|
Baudin posted:How about instead of talking about what kind of furry we're the most attracted to we start talking about the new local MPs we just received from the glorious voting apparatus known as First Past the Post! Although I don't live in Manitoba anymore, I keep up with the politics there. In Elmwood transcona Daniel Blaikie was elected by 51 votes! The conservative incumbent Toet declined a recount so it's official. Daniel is the son of bill Blaikie who was the MP for Elmwood for years and years. He is also the brother of Rebecca Blaikie who is the president of the NDP. With Niki Ashton (daughter of Steve) in churchill the manitoba NDP has become a hereditary party. I assume it is only a matter of time until Joe wascylysia leis runs for office. I don't know anything about Catherine McKenna in Ottawa center. Someone tell me.
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:I'm probably just having nostalgia from the pre-Notley era, and I don't know enough about other provinces' situations to talk about those. Manitoba is a two party province, the NDP and the PC. The liberals have one seat, former leader Jon Gerrard. Uniting the left is not a concern at all in manitoba seeing as the NDP have been in power since 1999. Right now would be a great time for the liberals to re-emerge seeing as the NDP are losing popularly, people still distrust the PCs, and the federal liberals are so popular. But I still haven't heard much from them and the provincial election is less than a year away. I doubt the NDP keeps power in manitoba and then who knows what happens with provincial politics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Problem is teachers unions have lost the war over optics when it comes to striking. Back when they were fighting Harris et al there were a significant number of people on their side, but nowadays the government has been so good at painting them as entitled overpaid spoiled brats who are harming the children when they strike that teachers know if they strike, they lose. And when that happens it gives the government license to make cuts to their next contract since they won. The power of a union is its ability to withhold labour. Strikes aren't a PR campaign. A strike is about putting economic pressure on the employer. Good optics is beneficial because it adds political pressure to the employer and it increases morale of the strikers, but optics isn't the goal of a strike or where the power of a strike comes from. Unions have always been demonized and hated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:I think the perpetuation of anti-First Nations racism is intimately tied to the reservation system. They're largely small, isolated communities and prone to all the small town corruption and nepotism that comes with it, except they're also regulatory black holes that neither the provinces nor the Federal government want to take any responsibility for, so they end up being miniature dictatorships who's leaders generally don't give a gently caress about their people. They're effectively third-world countries embedded in a first world one, and have all the horrendous problems associated with that. Places where First Nations people from the reserve and non-First nations people mix (generally at schools) serve as a breeding ground for bigotry. I've had totally reasonable and well educated people who went to school near reserves tell me about how their (native) classmate was smart and a good student got pregnant at 17 and never went to university because (paraphrasing) "that's just how it is there". Do you have any proof that reservations are especially corrupt? Because that is a common (unfounded) line used by racist groups in order to blame First Nations for their poverty and justify greater government control. Or in your case to justify not increasing funding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:What I meant is that the government shouldn't impose a change in the system on native peoples (and won't, because it doesn't care). I think the increase in engagement among first nations people that we saw during the latest federal election is a step in the right direction. It's the government's fault that things are the way it is and I don't think it's the victim's 'responsibility' to push for change, but it's something that people need to agitate for if systemic change is going to happen. Actually the government did impose a change on the governance system of First Nations recently (and has many times in the past). It was called the First Nations Financial Transparency Act and was passed in 2012. The bill was championed by the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation and the CPC, and relied on racist imagery of corrupt chiefs to impose stricter auditing standards on First Nations communities than any Canadian community. The general idea was that the problems on reserves are due to corruption, rather than long term government underfunding and broken treaty obligations. The Transparency Act was widely opposed by First Nations communities, as they already face strict auditing rules, and yet the government passed it anyway. In fact the government passed a number of bills (housing, education) that directly changed the way First Nations communities operated that were all opposed by the actual communities. This despite the Canadian government having a treaty obligation to consult with First Nations. That you insist on holding onto a negative stereotype of a minority group without definitive evidence that it is incorrect is pretty much what racism is. It doesn't have to be malicious. Most of the anecdotes your thinking of likely come from the campaign in support of the Transparency Act (and were largely manufactured or spun by either the CPC or the CTF. But anyway, for some data. The average salary for an elected First Nations representative is $36,000 quote:While any abuse or misspending is wrong, with 3,297 First Nation elected officials in Canada, it must be pointed out that this is absolutely not the norm as the CTF would suggest. The vast majority of First Nation elected officials are simply trying to earn a decent standard of living – just like