Western Expresso

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Interesting. Do you reject the current push for "woke policies" then?

You will have to define "woke policies". But yes, I generally reject most forms of identity politics as they are in themselves divisive. I am more focused on outcomes than intentions. What's the point of doing something if it isn't actually solving the problem? I have always been a pragmatic person that way and evidence has shown that those kind of politics get the most broad support.

I have said this many times: you cannot lump all "leftists" together. Conservatives love to consider "liberals" as socialists or leftists but in reality, that is far from the case. In my mind, if you believe positively in capitalism and prefer individualism over collectivism/community, you are not a leftist (though I would not reject you and, given the opportunity, would show you how capitalism and individualism is bad for you and society).

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Interesting. Do you reject the current push for "woke policies" then?

It seems like the term "woke" has quickly become an easy epithet to dismiss all "left-of centre" issues without any consideration for their relative value.

Of course some criticism of what is included under the "woke" umbrella is valid. I am certain there are times when issue-related outrage is expressed simply as a knee-jerk reaction. Personally I include some of the accusations "cultural appropriation" in this (e.g. non-Polynesian children wearing "Moana" Halloween costumes being accused of "cultural appropriation")

The problem, IMO is in the dismissal of all concerns as being frivolous. Brains stop working, real issues never get addressed. IMO there is no way to avoid the work of rational judgement without causing more problems.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by pspeid

It seems like the term "woke" has quickly become an easy epithet to dismiss all "left-of centre" issues without any consideration for their relative value.

Of course some criticism of what is included under the "woke" umbrella is valid. I am certain there are times when issue-related outrage is expressed simply as a knee-jerk reaction. Personally I include some of the accusations "cultural appropriation" in this (e.g. non-Polynesian children wearing "Moana" Halloween costumes being accused of "cultural appropriation")

The problem, IMO is in the dismissal of all concerns as being frivolous. Brains stop working, real issues never get addressed. IMO there is no way to avoid the work of rational judgement without causing more problems.

I certainly would not get on someone's case for celebrating another culture in a positive way. Anyone who would do that is extremely misguided. When it comes to "wokeness" though, the same people who are against it usually have their own list of things that offend them whether its "the gays", trans people, people who don't absolutely love the military or patriotism, environmentalists, vegans, etc, and they only want to avoid consequences for their actions/beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, which overall favours liberal cultural norms.

When it comes to affirmative action, I have my own beliefs about that as well. Generally, it ends up being virtue signalling and only lifts up the most economically privileged/connected from the minority groups they target. Sure, it's great that organizations look like the general population, but what about their economic backgrounds? Are they proportionate to the varied economic conditions of the general population? That is what we need to focus on, with a goal of ending poverty completely, which is absolutely possible outside of a capitalist system.

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I certainly would not get on someone's case for celebrating another culture in a positive way. Anyone who would do that is extremely misguided. When it comes to "wokeness" though, the same people who are against it usually have their own list of things that offend them whether its "the gays", trans people, people who don't absolutely love the military or patriotism, environmentalists, vegans, etc, and they only want to avoid consequences for their actions/beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, which overall favours liberal cultural norms.

When it comes to affirmative action, I have my own beliefs about that as well. Generally, it ends up being virtue signalling and only lifts up the most economically privileged/connected from the minority groups they target. Sure, it's great that organizations look like the general population, but what about their economic backgrounds? Are they proportionate to the varied economic conditions of the general population? That is what we need to focus on, with a goal of ending poverty completely, which is absolutely possible outside of a capitalist system.

Last time I said that I was done, you challenged me to answer your questions. I’ve read all of your commentary and it comes down to some core leftist beliefs. You resent the success of others and believe that you are deserving a slice of their piece of the pie. You believe in limiting individual choice in favour of collectivism. You believe in restricting the actions, and fundamental freedoms of individuals within society to pursue their own self interest. Your reason for this is all under the guise that society would be better if we were all the same. As you said you are focused on outcomes not opportunity. You are against meritocracy and in favour of forced equity. You’re hoping to eliminate hierarchy, however it will only be replaced with a totalitarian form of hierarchy, because socialism can’t survive without control. Someone is always in charge; including collective communities. I’m sure that you know that.

