[whelan costen]

Good post, hopefully we won't have to wait for 2017 before the people wake up! I believe they are and I am hopeful we can take back our country and be an example for others.

[empson7]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Depends where you start the historical counter...<br /> <br /> It could be that capitalism is dead, again and the ruling classes are falling back on the tried and true; simply divide the world up with warlords and theocracy.<br /> <br /> That scheme served the ancien regime for millenium...could be the experiment of democracy and capitalism is coming to an end as these are not really compatible with corportism.

[Dino]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Corporations have hijacked our elected governments. Our politicians are mere servants, their only purpose is to put in the laws that corporations want. The new world order is destroying us.<br /> <br /> This already happened before. We are reliving the “good old days”, except they were everything but good. By the end of the 19th century the rich successfully exploited the poor to the degree that the latter had sunk into deep poverty. The result was economic chaos and the struggle for social justice intensified. The leading powers thought that a war for resources (colonies) would be a great way to rise the economy out of the slump, hence the Great War was fought. It did not resolve anything, however in Russia the people decided to turn their weapons against corporate rule and the Soviet Union was born. The days of capitalism were numbered. During the next couple of decades, the bad times in the West continued. There was a very real “threat” of a global socialist revolution. Some governments began to urge corporations to share some of their wealth. Satisfied people don’t rebel. The corporations opposed (no surprise there), so the dirty 30s followed. When the situation became unbearable, governments took steps and the power of corporations was somewhat limited. The result was the most prosperous society mankind ever lived in.<br /> <br /> Capitalism without limits is a one way street into poverty, chaos and economic meltdown. The rich can always make more money than the poor so the social differences always grow. The large fish eat the small fish and eventually everything is monopolized. Prices and corporate profits soar and the poor gradually lose everything. The only way to turn capitalism into a viable system is to regulate it. Dismantling the regulation causes a collapse within a few decades. If corporations are not controlled, they become a roadblock to progress.<br /> <br /> Now corporations enjoy unlimited power and they decided that it’s time to raid the middle-class again. They are stealing everything we have and pushing us into poverty. The wealth we accumulated during the past 50 years makes us prime target. During the Cold War they wouldn’t have dared to do it. While the communist threat existed, they had no choice but to keep us well paid, satisfied and optimistic. They couldn’t rob us with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block hanging around but now they can. There is no stopping them now. The dirty 30s are making a comeback.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, people are stupid. Most of us only think of ourselves. We never stand up united. Their media bombards our brains with lies. They use war and terrorism to divert our attention. The real terrorists are among us and they are in control. In 20 years unemployment in the West will be catastrophic. Those lucky enough to work will have to settle with Asian wages. We are heading back to the “good old times” with slave wages, horrible exploitation, no benefits and no hope. However, in 1917 there was a revolution…<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I agree with what you say! but to say people are stupid i disagree because they don't even realize what's going on in Canada. If every Canadian got to see what was in NAFTA no one would support it and our Liberals and Conservatives know this but they could care less about us so it's simply up to people to inform themselves of the actual truth!<br /> <br /> This country will wake up when we have a leader who will run an election on getting out of NAFTA and talking about how capitalism has screwed over the majority of Canadians. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'>

[empson7]

