Arnold Kling talks about folk Marxism, and its unfortunate hold on much of the public, particularly in Europe, but also, sadly, in the US.

Under folk Marxism, the oppressed class has inherent moral superiority to the oppressor class... Class membership trumps individual character in determining moral standing. It should be no surprise that this belief could lead to tyranny and wanton murder by government. It should be no surprise that this belief has failed to improve the lot of those regarded as "oppressed." It inverts Martin Luther King's call to judge people by the content of their character.

Even when Marxism does not lead to tyranny, it retards economic growth, as the stagnation of continental Europe indicates. If you believe that the poor are oppressed and the rich are oppressors, then your impulse is to penalize work, risk-taking, innovation, and saving -- the engines of economic progress.

Well, at least the Canadians are on the verge of throwing off their true oppressors today.

Count me in with John Locke. And Adam Smith.

Alas, the Far Left prefers Marx and the neo-cons prefer Hobbes. Therefore I need to ally with whoever is the weaker, and today in America Hobbes and the neo-cons are kicking Marxian butt.

The problem Canadians have is choosing between a corrupt and tired Liberal leadership or a right-wing ideologue like Stephen Harper. The best we can hope is that his (likely) win today will cause the Liberals to oust their entire leadership and bring in people who more accurately represent the moderate, socially-liberal but economically-conservative values that most Liberal supporters identify with.

Overall, the Liberal Canadian government has done a fantastic job over the past decade, from turning a large deficit into a surplus (at times when most other western nations, including the US, were suffering a major economic downturn), to pushing through the largest tax cut in Canadian history, to successfully fighting the Quebec insurrection.

Harper will be like every other prime minister in that he will quickly forget about decentralization of power, as he realizes that the Prime Minister's Office grants him the power to enforce his views (in this case, social/religious conservatism) across the nation and against considerable resistance from the public.

In many ridings, it's likely that the Conservatives will win as a result of votes being shifted from the Liberals to the NDP, who are a left-wing labour party. This vote-splitting will allow the Conservatives to slip in without actually having popular support (last poll put them at about 36%).

Anyway, that's the perspective of at least one Canadian...

I read this entry and I thought of that sprint commercial where an old guy is saying he's 'sticking it to the man', the young guy responds, 'but you are the man,you'll be sticking it to yourself'.

I googled 'sticking it to the man', and found this interview with Leslie Savan:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1897/Talking_the_Talk
....
Folk marxists always want to believe that we should tax the 'rich', those being the people with more money than us. "the man" is always oppressing us.

...a right-wing ideologue like Stephen Harper.

I never fail to be amused and bemused by many Canadians' (and leftists') inability to recognize left-wing ideologues (like the people who've been running the government that they've had for the past dozen years). Apparently, to them, ideologues only come in one flavor.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

A conservative is someone who reads Jefferson and Madison.
A libertarian is someone who understands Jefferson and Madison."

I don't know who first said this, but I think it's appropriate here.

I've read the first part of that as a quote from Ronald Reagan, Dan, but I don't know if he originated it.

I like Dan's comment above.

Rand, I think you are painting Canadians with too broad a brush.

Stephen Harper is a right-wing ideologue, just as Paul Martin is driven to power for its own sake. Jack Layton is a typical left-wing ideologue. We know about the danger of left-wing crazies up here - British Columbia was ruled by the NDP for most of the 1990s and it destroyed our economy.

The federal Liberals are much more fiscally conservative than either the Conservatives or the NDP, and have demonstrated this time and time again. If you think supporting the legalization of gay marriage or elected senators makes the Libs left-wing crazies, then I will have to respectfully disagree.

Don't confuse those who are against the Conservatives for those who are with the Tree-Huggers. Some of us just want an ethical, fiscally conservative government that doesn't try to impose its moral agenda on us, whether it be right or left of centre.

James, one of the reasons the "Liberal" (quotes because I don't believe that it really is, at least not in a classical sense) Canadian government managed to generate a surplus is that we've been subsidizing your defense so that you've been able to get away with underspending in that area (an advantage that Europe also had through much of the Cold War).

Some of us just want an ethical, fiscally conservative government that doesn't try to impose its moral agenda on us, whether it be right or left of centre.

Well, I hope that you get at least the former, and I think you'll have a better chance of it with Harper, and apparently many Canadians agree, judging by the polls. As for "imposing moral agendas," that's always in the eye of the beholder. Many would think that radically redefining marriage is an imposition of a moral agenda. One doesn't have to be homophobic to be concerned about this, and its potential impact on society.

Rand,

As I find in many cases, most Americans and Canadians appear to want the same things - we just have slightly different ideas about how to achieve them. I shall certainly enjoy watching the results come in this evening, knowing that our elections were free, fair, and without violence.

And yes, thanks for subsidizing our defense spending up north. Perhaps we can send you some 5% Canadian beer?

"right-wing ideologue like Stephen Harper."

Sheesh. The Conservative Party, of which Stephen Harper is the leader, is to the left of the American Democrat party.

Perhaps we can send you some 5% Canadian beer?

Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Its quite likely that the Conservatives will not win a solid majority and that they will have to form a coalition with the Bloc Quebec (who hates the Liberals). This is actually very positive. Bloc Quebec, which is left of center, has very little in common with the Conservatives, other than a visceral hatred of the Liberals. This means that the only common cause a coalition government will have between these two parties is devolution of Federal government power to the provinces. Kind of like federalism in the U.S. This helps the cause if limited government in Canada, while keeping the far-right agenda at bay.

This can be only good for Canada.

Marxism (folk and otherwise) is but one aspect of the romanticist movement. It is the rise of romanticism which has checked much of the progress of the enlightment and of science and industrialization. It is romanticism which creates the otherwise mysterious link between "liberals" in the free, developed world and reactionary "religious fundamentalists" in the unfree, undeveloped world, for example.

Recently, a media mogul in Australia died. I don't remember his name, but one of his quotes went something like this:

In England, when a working man sees someone in a Rolls Royce, he thinks, "Come the revolution, we're going to take that car from you."

In America, when a working man sees someone driving a new Cadalic (sp), he thinks, "One day, I'm going to own a car like that."

I think the American attitude is the more healthy one."

The wording isn't exact but the sentiment is.

James wrote:
>the Liberal Canadian government...from turning a large deficit into a surplus

By over-taxing us and strangling the economy. That surplus should have been returned to the Canadian people or used to reduce our monster debt. Instead, the Libs used it as a war slush fund, buying votes with the voters' own money.

>to pushing through the largest tax cut in Canadian history

Sorry, haven't seen it on my latest tax returns. Of course, I'm an upper middle class citizen, AKA "The Man." I guess I'm supposed to take it up the ass, right?

>to successfully fighting the Quebec insurrection.

Considering that most of the money spent to "fight the insurrection" went into the pockets of Liberals and friends, I fail to see how they accomplished anything. Separation is a boogeyman, nothing more. As the 60s generation dies off, support for it vanishes as well. I know, I've got separatist friends that are slowly turning off from the ideology as they get older.

From my feeble understanding: for Marx, capitalism is stealing, in that the people doing the most work (i.e. proletariat) get only a minor part of the profit. The capitalist is a middle-man parasite. AFAIK this sort of feeling is not exclusive to Marx.

IIRC the Catholic Church used to consider charging interest on borrowed money a sin on Medieval times, so only Jews would do it. The justification for this was Matthew 21: 12-13. I believe the Qur'an has a similar entry.

In case anyone is wondering, I loathe central planning and monopolies, so I still prefer market capitalism to the alternatives. Warts et all.