If you had to pick one. Nationalism, Socialism?

[anyaka21]

Actually I hate labels like Democrat or Republican. IMO, it's ideologies on how you want a government run, and personal ideologies on your own belief systems.

For example, you can be a socialist but be personally conservative. Just in the same way you can be a liberal capitalist.

For me, I have very definite socialist leanings. I'm for universal healthcare, free college, etc... But I'm also for much immigration reform, meaning, don't let people in because we have enough of a homeless problem as it is and we need to take care of our own before we think about letting others in.

[Shadowferal]

No fond of either label in the poll.
But only one ever became Nazism.

[Teleros]

Canada went through a big push to pay down our national debt, and did

Does that include the pensions and such though? According to Wiki, the "Canada Pension Plan" is unfunded to the tune of >$884bn in 2015 (so probably more by now).

Still, good on Canada for paying off what it can.

[tromage2]

For me, I have very definite socialist leanings. I'm for universal healthcare, free college, etc...

This is the hole issue i have, i see alot of ppl in the US asking for free healthcare, school ect.
In my country we got that and right now the government in my country takes more then 1/3 of my pay check almost 1/2 and its getting more and more out of control.
I dont use anything but i have to pay for others that just dont care about where the money comes from they take 3-4 childeren and expect to get money for it....
Young ppl go to school till age 25-26 and expect to get it for free.... (oyeah they also want to travel free by train)
The government expect the male and female to work so the childeren need daycare and i have to pay for it.... It is getting more crazy by the day.

I rather have a US system where i get a large part of my pay check and spend it on what i use instead of being a parent of the stupid and poor that cant handle money or take responsibility for their own life choices.

[nonameelf]

Socialism doesn't seem to actually mean anything specific. It's just a word to accuse someone of and then screech like a retard.

[sirmixalot]

Socialism doesn't seem to actually mean anything specific. It's just a word to accuse someone of and then screech like a retard.

see post above yours

[nonameelf]

This is the hole issue i have, i see alot of ppl in the US asking for free healthcare, school ect.
In my country we got that and right now the government in my country takes more then 1/3 of my pay check almost 1/2 and its getting more and more out of control.
I dont use anything but i have to pay for others that just dont care about where the money comes from they take 3-4 childeren and expect to get money for it....
Young ppl go to school till age 25-26 and expect to get it for free.... (oyeah they also want to travel free by train)
The government expect the male and female to work so the childeren need daycare and i have to pay for it.... It is getting more crazy by the day.

I rather have a US system where i get a large part of my pay check and spend it on what i use instead of being a parent of the stupid and poor that cant handle money or take responsibility for their own life choices.

The US system where the government spends even more on healthcare than whatever country you're in now? I'm sure that will reduce your taxes!

[Endus]

Does that include the pensions and such though? According to Wiki, the "Canada Pension Plan" is unfunded to the tune of >$884bn in 2015 (so probably more by now).

Still, good on Canada for paying off what it can.

That's getting into complex accounting terminology. The same wiki would've told you the CPP's funding is "robust and appropriate". They don't have to fully fund the CPP because it's predicated on the government continuing to exist, so that funds will continue to be added; a fully-funded pension plan can see the company/organization that created it go bankrupt, and can continue to pay out pensions to all participants regardless, because it holds enough to pay that out. If Canada collapses, as a nation, the CPP will go with it, but that's the least of our issues at that point.

[downnola]

Socialism if, and only if, it's democratic to the core. Anything else can fuck off back to 1917.

[Bodonius]

Hmmm depends on the definition I guess.

What country does people that vote nationalism think is closest? Probably something like USA, but those voting socialism think nazi-germany.
What country does people that vote socialism think is closest? Probably Canada or maybe Sweden, but those voting nationalism think Venezuela or so-called communist countries.

[Endus]

Socialism doesn't seem to actually mean anything specific. It's just a word to accuse someone of and then screech like a retard.

The problem boils down to this argument, basically, between right-wingers and left-wingers;

RW: "I hate what you stand for, because you're socialist! You commie-lover, go huh Stalin and Castro and Mao!"
LW: "I"m not a communist. Socialism is a lot broader, totalitarian communism is one tiny subset. I support socialist frameworks like you see in Canada and Scandinavia."
RW: "They're not socialist! They're capitalist!"
LW: "So we can have a strong social support network, universal healthcare, free/cheap college, and all that sort of stuff? That I keep proposing?"
RW: "No, that's socialism!"
LW: "But that's what Canada and Norway and Sweden and such have, and you said they're not socialist."
RW: "Fuck off, commie-lover!"

You can't talk to these people. Look, here, where we had people legitimately trying to argue that the Nazis were left-wing socialists, despite the Nazi Party killing off all the actual socialists in their membership (among others) in the Night of the Long Knives. We've had people accuse socialists like myself of being "commies" and loving totalitarian dictators for suggesting universal healthcare is a good idea. Their goal is to shut down even the discussion of socialist ideas, because they know they can't win hearts and minds on the merits of their own views.

[Teleros]

That's getting into complex accounting terminology. The same wiki would've told you the CPP's funding is "robust and appropriate". They don't have to fully fund the CPP because it's predicated on the government continuing to exist, so that funds will continue to be added; a fully-funded pension plan can see the company/organization that created it go bankrupt, and can continue to pay out pensions to all participants regardless, because it holds enough to pay that out. If Canada collapses, as a nation, the CPP will go with it, but that's the least of our issues at that point.