[QUOTE BY= dino] <br /> If every Canadian got to see what was in NAFTA no one would support it and our Liberals and Conservatives know this but they could care less about us so it's simply up to people to inform themselves of the actual truth!<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The NDP endorses NAFTA--why did you leave them off the list? Isn't that one of the more shocking things? Social democrats have been pushing and promoting 'corporate trade deals' for decades.<br /> <br /> Rather eerie I know while the same ones squawk loudly about, say Wal-Mart not being unionized, but never condemn the overall 'slave trade' of bloody goods made by slaves at the expense of jobs for a free people. <br /> <br /> If social democrats do, then it simply becomes another 'scheme' for trade and access by NGOs that simply lay the groundwork for corportists or turn it into an opportunity to denounce the 'evils' of agricultural subsidies and play libertarians for a nano-second boring one's ear off about 'fair trade coffee'.<i>(Does one really believe that the world's economic problems can be solved through MORE better consumerism?)</i><br /> <br /> The supposed immigration problems in the US from Mexico, are directly related to NAFTA's agricultural dumping and forcing people off the farms to look for work in El Norte. The precise criticism that many social democrats ignored simply for party electoral gains and 'optics' in the 80s and early 90s have now come home to 'roost'; it was a disaster and to exempt the 'Third Way' social democrats from their own complicity in this disasterous trade route is appalling.<br /> <br /> There really is NO surprise that a wave of actual leftwing dissent is showing itself all the way from India to Caracas, while social democrats continue to ignore this natural affinity and push for Jeffrey Sach's 'old wine in new bottles'.<br /> <br /> Would it be rightwing for the NDP to pledge--no agreements if there is job loss and the country who wishes to sell it goods here must abide by basic human rights? <br /> <br /> Amazing while capitalism is going under its closest scrutiny ever, we have a party of 'social democrats', run by a Red Tory, that isn't really a part of it, but whose existence in the political mix almost ensures the corporate agenda of the Right goes through without opposition, even though there is a considerable opposition in the public to expanded global trade?<br /> <br /> Just like there is a considerable opposition to Bush's imperialist war in Afghanistan and a report today that the US just wasted a whole village near Kandahar--we're saving these people?<br /> <br /> Where's the outrage with these people? Kyoto? nothing...so why bother pretending that a party of the left continues to exist in Canada? The NDP has done nothing except carry the can for neo-con liberals for the last 15 years. <br /> <br /> The left in Canada has had it too easy allowing institutional elites talk for them--unfortunately they have helped lead us into poverty, war and a dreary future for working people here and in the world and who can no longer even be counted on for a minimalist critique of capital.<br /> <br /> The pantiomine of these capitalist supporters is getting a little thin and so are they're supporters.

[Dino]

[QUOTE BY= empson7] [QUOTE BY= dino] <br /> If every Canadian got to see what was in NAFTA no one would support it and our Liberals and Conservatives know this but they could care less about us so it's simply up to people to inform themselves of the actual truth!<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The NDP endorses NAFTA--why did you leave them off the list? Isn't that one of the more shocking things? Social democrats have been pushing and promoting 'corporate trade deals' for decades.<br /> <br /> Rather eerie I know while the same ones squawk loudly about, say Wal-Mart not being unionized, but never condemn the overall 'slave trade' of bloody goods made by slaves at the expense of jobs for a free people. <br /> <br /> If social democrats do, then it simply becomes another 'scheme' for trade and access by NGOs that simply lay the groundwork for corportists or turn it into an opportunity to denounce the 'evils' of agricultural subsidies and play libertarians for a nano-second boring one's ear off about 'fair trade coffee'.<i>(Does one really believe that the world's economic problems can be solved through MORE better consumerism?)</i><br /> <br /> The supposed immigration problems in the US from Mexico, are directly related to NAFTA's agricultural dumping and forcing people off the farms to look for work in El Norte. The precise criticism that many social democrats ignored simply for party electoral gains and 'optics' in the 80s and early 90s have now come home to 'roost'; it was a disaster and to exempt the 'Third Way' social democrats from their own complicity in this disasterous trade route is appalling.<br /> <br /> There really is NO surprise that a wave of actual leftwing dissent is showing itself all the way from India to Caracas, while social democrats continue to ignore this natural affinity and push for Jeffrey Sach's 'old wine in new bottles'.<br /> <br /> Would it be rightwing for the NDP to pledge--no agreements if there is job loss and the country who wishes to sell it goods here must abide by basic human rights? <br /> <br /> Amazing while capitalism is going under its closest scrutiny ever, we have a party of 'social democrats', run by a Red Tory, that isn't really a part of it, but whose existence in the political mix almost ensures the corporate agenda of the Right goes through without opposition, even though there is a considerable opposition in the public to expanded global trade?<br /> <br /> Just like there is a considerable opposition to Bush's imperialist war in Afghanistan and a report today that the US just wasted a whole village near Kandahar--we're saving these people?<br /> <br /> Where's the outrage with these people? Kyoto? nothing...so why bother pretending that a party of the left continues to exist in Canada? The NDP has done nothing except carry the can for neo-con liberals for the last 15 years. <br /> <br /> The left in Canada has had it too easy allowing institutional elites talk for them--unfortunately they have helped lead us into poverty, war and a dreary future for working people here and in the world and who can no longer even be counted on for a minimalist critique of capital.<br /> <br /> The pantiomine of these capitalist supporters is getting a little thin and so are they're supporters. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> The NDP does not support NAFTA. I admit that they don't speak up about it way enough,but to put the Liberals Conservatives and NDP in the same bunch is foolish. NEw Democrats would never be so weak kneed on the softwood lumber and actually would be sticking up for Canadian sovereignty etc.<br /> <br /> The very reason Layton doesn't come of being really hard core left is because he needs to get elected. If he were ever to get elected let's say with a majority he would be as left wing as the book he wrote about making Canada a better place.<br /> <br /> And it's not a a crazy thing to think the NDP can come to power people.who voted bloc and who still support the bloc are slowly beginning to realize that breaking apart the social democratic vote keeps the Liberals and Conservatives in power. And I'm quite certain BLoc voters have much more in common with New Democrats then are two right wing parties.<br /> <br />

