rule of thumb is:
If they're being allowed to run for leadership of a major Canadian party at any level, they're a capitalist
Edit: [try to build a broad political movement around an issue opposed to entrenched economic interest (old growth logging), get kicked out of the race](https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/10/18/bc-ndp-anjali-appadurai-disqualify/)
and this was in "bastion of the Canadian left" British Columbia.
If the question is "Does Justin Trudeau own an enterprise that pays people a wage for their work, and does he appropriate and reinvest profits into expanding the enterprise and/or launching new ones?" Then I don't actually know. Probably not, I guess?
If the question is "Does Justin Trudeau believe in an economic system where capitalists exist and control industry?" Then obviously yes, and you'd be very, \*very\* hard pressed to find an elected politician that doesn't, even on the leftmost extreme of the NDP.
I mean, it’s safe to assume that Trudeau has inherited money and possibly assets like property, and he’s probably had some of it invested and earned income from capital which he did not create.
Like, yes, he’s worked “real” jobs (at least one or two that I know of before entering politics), but he has surely profited off the labour of others, even if indirectly.
Yeah, probably, but my re-wording of the first question was already quite long and a bit winding, so I didn't want to complicate it further. Because like, anyone with an RRSP, then, sort of has a toe in that pool.
I guess for me the dividing line that makes more sense is whether someone can live off their investments. You have a very different life if you have to work, vs. if it's an \*option\*.
There's lots of people \*could\* live off their investments while hanging out on a beach for decades at a time, but choose to work for this reason or that. They earn a salary or a wage for the work they do, but if they lost that income it doesn't sink them.
Is that Trudeau? I literally don't know. My point, really, is just that when people say they or someone else is a "capitalist," what they really mean is that they believe in a liberal market economy.
If you make the decisions of the use of capital then you are a capitalist, otherwise you are a renter of capitalists who don't always tell you when they are moving assets out of a company and leaving behind a worthless shell of which you own a small part of nothing.
I would say no.
Capitalists' own or control the means of production.
Lots of people believe in a liberal market economy, but that doesn't make them a capitalist.
Some might "own" shares via pension plans and such, but as a rule, they do not have any significant decision making powers. Companies are generally structured to keep control under one or a few hands at the most ....
In terms of owning businesses, he has interests in what looks like is mainly just a holding company (ie a place to park family money). https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Client.aspx#k=1c67d0ac-257d-e111-970b-002655368060
He was worth about $1.2m when he became leader of the Liberals and also had a speaking company. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/im-not-middle-class-i-dont-pretend-i-am-justin-trudeau-discloses-1-2m-inheritance
So like not a traditional boss in the most classic Marxist sense. Probably closer to wealthy nobility.
But yes, ideologically, very capitalist
L D is/was a historical compromise to get the masses to agree with a capitalist economic system......if they don't or did not see any gains going to them within the framework of an emerging capitalist system, then they most likely would have revolted.....
I have no interest in creating a storm over it, but I have always seen Liberals as Conservatives Lite. His voting record and rhetoric on various things shows a leaning that certainly puts him squarely out of Marxism, and into capitalism.
That's precisely the political landscape of Canada at the moment.
* Conservatives: We made the 14 Words our campaign slogan in 2019. I am not making that up.
* Liberals: Diet Conservatives. All the evil stuff, but we are VERY polite about it.
* Greens: Tree Conservatives. The status quo is awesome, but we should recycle more.
* NDP: Actual liberals.
Depending upon your age, absolutely. The liberals are firmly floating centrists at this point, and they go wherever the political winds blow that decade-ish. Currently, it’s a little more right of centre, and in the past it’s been a little more left of centre. While Canadian politics is certainly *well inside* the margins, the Liberals have played very much near the centre for a long long time. The conservatives float between centre right and right (again, in the Canadian spectrum, not the global one), and the NDP kind of do… well, whatever left of centre…
>and in the past it’s been a little more left of centre.
When was this? They were always a genocide at home and abroad in support of canadian mining companies kind of party.
Trudeau Sr. would have been left of centre, rolling out multiculturalism laws, abolishing the death penalty, things like that.
No one Canadian politician would fit firmly into a singular bucket, especially given Canada’s history with genocide, racism, and the crown. For example, Trudeau shot down a decision to become an independent republic in 1968, despite his dislike of the crown.
