UK and Germany's too. Hungary, France, Denmark and Italy also not in great shape. Anywhere there's heavy zionist genocider influence campaigns. Coincidence maybe. Spain and Ireland are doing great as an anti-pattern.
Democracy IS THE COMPROMISE.
The alternative is a nonstop threat of violence that makes the "Wild West" look like a monk's retreat.
The 'Wild West' wasn't all that wild or lawless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR7EBBXcQUg it was probably safer than life today in Canada. Don't let all the dumb Hollywood movies fool you.
The tipping point has been reached. It's time to usher in the next phase of human existence with a universally global benevolent dictatorship. Democracy was good to a certain point but now we are a world of dangerous fools electing dangerous fools to "lead" us. We need a serious thinking adult in the room again.
After 10 years of Trump and barely a year of Carney, anyone who says 'we need a businessman and not a politician' should be locked up in solitary confinement for 20 years minimum.
Fuck business, I'm more for humanity and ecology.
Exactly. This whole 'we need a businessman' line was originally started by Ross Perot in the 90s. To be honest, it only would make sense if you know nothing about public vs. private infrastructure and profit vs. 'this is lossy, but critical'.
For example healthcare... I hate to say it, you cannot make money off healthcare without being extremely predatory and evil. this isn't me being idealistic and somehow refusing to believe you can be 'good' while maintaining a for-profit model. YOU CANNOT MAKE HEALTHCARE PROFITABLE WITHOUT BEING EVIL!
The reason? Despite it being absolutely critical, healthcare and insurance is going to need a ton of money to maintain, and unless you're denying healthcare most of the time (and only partially covering the other) you will lose money. You know the private for-profit healthcare clinics that have been popping up in Canada over the past few decades? They deliver less results and cost more public money than public clinics do. Yes, they're getting taxpayer dollars, a lot of them, and STILL can't turn a profit.
If you said 'no more public healthcare, all private now, but they need to stand up on their own two feet' most of them would collapse within a few years. Because no matter how important this shit is, they can't be profitable. So they are given public money that they pocket themselves while still failing to provide the services demanded.
when I was more naive I would ask 'but why not just make it all public? It'll be cheaper? and make it easier to be a doctor and give more grants to medical students and learning?' But now I know the reason answer... because it would benefit a few people (double digit numbers at the most) over the millions below. That's it. It is such an intensely simple way to look at it.
This is why Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire is one of the worst things to happen so far, because he is far from the first. The others are racing for trillionaire spots. What this means is basically they don't just control the economy of entire countries and can fully bypass any government they want, but they basically control the entire world.
You mean like a billionaire, who is thus uninterested in money, is anti establishment, pledges to get rid of the corruption of politics, seems to be closer to understanding poor people and getting along with them? We have one, and he's absolutely the worst president ever.
Edit: I also think that mostly applies to Germany in the past on führer contemplation.
If you're a billionaire, you ain't benevolent.
It doesn’t help my hope for things that, every time Carney clearly represents the owner class over the working class, I see people in comment sections talking about they “don’t like it but you gotta get things done!”. No, this is bad and should not be excused, and why do we always have to have excuses and patience for centrist and right-wing bullshit, which has still yet to show any real functionality, but we won’t even try being progressive despite the innumerable examples of progressive policy working all over the world? Even Mamdani is making it work in the US and we act like Carney needs to allow unreviewed distruction of our environment to benefit O&G companies or the whole country will up and die in only a couple years’ time.
I’m so tired of this crap. I’m so tired of us willfully throwing away our rights and self-respect just to get leaders who will ignore us at every possible turn. I’m sick of people saying that the left will be like Soviet Russia while everything they describe as guaranteed with progressivism is literally happening, openly, in front of them under conservative governments(like our current one, too). Degrading our democracy almost feels like it’s still democratic because so much of the population seems perfectly happy to watch it happen.
Many jobs SHOULD be public sector jobs. Like water utilities, garbage collection, electrical utilities, teaching, college teacher.
These public sector jobs should be 4 days a week, with a 5th day of retraining/training. So people keep gaining more skills encase technology changes the workforce, and make peoples' lives more meaningful.
The fifth day should just be free, with training being offered during portions of the year for everyone or as a system similar to, but separate from, vacation days. Imagine a couple weeks in the year where everyone gets together for training or a fairly generous pool of training days to take from and an approved list of courses.
Exactly this! A great example is when the Alberta UCP flat out told renewable energy companies that they just were not allowed to do business in Alberta. Straight up, in your face central planning. Free market indeed...