most Canadians – and working very hard in the process. Rather than acknowledge this, the CTF issued its release relying upon the following opening statement: Second, the Auditor General found that First Nations governments in Canada already face some of the most onerous financial auditing rules in the world. quote:In 2002, we looked at the amount of reporting required of First Nations by federal organizations. We estimated that four federal organizations together required about 168 reports annually from each First Nations reserve. We found that many of the reports were unnecessary and were not in fact used by the federal organizations. We followed up on this issue in 2006. At that time, we found that federal departments had made little progress on meeting our recommendations to reduce reporting requirements. In our 2006 follow-up audit, we reported that INAC’s officials told us that the Department obtained more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations communities. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat analyzed the extent of federal involvement with First Nations and confirmed the seriousness of the problem we had identified in 2002. 168 reports a year! And nobody in the government reads them. All this data is available to members of any reserve. The argument that you are making, that positive change in First Nations communities is prevented by corruption is wrong and is driven by racism. The federal government has not been providing enough funding for these communities to build and maintain infrastructure, to provide education, to provide clean water. The government has a vested interest in turning the blame on First Nations themselves, which is exactly why bills like the First Nations Transparency Act get introduced. And the Canadian public is all too willing to buy in. "We can't give them anymore money, they'll just waste it". "They need to agitate for change from within before any change will come, until then more money won't help". It's racist, and you need to admit that, if only to yourself. The problem isn't corruption, it's under funding, and only the government of Canada can solve the funding problem. e: also there are 617 reserves in Canada, so unless you have a hell of a lot of anecdotes it is pretty ridiculous to make any claims about First Nations in general. Almost like it would be stereotyping to do so. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
cougar cub posted:As someone with CI on ignore it would be great if people would stop quoting him or responding to his idiotic posts. Maybe if you put everyone on ignore it will work out for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Citing the AFN on corruption on reserves is like citing the NRA on gun violence in America. Shouting "That's racist, that's racist, you are a racist" to every suggestion that chiefs or band councils aren't serving their people's best interest, and impossible to take seriously in the face of stories like the 800,000 bonus awarded to the chief of a 80 person first nation for "economic development" the same year as a major land deal with the BC government. A bonus that would not have been made public were it not for the Transparency Act (which is far from perfect, I agree). I bet that's the only anecdote you have. Yet you still feel like it's not racist to use that to generalize about 617 diverse community governments. Sure there are incidents of corruption in reserve governments, as there are in the federal government and provincial governments and municipal governments. But I certainly wouldn't say all municipal governments are corrupt and you shouldn't say that all first nations governments are corrupt. Nor should you say that corruption is the cause of poverty, cause it's not. The cause is underfunding. Also the AFN is not like the NRA. Strange thing to say. Are you perhaps saying that the AFN is corrupt? Surely you have evidence of this corruption. Evidence that the government of Canada hasn't found in the 60 000 annual reports they collectively file. E: also what subcrid said. Canadian politicians don't have to disclose their personal wealth so why should First nations have to? What's Paul Martin's wealth and where does it come from? Harper? Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:My friend used to do horse stuff up near a reserve, which was also around a lot of farms and suburban "hobby farm" sort of deals. Post-soviet style roving packs of dangerous dogs were a thing. They'd attack people and livestock and generally cause a lot of trouble. The local animal control though didn't have any authority on the reserve land, which is where all the dogs were coming from. They'd have to catch the dogs off the reserve and the reserve its self was extremely uncooperative if not downright hostile towards animal control or the people getting attacked. It was a really bad situation that fueled a lot of anger towards the reserve, and probably still is. On the other side of things, a friend of mine grew up on a reserve and an old white guy came and shot her dog one day, which fueled a lot of anger of its own. Partly for killing the dog and partly for shooting guns around their house/community.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Today Mulcair asked Trudeau about his new head of the civil service comparing Carleton grad students to Nazi brown shirts, and Trudeau just said he looked forward to working with Wernick to reestablish the professionalism of the civil service. I mean, look at these thugs: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155415668400541
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