Finally, when businesses hire to be reflective of the communities they serve, you automatically presume virtue signalling in their hiring choices. How about we live in a diverse community. Businesses wish to serve those new Canadians, and thus hire the best people they can to win their trust and business. We stay away from entitled toxic people.

I’ll move on again.

[1ajs]

theres no long term planning anymore
when u do u get called stupid
when u aim to run things sustainable u get called crazy and stupid

capitalisyn and its need to cnstantly grow is the problem as we move forward its going to colaps when pop growth crashes globaly and no one seems to be attempting to shift our thinking on this we need sustainability with what ever system we have

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

Last time I said that I was done, you challenged me to answer your questions. I’ve read all of your commentary and it comes down to some core leftist beliefs. You resent the success of others and believe that you are deserving a slice of their piece of the pie. You believe in limiting individual choice in favour of collectivism. You believe in restricting the actions, and fundamental freedoms of individuals within society to pursue their own self interest. Your reason for this is all under the guise that society would be better if we were all the same. As you said you are focused on outcomes not opportunity. You are against meritocracy and in favour of forced equity. You’re hoping to eliminate hierarchy, however it will only be replaced with a totalitarian form of hierarchy, because socialism can’t survive without control. Someone is always in charge; including collective communities. I’m sure that you know that.

Finally, when businesses hire to be reflective of the communities they serve, you automatically presume virtue signalling in their hiring choices. How about we live in a diverse community. Businesses wish to serve those new Canadians, and thus hire the best people they can to win their trust and business. We stay away from entitled toxic people.

I’ll move on again.

There you go again making things up. Socialism isn’t about making everyone equal. It’s about workers enjoying the fruits of their labour instead of capital using their power to squeeze everything they can out of them and putting people in charge of their workplaces and communities instead of a centralized power dictating to them. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. Success and compensation is not based on how hard you work or how skilled you are. It’s based on who you know and luck. The kind of outcomes I believe in are no homelessness, no hunger, no poverty, high literacy, high life expectancy, etc. As a society, we should be trying to achieve goals beyond that off infinite profit growth. Democratic socialism would make people more free than they are now under our brutal, inhumane form of capitalism that has us all slaving away for the machine, otherwise we die. There is also no freedom in not working currently, which absolutely should be the case. There should be an incentive to work, not a brutal disincentive to not work. To consider what we have now the highest form of freedom is laughable. I also am not completely against hierarchies. The democratic part of democratic socialism acknowledges we need some forms of hierarchy but these are all determined by the population in question whether it’s workers voting for who will be the manager or people in the community voting for government representation. Finally, I am not against diverse communities. Not sure where I suggested otherwise. Of course I am against all forms of discrimination. When it comes to affirmative action, I am for programs that ensure economically diverse workplaces and government, with the obvious goal of reducing economic inequality.

Hope that clears things up for you.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

theres no long term planning anymore
when u do u get called stupid
when u aim to run things sustainable u get called crazy and stupid

capitalisyn and its need to cnstantly grow is the problem as we move forward its going to colaps when pop growth crashes globaly and no one seems to be attempting to shift our thinking on this we need sustainability with what ever system we have

Yup, this sums it up. It’s insane to me that anyone with a brain thinks things are going alright. I guess it’s mostly a coping mechanism.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I am a democratic socialist. I mostly adhere to the same things that the Democratic Socialists of America believe in and I believe that kind of system would much better serve people and their communities. Of note: democratic socialists would not get rid of markets nor would it get rid of personal property. It basically boils down to workers and communities owning the means of production, instead of capital as it is today. Small businesses and cooperatives would also be encouraged. The main thing is to keep things decentralized. This I believe makes things more democratic and allows people to have meaning in their lives and feel like they can contribute to their communities.



There is no example because of the reasons I have already mentioned in previous posts. tldr; America and the CIA has made sure that there has been no successful socialist state as it would pose a threat to their power and the capitalists they represent. This is not a conspiracy. This is all out there in the open. John Bolton has recently admitted to helping plan coups on behalf of the US.