I am not far left enough to say communism is the right goal, yet, but I am further left than saying we need socialist reforms. I am from Saskatchewan so I can see the benefits of psuedo-socialized markets (think phone and internet with Sasktel sticking it to the big 3) I just wish the rest of the province could see it to. If Saskatchewan can see it and really start celebrating it maybe the rest of Canada could as well.
"Every crisis is an opportunity"
-- Every single slimy "liberal" politician who is really just a posh autoritarian with a toolbox of Identity Politics slogans.
It’s happening all across the west
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
Trudeau's failure to bring in proportional representation will be a missed opportunity with severe consequences that most don't fully appreciate.
I'm a bit put off by our rating now placing behind Brazil as I'm pretty sure in practical terms Canada is still more Democratic in many aspects. Does it mean we're not sliding? I'm certain we are,but I think methodology might be flawed and as a result we've got sensational-ish content.
TBF - yes democracy is sliding in Canada, just look at recent government moves i Quebec and Alberta as a sample. Meaning we have to fight for it at the polls and on the streets. It's far from "game over" but it could be at some point.
I’m pretty sure in practical terms Canada is still more Democratic in many aspects
I'm not as familiar with either system as you seem to be. What is it about Brazilian politics that makes you feel Canada is more democratic?
we can start with favellas which have no equivalent in Canada (treatment of indigenous people is a separate issue and looks to be similarly bad in both cases). Then we can look at Brazilian latest election scandals etc. which have no equivalents in modern Canadian elections. Then we can look at corruption levels in politics.
So the favelas are bad, obviously, but I don't quite see the relation to democracy. They're certainly an indicator of poverty, but I'm not entirely sure what they indicate regarding democracy.
Then we can look at Brazilian latest election scandals etc.
I don't really know about these scandals, but when I think about other scandals surrounding elections, they're not necessarily an indictment of the democratic system itself, right? I mean, Trump clearly disputed the election results of the 2020 election, but does that mean the election was unfair? But in all honesty, I haven't looked at their latest election scandals, and you seem to have looked at it, so maybe you know better. What was the latest election scandal?
Then we can look at corruption levels in politics.
I suppose we could. Did you? Is it worse in Brazil?
favella dwellers are people with virtually no rights, i.e. no "democracy" for them, fact that someone would weaponize democratic processes to get rid of democracy is the problem with latest scandals. In terms of corruption, anecdotally I hear stories from (ex)Brazilians that I cannot draw parallels to in Canada
"Quietly"?
It begs the question be asked, 'Can democracy survive in a multicultural society, or can democracy only exist in a homogeneous society?' And a supplemental question, 'Can democracy in a multicultural society compete and prosper when confronted by democracy in a homogeneous society?'
A lot has been said about 'white elitism' and 'white entitlement' with reference to the decline of democracy in Western society. However, this misses the point. American 'democracy' (and indeed the beginnings of democracy in Britain) began as a system based on homogeneity. The original voters list in America was limited to white male landowners who believed in God. Freedom of religion originally meant 'the freedom to worship God in the religion of your choice'. It was assumed that this restricted group of voters had the same goal, they just differed in how to achieve it. Under this system, 'democracy' was seen as a way to determine the path, not the destination. (Yes, this is over-simplistic, as even at the time that American statehood began there was a North-South divide, with each faction having a different destination in mind, but the destinations were variations on which entitled male landowner faction would dominate).
But as the voters list expanded in scope (more and more groups were added - females, non-whites, renters, indigent populations), the 'destination' was no longer homogeneous. Each faction that was added came with a divergent goal, and the original faction could no longer guarantee that democracy would just determine the path, not the destination.
Today, Western society now represents such a huge divergence of factions, with greatly divergent destinations, that the main thrust of 'democratic' elections is now to determine the characteristics of the destination, not just the pathway to achieve it. Unfortunately, many of these destinations are mutually exclusive of each other, and what we call democracy has now become a battle between entrenched positions, winner-take-all.
But it will be interesting to see how the global situation evolves.
The West does not have exclusive rights to elitism and entitlement, just the rights to 'white male' elitism and entitlement. Let us not forget that there are other locusts of power in the world, and many are still primarily homogeneous societies, with their own sense of (definitely not 'white') elitism and entitlement. Further, with modern weapons systems, they are becoming militarily powerful loci of entitlement.