THC posted:Premier Christy Clark is dismissing opposition to the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project near Prince Rupert. gently caress the DFO (who Clark is quoting as a scientific authority). The DFO has gone full bore on 'no net loss' and offsite mitigation. Basically it means that you can destroy fish habitat in one place as long as you 'restore' habitat somewhere else. Every academic study on restoration biology has shown that it is not capable of restoring mature environments in a reasonable timeline in ever. So you end up immediately destroying an important fish habitat to build an LNG project or port, and maybe in 50 or 60 years your 'restored' habitat will be able to support the displaced fish species. Not to mention that nature is pretty site specific in a lot of cases, including salmon spawning grounds. e: do I have to mention that the DFO's turn toward no net loss was cemented in 2012 under the Conservative government, as they were trying to make it easier for development to take place. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Frankly I think that there are two serious issues to overcome: I would think that the most serious issue to overcome is that of carbon emissions. Canada has now kind of sort of committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Under 2 degree scenarios it was already estimated that roughly 80% of the tar sands oil would have to stay in the ground. Building more pipelines allows for faster extraction. Any climate activist worth their salt is going to oppose any new pipeline. That's not stupid and arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Global warming is driven by the world's demand for energy, not its supply. A barrel of crude not extracted in Canada is simply going to get extracted and burned up somewhere else. The vast majority of oil's carbon emissions are produced at end use, not at extraction. Trying to end global warming by cancelling domestic pipeline construction feels to me like trying to end the drug trade by bombing a handful of cocaine fields in South America. Why would climate activists limit their tactics to the demand side only, especially when Oil companies have been some of the largest opponents to meaningful climate policy? Anything that hurts the bottom line of oil companies is a good thing, if only because they'll have less money to spend on lobbying. Plus climate change activism is multifaceted, it targets demand and supply. I don't really know what the point of the bolded is. We should just sit back and relax because our relative contribution to climate emissions will eventually be a small part of the total? Climate change (and environmental problems in general) is a production and consumption problem first and foremost, not a population problem. Canadians use a huge amount of resources right now, and historically. We should fix that. e: https://ricochet.media/en/893/court-solidarity-for-activists-who-took-direct-action-against-enbridges-line-9 Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Tom is shocked! that the Liberals aren't actually a principled party opposed to privatization.quote:The Liberal party’s stunning shift in position on the dismantling of the now-defunct Canadian Wheat Board is incomprehensible given how hard the party fought for the board’s existence when the former Conservative government was trying to close it, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Tuesday. Also an example of how difficult it is to reverse privatization. The CWB is a private company now, and the investors have all sorts of legal protections.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
It's too bad that minimum income is already being framed as a program only for 'the most impoverished.' In all likelihood we'll end up with a negative income tax that gives the Liberals the opportunity to cut all sorts of other social safety net programs. In fact that's how it already being framed:quote:Proponents say a guaranteed minimum income, which would see families living below the poverty line topped up to a set level, would be more efficient and less costly than administering the existing series of social programs that help low-income residents. I also really detest arguments based around saving money like: quote:"Poverty costs us all. It expands health-care costs, policing burdens and depresses the economy," Sen. Art Eggleton said last month as he called for a national pilot project of a basic income guarantee. It suggests that we only help people out if we save some money doing it. Never mind the moral/ethical implications of having people living in poverty in the richest society in human history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If the NDP can't be bothered to remove Mulcair after the last election then I hardly see what the point of worrying about the day to day operations of the party would be. If you want an ideologically vapid but very diverse party then why not join the Liberals? Aside from the fact that you (and Itkantski) are misrepresenting what Blaikie meant by "same policies" (she meant the hiring policies the party uses, not the political policy platform), I also think its unfair to assume that Blaikie unquestioningly supports Mulcair. She has said that he should have to get 70% in the leadership review to remain on as leader, much higher than the 50% in the constitution. She is also going to be resigning herself at the convention. I generally have no problem with your distrust of the NDP leadership etc., but using what Blaikie said about hiring diversity as a jumping off point is bad form.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
The conflict over the Leap Manifesto is interesting to me because it mirrors a split in the environmental movement that has been playing out over the last few decades. One on hand, you have the productivists and ecological modernisers who think that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. The idea is that innovation (both technological and policy) will allow us to decouple economic growth from environmental damage. Of course, all this innovation is directed through private markets and so is not a threat to capitalism as a whole, but only to certain sectors. And in the long run, all sorts of new commodities are created, whether to replace existing commodities (fossil fuels giving way to renewable energy) or to create whole new markets (carbon credits, ecosystem service markets). Environmentalism is seen as an economic opportunity, a new realm for profit making. And of course this is the view adopted by the World Bank, UNEP, various national governments, most environmental organizations etc etc. On the other hand you have the degrowth