It starts with universal grassroots movements putting pressure on politicians, in order to put forward broad, progressive economic populist policies. The culture war that conservative and liberal elites are pushing on us must be rejected, and instead all workers should join in solidarity to fight the class war. The wealthy have class solidarity and do everything they can to protect their friends. The rest of us need to do the same.



I am angry and resentful. How can one not look at the sate of the world and not be? I grew up poor, struggled to escape it in spite of the hurdles, and I continuously see people in my own communities and around the world be exploited and countless injustices be committed on them, while our ecosystems are destroyed, all to benefit a few at the top, while the rest of us get crumbs. My goal is to educate other working class people and harness the anger of others and direct it towards those who are responsible. When people repeat propaganda and refuse to have an open mind, it becomes frustrating, especially when they clearly aren't reading what I have taken the time to type out. I am thankful that some people, like you, are coming into this with and open mind and I look forward to answering any further questions you may have.

I proudly wear the label of radical, though I don't believe my beliefs are radical to most and are only radical to the established powers who will stop at nothing to hold on to their control.

I'm not as good at breaking up quotes as you but will try to touch on a number of your point. The first paragraph is nice to hear what your actual position is beyond what everyone accuses you of... though you come across a little accusatory to others on here as well.

I looked at the DS USA site but felt it lacked the substance I was hoping for. Essentially state owned industries is the ask so in theory your vote influences the direction they move in and the windfalls stay with the government/worker. What happens when the industry languishes? Does the worker then have to carry the burden of lower/no wages due to lack of income? There would be a number of other questions to raise but can't fit them all here.

The youtube video you linked just speaks to a man/CIA who did help support a coup(s). This is not an indictment that the US is actively trying to suppress another form of governing, just that they were trying to over throw a government that was unfriendly to their interests, no different then other state backed interference. The US doesn't tend to care what type of government you are, as long as your interests don't conflict with theirs. The US for years tried to prop up the Shah in Iran and has worked with all the emirate kingdoms because they worked with them. I'm not stating this as agreement with their policies, just that socialism isn't something they are actively suppressing.

The idea of a class war is a little lost on me as well. Income inequality has continued to grow over the last ~50 years and should be addressed. This idea that the elites must fall sounds very extreme and reminiscent of revolutionary intent. With no proof of concept, the idea to jump head first into a system seems to brash. Perhaps a gradual approach would work to identify shortfalls and implement solutions.

It's good to hear that though you struggled, you were able to pull yourself out of poverty. With a growing disparity of income distribution, it is getting harder and harder to achieve that. There are less people at the bottom today than in the past however (LINK).
Globally as well, the rates of poverty have been declining (LINK). The world isn't all doom and gloom, progress has been made and the lives of people at a macro level are much better today then in the past. That is what makes me hesitant to change.

Perhaps you aren't radical, and having a common sense conversation would lead to more insight and less hyperbole. Something a forum doesn't often offer easily.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

I'm not as good at breaking up quotes as you but will try to touch on a number of your point. The first paragraph is nice to hear what your actual position is beyond what everyone accuses you of... though you come across a little accusatory to others on here as well.

I looked at the DS USA site but felt it lacked the substance I was hoping for. Essentially state owned industries is the ask so in theory your vote influences the direction they move in and the windfalls stay with the government/worker. What happens when the industry languishes? Does the worker then have to carry the burden of lower/no wages due to lack of income? There would be a number of other questions to raise but can't fit them all here.

What happens now when industry languishes? Companies close up and leave, while the employees are forced to find new jobs, possibly in a completely new location. But in a socialist world, incentives are different, and industries flourish and die based on how they benefit people, not profits. People's needs are more stable than the drive for quarterly profit growth.