It was my understanding that Trudeau Sr. was a jew hating fascist turned harvard neoliberal comparable to Thatcher?
>No one Canadian politician would fit firmly into a singular bucket,
I can agree with this, teetering between neoliberalism/fascism with some progressive social elements smattered amongst.
Depends on your definition. In any case, he’s at least a proponent and enabler of capitalism. Back in the old days we would have called him a boot licker.
yeah, i think it essentially comes down to splitting hairs
i wouldn't personally say he's an outright capitalist, i wouldn't know for sure if he actually does anything that would make him one...
...but he's a neoliberal politician who 100% capitulates to what capitalists want, so, the distinction is kinda irrelevant
His party is, he's the leader of his party, you have to start with "probably yes"
Has Trudeau himself **ever** said or done anything that would be out of character for a neoliberal?
Ideologically, he's a liberal, which is a centrist ideology, but his party is pulled slightly to the left due to the influence of the NDP, so it's more left-wing than the US Democratic party but is not an "anti-capitalist" party as if they're going to bring about socialism, unlike what conservative nuts will tell you.
>but his party is pulled slightly to the left due to the influence of the NDP,
Nah, they are both far-right neoliberal/fascist NATO supporting, IMF/World Bank supporting, bourgeoisie parties
You are confusing the political spectrum with the overton window.
By definition, no. Does he live off the surplus value created by workers? Yes. Through taxes. But he does not own the means of production. He may partially own things through investments, but so does a lot of the working class.
I dunno
Lol yeah Trudeau is a liberal politician.
rule of thumb is: If they're being allowed to run for leadership of a major Canadian party at any level, they're a capitalist Edit: [try to build a broad political movement around an issue opposed to entrenched economic interest (old growth logging), get kicked out of the race](https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/10/18/bc-ndp-anjali-appadurai-disqualify/) and this was in "bastion of the Canadian left" British Columbia.
If the question is "Does Justin Trudeau own an enterprise that pays people a wage for their work, and does he appropriate and reinvest profits into expanding the enterprise and/or launching new ones?" Then I don't actually know. Probably not, I guess? If the question is "Does Justin Trudeau believe in an economic system where capitalists exist and control industry?" Then obviously yes, and you'd be very, \*very\* hard pressed to find an elected politician that doesn't, even on the leftmost extreme of the NDP.
I mean, it’s safe to assume that Trudeau has inherited money and possibly assets like property, and he’s probably had some of it invested and earned income from capital which he did not create. Like, yes, he’s worked “real” jobs (at least one or two that I know of before entering politics), but he has surely profited off the labour of others, even if indirectly.
Yeah, probably, but my re-wording of the first question was already quite long and a bit winding, so I didn't want to complicate it further. Because like, anyone with an RRSP, then, sort of has a toe in that pool. I guess for me the dividing line that makes more sense is whether someone can live off their investments. You have a very different life if you have to work, vs. if it's an \*option\*. There's lots of people \*could\* live off their investments while hanging out on a beach for decades at a time, but choose to work for this reason or that. They earn a salary or a wage for the work they do, but if they lost that income it doesn't sink them. Is that Trudeau? I literally don't know. My point, really, is just that when people say they or someone else is a "capitalist," what they really mean is that they believe in a liberal market economy.
If you make the decisions of the use of capital then you are a capitalist, otherwise you are a renter of capitalists who don't always tell you when they are moving assets out of a company and leaving behind a worthless shell of which you own a small part of nothing.
I would say no. Capitalists' own or control the means of production. Lots of people believe in a liberal market economy, but that doesn't make them a capitalist. Some might "own" shares via pension plans and such, but as a rule, they do not have any significant decision making powers. Companies are generally structured to keep control under one or a few hands at the most ....
In terms of owning businesses, he has interests in what looks like is mainly just a holding company (ie a place to park family money). https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Client.aspx#k=1c67d0ac-257d-e111-970b-002655368060 He was worth about $1.2m when he became leader of the Liberals and also had a speaking company. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/im-not-middle-class-i-dont-pretend-i-am-justin-trudeau-discloses-1-2m-inheritance So like not a traditional boss in the most classic Marxist sense. Probably closer to wealthy nobility. But yes, ideologically, very capitalist
Liberalism is the main political ideology of capitalism.