crew, ecological economists and the eco-marxists who see a socio-economic problem rather than an innovation problem. It doesn't matter what sort of innovations occur as long as we have an economic system based on increasing production and consumption, forever. Besides, our political economic system determines what sort of innovations are pursued, and the primary motive is profit. This is why we see things like GMOs that reinforce industrial agriculture, bio-fuels that return less energy than is invested in producing them, carbon markets that encourage monocropping forests, and eco-tourism reserves that privilege wealthy foreigners while preventing local and indingenous groups from using landscapes that have sustained them for thousands of years. The key pivot point between these two world views is the issue of decoupling (of course there are also differences over social, environmental and economic justice). Emissions decoupling is the most widely talked about, but if the first view is to be correct than we also must decouple economic growth from pollution, land use and deterioration, water use and deterioration, material use etc etc. The conflict in the NDP is slightly different, because it is primarily concerned with the well-being of labour, rather than the role of capitalism. There are those concerned with the livelihoods of workers, wages, unemployment levels, which are important issues. But in order to address those issues they must in effect support the ecological modernisers. Of course they may see new industries being publicly or cooperatively owned, but growth must continue. We must continue to produce and consume in order to keep people employed. In looking at the Leap Manifesto, I hope the NDP studies the issue of decoupling thoroughly, because I think that is key to any discussion on the interactions between the environment and the economy. If the NDP does begin to adopt policy from the Leap Manifesto, I will be interested to see how they deal with the unemployed workers left by the fossil fuel industry. Will it be a productivist path (we must continue to produce and consume, but we need to produce and consume the 'right' things so workers can still work eg. solar panels, electric cars, recycled paper) or a degrowth path (we need to stop production and consumption, cut hours for everyone and perform a massive distribution of existing wealth).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This article has a stupid clickbait title but it succinctly lays out the trouble with the Leap Manifesto. I mean sure, people want a pro growth message to go along with our environmentalism. Our entire society is based on economic growth. Three percent GDP to maintain employment and all that. And its completely understandable why its hard to articulate a different path forward when we depend so much on growth, on producing things, consuming things. But the people who wrote the Leap Manifesto don't think it is possible to continue economic growth (at least in capitalist terms) while also avoiding massive ecological disaster. Clean tech and renewable energy isn't a solution, nor is nuclear power. Build a nuclear power plant/ solar farm, great now we can build a new suburb over all that useless wetland/farmland. And now we can build two electric cars for every family in that suburb! People may want a pro growth message alongside their environmental message, but why should we give them that if we don't believe its possible from an environmental perspective. We can potentially change peoples minds, but we can't change the carrying capacity of the planet. As Herman Daly said, when confronted with a political impossibility and a physical impossibility, I'll try to change the political impossibility.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Ashton would be a horrific choice. He was Selinger's right hand man in a bunch of shady bullshit. I'm actually glad he lost his seat. CBC mentioned Matt Wiebe as a potential interim leader. Don't know if he would run for regular leadership. Also for what its worth, Wab Kinew mad a point of saying that he supports Selinger.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:With all the harm it'd do to property values? No way. I don't know. Ocean front on all four sides
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Climate change is the most important global issue of the 21st century. Unless all countries come together, make huge economic sacrifices and drastically alter their behaviour, there is a good chance that hundreds of millions of people will starve, billions will be displaced, wildfires will ravage the globe, polar vortex all loving winter, water shortages, sea levels rising, desertification and resource wars. And I know what you're thinking, that's no big deal right? But get this, 55% of the people affected will have vaginas and that's just not fair now is it. Climate change affects groups of people differently actually, largely because there is systematic inequality throughout our society. Women, people of colour, indigenous people, people living in poverty etc will be more impacted by climate change, and in many cases already are being more impacted. It's not stupid to point that out, and it's hugely important to take into account when developing mitigation or adaptation policies. That is unless you want systematic inequality to be further entrenched. Pretending that climate change affects everyone equally is easy when you live in a neighbourhood that would be restored after a hurricane/flood/wild fire. Not so easy when your neighbourhood never gets rebuilt.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Protest/strikes etc are not a PR campaign. Its about forcing people to make decisions, forcing people to talk about uncomfortable issues, and forcing people to confront their own and others biases/beliefs. Protests, by their nature, should make a lot of people uncomfortable. Protests are about advancing the position of marginalized people. If the majority of society was totally cool with the non-white LGBT community then there would be no need to protest. And who cares if the PM doesn't like BLM. He's alright with selling weapons to whoever can pay for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:The fact that a marginalized group within a marginalized group like the queer contingent of BLM_TO sees greater opportunity in strong-arming potential allies with publicity stunts than they do in coalition building suggests the wars of yesterday are over and the stakes today really are that loving low. Intersectionality means everyone is someone else's oppressor, and infinitely regressing out-groups will always find grievance with those a step above them on the oppression ladder. How come it's always the minorities/marginalized who have to build coalitions? jm20 posted:Identity politics that only a minority are affected and a minority of a minority care about A lot of people have pretty strong feelings that BLM is just being uppity. I wonder why that is...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Police killed a black man in Ottawa yesterday. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/siu-investigate-hilda-street-arrest-hospital-1.3694114 Today a white guy with no connection to the family or black lives matter tried to organize a protest. When people asked him to take it down and let the family/black community take the lead he got defensive and changed it to an 'All Lives Matter' protest. Identity politics is pretty important, and I'm not sure why people are so offended by it. So many people in this thread got enraged over the Black Lives Matter protest during Toronto Pride, but then expect black activists to 'compromise'. Would people be offended if members of the Black LGBTQ community in Ottawa asked police not to march? There are also a lot of identity politics activists (feminists, anti-racists etc) who are also anti-capitalists and organize around economic issues. Why wouldn't you want to support these people?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The Guardian has put out some cringeworthy stuff since the US election but I think this piece is all right and speaks directly to the ongoing EvilJoven debate: I think the reason the left talks about social justice so much is because those groups have been so successful in organizing, campaigning and fighting for progress. From the civil rights movement, to LGBT movements, Black Lives Matter, Idle No More etc. the biggest non-electoral political movements have been based around some aspect of identity politics and social justice. That's not to say that these groups don't have leftist socioeconomic stances as well, because they often do. On the other hand where has the socioeconomic left been? Unions have been declining, both in terms of numbers and organizing. There hasn't really been any major grass roots movements aside from Occupy. There's no reason that movements along the lines of BLM or INM can't be organized for primarily socioeconomic issues, but they aren't there. I think its time to stop blaming electoral parties for not addressing those issues and look to the grassroots. Electoral politics aren't the source of progress. Also, like you say, I think that any leftist socioeconomic movement should first look at allying itself with the big, successful social justice movements. I really don't understand the idea that the left should push social justice to the side when it is these issues that are currently the most successful in organizing people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Raise the Wage comes to mind - though not nearly as successful or talked about Fight for $15 has also been fairly successful. A lot of its founders are POC as are a lot of minimum wage workers, and they have allied with anti-police violence movements in black communities. So maybe the issue is just that the white working class is racist, rather than some conceptual inability to merge socioeconomic and social justice issues.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Shorter version of everything I've said would be that regardless of the why, the left is losing the argument on economic issues. That has to be addressed or the results will be catastrophic. My perception, which I guess might be entirely wrong but which is nevertheless what I personally believe, is that a significant part of the left is moving toward the conclusion "yeah we lost, but we lost for the right reasons so it's OK." I agree that the left is losing on economic issues, and that needs to be addressed. But the important point is that the left is winning on social justice issues (though recent events show the fragility of those wins) and we should look at why. People like Trudeau, Clinton, and the urban latte drinkers didn't latch onto LGBT/feminist issues just because it's the fashionable thing. LGBT, women, POC etc activists have been organizing, protesting and fighting for their cause. They forced Trudeau or any nominally left politician to take a certain stance on an issue. So then the issue is why haven't those groups concerned with economic issues been as successful. It's possible that societal forces are harder to overcome, but its also possible that the push to organize an actual movement hasn't been as strong. When I look around me, the most dedicated activists are women, POC, disabled people, First Nations. And most of these people have very radical views on economic issues along with social justice issues. I certainly wouldn't tell any of these people they need to focus more on economic issues. And they have probably done more to advance class issues than the economic left has in recent years anyway. I know you feel that social justice and economic issues can and should be integrated, and I agree with you. But the proper course of action is not to try and reduce the discussion of social justice issues, its to encourage anti-racist movements and the like, especially within the white working class. And I think that it should be white leftists spearheading these movements. Perhaps the issue is that we're using too broad a definition of the left. In my view the left cares strongly about both social justice and economic issues, and would feel that one can't be accomplished without the other. When we talk about social justice warriors I think about the black or disabled women I know who are activists around racism and sexual violence. But they also work in unions, participate in labour organizing, attend climate protests.