[fleur-de-lys]

The chances that the NPD is elected are very very tiny. <br /> <br /> I'm realistic, it will be easier for us to elect the PQ and win the referendum, Boisclair said it will be as soon as possible, so we could have our own social democrat republic. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Jacob]

It is true that the NDP was not in favour of the FTA in the 1988 General Election which had "free trade" as its sole election issue.

The problem is that what was stated to the electorate at that time, and also when the FTA became NAFTA a few years later (without the issue becoming an election issue) was vague and inconclusive. Canadians were told that there would be appeal panels and other conflict resolution mechanisms, but we did not know or realize (as we do now) that the US would just ignore these, as they do with many things, even the Geneva Conventions.

Was the Canadian government in 1988 (Mulroney in particular) aware of this? I doubt it. Should he have known - from a historical point of view? Maybe.

Have Canadian governments since 1988 been naive and thinking that eventually, things would work out in Canada's favour,m because we have "justice" on our side? I guess so. We have been trying hard enough with this softwood lumber issue, and have won time and again in all the right places, and yet the US "waives the rules" and doesn't give a hoot about the rulings - and then the Canadian governments (federal and provincial in this case) just cave in. Immensely sad.

[h.f. wolff]

[QUOTE BY= dino] [QUOTE BY= badsector] <br /> >><br /> "This country will wake up when we have a leader who will run an election on getting out of NAFTA and talking about how capitalism has screwed over the majority of Canadians." [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This has, in fact, partially at least, happened. If you recall the first time Jean Chretien ran for Prime Minister he promised to "tear up" the NAFTA agreement.<br /> [/quote]<br /> We all know what REALLY happened!<br /> <br /> What we don't know is WHY he changed his mind: was it blackmail, bribery, threats of bodily harm (to family members or friends) or, 'he saw the light' when he enterd the halls of power and concluded that NAFTA was a good thing for Canada (or himself???).<br /> <br /> Anybody know why Jean made the decisions he did? Not that Canadians at large really cared, judging by the following three election results.<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[h.f. wolff]

Don't know what happened in the above post......hey moderator, you didn't cut me off, did you???<br /> <br /> I was commenting on Dino's lament that if and when Canada got a leader that would lead us out of NAFTA.....<br /> <br /> I said in essence "been there, done that" with Jean Chretien's first election campaign during which he promised to "tear-up" the NAFTA agreement if elected.<br /> <br /> I was wondering why he reneged on his promise and proffed some thoughts as to why.<br /> <br /> In hindsight one can conclude that Canadians really don't care, judging by the results of the successive three elections. (I know things were a little more complicated thaen that, what with no viable opposition party, etc).<br /> <br /> But, he was elected four times....<br /> <br /> H.F. Wolff

[Roy_Whyte]