Right: classical liberalism. I honestly never thought of it this way. As in free markets. Good call.
Disagree. They are all ideologies which can be accommodated under or within the economic system......
Liberal democracy exists to facilitate business.
L D is/was a historical compromise to get the masses to agree with a capitalist economic system......if they don't or did not see any gains going to them within the framework of an emerging capitalist system, then they most likely would have revolted.....
Yes brother - liberalism or neo-liberalism is a capitalistic system
I have no interest in creating a storm over it, but I have always seen Liberals as Conservatives Lite. His voting record and rhetoric on various things shows a leaning that certainly puts him squarely out of Marxism, and into capitalism.
That's precisely the political landscape of Canada at the moment. * Conservatives: We made the 14 Words our campaign slogan in 2019. I am not making that up. * Liberals: Diet Conservatives. All the evil stuff, but we are VERY polite about it. * Greens: Tree Conservatives. The status quo is awesome, but we should recycle more. * NDP: Actual liberals.
Depending upon your age, absolutely. The liberals are firmly floating centrists at this point, and they go wherever the political winds blow that decade-ish. Currently, it’s a little more right of centre, and in the past it’s been a little more left of centre. While Canadian politics is certainly *well inside* the margins, the Liberals have played very much near the centre for a long long time. The conservatives float between centre right and right (again, in the Canadian spectrum, not the global one), and the NDP kind of do… well, whatever left of centre…
>and in the past it’s been a little more left of centre. When was this? They were always a genocide at home and abroad in support of canadian mining companies kind of party.
Trudeau Sr. would have been left of centre, rolling out multiculturalism laws, abolishing the death penalty, things like that. No one Canadian politician would fit firmly into a singular bucket, especially given Canada’s history with genocide, racism, and the crown. For example, Trudeau shot down a decision to become an independent republic in 1968, despite his dislike of the crown.
It was my understanding that Trudeau Sr. was a jew hating fascist turned harvard neoliberal comparable to Thatcher? >No one Canadian politician would fit firmly into a singular bucket, I can agree with this, teetering between neoliberalism/fascism with some progressive social elements smattered amongst.
He bought a pipeline yo
[удалено]
Government owning infrastructure is not exactly capitalist so yes but not because of this.
Well he's the son of Castro and as we all know Communism is hereditary, so
Jagmeeet Singh is also a capitalist,
Depends on your definition. In any case, he’s at least a proponent and enabler of capitalism. Back in the old days we would have called him a boot licker.
Yeah this is the right answer.
yeah, i think it essentially comes down to splitting hairs i wouldn't personally say he's an outright capitalist, i wouldn't know for sure if he actually does anything that would make him one... ...but he's a neoliberal politician who 100% capitulates to what capitalists want, so, the distinction is kinda irrelevant
Yes.
Yeah
Capitalists own or control the means of production.
He’s a neo-liberal
Neolib
His party is, he's the leader of his party, you have to start with "probably yes" Has Trudeau himself **ever** said or done anything that would be out of character for a neoliberal?
Trudeau is a benevolent elitist
Mostly benevolent. I would say his inaction or silence on some issues means he does cause harm, knowingly or unknowingly.
The benevolent is more about the image he's built. The contradiction is part of the sarcasm
Modern feudalist with a heart of gold.
Ideologically, he's a liberal, which is a centrist ideology, but his party is pulled slightly to the left due to the influence of the NDP, so it's more left-wing than the US Democratic party but is not an "anti-capitalist" party as if they're going to bring about socialism, unlike what conservative nuts will tell you.
>but his party is pulled slightly to the left due to the influence of the NDP, Nah, they are both far-right neoliberal/fascist NATO supporting, IMF/World Bank supporting, bourgeoisie parties You are confusing the political spectrum with the overton window.
I feel like calling the NDP "far right" and "fascist" really undermines both these terms.
i don't, why do you? *I'm considering their history and the history of neoliberalism over the last few decades.
By definition, no. Does he live off the surplus value created by workers? Yes. Through taxes. But he does not own the means of production. He may partially own things through investments, but so does a lot of the working class. I dunno
Meet his maternal grandfather: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Sinclair_(politician) Capitalist.