China, for instance, is an extremely homogeneous society, with a growing sense of Chinese entitlement, that is getting stronger every passing year. Rather than growing more diverse, the Chinese society is actually growing more unified and consolidated in their sense of destination. Democracy in China is very alive and well, contrary to Western public opinion. It is just that they are not voting to determine the destination so much as they are voting to select the path. China, in fact, does not have a 'one party' system, so much as they have a 'no party' system. With a common destination, no need to differentiate by 'party' but by 'path'. It begs the question be asked, 'Is the rise of China's power and the decline of American influence due to the homogeneity, and thus the singular nature and the goal directedness, of the Chinese society?' That is, Chinese society today is driven by a singular common societal goal and the entire resources of the state are directed towards achieving this goal; whereas the concept of democracy in the West has evolved into trying to implement a divergent set of goals, depending on who wins the election. Since the goals of each faction have become so mutually exclusive, whatever progress is achieved by one party in one election cycle is destroyed by the next party in the next election cycle.
This century will be defined by this conflict between and within world political systems and nation states regarding the degree of homogeneity versus diversity of their society, and the nature of their democracy. I suspect that the result will be a shift in the nature of statehood towards a world of smaller, but more homogeneous, states where democracy determines the path, not the destination. Trump is not the cause, but the symptom, of this clash.
I believe America's future can only be sustained when America breaks up into two or more nations, each progressing towards their own mutually exclusive destination. How Canada evolves will be determined by whether or not Canada can define its own workable common destination, and shape manageable power sharing schemes between federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions to allow different paths towards this common destination.
Can democracy survive a multicultural society, yes it can. Can it only exist in a homogeneous way, no. This is kind of the same question honestly.
A better question is, will powerful fascist elements use multicultural issues against democracy? The answer is yes.
Can a non-homogeneous democracy compete with a homogeneous? Do you think the US has competed successfully considering they have been non-homogeneous for awhile now.
I have never heard white elitism as the cause for the decline of democracy. I would say it has definitely created a two tired society where some white males get the benefits of other's work disportionally.
Honestly your question(s) seem kind of race baiting in a mild way. Like you are looking for an answer you already have and just need confirmation.
I see your reliance on path and destination as a metaphor for the status quo and change misplaced. Democracies can and do change and the fact that not every group has the exact same goal does not prevent democracy.
It may make it more complex and slower because the groups must find common ground and develop shared goals. Or perhaps one group will simply dominate the other as we see in the US. Obviously there will be conflict if the groups have polar opposite demands.
I find your distinction between one party and no party just silly. China is not a democracy at all. The supreme power is invested in a autocrat. Of course, you could argue the US is very similar and depending how this next election plays out it may to become a no-party/one party government. I am sure some would argue it already is one party when it comes to serving the wealthy's desires.
China is not driven by a singular goal as what the rural working class wants is completely different than the urban elites want. There is no way everyone in China can be a billionaire. This two-tired society is non-homogeneous by nature.
This new world is dominated by corporate interests. The wealthy are no longer bound by nations. I see us heading into an increasingly post-nation world for the wealthy with nations purely becoming a tool to control the populace and something that is ignored by the wealthy.
I think every large nation, including the US could be broken up and probably be better off. This concentration of power under the guise of the state in order to control the populace at the benefit of the wealthy is a problem that is happening all over the world as income gaps continue to increase dramatically.
...also there have always been great divisions in society. Look at Ireland Catholic vs. Protestant. Even in Ontario in the early days of this country each region was very different from the rest.
The main problem that we have now, is that ridings are too big, at 100,000 each. They should be no more than 30,000. That way people really get represented. This would also allow smaller region parties to establish themselves, like in the early days of Canada. It would also allow parties to be more fluid, coming into existing, transforming into another party. Without proper representation people are not represented.
First-Past-The-Post must go, it is not democratic. At the very minimum have runoff elections, even better to automate them with ranked ballots.
Actually, this is not about Canada, this is about the world. And it’s frightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Fd-_VDYit3U&ra=m
I actually voted for Mark Carney out of pure fear of what PP would do. But I had no idea it would still turn out this bad.
Democracy in the entire west is eroding.
And Canadians don't have the same excuses to not do anything about it unlike the muricans. Their healthcare is not tied to their jobs.
Their healthcare is not tied to their jobs.
sure, if you dont care about your teeth, eyes, mental health, physiotherapy....
All tied to employment...
And before anyone jumps in here with "at least not as bad as america!!!".... thats exactly the kind of low bar thinking that landed us in this situation..
And before anyone jumps in here with “at least not as bad as america!!!”… thats exactly the kind of low bar thinking that landed us in this situation…
Well, look at the bright side: at least you don't yet have to compare your country with North Korea like Americans do to make it seem less bad.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca