Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com