Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that's how the far right wingers feel about it then that's not a bad thing for Canada. I'd think it would help to discourage people like that from coming to Canada.
.
I wish that were true but Canada is a magnet for conservative right wing immigrants.
It's neither of those. It's not anything like Vietnam, Cuba, or China...it's your basic run-of-the-mill social democratic state a la much of Europe, Australia, NZ etc.. In other words, a regulated capitalist economy with strong social welfare policies.
We're not social democratic at all, especially since we're pretty right of most, if not all European countries. Canada is basically a Left-leaning U.S really. We have become more left-leaning under the current administration (and I'd argue that we will continue to become more left due to pressure from mob mentality groups) but we aren't super left or "far-left". The only people who consider Canada far left are hardcore right-wing crazies or libertarians. Some people also argue that Canada is the most centrist country, which I would agree if we stayed around the Chretien/Martin spectrum. Harper was for sure the most right-wing PM in Canadian history and influenced by the Neoliberal school. And currently, we have the "wokest" PM, but he isn't a socialist or a social-democratic person, just a big L liberal.
Socialism exist more on a spectrum in most nations than as an absolute yes or no to the question of does it exist in western nations like Canada or the USA. The USA has socialism already and so does Canada. Social security, public education, public infrastructure are all examples of socialism in the USA. Canada does have more socialism than the USA has, healthcare being the prime example. Europe is far more socialist than Canada and the USA, more industries over there are state run or owned.
Of course the hard core socialist or even communist nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, China etc. are in a separate category, one where state brutality is required to enforce the socialist doctrine. Comparing any free nation in North America or Europe to these kind of dictatorships is an insult to said nations.
Socialism exist more on a spectrum in most nations than as an absolute yes or no to the question of does it exist in western nations like Canada or the USA. The USA has socialism already and so does Canada. Social security, public education, public infrastructure are all examples of socialism in the USA. Canada does have more socialism than the USA has, healthcare being the prime example. Europe is far more socialist than Canada and the USA, more industries over there are state run or owned.
Of course the hard core socialist or even communist nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, China etc. are in a separate category, one where state brutality is required to enforce the socialist doctrine. Comparing any free nation in North America or Europe to these kind of dictatorships is an insult to said nations.
Some very good points, Daniel, although I would like to replace the term "socialist" with something like "social safety net," or similar. For example, "Canada has more of a social safety net than the US does." That's accurate, and that's fine.
The problem with the term "socialist," as I see it, is that it recalls two of the most inhumane regimes in human history: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Germany, when it was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers Party. (I could mention the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but while these two are run along socialist lines, as Marx laid out, they do not include "socialist" in their names). This seems to be what many Americans equate "socialism" to, and they are correctly afraid of gulags and concentration camps. I don't blame them. But countries that provide social benefits to their citizens--such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and similar--are about as far from the USSR and the Nazis as you can get.
I will say, Daniel, that I like your "spectrum" comparison. The OP asked a yes/no question, but he or she allowed no shades of grey between those extremes. You did, when you suggested a spectrum; and by inference, allowed that the OP's question could not be answered with a simple yes or no. A good point, and nicely said.
Some very good points, Daniel, although I would like to replace the term "socialist" with something like "social safety net," or similar. For example, "Canada has more of a social safety net than the US does." That's accurate, and that's fine.
The problem with the term "socialist," as I see it, is that it recalls two of the most inhumane regimes in human history: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Germany, when it was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers Party. (I could mention the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but while these two are run along socialist lines, as Marx laid out, they do not include "socialist" in their names). This seems to be what many Americans equate "socialism" to, and they are correctly afraid of gulags and concentration camps. I don't blame them. But countries that provide social benefits to their citizens--such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and similar--are about as far from the USSR and the Nazis as you can get.
I will say, Daniel, that I like your "spectrum" comparison. The OP asked a yes/no question, but he or she allowed no shades of grey between those extremes. You did, when you suggested a spectrum; and by inference, allowed that the OP's question could not be answered with a simple yes or no. A good point, and nicely said.
This is something I always have to explain when I give talks at my old high school in the U.S. I always get the question of "how is it living in a socialist country with free healthcare". Then I have to explain the differences of a safety net vs socialism, explain the history of Canadians wanting a safety net in the 1950s, and explain the differences between mixed economies and a hard socialist system. The look on people's faces when I tell them this is always like . The thing with politics and political systems is that it's all grey yet it is always portrayed as a black and white thing by the MSM, activists and schools. Of course, when people study poli (like me, having a poli sci degree) and others who don't study poli sci but are in that world daily, we know the grey. Everything is on a spectrum, people always jump around, as in they agree with various political ideologies and are open-minded. True Socialism and Communism are stuck in a small box and creates an echo chamber. Of course, this applies to any extreme ideology but for the sake of this thread, I'll stick to this.
