Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Canada too. It's not pure socialism, it's democratic socialism and it works great.

For anyone who downvotes throw in a comment so a discussion can be had! Seriously though, I don't think many foreigners realize the extent of Government ownership of essentials of Canadian life. We call them Crown Corporations and there's a list as long as my arm at [1]. They're largely well managed and successful businesses - some of them are even buying and operating US businesses (as with Ontario Power Generation's recent acquisition of New Jersey's Eagle Creek Renewable Energy [2]). Not to mention health care.

Previously Canada has had and spun off: Nationalized petroleum company (PetroCanada), package delivery company (Purolator), freight rail network (CN), airline (Air Canada) and aircraft manufacturer (Canadair).

I feel the reason many people don't associate Canada with 'real' socialism is that I feel socialism in Canada is a pragmatic and not idealistic decision in many cases. It's a massive country and as a result it's not economical to provide many essential services. These services are pragmatically socialized, and once they become profitable to operate as businesses are spun off as was done with the aforementioned.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

[2] https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/08/09/ontario-power-ge...

State ownership of some essential utilities and public services are a feature of social democracy, not democratic socialism. It should also be noted that the examples you mentioned were privatized decades ago (except Purolator, which remains owned by Canada Post).

Do the workers own the means of production, at least in terms of government propaganda? No? Then it's not socialism.

The workers didn't own the means of production in Venezuela either.

Most industry in Venezuela is privately or publicly owned.

That's why I said "at least in terms of propaganda". Anything that's owned by the state is considered to be owned by (all) the people.

Venezuela also is not by definition a socialist country, it just has a socialist party whose goal is socialism. There still is a relatively strong opposition.

In modern political discourse, democratic socialism and social democracy are considered interchangeable, and that's what I stated in the parent comment applies to Canada and it seems that's a pretty good model and consensus description.

(Using the definition "a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices")

No. It's a social democracy. Social democracy is not socialism. Social democracy is always expressed within a capitalist and liberal framework, while socialism negates capitalism altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Here's the thing, while I think your argument has merit, I think it's not the topic that we're discussing here. I seriously doubt anyone is promoting the elimination of private property these days within the West or Europe. To play the pedantic game here may not be relevant, when even the dictionary has equated the two - rightly or wrongly. I know neither Sanders nor Occasio-Cortez, nor the Canadian NDP advocate the elimination of private property, and in Europe these people are just referred to as Socialists and lumped together.

> In modern political discourse, democratic socialism and social democracy are considered interchangeable

Not at all, case in point: We are having a political discourse and people don't consider it interchangeable.

Its so good that 10x canadians go to live in the us than americans go to canada, even though america has 10x the population.

Not really, though. About 2X as many Americans live in Canada as Canadians living in America, accounting for a much larger share of the Canadian population than v.v.

According to the Canada 2006 Census, 316,350 Canadians reported American as being their ethnicity, at least partially. There are also between 900,000 and 2 million Americans living in Canada, either as full-time or part-time residents. [1]

According to U.S. Census estimates the number of Canadian residents was around 640,000 in 2000. [2]

According to Stats Canada, the trend has reversed over time as the absolute number of Canadians living in the US peaked in 1930 at 1.3MM, which would be about 12% of the Canadian population at the time, down to a current 1.8% [3] On the other hand, Americans in Canada acount for 0.66%. At most it's a 3X discrepancy, not 10X, and it's largely due to the draw of the US economy. What would be more interesting to me, IMO, would be how many return home.

By all means, have at them windmills though, at least you've got a good view from on top that high horse ;)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Canadians

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Americans

[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article...

That's because it's difficult for poor populations to escape the US...

The Danish PM itself said their government is not socialist: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-...

Canada is not democratic socialist.

Don't just say no, cite some sources and have a conversation.

Two of our four major parties (the NDP and the Parti Québécois) officially adheres to a Democratic Socialist policy [1]. Sure they've not had a turn at governing though they've been the official opposition, and the NDP is currently in charge of the Alberta government. They're not some fringe party. Their platform overlaps heavily with the ruling Federal Liberals - and they're both considered "centre-left" parties.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party

The NDP constitution refers to democratic socialism only in the following sentence: New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour.... This doesn't mean they adhere to democratic socialism. In fact, only a minority faction of the NDP is committed to democratic socialism, namely the NDP Socialist Caucus. I couldn't find a source for PQ adhering to democratic socialism, but would welcome any references. The Liberal Party and its provincial counterparts are definitely not democratic socialist.

Second, even if the NDP and PQ adhered to democratic socialism, that would not mean Canada is democratic socialist. The fact that the Conservative Party adheres to conservatism, for example, does not mean Canada is conservative.

Third, Canada is not democratic socialist because democratic socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, including the elimination of private property. There is simply no realistic chance of Canada transitioning to a socialist economy and eliminating private property in the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen eventually, just that it is not feasible under Canada's current political climate, government institutions, and legal framework.

PS: Did you mean to refer to Bloc Québécois (the federal party) rather than Parti Québécois (the provincial party)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com