Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

For additional context:

- Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite" [1];

- Carney's pre-election speech (Mar 2025) claimed the old relationship with the US is over [2]; and

- Trump's handling of Canada relations, particularly with the tariff frenzy, basically ended up giving the election to Carney [3].

This administration is busy destroying the relationships and institutions that the US created for America's interests like NATO.

[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-a...

[2]: https://speakola.com/political/mark-carney-response-to-trump...

[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypz7yx73wo

View on HN

what does "evoked" mean here?

there is absolutely no way that Carney, a career banker with ties to the Royals, would ever say or imply "workers of the world unite".

him and his homies are firm believers of "workers of the world stfu"

> Carney's Davos speech (Jan 2026) evoked "workers of the world unite"

No it didn't. He gave it as an example of something people behind the Iron Curtain didn’t believe but parroted "to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along".

The man is a banker. The implication that Carney - arguably the most neoliberal leader Canada has ever seen - is a communist is absurd.

yeah exactly. it's bizarre to highlight that quote from his davos speech completley out of context. he inteded it as a way to completely discredit communism. and to ridicule the idea of unionization. he then spent 10 minutes passionately making the case for continuing the neoliberal capitalist agenda

That is...also a misrepresentation of what Carney was saying.

He was referencing the words of a writer from Czechia, a country where communism discredited itself, who discussed how people pretended not to notice the gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions, and compared it to how countries politely have pretended to ignore the gap between the aspirations of the "rules-based international order" and how it played out in practice.

Of course, he could have used as an example a different dissident who said something similar from a different country who operated under a different totalitarian regime. Or skipped the analogy to political repression altogether. You could say that reflects Carney's particular biases, I guess, but I wouldn't go further than that. At no point does he ridicule or even mention unionization.

i agree that discrediting communism wasn't really the topic of his talk. but the phrase is a call to unionization in itself. especially when shopkeepers use it, like in the story carney referenced. capable politicians don't leave clear subtext like that to chance. which is why it's bizarre to highlight it without context, like in OP's message. on its own it doesn't convey the scorn with which carney framed it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com