Originally Posted by dmacc

The youtube video you linked just speaks to a man/CIA who did help support a coup(s). This is not an indictment that the US is actively trying to suppress another form of governing, just that they were trying to over throw a government that was unfriendly to their interests, no different then other state backed interference. The US doesn't tend to care what type of government you are, as long as your interests don't conflict with theirs. The US for years tried to prop up the Shah in Iran and has worked with all the emirate kingdoms because they worked with them. I'm not stating this as agreement with their policies, just that socialism isn't something they are actively suppressing.

John Bolton isn't just a man. He is a war hawk who was national security advisor under Trump, and has been close to Republicans for his entire career. The US government absolute does care what kind of government you have because the kind of government you have dictates whether or not you allow American and other Western countries into your country to extract resources for as little cost as possible. This effectively targets socialist countries, as socialists reject free trade and support strong labour and environmental regulations. Look at who the US supports in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia. These are both far right, theocratic nations (yes, that is what Israel is, with some lipstick added). Look at how even Elon Musk shamelessly throws out the idea of couping a socialist nation that refuses to whore itself out to the world.

Originally Posted by dmacc

The idea of a class war is a little lost on me as well. Income inequality has continued to grow over the last ~50 years and should be addressed. This idea that the elites must fall sounds very extreme and reminiscent of revolutionary intent. With no proof of concept, the idea to jump head first into a system seems to brash. Perhaps a gradual approach would work to identify shortfalls and implement solutions.

What we do need is a revolution. Moderate policies will not be enough to reverse the trend of wealth being hoarded amongst the top 1%, who now have effective control of all of our institutions (Canada is catching up to America, re: healthcare and education). Something like a new New Deal might help temporarily, but capitalism will always revert to where we are today. There are many proofs of concept of revolutions, which mostly failed, and Bernie Sanders offers many ideas, though I don't believe they go far enough. The fact it hasn't been successful does not mean we should give up. It took a lot of fighting and sacrifice to get things like the 40 hour work week, to end child labour, to end slavery, etc.

When it comes to the class war, I mean to say that all ordinary people are being pitted against each other on the basis or race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc, which is referred to as the culture war, when we should instead be uniting on our economic similarities, in a class war. As I mentioned, the wealthy have class solidarity. They do whatever they can to maintain their power and status. The rest of us need to join in solidarity and focus our anger on them. The rise of the far right is a response to the real feelings of disaffectedness and loss of economic opportunity people have. They are told to blame immigrants or trans people or environmentalists when instead they should blame the system we are forced to live in and those who continue to hoard wealth and power for themselves.

Originally Posted by dmacc

It's good to hear that though you struggled, you were able to pull yourself out of poverty. With a growing disparity of income distribution, it is getting harder and harder to achieve that. There are less people at the bottom today than in the past however (LINK).
Globally as well, the rates of poverty have been declining (LINK). The world isn't all doom and gloom, progress has been made and the lives of people at a macro level are much better today then in the past. That is what makes me hesitant to change.

Incremental change is happening, but it isn't enough, as the wealthy just keep extracting more and more wealth, while our planet and the ecosystems that we rely on are being destroyed. As an example, the Alaskan snow crab season was cancelled due to the disappearance of an estimated 1 billion crabs. Meanwhile, Ontario premier Doug Ford is opening up development in the Ontario green belt for more urban sprawl, taking away even more farmland. Humans won't survive in a climate that is destroyed by the capitalist drive to consume.

Originally Posted by dmacc

Perhaps you aren't radical, and having a common sense conversation would lead to more insight and less hyperbole. Something a forum doesn't often offer easily.

Well, I am radical, and my goal is to radicalize everyone around me. You're right though, a forum that isn't specifically about these topics is not necessarily the best place to do this, thought I believe urban planning and community development is absolutely related to this topic. I do recognize the need to be more pragmatic in my messaging though. The radical far right is growing and I would rather those people become radicalized to the left, where it will benefit them more. It's hard not to be hyperbolic when you take a clear eyed view of what's really happening and where we are headed.

I will also mention that I am not doing this for personal gain. I earn my income and wealth through my labour as a software developer. My financial stability allows me to spend time on my true passion, which is making a better world for everyone else, so that another person doesn’t have to struggle the way I did. What’s the point of life if we aren’t trying to end suffering for good? With all the knowledge, technology, and wealth we have in the world, it doesn’t have to be this way.

