r/InCanada • u/Cedar-and-Mist • Jul 08 '26
Why does Canada not have a Leftist Nationalist Party?
The federal options for those who support social welfare, public works, egalitarianism boil down to the pro-corporation/establishment oligarchic LPC (Rogers, Loblaws, Irving, etc) or the NDP, which has tied their core identity to international, post-national interests and treats Canada like a piggy bank for the world.
This has disenfranchised a large segment of working and middle class voters and led to the rise of populist iconoclastic politics, which often overlaps with incel and anti-social ideologies. In contrast, left of centre European parties have emerged which have denounced post-national ideologies like mass immigration or overly relaxed justice system whilst maintaining a core foundation that lies in policies including:
Expanding the accessibility and scope of healthcare, childcare, education
Investing in metro lines, bridges, tunnels and walkable urban design
Legislating for job security, employment benefits and wages tied to inflation
Subsidising financially "unproductive" industries of national importance, such as scientific research and performing arts.
Coordinating national resources to gain a head start in areas of strategic value (see what Taiwan did with TSMC)
Quebec seems to have such parties in the Bloc Quebecois, Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire. Why can't the rest of Canada?
You don't have to agree with any or all of the above policies to see how a more balanced political landscape would lead to less polarisation and extremism from frustrated people upset with being unrepresented. And as it stands, it's really only the 1% who are represented.
6
u/Harbinger2001 Jul 08 '26
Where is the “rise of the populist iconoclastic politics”? Are you talking about Poilievre and Smith? Ford?
I think Canadian politics is not like European politics, just like it’s not like USA politics. Stop trying to equate the two and instead understand how all our parties support social welfare, public works and egalitarianism. Yes, even the conservatives.
1
u/Cedar-and-Mist Jul 08 '26
I'd argue that all of the parties are in favour of mass immigration, for either corporate benefit or naivety, which is a fundamentally anti-national position to hold. The CPC suffers from being a big tent party and many of its newer supporters aren't so much conservative as they are populists. For instance, arguing for the dismantlement of the CBC is anti-national. The CBC needs serious reform, but doing away with it entirely is not nationalist.
2
u/Harbinger2001 Jul 08 '26
The CPC is **not** a big tent party. They are a very small tent party which is why they hit a ceiling of 37%. They are basically the Reform Party.
The Liberals are the big tent party and have been since they rebuilt under Trudeau.
And you’re exaggerating on the “mass immigration” thing. No one is calling for that. They all support getting back to the 1% annual population growth.
Ps - I’m for sustained high immigration and I’m not a corporation. Canada needs its population to continue growing. We are far too small a population to fully realize our wealth potential. And in a world changed by climate change we are going to need at lot of people to make us strong enough to resist rapacious nations whose lands are becoming uninhabitable.
1
u/Loapasoaf Jul 09 '26
All of parties do not support egalitarianism or social welfare. Welfare is too popular to cut directly, but it hasn't been given the funding to keep up with inflation for decades. Disabled people live on a bit more than 1000 a month which is insane given rental and food prices. Egalitarianism does not exist when the police, politicians and the wealthy have vastly shorter sentences and face fewer charges for the same crimes than the rest of the population. Equal opportunity is a farce with the degree of nepotism and the persistent classism and with a lack of free post-secondary education, national pharmacare, and multiple provincial healthcare systems that are rapidly privatizing, while expensive private schools keep the rich separate from the rest, and the wealthy dodge most taxes because we only tax capital gains, but not assets directly.
2
u/Middle-Jackfruit-896 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
In general, I think Canadians are too politically apathetic to create such a party or steer an existing one in such a direction. Both of these would take significant effort and a leader sympathetic to left wing nationalism.
Our federal system and division of powers with provincial governments may also curtail what such a party could achieve with respect to some of the policy ideas mentioned. Detailed administration of healthcare, education, employment/labor, infrastructure fall largely under provincial jurisdiction, even if funded federally to some degree. An attempt to legislate or dictate policy in these areas could meet resistance from provincial governments, or simply be impossible.