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:My problem with your central argument about championing social justice is that previous civil rights movements (especially in the United States) were organized around economic issues. It's the basis for much of the gains we've made, especially in the mass movements of the 60s and 70s. That doesn't mean non-economic advocacy can't work, but if we're going to draw inspiration from non-white activists, well then we should really be looking at economic issues. That's partly why Clinton lost, she and her campaign team misunderstood why these campaigns were successful. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that the Civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s we're successful because they included issues of economic justice? Which to me would imply that modern social justice movements do not include issues of economic justice, which is fundamentally incorrect. BLM, INM and the like do include issues of economic justice. Or look at the Fight for $15. Or all the movements around migrant labour. These are the movements, which in my mind, represent the social justice left. These movements in large part fundamentally agree with the economic justice issues that are talked about by the broader left, and they fight for those issues. Those groups are looking at economic justice issues. Why isn't the rest of the left allying with them? We can do more than just draw inspiration. Clinton, Trudeau et al are not the social justice left. They are co-opting and adopting those issues, in part because the social justice left has been so successful in raising them. Lumping the activists associated with social justice movements in with Clinton is not cool. I can guarantee you that a lot of BLM and INM activists in Canada are as left or more left on economic justice issues than the majority of this forum. I think a lot of people in this conversation are seeing the social justice left as a group of neoliberals that support identity causes. I'm saying that is completely inaccurate. Helsing posted:I believe that the success of cultural progressive issues and the failure of left-wing economic issues are both, for complicated reasons beyond the scope of a single post, have to do with the widely held perceptions people have about being on "the right side of history". I think we've all internalized Thatcher's claim that "there is no alternative" to the point that any strong deviation from neoliberal economics is simply impossible for people to believe in. And when a difficult cause seems impossible why waste your time on it? But at the same time we've seen a fairly effective campaign to make certain kinds of cultural progressivism seem to be an inevitable development, which pressures ordinary people who might not feel strongly one way or the other on certain issues to adopt what they view as the socially approved stance. The left's fight against capitalism certainly has been demoralized and many have accepted that 'there is no alternative', particularly since the ascent of the globalization idea. It seems that there's little that a local movement can do in the face of transnational capital, particularly when countries seem so ready to sign their sovereignty away to international tribunals and organizations. This only further demoralizes leftist action, since the state has historically been both the site of struggle and the sovereign. But to suggest that social justice issues have advanced because they're easy or socially acceptable is to go too far. Patriarchy, colonialism, racism etc are all large, entrenched systemic power structures in the vein of capitalism. Struggling against them is not easy, and progress should be seen for what it is. Activists have organized and fought against these systems, and in many cases people have died. Being in favour of LGBT rights may now be a socially acceptable stance, but how many activists died, were arrested, harrased, or ignored before that happened. Make sure you're giving these people the credit and agency they deserve.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
folytopo posted:Maybe we can think of it this way. Society is a big rock. A variety of forces are pushing on it. Trying to move it in all different directions. The neoliberal push or the no alternative push has been most successful. They are applying the most pressure to society and moving it that way. They are not social justice people, nor are they social conservatives. They are their own direction. Society is large and has entrenched structures so it is not easy. I would also suggest that while capitalism probably needs somethings to prevent class solidarity, it need not be our particular mix or xenophobia, sexism and hetronormativity. But what I'm saying is that all the social justice activists I know are also economic left. And most of the economic left people I know are social justice people too (the ones that aren't are white men). Yes the ideas of social justice have gone beyond the left, but that's the result of successful activism, and ultimately that's what we want for economic left ideas too is it not? Social justice ideas and economic left ideas can and should be pushing the rock in the same direction. When we start talking about targeting the white working class, why are we doing that? It's because the white working class has privilege within the larger working class. Working class people of colour are leading economic left movements, to raise wages, expand low income and public housing, to protect and create public space. Some white working class are involved in those movements. But why isn't it enough for the broader white working class? It's because they are privileged, whether they know it or not, within the working class, and they want to maintain that privilege. The economic left should not be on board with aiming policies at a specific privileged group of working class people. The ideal of a united working class requires that those other privileges, race, gender, etc be erased. That has to be done by supporting anti-racist, anti-misogyny, anti-homophobia movements. It may be a winning electoral strategy to target the white working class, because they remain the majority. But a leftist should not be on board that, because it means maintaining the privilege of one a group at the expense of another.