastrophically impoverished.You combine this nominal/gradual increase in the mega-rich tax rate with a 1-5% adult entertainment tax (applied to the purchase of adult magazines, adult movies, adult-only nightclub entrances, tobacco & alcohol, tea & coffee, etc.), and you have a genuine poverty fighting tool re : program revenue.

If you over-tax the entire middle class spectrum, they won't be as likely to leave, but they'll just simply vote in the most fiscally/economically right-wing party available, and the middle class has a MUCH greater impact on final election results than the statistically much smaller constituent of the mega-rich (millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires).

As for the sweeping statement "they leave", well that's hyper-simplistic and inaccurate.Logically ,not ALL of them would leave.Logically, MOST wouldn't depart either.Also logically, some of them likely would.But the numbers *exiting their homeland to move to a foreign land* would likely (directly or indirectly) correlate with the precise percentile increase in their annual personal income tax rate.

quelar wrote :

"On the other hand, the immigration issue is FAR more difficult for me. I remember the confused shock I had when I started reading about Pim Fortuyn after he was murdered, and the conundrum that faced the European left was one that we're just starting to see here. The point of his anti-immigration stance was NOT to stop immigrants for the sake of immigrants, but the issue of preserving their hard fought for social progresses in the face of a continually growing immigrant population that had not lived with the style of freedoms available and in their shock, started to push the government to take away some of those freedoms. Mind you, this was a great overexageration as most of the immigration into Europe was a free thinking population with open views, and simply want a peacaeful, meaningful and employed existance. However there are some immigrants with the intent of creating a society closer to their religios beliefs, and these people work in concert with our own home grown groups of people trying to create a society based on their own faiths (see the Conservative Party for more details on taking away YOUR rights)."

The Dutch felt a moral obligation to counterbalance decades/centuries of brutally exploitative colonialism with a hyper-liberal immigration party towards Indonesia, the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe.But the concept of social and economic saturation is tangible and inescapable, and there is most certainly a quantifiable limit on the appropriate/maximum sustainable immigration rate, and this varies greatly from country to country.A puny country with a very high population density and limited natural resources cannot sustain an infinite, exponential, omni-benevolent immigration policy indefinitely.There is a saturation/overload point, and when it is surpassed/ignored, there will be negative social & economic manifestations.

I wish it wasn't the case, and could be magically waved out of existence, but it really is an indismissable aspect of contemporary reality.

Also, as you noted, the immigration rate should never be so high, lenient or unmonitored as to allow the entry of individuals intent on disrupting the given society via clannish/dogmatic/violent agendas.

quelar wrote :

"So that issue not being part of my decision, as I think it's an overblown problem, I am a proponent of slowing immigration. The reason isn't to keep anyone out, or to maintain my lifestyle, but to create a sustainable economy, and despite the pleadings of business leaders, that does not mean exponential constant growth, this means a cap on the growth rates of population, resources usage (and hopefully a decine) and of environmental damage. Oncec we've figured out how to maintain out ecological footprints instead of ever increasing, then we can turn back to immigration at a reasonable rate so we don't destroy the last vestiges of nature we have."

From the Canadian perspective (we can probably maintain the highest immigration rate on earth, given our size, low population density, market versaltility and ample variety of highly abundant natural resources), it's tempting to dismiss Dutch claims of "too high an immigration rate", but if the (rational) goal is to allow only peaceful individuals in, and allow them and their families a lifetime of guaranteed access and enjoyment in a stable, sustainable social-economic scenario, then reasonable complaints of "too high an immigration rate" need to be considered, IF the available empirical and statistical evidence indicates deleterious manifestations.For example : manifestations in the form of greatly increased youth unemployment rates, greatly increased poverty rates, and greatly increased crime rates (whether that be property crime, or violent crime).

Again, I wish these practical consequences could be ignored out of existence.But, there are concrete consequences of imposing too high a tax rate on the (entire spectrum of the) middle class, and dogmatically sticking to a hyper-liberal, unmonitorable, infinitely rapid immigration rate.

-Violent Sikh militants forming attack mobs
-Violent homicidal attacks on icons of (Dutch or Canadian) art-culture
-Balooning youth unemployment rates
-Balooning crime rates
-Balooning incidents of social unrest

...are some of many possible manifestations of an immigration rate that might need to be tweaked and reconfigured (reduced slightly), for the benefit of the current citizens AND prospective immigrants.Economic and social policy has to be sustainable and measured, LONG-term, with some degree of neutral pragmatism applied.