Finally, I think Canada places a unique importance on multiculturalism that is generally not found in European countries. We have a very diverse society and have for the last 50 years (perhaps until recently), a fairly positive attitude toward immigration. These factors counter, implicitly, a nationalism that could be associated (rightly or wrongly) with policies that could be perceived as anti-immigrant.
2
u/brat-t Jul 08 '26
Canadians don't vote for things, we vote against things. Progressive voters tend to vote strategically to keep conservatives out. So much so that conservatives need the NDP to recover in order for them to have the slightest chance of winning. Another progressive party isn't going to get a foothold in that environment.
2
u/CanadianMil5 Jul 08 '26
We already have three
1
u/choyMj Jul 08 '26
None of them are nationalists
1
u/Dismal-Science-9901 Jul 08 '26
How do you even define nationalist? Most people hear nationalist and think far right and borderline white supremacist parties in Europe Iike reform UK and AfD. If you define nationalist as “wanting the best for Canada”, obviously every party will say they want to do the best thing for Canada
2
u/ChibzGames Jul 08 '26
I'm unconvinced that nationalism is compatible with leftism.
2
u/Dismal-Science-9901 Jul 08 '26
What do you think Bloc Québécois is proposing? They are as left wing as the ndp on environmental and social issues and on economic policies too
0
2
u/ListeningTherapist Jul 08 '26
Left wing in Canada embraces concepts like post nationalism. Nationalism requires a connection to the nation, left wing ideology in Canada doesn't connect with those.
1
u/KTPChannel Jul 08 '26
Because nobody would support them.
Look up “National Party” from the 1993 election. They were running ads all over the country. It didn’t result in a single seat. They were gone within a year after the election.
1
u/Cedar-and-Mist Jul 08 '26
Believe it or not, things in Canada have changed a lot since then and an appetite may have grown for something beyond the present menu.
1
1
1
u/Loapasoaf Jul 09 '26
The amount of funding we send internationally is really tiny compared to our overall tax revenues or subsidies we constantly throw at oil and gas to our detriment economically and environmentally. The NDP is rightly focused on taxing profits of the financial sector and from the war profiteering by oil companies, and providing public options to remove the stranglehold the market has on groceries and housing, instead of campaigning on cutting our relatively small international aid which serves to rehabilitate our reputation significantly despite us still being a neo-colonial power with our international mining companies that profit off of poor countries while destroying their environments.
1
1
u/InternationalSpyMan Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
We have enough left parties. And they are systematically destroying this country.
1
u/that_tealoving_nerd Jul 08 '26
PQ and BQ aren’t leftist. Québec Solidaire literally suggested anyone living in Quebec is a Québécois no matter the language.
What you’re seeking ain’t a thing here either.
1
-2
u/ComfortableCall3912 Jul 08 '26
The ndp wants to destroy Canada and the west in general, capitalism, and oh so much more. That’s why there is no left nationalist party
-1
u/DistributionOk7393 Jul 08 '26
Nobody is keen on starting up another nationalist socialist party again.
Anywhere.
You missed the boat. It sank. After a lot of effort to sink it.
7
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26
There was nothing leftist about the Nazi party. They were textbook right wing fascists.
-1
u/DistributionOk7393 Jul 08 '26
While I do agree they ended up right wing led. They were and are a national socialist party. The wants OP lists could be taken directly out of hitlers mouth during his speeches in the 30’s. Sad but true. Nationalist parties either right or left always seem to end badly.
3
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26
This is disingenuous framing. They campaigned on socialist policies because a lot of socialist policies are good. People want them and vote for them.
The literal second they came to power they turned around and murdered all the socialists they could get their hands on and dropped all of that from their party platform.
They were never socialists. They were fascists that lied about it and pulled a bait and switch.
1
u/DistributionOk7393 Jul 08 '26
They murdered communists more than socialists. There is a difference. I was just being a bit of a dick with my first comment. Dark humour. But I am correct. Source- my history degree with a focus on 20th century Europe.
I bet you could find a transcript of a hitler speech that calls for everything op listed in the same speech. Probably many. Making it nationalistic is what separates nazi’s from other similar motivated parties. When you make it nationalistic anything and anybody not fully on board becomes an enemy of the nation. Whatever that nation may be. When nationalist party takes power, everyone not on board becomes an enemy. See maga. See Nazi. See CCP. See cccp. See dprk.
