cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/49822861
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/41118245
Carney, a faithfull minion of the ultra-rich, same as always.
Called it.
I remember when people were really excited about him winning, and they just kinda ignored he’s an international banker, and therefore a motherfucker.
Who was? I think people were more excited it wasn’t PPA
What the fuck Canada? Y’all complain about us down here, you should fix your shit.
Carney was voted in because otherwise we would have got Pierre Poilievre, the Nazi-courting, MAGA-wannabe dweeb. It was strategic voting, not enthusiasm for Carney or the Liberals. If we weren’t stuck with first-past-the-post elections we wouldn’t be stuck with a choice between Neoliberal bankers and maple MAGA.
It was strategic voting
but that’s not possible with what the leftists of lemmy shovel.
you either let the nonce win, vote independent, or don’t vote at all.
Can’t believe a career Goldman Sachs bankster would do this.
Beginning to suspect the Labour Party is something of a misnomer.
Beginning to suspect the Labour Party is something of a misnomer.
There’s no Labour Party in Canada. Carney leads the Liberal Party.
which is also a misnomer
The Liberal Party is liberal in the traditional sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
But the Conservative Party probably also qualifies as liberal in this sense.
Some people, particularly many Americans, use the term “liberal” to mean left-wing or progressive. The Liberal Party of Canada is not really liberal in that sense, though they make smallish gestures towards social progressivism when it doesn’t impact capital.
Anybody who is a genuine Liberal would be against things which overall reduced people’s Freedom, such as most Land Ownership and excessive accumulation of claims on goods, assets and services (i.e. Money).
Land Ownership reduces the Liberty of those who are born landless (who can’t just choose to survive by growing their own food and building their own place to live and instead have to work for those who own all the productive assets - including Land - in a mathematically rigged environment were Ownership yields money faster than Work, to try and climb their way to ownership) and excessive wealth accumulation increased the Liberty of a few by decreasing the Liberty of many, many more people - if somebody can pay more for some shit, others won’t get that shit unless its availability is infinite or close enough to it to make no difference.
I doubt there is a single genuine Liberal party anywhere - they all defend land ownership and maximizing Liberty for money in an environment where Mathematically there is a positive feedback cycle where the more the Money one has the more Money one makes, so invariably reducing the Liberty of people.
At best you could say they’re genuinelly liberal representatives of Money, not of human beings.
Nope, that’s what liberalism is. Americans (and Canadians) use “liberal” to refer to anyone left of center, but globally and historically liberalism refers to an ideology that promotes individual liberties, private property rights and free trade (anong other things) and posits that the sole purpose of government is to guarantee those things. This means that on the modern political spectrum, “pure” liberalism would be center-right, with varying amounts of leftwing influence spanning the spectrum from center-right to center-left. Canada’s Liberal Party definitely fits.
what you state means conservatism and liberalism are basically the same… I know they are in practice but they are supposed to be dif"erent in theory at least
The thing is that conservatism is just support for established power structures, meaning it changes with time and place, while liberalism is a specific ideology/strain of ideologies. For example conservatism in 19th century America would’ve been pro-slavery, not limited government. Meanwhile in France conservatism would’ve been monarchist, and in early 20th century Europe it would’ve been monarchist or fascist. Besides, even in modern politics conservatism implies positions on race, sexuality and religion relations(among others) that are pretty illiberal. It’s only economic policy that overlaps, which makes sense because economically liberalism is pro-capital owners, conservatism is pro-the rich and powerful and right now the rich and powerful are all capital owners.
Jeez looks like they could use some help. To bad they hate America.
It’s not like the USA would otherwise be any help.
