Gen X at 40

Canada's Favorite Blog


Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

Mike -

Hmm, ok, maybe my lingo is a bit off. I guess my point is that the co-op movement, or 'socialism' (or 'populism') as represented by Tompkins/Coady, was/is in opposition to state controlled socialism; as you say, socialism plus military or bureaucratic tyranny.

Alan -

Gee. That's no fun. I was hoping for a linguistic standoff.

The most improtant thing, however, is that Coady did great things through the co-operative movement and if the "Three-P" and privatization proponents were to take a side seat sometimes to his ideas, we might had had more reliable public utilties over the past couple of decades.

Mike -

Well, I will add that if we're to invoke the historical/real usage of terms, then (and I had to look this up) Populism was a Russian political movement c.1870-71 where revolutionary socialist political ideas were spread among the peasantry. So, 'populism' could apply to Coady et al -- I guess the question is 'what revolutionary socialist ideas'?

From my reading, though, I don't think modern 'socialists' would have much to do with the ideas that Coady was spreading. Perhaps people in modern socialist political parties should really be calling themselves 'state socialists'.

Alan -

There does seem to be at least two kinds of socialists. The misuse of language by communists - the DDR for example - is just as bad as misuse of liberal by Rush. My related disinterest with the NDP is largely due to the disconnect with real problems and real solutions, though I do like sound of Ontario's Howard Hampton on that regard. Coady pushed for entering the marketplace and being a fair player in the days of local corporate/business oligarchies. There must be something in that to be learned in these days when we have learned what happens when the accountants move from the CFO office to the CEO's.