[djforsberg]

Here's an argument for hyperbole: has anyone noticed how much of one's income housing has become? Whether you rent or are wanting to buy your first home, housing costs anywhere from 2x to 5x+ as a proportion of your income compared to 40 years ago (for Regina, its about 3x more, comparing median house sale prices and median household income). Even with a coming recession, any correction will be relatively minuscule thanks to the nature of our politics and financial system, and anyone not already owning their own home is basically trapped with much less disposable income as previous generation have had, with little to no hope in getting ahead. That's less money to spend on an education. Less money to spend on starting a business. Less money to spend in the economy. This is very bad for the economy as a whole, especially an economy based on consumption, and is utterly depressing for those individuals not lucky enough to get in before housing costs shot up. I would like to know what non-radical idea would fix this great wrong that has only benefited the most privileged Canadians.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Here's an argument for hyperbole: has anyone noticed how much of one's income housing has become? Whether you rent or are wanting to buy your first home, housing costs anywhere from 2x to 5x+ as a proportion of your income compared to 40 years ago (for Regina, its about 3x more, comparing median house sale prices and median household income). Even with a coming recession, any correction will be relatively minuscule thanks to the nature of our politics and financial system, and anyone not already owning their own home is basically trapped with much less disposable income as previous generation have had, with little to no hope in getting ahead. That's less money to spend on an education. Less money to spend on starting a business. Less money to spend in the economy. This is very bad for the economy as a whole, especially an economy based on consumption, and is utterly depressing for those individuals not lucky enough to get in before housing costs shot up. I would like to know what non-radical idea would fix this great wrong that has only benefited the most privileged Canadians.

Though this is just a snapshot between 2016-2021, it appears as though housing has become more affordable (Stats Can).

"Canadians find their housing more affordable in 2021 because of higher incomes

The rate of unaffordable housing, or the proportion of households that spent 30% or more of their income on shelter costs, fell from 24.1% in 2016 to 20.9% in 2021. The rate of unaffordable housing in Canada for renters fell from 40.0% in 2016 to 33.2% in 2021, with most of the decline occurring among renters earning below the median household income of all renters (68.4% in 2016, compared with 56.0% in 2021).

Unaffordable housing rates are highest in downtowns. In 33 of 42 downtowns of large urban centres, the percentage of renters spending more than 30% of their income on shelter costs in 2021 was above the national average.

Almost 1.5 million Canadian households lived in "core housing need" in 2021, defined as living in an unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable dwelling and not able to afford alternative housing in their community. The core housing need rate fell from 12.7% in 2016 to 10.1% in 2021, driven largely by the improvements in household incomes and housing affordability.

There were 603,040 children (8.8%) living in core housing need in 2021, down from 13.3% in 2016. Millennials who lived with a roommate were less than half as likely to live in core housing need (7.4%) as those who lived alone (15.3%)."

I wish I could have found more historical data but my quick google search didn't find it. Also interesting from that Stats Can page is that thought home ownership has declined from its peak in 2011, it is still well above pre 2000's levels.

Sorry I won't respond to your other reply to my comments. I don't have the capacity to think about or investigate your points enough to provide a thoughtful response.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Though this is just a snapshot between 2016-2021, it appears as though housing has become more affordable (Stats Can).

"Canadians find their housing more affordable in 2021 because of higher incomes

The rate of unaffordable housing, or the proportion of households that spent 30% or more of their income on shelter costs, fell from 24.1% in 2016 to 20.9% in 2021. The rate of unaffordable housing in Canada for renters fell from 40.0% in 2016 to 33.2% in 2021, with most of the decline occurring among renters earning below the median household income of all renters (68.4% in 2016, compared with 56.0% in 2021).

Unaffordable housing rates are highest in downtowns. In 33 of 42 downtowns of large urban centres, the percentage of renters spending more than 30% of their income on shelter costs in 2021 was above the national average.