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:It's because the non-white working class has a number of other reasons to continue supporting parties like the Democrats even if those parties only pay lip service to economic injustice. For example, an unemployed black union autoworker might still vote Democrat despite their objectively awful policies during the 1990s because a Republican government really is that much worse (for them). I think we're confusing what we mean by the left again here. I mean the actual left, the activists organizing, protesting, and participating in politics in the street. People who are demanding expanded healthcare, free education, higher wages, the end of various discriminations. These people, and those who agree with them, should not be privileging the white working class in grassroots organizing I understand the strategic reasons, that you point to, that an electoral party would want to appeal to the white working class. And when it comes to electoral politics, it is strategically likely that actual leftists would and should vote for one of these parties in order to mitigate the potential damage done to the most vulnerable in society. But we must be able to differentiate between the sphere of electoral politics and community politics. A leftist might vote for a party like the Liberals/NDP, or the Democrats in an election. But that doesn't mean that, in community politics, in the four years between elections, we should support policies and rhetoric that privileges the white working class above the rest of the working class. In fact, the left should be doing the opposite. e: And I'm not saying that the left wants to enshrine the privilege of the white working class, but if we stop talking about race, sexism, homophobia in the hopes that the white working class will join our left economic movement then we are, in effect, enshrining their privilege. Its not a matter of want, systemic power structures create and maintain that privilege. If we fail to challenge those power structures then we fail to remove that privilege. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Sorry, I'm still stuck in a US election frame of mind. It's a hell of a hangover. In other news UMFA (U of Manitoba Faculty Association) has been on strike since November 1st. The U of M has been slow in adopting the university as corporation model pioneered by Carelton, but they're now trying to catch up and UMFA doesn't like it. From Radhika Desai http://www.themanitoban.com/2016/11/the-u-of-m-stands-at-a-historic-crossroads/29807/ quote:Why has this now come to a head? Not because UMFA leadership has unilaterally decided to be intransigent – as its flexibility on salaries shows. Rather, it is the membership that has decided ‘enough is enough.’ Extensive surveys revealed that practically all UMFA members are sufficiently affected and alienated by whatever combination of these problems they confront that they have told UMFA to prioritize them. That is why support for the strike is strong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
What is the ownership model of wind turbines in Ontario? Is it mostly large foreign companies coming in? Are there examples of community owned wind farms? I'm down with wind, but I think ownership is important. Wasn't their a huge fight over private run of river hydro in BC? Just because a technology is safe and relatively environmentally friendly doesn't mean there can't be all sorts of issues with how its implemented. e: Looks like TransAlta and Enbridge own a few of the biggest wind farms in Ontario. Not exactly the most reputable companies, nor companies with the best reputation for community consultation. Also the company that makes Scotties Spongetowels owns some big wind farms. And some other companies I don't know about. Brookfield? Anyways, I think there is creedence to the idea that community ownership would reduce resistance to wind farms, because everyone in the community would benefit rather than just the farmer whose property its on. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:I've done some research on this. I've heard there's more buy in and less complaints about health etc in European countries with community and co-op ownership models. Do you have any recommendations for good articles about the wind power in Ontario (maybe even in comparison to other places)?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Is there a good way to target sales taxes at the rich? Taxes on yachts, private submarines and the like?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:In today's Manitoba throne speech the PC party promised to pass a law limiting wage increases for unionized public sector employees, this will end well. And they accuse unions of being NDP stooges as if they have no reason to dislike the PCs
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the only way to avoid further contribution to climate change is to reduce the use of power. Even if we were to switch to nuclear worldwide and maintain our current power use we would be hosed. Not to mention the time and resources it would take to build all those nuclear power plants. But you all know that new (nuclear) power plants wouldn't just be about satisfying existing use, it would be about about expanding power use so we can build even bigger homes and build more useless poo poo. Sure if all new power plants were nuclear it might reduce climate impact, but if all that new power is used to expand cities, manufacture new phones for everyone every six months, and pull even more potash out of the ground then we're only increasing our impact on all the other environmental crises we face. Any discussion about energy and climate change needs to first be 'how much energy do we use/need?'