Only the parties without seats have called for an end to NAFTA. Greens are the most recent to be that vocal but the CAP, CH and others have all been saying it but to deaf ears.<br /> <br /> NDP have some great elements among them, and I hold out hope that their voices take sway but I don't hold my breath.<br /> <br /> As for the original post - excellent stuff. The poster is correct in that we are swinging back to the way things were before. Only now the corporations and those that control them are smarter and have conned the masses into thinking that their indentured slavery to the system is normal and nothing to get upset about. Everyone is a not only a wage slave but also a debt slave. Most just don't know it as their little heads are full of Canadian Idol and CanWest Global.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= h.f. wolff] Don't know what happened in the above post......hey moderator, you didn't cut me off, did you???<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Nope. You cut yourself off my forgetting to close your 'quote' tag. There must be matching 'quote' and '/quote' tags or your post appears blank.<br /> <br /> You previewed, right?

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Roy_Whyte] Only the parties without seats have called for an end to NAFTA.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Your observation begs the question, is support for NAFTA a rule of some unwritten law or simply due to the policies of the parties in power? I.e., should any of these NAFTA hating but seatless parties "win" a seat, will they (for whatever hidden reason) suddenly change their opinion and support NAFTA?<br /> <br />

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Roy_Whyte]NDP have some great elements among them, and I hold out hope that their voices take sway but I don't hold my breath.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It seems that being out of power means that you can better appeal to the will of the people, however once in power, the true nature of power shows its ugly head - and the fact is that the will of people is just an inconvenient nuisance. Has NAFTA ever had much support among the Canadian people? Mulroney's NAFTA was one of his legacies, and despite both the NDP and Liberals campaigning against NAFTA, once the Libs took over, NAFTA lived on anyway. Same thing with the GST. I bet the Afghan war will follow the same pattern as well. Most Canadians oppose the war, yet it lived on from one party to the another.<br /> <br /> <i>The NDP elected a record 43 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the election of 1988. The Liberals however had reaped most of the benefits in opposing free trade to emerge as the dominant alternative to the ruling government.</i> - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party#Height_of_popularity">source</a><br />

[Jacob]

Regarding the section in italics, remember that one cannot always believe Wikipedia as authoritative.

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Jacob] Regarding the section in italics, remember that one cannot always believe Wikipedia as authoritative.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I agree, sources should be looked at carefully. I found this from CAP's website (<a href="http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/MainPages/News.asp?Type=TRUE&ID=455&Language=English">here</a>):<br /> <br /> <blockquote><i>In his book The selling of Free Trade: NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy ,John R MacArthur discusses the hypocrisy of Brian Mulroney and of Chrétien towards the electorate. At page 267 he writes,”The Liberal party had taken a highly critical position against NAFTA during the election campaign, denouncing the Conservatives in its ‘Red Book’ for allowing Mexico to get protection for its energy resources that Canada does not have.” <br /> <br /> He quotes Chrétien who said after the election, “My desire was to be able to sign and not lose face. I named a minister, MacLaren, who was an absolute free trader...They say we flip-flopped, but we changed. I changed the policy of the party, and moved... to accepting NAFTA.” <br /> <br /> John MacArthur points out that Chrétien, to appease his own anti- Nafta Liberals, achieved symbolic re-negotiations addressing four sensitive points : creation of a subsidies code, an anti dumping code, a more effective dispute resolution mechanism, and protection of Canadian energy resources equal to Mexico’s. Nothing substantive was changed, but Chrétien got the political cover he needed. These sensitive points remain a major problem today.</i></blockquote><br /> <br /> Given our undeniable history full of lying and hypocritical politicians, why should we trust any of them, especially those who have not yet tasted power?<br /> <br /> I don't believe in the NDP anymore than the CONS or LIBS or CAP or GREENS, etc. They HAVE to be liars if they are to gain power, otherwise they'll always remain in the side lines, making whatever promises they want.<br /> <br /> The system is designed so that only those who support the real power base have any chance of being elected.<br /> <br /> What we have going on in reality is much worse than a dictatorship, because in a dictatorship at least you get know that it is a dictatorship, and you'll know who's the big asshole that's in charge.<br /> <br /> This painful song and dance thing we have going on in Canada makes me sick. I'd rather they just spell it out for us and be done with it, then we can get down to business figuring out what to do about the mess we've been ignoring for so long.<br />