Gee, Trudeau is really great, eh? /s
Well, there's a freakin surprise! The oil&gas criminals and their co-conspirators in government will NEVER stop until forced to!
It really feels like the fossil fuel industry is the Dark Side of the Force and the environmentalists are those selfless Jedi who manage to protect people by fighting those who have been seduced by the Dark Side.
The greed for oil profits would despoil and ruin the world for their own benefit. Mammon rears its ugly head and sabotages India's solar program and that of solar net metering in Nevada (discouraging solar use in Nevada is pretty much just about as corrupt as one can get in this country concerning renewables).
The thing is that the fossil fuel industry really will destroy the Earth (environmentally) ... It isn't an apocalyptic fantasy... People will end up suffering terribly in years to come. The dark side is black as oil. Greed has no conscience and always knows what it is doing and WHY it is doing it.
As i feared with yet more centrism under the Trudeau gang - the system is broken and we can only fix it once we take the corrupted structure apart and redesign it from the ground up, having removed corporate influence from governance so that we can actually try democracy. Centrist politics will never do this. Incremental change will fail to provide democracy.
What you say may be true but I am wary of big changes and less so about more frequent incremental changes. A small step is progress but trying to have things change all at once just doesn't seem realistic to me. For example I really want Bernie to win because that is both a big change and an incremental one at the same time.
A big change in a field of oligarchy backed opponents but also an incremental change in status quo politics. Bernie's influence would be world wide and both inspire and also strengthen people everywhere to take back their democracy from the power of oligarchy AND fight the good fight up in the Arctic!
It is appalling that greed is so persistent at being so reckless. They don't care if they destroy the Arctic or anything else. They just don't care.
It would appear so- Trudeau will probably be just A slightly toned down Harper, but I may be wrong-
I would bet the Canadian citizens will not give in without A fight- For A Country with such A small population, Canada sure has some mighty fine writers, Authors, Musicians, Documentary makers and extraordinary Progressive thinkers- and the people there truly know how to put up one hell of A fight!
Hope so. It's like the governments, worldwide, have gone crazy.
Please have the courtesy to not take a few words out of context and then argue as if I used them in the way you choose to take them.
I read your post anyway and you ignore the reality. For example, you want to see what exactly? An end to capitalism perhaps? How rapid a change would you envision? My whole point is that there is actually no rapid change possible at least not as how you envision it.
Such drama! A Hollywood big finale and an illusion at best. What would replace our system that produces such a total change? A worker's paradise? An egalitarian Eden where we all work for the betterment of each other so selflessly and honorably? Yeah maybe oh but wait you think that could happen easily or peaceably right? That magically a rapid change from fat cats to a people's economic system is possible right. Remember you are the one who wants big and massive changes all at once while I am wary of such thinking and instead believe that fixing a system that feeds f'k'n 7billion people isn't amenable to sudden massive changes without catastrophic cost.
Maybe you envision a 1917 style revolution but this is not 1917 (and btw the Roman Empire was most certainly a capitalist system and not communistic or socialistic and it lasted a thousand years) so when there is revolt and unrest exactly what happens with the world's militaries during all this? Look at how hard it is for small countries to rebel (Arab Spring for example). Lots of small farmers in Egypt whereas most of our food is agribusiness oriented. Who organizes the distribution and then who pays the farmers and with what?
I figure that our system needs fixing (incrementally) such as cuts in the military budget, free college, raising the minimum wage, single payer, making the oligarchy pay their fair share of taxes and so forth. You can say that isn't enough but the fact is that we may not be able to get that if people don't wake up soon. I guess then I would call those things big incremental changes because they are pretty damn big when you don't have them at all.
Oligarchy and their dream of a One World Corporate Government has developed a taste for unrestricted power and immense wealth and sees little point in going through the motions of democracy any longer. They have grown so powerful in the last two decades that they seriously want to make that permanent. They will be the new noble class like kings and dukes but without the titles. Immense wealth and power leaves no room for democracy.
Imagine giving up all that petro wealth because someone says it will destroy the habitability of the planet! So what if it does is their true attitude. That will be decades from now and the wealth is there for the taking right now not later.
With global warming requiring us to change how we do things... Those who make so much money right now from fossil fuels simply do not care to change. They do whatever it takes to prevent that change. Crazy huh?
Same ol' same ol'; greedy gut oil conglomerates buying government influence while both sides ignore environmental policy and/or its research, regardless of wherever the soulless 'corporations as people' exploit their crude will. Pun intended.
Appreciate your thoughts, and, they do have merit. As much as Bernie is the best of the worst, and definitely a step in the wiser direction, as president his powers are also severely limited. As there will remain the vast majority of elected 'representatives' who remain firmly committed to the inherent corruption, it is wise to recognize that real change is a long way off. While substantial change is always risky and can't help but be turbulent, the result of decades upon decades of failed incremental change somewhat forces the issue. The intransigence of the vested political powers will force disruptive change - they constantly undermine anything but the smallest of steps which still leave major problems running intact. There is not enough time for continued incremental change. Further, incremental change is very confused since it does not address the underlying power structures which remain fully functional and undemocratic. Incrementalists frequently fight with each other since there is no integrated platform that actually addresses the all-powerful Triumvirate of economics/banking/finance, the 'legal' system, and undemocratic governance. If progressives take their stand on the status quo and some band-aids on the Triumvirate , then progressives abandon a truly progressive stance and become part of the centrist problem rather than a real solution. Progressives who feather their nest by taking care of their portfolio first and undermining change are not progressives.This is the constant cycle of American and Canadian politics that history has documented as being seriously flawed and misdirected.