. Talking about how we make our energy is secondary. I mean hydro is better than fossil fuels (in terms of climate change), but if we build a new hydro plant to power natural gas refineries than what have we accomplished? We just destroyed a bunch of rare ecosystems, arable land, and sacred land for nothing. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:It's not just clean or dirty power, there's degrees you see. You seem to misunderstand. I'm saying we stop global warming by reducing our energy use. Surely that's a sacrifice is it not? I never said we shouldn't use the best option to provide power. We need to use the cleanest energy possible, but we also need to make our cities more compact, make public transit better, stop using cars as often, switch to agroecological farming methods, repair things rather than replace, stop using disposable products etc etc etc. Doesn't matter if we switch from coal to natural gas if we increase our energy use by building a bunch of new suburbs and 2 cars for every family in that suburb to commute to their job.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Square Peg posted:We stop global warming by releasing less greenhouse gas. We can make public transit better by electrifying it (more electricity), switching to electric cars (more electricity), switch to hydroponic/vertical farming (more electricity), recycle materials rather than just digging it up and throwing it away (way more electricity/energy), etc etc etc. We need more electricity, but we need it from sources that don't produce greenhouse gasses. That means nuclear, with a side of solar/wind. We can coat every building rooftop and parking lot with solar panels and put a windmill on every farmer's field if it makes you feel better, but it will always be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. And bulldozing half the planet to cover it in solar cells or wind farms hardly seems environmentalist to me. I have not said I'm against the use of nuclear, so I'm not sure why you are responding to me as if I did say that. I'm down with the use of nuclear. And I certainly never said anything about bulldozing anywhere to put up solar cells or wind farms. I guess I'm just tired of solutions that fixate on technological solutions to socio-political problems. Electrifying public transit might reduce emissions, but does it increase access, improve coverage, encourage people to use it more than personal vehicles? Why should car emissions be solved by producing a different product (an electric car) that requires materials, energy inputs etc instead of making a society where people can live and work without needing a personal vehicle? Recycling is great, but is it better to recycle a phone every year or every 5 years? Why use hydroponic farming rather than agroecological methods?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:People tend to fixate on technological solutions because, by and large, they're often more pragmatic. Which do you think has a higher chance of happening in our lifetime: switching to a non-emitive power generation source, or re-building our cities/societies from the ground up with these utopian ideals in mind? I dont disagree that we need to reduce consumption across the board, but I straight up doing see it happening on a significant scale anytime soon. Changing the way we generate power is comparatively easy and will have a significant impact on the planet, even if it doesn't preclude the need to re-shape the way we live. Technological solutions are easier because they don't threaten capitalism. In fact they might even be good for capitalism. Old car emitting too much? Buy this new electric car! Re-shaping the way we live to do less damage to the environment fundamentally threatens capitalism. Sharing one car among say 20 people is way better for the environment than each person having two of their own. But how many automakers would that put out of business? How many workers laid off? Of course its going to be extremely politically difficult to make those changes. But I believe they are necessary changes to avoid the worst of climate change and other environmental crises we face. Technological changes alone aren't enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against technology, but without those other changes technological solutions will reinforce the socio-political structures that are causing climate change and other environmental crises. quote:Also I was with you until that last sentence. Agroecological methods of food production are a first-world hippie idealization. They dont scale and they're not sufficient to feed the planet's population. Via Campesina, the largest organization of peasant farmers, endorses agroecology so it is definitely not a first-world hippie thing. The FAO says that peasant farmers already feed the majority of the worlds population. Agroecology doesn't need to scale, it only needs to continue to improve methods for those peasant farmers. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Bring on GMOs and crops that resist environmental conditions that would otherwise wipe out entire fields. GMOs that are drought resistant and the like would be great. But governments around the world have been cutting public funding for agricultural research. For instance, the Conservatives in one of their 2012 omnibus bills closed down a research center in Winnipeg that developed crops for prairie farmers. So increasingly, all the research is being funded by private companies. Drought resistant crops don't promise a lot of profits, so they don't get much of that funding. Instead the various biotech companies are much more interested in developing oil crops that can be used to make biofuels. So much for feeding the world. This is why technological solutions aren't enough. We need to make political changes to ensure that technology is developed and applied in a way that is socially and environmentally beneficial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Powershift posted:You sure do use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing. True. So does this mean that they're going to implement whatever they want based on the vaguely worded survey that they're going to send out?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 19:16
|
|