Consider that the ULTIMATE, and empirically INESCAPABLE consequence of imposing too high a middle class tax rate and too high an immigration rate, is that right wing parties are ushered in by the prominent statistical majority.

"*France - had a rightwing President and legislature and now they still do - no change
*Netherlands - had a rightwing coalition, but after the left gained ground they now have a grand centre-left coalition - swing to the Left
*Germany - went from a Socialist-Green coalition to a Christian Democrat/Socialist grand coalition - slight swing right
*Austria - went from a rightwing coalition to a centre left social-led coalition - swing to the left
*Sweden - tossed the Socialists after 14 years in power - swing to the right (PS: six months later polls already show the left would regain power in a landslide if an election were held now)
*Finland - the rightwing parties gained some ground - swing to the right
*Norway - the Labour Party crushed the rightwing coalition in elections last year - swing to the left
*Italy - Berlusconi lost to Prodi last year - swing to the left
*Spain - Zapatero won after the Madrid bombing - swing to the left
*Portugal - Socialist won a landslide over the incumbent rightwing gov't last year - swing to the left."

Not to overly nitpick, but let's deal with the most socialistic region first, and definitely my most beloved, Nordic-Scandinavia.You left out Denmark.I think of them previously ushering in a more right-wing party, and the subsequent publishing of intentionally provocative cartoons in a (supposedly, possibly) right-leaning newspaper.Then, to my horror as a pseudo-psychedelic artist, I see them demolish a 1960's style counter-culture communistic haven as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

This is true. SO, things may not be as abysmal as previously thought.

The other aspect of this is the whole political dynamic in Europe. With the exception of France's Sarkozy, who seems to be quite the little goose-stepping drip, many of the rightist political leaders in these countries appear to be about as "right" as the UK's Tony Blair is "left" (which means they're pretty much indistinguishable from each other).

Even Berlusconi, who was a total fascist by Italian standards, would appear somewhat moderate compared to Canada's Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and certainly Gordon Campbell.

BTW, speaking of Tony Blair, I have followed it much, but wasn't he supposed to quit this week? It's one retirement I'm looking forward to seeing.

---

The point that the socio-political developments and pattern shifts are *relative* to the local, regional, given political paradigm, is an important one.But a shift to the right in terms of ECONOMIC POLICY is still a shift to the right (usually inducing higher poverty rates, and a greater concentration of wealth among the societal elite, due primarily to tax cuts for those who don't actually need it [millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires]).A shift to the right in terms of SOCIAL POLICY is still a rightward shift (usually inducing a greater prevalence of invasive morality/behaviour laws, often derived from puritanical religiosity, and hypocritical judgmentalism, implemented by an aggressive neo-fascist morality squad and tactics violating constitutional privacy rights).And a shift to the right in terms of FOREIGN POLICY, and the increased likelihood of alliance/synchronicity with the US military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical complex, is still a (potentially destructive, secretive, violent) shift to the right (often manifested in pre-emptive war alliances, mercenary madness, and a secretive intelligence agency prison project involving unlawful detainment and torture).

IOW, it facilitates the Repubicultian agenda to a greater degree.

______________________________________________

L5\L4\L3\L2\L1\ C /R1/R2/R3/R4/R5

We can objectively verify (through precise identification of policies) that Bush-Wacko and his Neo-Con cult are an R4 (Re: economic policy eg. they prefer a 10% tax on the mega-rich, and no more), and that the so-called "right-wing" parties/parliamentary configurations (like the ones in Sweden, France), are, according to the Bush R4 designation, likely a C to R1 (sharing *certain* policies with Chretien, Martin, Joe Clark, or center-right Democrats like Biden or Edwards).

***Just for the sake of clarification, as a former Calgarian, and after studying the phenomenon of Stephen Harper, his beliefs, ultimate policy objectives and history, given a majority gov't, he would no doubt be a functional R3 to R4, even though he currently MASQUERADES (via the deceptive, slimy, deflective, evasive Neo-Con snake dance) as an R1/R2, (due to the current Conservative parliamentary allotment).***

The entire set of policies (Economic, Social and Foreign) which the given government implements, can be reasonably estimated and scaled accordingly, in a relativistic fashion.

____________________________________________

But the irrefutable axiom, is that a shift to the right facilitates and empowers the right-leaning Neo-Liberal agenda(s), and the ultra-right-leaning Neo-Conservative agenda(s) to a greater degree.

It appears, that at least in regards to Nordic-Scandinavia, (my beloved hotbed of democratic hybrid socialism) that the Bushian political philosophy is more greatly facilitated by the recent elections there, than would be the case years ago.Norway is the lone holdout.

quote:

---

Is Europe moving right? Is the democratic left in trouble?

The decisive victory of Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Segolene Royal in France's presidential election on Sunday was the most recent example of the battering that moderate-left parties are taking from the forces of globalization and discontent over immigration.

A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party in local elections. Last September, Sweden's Social Democrats were voted out of power, a blow to the progressive spirit in light of the country's standing as a model egalitarian society.

Earlier in 2006, in the land of single-payer health care, Canada's Conservatives under Stephen Harper came back from near-death 14 years ago to form a minority government. In 2005, Germany's Social Democrats lost their majority, though they cling to a share of power under Christian Democratic Chancellor Angela Merkel.

There are some countertrends toward the left, notably in Australia, according to recent polls. A populist left (quite different from the moderate European variety) has gained ground in Latin America. And Democrats might take heart that France and the United States have moved on opposite electoral cycles ever since Socialist Fran?ois Mitterrand won power in 1981, just a year after Ronald Reagan's election.

Nonetheless, the social democratic and liberal left faces a big problem because globalization makes the movement's core pledge -- to produce economic growth that lifts up the poor and the middle class as well as the rich -- far more problematic.

---

quote:

---

Fear that immigrant and particularly Muslim communities were not integrating well into France also helped Sarkozy. His tough-guy image allowed this center-right candidate to court the far-right constituency of Jean-Marie Le Pen.

---

quote:

---

A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party in local elections.

---

I would not call that a rejection of the "left" given that one of the biggest reasons people in the UK are pissed off with Blair is the war in Iraq!!

Also, as we all know, in Canada, the Conservatives won a very weak minority government almost entirely due to a corruption scandal - I don't think anyone could argue that it was a real ideological shift on the part of canadians.

[ 08 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Nice list Stockholm, although it does seem to show a North / South split. Southern Europe moving to the left and Northern Europe moving to the right.

---

How do you see that? Norway, Austria and the Netherlands are usually considered "northern" and they all swung left.

quote:

---

The way to combat this is with a populist economic appeal. But Royal, flirting with Blairism and Schroederism, was not cut out for that.

---

Austria, home of the Hapsburg Empire, is Central Europe in most people's books.

But you're probably right that the trends are mixed. Although, the French election news _is_ about election cycles: the socialists have now lost three elections in a row.

In fact, France has not re-elected a government at the legilslative level since 1978!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

If the French had wanted such a "populist" economic appeal, they could have elected any of the following people as President: Olivier Besancenot, Arlette Laguiller, Jose Bove or Marie-George Buffet

---

Once again you confuse Communism with populism. Makes me think you have absolutely no idea what populism is.

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

there is a rightist spectre haunting France at the moment, but it is the right of nationalism, xenophobia, racism and law-and-order judicial conservatism, rather than the right of Hayek and von Mises.

---

quote:

---

Once again you confuse Communism with populism. Makes me think you have absolutely no idea what populism is.

---

If they wanted populaism, they could have elected Jean-Marie LePen as president!

Also, Jose Bove is not a "communist", but he still only got 1% of the vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riptide:

Although I've heard that what is called "right" in France is really a type of center-left politics. Europeans like their social model and comforts, and I doubt their about to give them up soon. In Scandanavia, unlike France, it's easy to fire someone, but there is excellent UI and retraining.

---

Swedish workers are over 80 percent unionized. Are they fired easily ?.

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/sa_innvand_en/arkiv/2005/main.html

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/eurabian-civil-war-no-taxation-without.html

http://www.fancyamortgage.co.uk/NorwegianMortgages/TaxationinNorway.asp

http://tinyurl.com/3b2co8

It doesn't look to me like immgration is a cause for huge difficulties here, (other 'Nords' I looked at didn't appear very different to me either) but I'll have to go over it in more detail later to explain my reasoning more clearly. Maybe others will interpret it somewhat differently. (interesting sidebars on the levels of corporate taxation too, but that goes to another thread we had awhile back)

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
It doesn't look to me like immgration is a cause for huge difficulties here, (other 'Nords' I looked at didn't appear very different to me either) but I'll have to go over it in more detail later to explain my reasoning more clearly. Maybe others will interpret it somewhat differently. (interesting sidebars on the levels of corporate taxation too, but that goes to another thread we had awhile back)

---

[ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

One that probably doesn't apply to lower tax, low immigration Canada anyhow.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
The Tax issue is a tough one. First, if you overtax the rich, they leave. They have the ability to easily find somewhere else to go, and then you have to start taxing the wealthier middle class, who also can find ways out, and all the way down the scale until you end up taxing the middle class to pay for the social structure you've built up. In a free moving society of ours, this is a very difficult question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Canada has a low immigration rate?

---

quote:

---

Even a MASSIVE country like ours can have too high an immigration rate, and too lenient a standard of immigration

---

what kind of socialist says things like this????

Thats a joke dude.....

Taxation will always be a problem when living under a capitalist system. There is no way around it...

It seems people are feeling more poor and the way they think they can make more money is to payu less taxes... This is a bad for of logic.

Here is your main problem of social democracy ideology. It thinks that it can reform capitalism... Good luck trying as it will never happen...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riptide:
Nice list Stockholm, although it does seem to show a North / South split. Southern Europe moving to the left and Northern Europe moving to the right.

Although I've heard that what is called "right" in France is really a type of center-left politics. Europeans like their social model and comforts, and I doubt their about to give them up soon. In Scandanavia, unlike France, it's easy to fire someone, but there is excellent UI and retraining.

---

Why is everyone raving about how nice a list it is ? Let's be objective.It's a decent list to start with, but it's incomplete.

1) It is not organized regionally
2) It is not organized chronologically
3) It excludes Denmark
4) It likely excludes other things as well.

I give it a B- .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Interesting list. I also think that with proportional democracy in Euro-Scandinavia, the right just can't afford to govern quite as far to the right as our conservative and liberal governments do in Canada. And in a certain few ways, U.S. Democrats are to the left of our own Liberals on certain few issues. Don't ask me which ones, because that list of diffs is at two items in my mind at the moment. Even US Republicans dare not dismantle the last few socialist programs in that country, a country whose time has come for its own swing to the left if only for cosmetic appearances.

---

Good points.A swing to the right in Sweden & Finland means Cheney still sees them as Socialists.They won't dismantle the welfare state, and they won't employ rabid imperialism.
However, even with this relativism, it's still a shift to(wards) the right.Bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
And that's the Stockholm we all know and love. Try sticking to politics in the future, please.

Forgive me Pepper-Pot if I'm suspicious about anti-immigrant talk from "the streets" tied in with talk about "too high" taxation. It's not ideology, it's something I've heard too often before with too predictable a result. (eg: read Babble thread on France's election)

Do you have anything more than "word on the streets" to draw a corrolation between the higher levels of xenophobia in Europe with higher taxation or higher immigration levels? And did you also listen to any words from any of the immigrants? If no to either, then it just looks like another personal anecdote to me. One that probably doesn't apply to lower tax, low immigration Canada anyhow.

[ 07 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

---

Now now EriKtheHalfaRed, I'm sure we can find common ground here.And I won't give up until we do.

Anecdotal ? Sure, but not exclusively.My Uncle Hans (from The Hague) is a Socialist who has voted left his entire life, and the same for every SINGLE relative of mine in the Netherlands (30 or so).His daughter married an Indonesian man, much to his APPROVAL.Anecdotes continue.Be patient.All of my family there are university grads in education, or artists (1 a world famous social democrat Classical musician, but no name dropping from me).They all converse with 100's of people.And the word I get from them, is that Europe shifts right for 2 main reasons :

1) Too high a tax rate on the middle class spectrum

2) Too high an immigration rate.

Keep in mind, my 30 relatives have large social circles (with many Africans, Muslims and Indonesians... my cousins roomate is from Algeria), and they converse with 100's of people in retail, universities and the art world.They all read objective reports, newpapers & statistics.I simply asked them "what's going on here", with the recent sequential rise of the right, and they say "people are rebelling against too high a middle class tax rate and too high an immigration rate".BUT NONE OF MY RELATIVES IN HOLLAND VOTE FOR THE QUASI FASCIST RIGHT WING XENOPHOBIC FEARMONGERING PARTIES.(sorry, but if they were right of center at all, I would not be sickening myself on the flight over there to visit them.My Liberal & Conservative voting relatives throughout Canada & the US, well I wouldn't talk politics with them for 1 second.They are right-wing, and I tend to avoid deep conversation with them, it leads to a nasty argument, with them using every Conservative cliche in the book.)

So it's mainly anecdotal alarmism, with some kernels of truth you need not dismiss.I ask why the increased votes for the right, and they overwhelmingly gave 2 objective reasons.

The thread title isn't Canada.Canada is a unique bird, as our saturation point for the immigration rate is much higher.

_________________________________________

Now, no more anecdotes, let's reason this out, and we'll be on the same page.Principles first.

1.

a) I believe that Canada (and all of Europe) has the moral obligation to let in as many immigrants from the 2nd and 3rd world as possible.This is part of socialistic benevolence & compassion : principles which define the immigration policy of those left of center.

b) I believe that the middle class should bear reasonably high taxes, again, to alleviate suffering of the underprivileged lower class (nationally and internationally).

WHAT IM DAMN WELL REFERRING TO HERE FOR F&#* SAKE IS NOT A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE : I STICK WHOLEHEARTEDLY BY THOSE PRINCIPLES !!!!!!!!!!!!

(deep breath by me)

IT's a matter of *****DEGREE*****.Precise measurement of the specific number of immigrants ***Country A*** lets in annually.The precise overall middle class tax rate on annual income.

Now that I'm calm (again, sorry), here is a visual analogy.

You are frying an egg.On your stove.You have the stove dial set at 6/10.I come in and turn the dial down to 4/10, because it was smoking a little (burning margarine & egg).You come into the kitchen (fully red & angry in the kitchen) and scream "WHY THE HECK DID YOU TURN DOWN THE HEAT ON MY FRIED EGG FOR ????!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY *****ANTI-EGG-FRYING***** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to immigration.Should France let in 5,000,000 immigrants a year ? Well they certainly can.Why shouldn't they ? Deleterious manifestations in the form of high youth unemployment ? Lack of cohesive integration ?
Increased (property and/or violent) crime ? Increased social unrest manifested in street riots, and violent clannish mobs (eg.the Sikh Militants from BC well documented by the CBC tonight) ? What's the maximum feasible immigration rate for a *given* country.That's all I'm asking.

It is HIGHLY illogical, erroneous and fallacious for you to employ a false alternative of "Either you let in 5,000,000 immigrants per year, or you are a Xenophobe".An actual Xenophobe ala Pat Buchanan is a paranoid isolationist willing to close the borders ***entirely***, employ racial profiling, and LITERALLY reduce the immigration rate to 0/yr.

If I say to you that my leftist relatives in Holland and France say "maybe a 20% reduction in the current immigration rate is reasonable, to make the immigrants that do come here happier, healthier, wealthier, and more cohesively integrated" and you say to me that I and them are right-leaning xenophobes, well then you are being blatantly irrational.

(Dammit, I'm still angry)

Same with tax rates.Canada could right now max out wealth redistribution and tax the middle class at 60-80%.Is that what you want the NDP to do ? Implement the maximum specified degree of socialist principles regardless of the effects ? Or just what is practicalAND principled.You can quite easily monitor changes in the youth unemployment rate, the crime rate, the poverty rate.You can quite easily see if mobs of Sikh militants are forming (with clannish attack agendas) in public gatherings.If you verify some or all of these things, you might want to consider reducing the current immigration rate by 20%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

Let's say the current Canadian immigration rate is allowing in 250,000 immigrants per year.I state that Canada can and will handle the highest rate on earth.Our vast size, low population density, market versatility and variety of abundant natural resources, makes it so.

Let's say you turn up the adjustable immigration dial to it's maximum possible setting, and we start bringing in 10,000,000 immigrants per year, and some violent white-skinned Irishmen (who want to revisit old Protestant-Catholic tensions) get in, some violent white-skinned Neo-Nazi German youth get in, some more Sikh militants, and some more "Islamofascists" get in.