Almost 1.5 million Canadian households lived in "core housing need" in 2021, defined as living in an unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable dwelling and not able to afford alternative housing in their community. The core housing need rate fell from 12.7% in 2016 to 10.1% in 2021, driven largely by the improvements in household incomes and housing affordability.

There were 603,040 children (8.8%) living in core housing need in 2021, down from 13.3% in 2016. Millennials who lived with a roommate were less than half as likely to live in core housing need (7.4%) as those who lived alone (15.3%)."

I wish I could have found more historical data but my quick google search didn't find it. Also interesting from that Stats Can page is that thought home ownership has declined from its peak in 2011, it is still well above pre 2000's levels.

This only paints but a small story. 20.9% of people spending more than 30% of their income on housing is still a lot, and I am not so sure that that hasn't gotten much worse in the last year. I agreed incremental change is happening, but it's not happening nearly as fast as the pace of change that got us to this point. These past two years has seen an incredible increase in housing unaffordability in places that was unheard of before, particularly in the Maritime provinces thanks to pandemic-related employment changes, including massive retirements and the ability for people to work remotely. Also, adding 1.5 million immigrants over the next few years will only exacerbate affordability issues as it will create unsustainable demand in already-out-stretched supply chains.

Originally Posted by dmacc

Sorry I won't respond to your other reply to my comments. I don't have the capacity to think about or investigate your points enough to provide a thoughtful response.

It's all good. Thanks for the honesty.

[thebasketballgeek]

Not related to the topic being discussed although it’s great discourse but what exactly is the Western Expresso thread for?

Even though I’ve been on this forum for years, the mystery of this thread and how it became important enough to be stickied still as it seems to encompass a very wide range of topics.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Not related to the topic being discussed although it’s great discourse but what exactly is the Western Expresso thread for?

Even though I’ve been on this forum for years, the mystery of this thread and how it became important enough to be stickied still as it seems to encompass a very wide range of topics.

As far as I understand, it's a catch all to discuss whatever comes to mind to keep the other threads more on track.

[thebasketballgeek]

^Thx, I was wondering for so long but that makes a lot of sense.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Not related to the topic being discussed although it’s great discourse but what exactly is the Western Expresso thread for?

Even though I’ve been on this forum for years, the mystery of this thread and how it became important enough to be stickied still as it seems to encompass a very wide range of topics.

I've been here for far too long, and there are others in here who have been here for a long time as well.

This thread is sort of like Skybar or Current Events, except it's a bit of a hybrid of the two, and obviously more localized.

[pspeid]

An interesting take:

https://torontolife.com/city/i-moved...e7aVEcSRn0hRAs

I find this article interesting because so much local mythology depicts Alberta as the the promised land, and Edmonton/Calgary as it's golden cities of prosperity. Of course, for some people it is, but I think it's important to take any depiction of that "other place" as paradise-on-Earth with a HUGE grain of salt. It's all personal tastes.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by pspeid

An interesting take:

https://torontolife.com/city/i-moved...e7aVEcSRn0hRAs

I find this article interesting because so much local mythology depicts Alberta as the the promised land, and Edmonton/Calgary as it's golden cities of prosperity. Of course, for some people it is, but I think it's important to take any depiction of that "other place" as paradise-on-Earth with a HUGE grain of salt. It's all personal tastes.

lol she moved to Leduc, AB and then was surprised there wasn't any nightlife...

[esquire]

That article is kind of silly. I mean, what kind of person moves across the country and expects everything to be exactly as it was back home? Instead of embracing her new locale, she decided to be upset that it wasn't Toronto. Besides, if you want to be Carrie Bradshaw, how can you settle for being in Toronto?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by pspeid

An interesting take:

https://torontolife.com/city/i-moved...e7aVEcSRn0hRAs

I find this article interesting because so much local mythology depicts Alberta as the the promised land, and Edmonton/Calgary as it's golden cities of prosperity. Of course, for some people it is, but I think it's important to take any depiction of that "other place" as paradise-on-Earth with a HUGE grain of salt. It's all personal tastes.

I don't think this is wrong per se, but most people don't only use money as their metric for a good place to live.