Nevertheless, good luck Bernie.
I think you mistake what I wrote actually. First off you are offering me explanations of why change is needed while I was simply debating the importance of preserving the necessities not in preserving oligarchic control of them.
Secondly please look at the definition of incremental. It only means steps whether big ones or little ones that come one after the other. You argue for what seemed to be an all at once type of change which I encounter from many people who are frustrated and impatient for the world to be better and instead see it getting worse. I especially see it among Americans who have had their brains rewired by too much TV and movies till we are always expecting a big finale for everything including change.
I see the definition of the word incremental - as steps taken to get to the end of a road. Are we there yet? No and stop asking or no ice cream cones later... It's a long road kiddies!
Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, I was young and a fiery revolutionary (obnoxious actually to be honest about it now). I wanted what I wanted and wanted it now and didn't want to hear about anything else. However, there were only half as many people as there are alive now. All of history has been changed because of that one fact. This is the ANTHROPOCENE and history will be different from now on. History most definitely will not repeat itself in the antrhropocene mainly because everything will happen faster and faster. Sheer scale and big numbers make change happen quickly. The danger is actually that a breakdown can happen quickly too. That includes a breakdown where fascism takes over as democracy falters etc. Speed is not necessarily a virtue when it comes to change in an overpopulated world. The reason is that things are too crowded and too instantaneous both electronically and physically. This is the first online civilization and while it yet looks much the same as the old one there are vast differences afoot.
In short while your heart is in the right place about the world should change please consider that with so many people to provide for that too rapid change can be devastating to large numbers of people. Think of the refugees for example. We need to change while keeping the basics operating normally otherwise chaos would become decimation for millions.
When I think of that (climate chaos, fascism, oligarchic repression of democracy and nuclear war even) then I figure incremental change which is peaceful and allows transitioning to occur is the fastest way to achieve positive change that we have.
Stopping short? Better have seat belts and air bags or look out.
See? You do it too. You talk about the need for change and moreover the need for rapid change and then you stop. Okay so you feel incremental change doesn't work. I saw incremental change work which is how civil rights happened. I wish for humanity's sake it had been faster but it happened nevertheless. The same for other changes but if you'll notice there was no change in the basic structure of society. Even the communist Chinese eventually recognized that capitalism is more efficient (such as that may be) than was straight communism.
People do not respond to being forced to be a certain way. A lesson that the Soviets never learned (Cuba was tiny and so an exception as well as an island). If positive change is to happen then it happens in stages or not at all. The days of mobs in the street storming the Bastille are long long gone. Besides what happens if the revolt happened during the Super Bowl? Sheesh!
Sarcasm aside, we are not starving nor groveling in misery here in America or Canada although you have to wonder what the future will hold for some if oligarchy rightists have their way. America needs to change the bad and keep the good. To pretend that somehow some magical revolution will sweep across the nation and create some better alternative is phony pandering to an audience. It isn't real. Where do you see any support for any of that because I don't.
What I do see is that someone like Bernie can generate a lot of support because he isn't threatening anybody. He isn't advocating violent revolution or civil unrest but instead telling us that there is much that is good in this country and that we need only to make use of it. You don't get free college education or single payer healthcare by tearing down the system but you do get it by making the system work like it is supposed to.
Oligarchy is not how our system is supposed to work. Oligarchy is robbing the many to benefit the few. That is not capitalism but it is capitalistic. Slavery was capitalistic too. It isn't that capitalism is always bad ( though it usually is for the poor), it is that raw unrestrained capitalism is though. The death of the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs was due to a lack of regulation and poor OSHA enforcement. The goose needed union representation!
Bernie would open the door on non-oligarchic capitalism. That is why this country needs him so much. If the rigged game keeps him out there will be great suffering to come because oligarchy will see its chance to prevent another Bernie from ever getting the chance to change things.
Climate change is happening far faster than scientists foretold and in another decade or so, people will be wondering how ever could they have been so stupid as to let things get so bad so fast. Real bad. In twenty years people will just be scared and in thirty years... We wouldn't recognize the place... Anyplace actually.
Bernie is actually a big change because he opens the door for reform to follow. By the first mid term election the congress would see big changes as reform minded and more progressive politicians will be elected. Once Bernie opens the door, step by step...things will have a chance to get better. That's pretty big at least from where I sit anyway.
Appreciate your thoughtful reply. We can agree that America is not ready for real revolutionary change ( does not=the Chinese rev). But the fact that the majority of Americans are not ready for real change does not undermine the credibility of the argument for real change that is thoroughly systemic. And while we can agree that there are examples of incremental change that we celebrate, there are a number of issues, the very crux of which, are not resolvable by tweaking the system. In other words, one error in polarized centrist politics is that solutions are a compromise in the middle. But when the essence of the issues are in fact irreconcilable within centrist politics, pretending a solution comes out of incremental change is delusory.
I can understand your support for Bernie, but, whether a miracle happens or not,
the machinery of the Triumvirate will still be humming, still immune from real change. My main point rests on the fact that many issues we are facing, have been issues for a number of decades. This is how corruption works, and I have no intentions of being an enabler.