Let's say the homicide rate climbs, the general crime rate climbs, the poverty rate climbs, the number of violent mob gatherings climbs, the unemployment rate climbs, and let's say you try to turn the dial DOWN in a moment of lucid rationality, when I barge in and say "STOP !!!! YOU RIGHT WING WACKO XENOPHOBIC CAPITALIST IMPERIALIST COLONIALIST !!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU REDUCE THE IMMIGRATION RATE !!!!!!!!!! MOVE ASIDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dare I say to you right now, that if your intent by reducing the immigration rate was to augment cohesive integration, and the health and happiness of the immigrants coming in, well, logically, me stepping in to stop you WOULD ACTUALLY be anti-immigrant, because of my wrecklessness.I'd be obligated to ensure the best possible opportunity and environment for the immigrants coming in while sustaining the already established quality of life standard AND IT IS THAT HIGH LIVING STANDARD WE WANT THE IMMIGRANTS TO EXPERIENCE AND ENJOY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

_______________________________________________

Same with middle class tax rates.If a wreckless democratic socialist cranks it up to 75%, and I come in and gradually reduce it to 35%, am I actually ANTI-Middle-Class-Tax ? No, not at all.HE is.By taxing the middle class to exponentially ridiculous levels, he is systematically making some of them lower class, eroding the middle class base.If one raises the middle class tax rate to 75% and the unemployment rate goes up, crime goes up, the poverty rate goes up, maybe one is actually trying to make everyone poor.Not so benevolent, is it ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pepper-Pot:
It remains to be seen who the Democrat leader is.Clinton, Obama, Biden & Edwards differ substantially from Dean and Kucinich if you analyze the precise contents of their cherished economic, social and foreign policies.(The latter 2 having next to zero chance of course...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:

what kind of socialist says things like this????

Thats a joke dude.....

Taxation will always be a problem when living under a capitalist system. There is no way around it...

It seems people are feeling more poor and the way they think they can make more money is to payu less taxes... This is a bad for of logic.

Here is your main problem of social democracy ideology. It thinks that it can reform capitalism... Good luck trying as it will never happen...

in the end you have the capitalists bringing their reactionary ideas forward and then everyone becomes reactionary....

---

You are blind, hyper-simplistic extremist who hasn't learned how to measure principles yet, or measure the incremental degrees between the extremes.Don't vote NDP, vote Communist.Or move to Cuba.Apparently, anyone you see who is to the right of a pure ideological Communist, you (illogically) classify as a pure Capaitalist.Not exactly in accordance with logic or observable reality, but that's your modal choice (or limitation).

On the flight over there, study the highest standard of living and quality of life ever AND I MEAN EVER acheived in human history, by learning SOMETHING about Nordic-Scandinavia.Even with a relative shift to the right they've acheived the...

1) Longest average life expectancy
2) Lowest infant mortality rates
3) Lowest poverty rates
4) Highest unionization rates
5) Best free health care
6) Best free education
7) Tremendous social safety net (UI, Welfare, etc.)
8) Lowest incarceration rates
9) Lowest crime rates
10) Lowest levels of gov't corruption
11) Lowest national debts
12) Most benevolent immigration rates / asylum standards
13) Highest levels of foreign aid
14) Highest levels of media independance

and more.

If you can actually read, study the above categories and compare them with the US.Social Democracy wins.And if you put on the blinders, and brush Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark off as pure Capitalists, well then you are moron.An imbecile.And if you think that pure, ideological, Authoritarian Communism is going to beat the social statistics acheived by them, well then, you are an absolute friggen idiot, with a very low level of knowledge, common-sense and a very low IQ.

Cuba's waiting.

YOUR beliefs are a joke.

I realize you wan't to destroy all wealth and income, so pick the country which epitomizes your delusional calculation of social-economic heaven and a complete and utter repudiation of anything you view as remotely capitalistic.

Cuba awaits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The feds say we are on track for 100 percent reliance on immigration for population growth. It's the same situation in every developed nation. We're not having enough kids of our own to replace the dying.

---

True.But Canada is unique (I don't mind repeating myself) due to size, population density, market versatility and variety of abundant natural resources.We can handle a higher immigration rate.But what you say about the birth rate is true.But you cannot cut & paste the Canadian immigration rate model in 2007 and say Europe should do the same.If we consider the number of annual immigrants *calculated as a percentage of our current population*, we are quite high.

Pop : 30,000,000

Immigrants / yr. : 20,000

I throw this rounded up/down simple numerical comparison out ther for further verification, and ease of comparison.We can (and we will) do it because of the 4 unique (often repeated) characteristics Canada is blessed with.