Hmm. The way I understand it is that in a private pension scheme you put money in now, it gets invested or sat on or whatever, and then in the future you, having hopefully seen the money in the pot keep pace with inflation at a minimum, can draw it out. In most state pension schemes that I'm aware of, the money going in now is spent immediately, such that when you retire and draw on the state pension scheme, you're not drawing on saved money like you would in a private scheme, but rather on the money that's only just gone in.

Maybe Canada does it like a private one - I don't know - but if not, and if it does it like the generic state pension scheme outlined above, then the pension scheme relies on a constant (and realistically a growing) tax base in order to function. Well, short of using massive inflation to scam all the pensioners, at least.

[Endus]

Hmm. The way I understand it is that in a private pension scheme you put money in now, it gets invested or sat on or whatever, and then in the future you, having hopefully seen the money in the pot keep pace with inflation at a minimum, can draw it out. In most state pension schemes that I'm aware of, the money going in now is spent immediately, such that when you retire and draw on the state pension scheme, you're not drawing on saved money like you would in a private scheme, but rather on the money that's only just gone in.

Maybe Canada does it like a private one - I don't know - but if not, and if it does it like the generic state pension scheme outlined above, then the pension scheme relies on a constant (and realistically a growing) tax base in order to function. Well, short of using massive inflation to scam all the pensioners, at least.

It's more like the public scheme. There's some enhancements that are fully-funded, but the core is funded in an ongoing sense by tax revenue. It's not scaling out of whack, though; the "unfunded liability" refers to the possibility that the pension supplier (the Government of Canada, here) could collapse, and whether that pension fund (the CPP) could continue to pay based off its assets in perpetuity. A fully-funded private pension can, and should; if the company goes bankrupt, it shouldn't shaft the pensioned employees. A national program, though, can expect the nation to remain active and continue contributing funds.

It's not a case like social security in the USA where they predict increasing revenue shortfalls. That's not what the numbers you were citing were talking about, with regards to the CPP. It's in a really solid state, financially, as long as Canada keeps on existing.

[tromage2]

Socialism if, and only if, it's democratic to the core. Anything else can fuck off back to 1917.

Cant happen, because socialism takes stuff from ppl and give it to those that come across like they need help or claim to be entitled to something they dont own.

That is the hole flaw in socialism it sounds good at first but once its in place the money and resources need to come from somewhere and the most wealthy people will leave the country or ship their money to other parts of the world. Those that need to pay for a socialisme system are the middle class ppl and they will see the harm when its to late and in place, then the middle class will leave toward national capitalism based parts of the world and what you are left with it the poor and weak that ask themselfs why their land is on a downward trent.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I choose both.

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism if, and only if, it's democratic to the core. Anything else can fuck off back to 1917.

Also this.

[For_The_Horde]

Socialism is globalist by its own ideological belief system.

Socialism can equally be based on popular sovereignty and national self-determination. Left-wing nationalism definitely exists, and it's usually pretty good, up until it becomes bad because authoritarian governments (even those empowered by the people) usually won't give up that power willingly if they can help it. This of course leads to dictator style rule, extreme government authority in all matters, and suppression of freedom of all kinds (same thing happens with right-wing authoritarianism).

[zealo]

That really depends on what nationalism and socialism refers to here. Both of them are umbrella terms that can be quite wide in scope.

E.g the civic sort the SNP in Scotland is for isn't the same thing as blood and soil ethnonationalism.

Neither is the sort of ideology e.g Bernie Sanders stands for full socialism, social democracy just never found it's way to mainstream US politics under the correct term for it.

[Endus]

Cant happen, because socialism takes stuff from ppl and give it to those that come across like they need help or claim to be entitled to something they dont own.

If that's how you're framing it, then capitalism takes stuff from people and gives it to those who are already rich.

If your issue is with the "takes stuff from people" part, then you're complaining about economics, as a whole, regardless of the framework. Capitalism doesn't avoid taking stuff from people, it just changes the dynamic.

That is the hole flaw in socialism it sounds good at first but once its in place the money and resources need to come from somewhere and the most wealthy people will leave the country or ship their money to other parts of the world.

In the real world, this is trivial to prevent. You can stop them taking that money out of the country, you can prevent them ever earning that significant a chunk at the expense of others in the first place, and then there's the economic simplicity that to exploit a market, you need to do business in that market, and moving yourself out of that market is a necessary reduction in your sales capacity.

Those that need to pay for a socialisme system are the middle class ppl and they will see the harm when its to late and in place, then the middle class will leave toward national capitalism based parts of the world and what you are left with it the poor and weak that ask themselfs why their land is on a downward trent.

Aaand this is nonsense that simply does not hold up to anything.

[smityx]

Why not have both. I believe it existed for a couple decades in the 20's-40's. The National Socialist Party. Of course it went by another name as well.

[Masark]

If that's how you're framing it, then capitalism takes stuff from people and gives it to those who are already rich.

Yeah, but that's different because it's voluntary. If you don't like what the sellers are doing, you just evolve into Homo economicus so you can go without food, water, and shelter until they bow down before you.