That's why I always say Canada is a "soft mixed-economy" because we aren't as generous as European countries with social programs and we're more capitalistic as well, but have more social safety nets than the U.S. Then, of course, some provinces have more programs and have autonomy on that, which also shows how fragmented our federation is. I would argue that the closest thing to Socialism between the U.S and Canada is Quebec, but it's definitely become more capitalistic and more opportunist. But that's a whole other debate
He would say that because the goalposts have been moved——Europe has veered completely to the far left. With Canada not far behind.
Maybe on the east coast of CA, but not out west. Go to Calgary... it's a different world. If the US is a 3 on a scale of 1-10, CA is a 4. Both nations spend copious amounts on entitlement programs. California is more socialistic than Canada.
We are more alike economically speaking, than we are apart. USMCA would/could never be in effect with a socialist nation. It's why a trade agreement with the EU will be a bigger challenge than China deal.
This is something I always have to explain when I give talks at my old high school in the U.S. I always get the question of "how is it living in a socialist country with free healthcare". Then I have to explain the differences of a safety net vs socialism, explain the history of Canadians wanting a safety net in the 1950s, and explain the differences between mixed economies and a hard socialist system. The look on people's faces when I tell them this is always like . The thing with politics and political systems is that it's all grey yet it is always portrayed as a black and white thing by the MSM, activists and schools. Of course, when people study poli (like me, having a poli sci degree) and others who don't study poli sci but are in that world daily, we know the grey. Everything is on a spectrum, people always jump around, as in they agree with various political ideologies and are open-minded. True Socialism and Communism are stuck in a small box and creates an echo chamber. Of course, this applies to any extreme ideology but for the sake of this thread, I'll stick to this.
That's why I always say Canada is a "soft mixed-economy" because we aren't as generous as European countries with social programs and we're more capitalistic as well, but have more social safety nets than the U.S. Then, of course, some provinces have more programs and have autonomy on that, which also shows how fragmented our federation is. I would argue that the closest thing to Socialism between the U.S and Canada is Quebec, but it's definitely become more capitalistic and more opportunist. But that's a whole other debate
While you're spreading the Nirvana news, do you also bother to mention that USA has three times more charity giving per capita than the next most generous nation, which happens to be Canada. We don't need government involvement to the degree that others need it in large part because of our volunteerism cultural heritage and the fact that individuals, and companies step in to fill the void. Just sayin'. One needs to be truly objective.
While you're spreading the Nirvana news, do you also bother to mention that USA has three times more charity giving per capita than the next most generous nation, which happens to be Canada. We don't need government involvement to the degree that others need it in large part because of our volunteerism cultural heritage and the fact that individuals, and companies step in to fill the void. Just sayin'. One needs to be truly objective.
The reason there's so much given to charity is that you get a tax break for it. It's not due to altruism, it's to save money.
The reason there's so much given to charity is that you get a tax break for it. It's not due to altruism, it's to save money.
There is no doubt that the government tax structure is part of that situation, but attitudes about charity are very different in America than elsewhere. It is actually a mixture of influences. Volunteerism is very prevalent in USA, right down to the community level. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere, but not to the extent it does here. During the great split, when British loyalists moved north, they continued to have more reliance on government. The opposite took place to the south, where the vacuum created by the absence of the British government was filled at the local levels by volunteers. It became part and parcel to the American culture over time. That is nothing against Canadians. It is simply a matter of a different orientation, but it is unfair to talk of American government as somehow being deficient when in fact cultural attributes make up for any deficits.
While you're spreading the Nirvana news, do you also bother to mention that USA has three times more charity giving per capita than the next most generous nation, which happens to be Canada. We don't need government involvement to the degree that others need it in large part because of our volunteerism cultural heritage and the fact that individuals, and companies step in to fill the void. Just sayin'. One needs to be truly objective.
Actually yes I do mention charity, and if one needs to be truly objective, they must understand that it fluctuates between states and cities. I know you wanted to give a smart-ass reply that volunteerism and companies step in (news flash, happens in Canada too) and to make America look superior. But the point of the lecture was comparing governments and clearing up misconceptions about Canada, just sayin'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
