Ruthless socialism

Canadian writer novelist Stephen Marche makes a most remarkable connection when he says, “Canada shows the rewards of financial regulation and socialism...” and also, “Canada has pursued a hard-headed (even ruthless) fiscally conservative socialism.”

---

Indeed yes, and in doing so Canada surely must have employed the principles of Christian atheism. The dictionary defines socialism as “the stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.” So stand by, comrades, Canada, if we follow this logic to its inevitable conclusion, will soon be a workers’ paradise, where hard workers and the indolent will share and share alike.

---

---

One step in this “stage of society” is richly illustrated in a public statement once made by NDP MP Olivia Chow, to the effect that, “In power, we will move some money around ... “ Guess whose money? Yours. You see, Olivia, like any true-blue (oops, no, true-pink) socialist, knows far better than you do how to spend your money. The hard fact of the matter is that fiscally conservative policies are non-political; they do not belong to any party. This was illustrated dramatically in the early ‘90s in Canada. The Economist newsmagazine had welcomed us as honorary members of the Third World. Federally and provincially, we were headed for the edge of the cliff over which New Zealand had lately crashed (Mr. Finance Minister, when do we need that $800 million? By Wednesday, Mr. Prime Minister), and on which Greece, Spain, and one or two others find themselves today: their credit cards are maxed out and they are unable to pay their bills without reluctant help from more provident administrations like Germany’s. So, in the early ‘90s, provincial Conservative premier Mike Harris and federal Liberal finance minister Paul Martin both recognized the fix Canada was in and what had to be done about it. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall listening to what must have been many a phone call between those two. They must have agreed that drastic measures were needed to avoid bankruptcy, the condition in which you owe more than you own. As the old adage has it, if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. To stop digging, Martin did his thing mainly by reducing the size and services provided by the Feds and by downloading huge costs onto the provinces, who perforce did likewise, cutting the biggest costs such as welfare and forcing municipalities (that’s us) to assume big, unwelcome responsibilities. Cruel? Yes. Unfair? Yes. An unavoidable necessity? Yes. And one that laid on the likes of Mike Harris the blame for it all, a blame that unjustly survives to this day. And what would we enjoy from the socialist component of the columnist’s “fiscally conservative socialism”? No trouble answering that: the evidence is all around us. Among the several current examples of socialism’s failure we have Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Cuba’s leader has admitted that the system has failed; this from a leader whose dedication to his failed socialist system could well be emulated by Canadians in dedication to democracy. Venezuela, a major oil producer, must import gasoline and is plagued with widespread shortages of ordinary goods. (Polish joke: Five years after a socialist government was elected in The Sahara, there was a shortage of sand.) North Korea’s people eat grass and starve to death by the hundreds of thousands while a huge, well-fed army struts about. Further, the unfortunate citizens of all of these nations have lost a more precious thing yet; their freedom. Socialist apologists protest that these are not “true socialist” states. All very well but all of them arose bearing the label “socialism:. So beware what you buy that is labeled “socialism”. It’s quite likely that socialism is exactly what is in the box. “Fiscally conservative socialism”? Nay, simple commonsense, non-political, non-partisan fiscal small-c conservatism is what has preserved Canada. Applied by the likes of Mark Carney, head of the Bank of Canada, it works quietly in the background. It will keep us independent, not ruled by the International Monetary Fund or by decisions made in Berlin or Geneva ... nor in the back rooms of any political party of any stripe. This is a message Canadian citizens should deliver to the politicians every day of every year, with each election being merely a firm period (.) to that sentence.

---