But you have to monitor ALL of the social statistics (infant mortality rates for 1 example),as WELL as viewing available empirical-behavioural evidence (rioting Neo-Nazi German youth in Lethbridge as a fictional example, angry mobs of Sikh militants in BC with violent agendas, as a well documented actual example) and ask if an increase or decrease of the PRECISELY CONFIGURED current immigration rate is a reasonable supposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

If you refer to our current immigration rate you'll see we can handle a HECKUVA lot more yearly arrivals than other places in Europe (due to the 4 characteristics I've mentioned repeatedly).

But I'd like to ask you a YES OR NO question.

If you were the immigration minister in an NDP majority Canadian Federal Government in July 2007 (just envision the dream, please...), would you immediately start letting in 10,000,000 immigrants per year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

What are Clinton and Obama saying about troops in Iraq ?. I think both are about as far left as our own Liberals have been on issues in Haiti and Afghanistan, which wouldn't be very left at all. Kucinich is a decent choice, and so that would make him unelectable.

---

Bill Clinton is an R2 in foreign policy (Bush=R4).He is an imperialistic deceptor.Nuff said.No not enough said, he cut welfare and ramped up the war on drugs.While he nuances around issues, and tries to appear pacifist, he is not.

Mrs.Clinton (as you inquired about I guess) has not apologized for voting for the Iraq war, even Conservativish Edwards has.Bill would never suggest his wife was wrong.Scary.(If I'm wrong, I apologize).The Clintons as you know are establishment insiders who wear cloaks of deception.

Obama is an R0 to R1 (centrist) in foreign policy, definitely and courageously against the Iraq war, but it remains to be seen whether he develops imperialistic pre-emptive tendencies from military-industrial complex pressure.

Howard Dean : C (Centrist)

Canada

Pop : 30,000,000

Immigrants / yr. : 200,000

You can't apply socialist principles blindly, you have to measure them and monitor the impact.You don't (out of oblivious, dogmatic ideological adherence) automatically apply them in infrastructure and policy to the farthest possible extreme, you MEASURE THE NUMERICAL APPLICATION AND MONITOR THE STATISTICAL AND EMPIRICAL MANIFESTATIONS, and make adjustments accordingly.

Immigration Rate : *Reasonably* High.

Middle-Class Tax Rate : *Reasonably* High.

Social & economic indicators, statistics and empirical evidence is reviewed, and adjustments (if any) are made accordingly.

quote:

---

Compared to many I think yes, but not to some others, no. Less than one percent a year doesn't strike me as particularly high, given that we're not replacing our own present numbers.

---

250,000 in 1 year ? Can anyone verify this ? With just over 30,000,000 pop. that's amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

And rightfully so, we can handle it.Why ? Here are some of many reasons why *Canada* reaches it's saturation point (in terms of Economic and Social statistical manifestations / empirical evidence) at a point which most countries would reach at a much lower immigration rate.

1) Massivity Of Geographical Size
2) Low Population Density
3) Market/Industry Versatility
4) Abundance Of A Wide Variety of Natural Resources
5) A Relatively Young Nation
6) Regional Disparity & Diversity

These and many other factors facilitate and are conducive to cohesive integration Economically and Socially.

Being a benevolent Democratic Socialist, I'd impulsively say let in 500,000/yr.A rabid Pat Buchanen Xenophobe says 20.

Somewhere in the middle is best.But to know what the ideal rate setting is, we have to monitor and ensure that the immigrants here are not becoming less happy, less healthy, less cohesively integrated and less wealthy than should be the case (based on our historical precendent).

Monitoring :

-Civil unrest
-Unemployment rates
-Infant mortality rates
-Poverty rates
-Crime rates
-Incarceration rates
-Average annual incomes

...and many other socio-economic indicators and statistics can serve as evidence.Do you really want to invite your friend over to your house if he/she experiences more stress, danger, troubles, unhappiness and anxiety then if he/she would not have visited ?

Is the immigrant your friend ? Do you want to hold hands with the immigrant, and improve their overall happiness ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pepper-Pot:
Canada is in the proverbial Guinessian book, for setting the highest immigration rate on earth (or so I suspect) in 2001.

250,000 in 1 year ? Can anyone verify this ? With just over 30,000,000 pop. that's amazing.

---

And Pepper Pot, did you even look at the links I found? Saw nothing there to support your contentions. This is a dangerous detour you're proposing, and I doubt it would help "the left" anymore than going along with conservative economic policies has.

[ 13 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]