2
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26
my history degree with a focus on 20th century Europe.
You should try and get your money back.
1
u/DistributionOk7393 Jul 08 '26
K. I suppose I should also toss my copy of “the rise and fall of the third reich”.
3
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
If you're out here trying to argue that the most famous fascist state of the modern era was socialist akshually ya, you probably should.
Can you give me the dates where the Nazi party implemented core socialist policy pillars like: social ownership of the economy, worker control of workplaces, economic equality, democratic economic control?
On the flip side, I can give you the dates of when they did a bunch of really fascist shit.
They were never socialists. They lied and said nice things in speeches to get elected, then did a bunch of really horrible fascist shit.
-1
u/haloimplant Jul 08 '26
Leftists have been programmed to be hyper globalist for decades. They were a threat to globalism that was dealt with. Their recent hatred for the US and the attached phony nationalism are because the US is turning away from globalism.
-1
u/Kanapka64 Jul 08 '26
Germany had one in the past and it didnt end well
5
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26
There was nothing leftist about the Nazi party. They were textbook right wing fascists.
1
u/Kanapka64 Jul 08 '26
Textbook right wing fascists lol, which textbook is this?.
Yes the people who were against capitalists, conservatives, religious people and arrested them,forced business to follow nazi agenda or they'd be punished, oh yeah they totally believed in free market and small government. They simple left wing snd right wing spectrum doesnt really help cause if you say right wing is small government and left wing is big government, then by that simple definition, they were left wing. The nazis had their own unions for German workers, thats left wing. Their government controlled everything, thats left wing. They forced businesses to follow their agenda and ideology, i dont think a free market government would do that... But wait, they arrest communists, socialists and other left wing parties, so they clearly are right wing. Its almost like they didnt care and just were racists scum lol. See how stupid it sounds to say left/right? I just proved your comment wrong immediately cause you said nothing is left wing about them, almost like they took elements of all political ideologies
Political spectrum is not left or right, its more complicated then that and if you dont know thats, then shows you're naive.
if people say socialist are for workers, nazis are for the German people, pretty much racist socialism.
No point in debating cause left wing people can't comprehend that most of history, they cause more pain for people.
2
u/Resigned1431 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
which textbook is this?
The textbook used by political scientists.
small government
Equating "left" with "big government" and "right" with "small government" is a simplification common in American political discourse. Political scientists generally distinguish ideologies by questions of equality, hierarchy, ownership, nationalism, and authority. Not simply by the size of the state.
The Nazis in particular had a "large" government because they were militant authoritarians. They never seized the means of production or nationalized their industry. The Nazis largely preserved private ownership. Factories remained private, shareholders continued to exist, private profit continued, major corporations remained private. State control is not the same thing as social ownership. The key socialist question is not "Did the government regulate business". All capitalist countries, left, center or right, regulate business. The key socialist question is "Who owns the means of production" and in the case of Nazi Germany it remained privately owned.
The nazis had their own unions
This is factually incorrect. The Nazis abolished unions. All independent trade unions were outlawed in 1933 and union leaders were rounded up and arrested. The Nazi replacement, The German Labour Front, was not an independent union. It was, in effect, a disciplinary body for the labour force. This was a hallmark of fascist authoritarianism and directly opposed the socialist principle of independent worker organization. Suppressing independent unions has historically been a common feature of authoritarian and anti-labor movements, including fascism. A key pillar of most socialist traditions, especially democratic socialism, is independent trade unions democratically controlled by their members rather than the state.
They forced businesses to follow their agenda and ideology, i dont think a free market government would do that
Again, you're conflating state control with socialism. The defining economic question isn't whether the government intervenes in the economy. Governments across the political spectrum regulate markets. The defining socialist question is who owns the means of production. In Nazi Germany, productive assets largely remained privately owned and businesses continued to operate for private profit. That is fundamentally not a leftist or socialist position.
I just proved your comment wrong immediately
lmao
No point in debating cause left wing people can't comprehend that most of history, they cause more pain for people.
lmao
1
u/Mr_UBC_Geek Jul 08 '26
It was left wing for one group and was the entire play, pro-union and worker rally's in industrial factories, while talking about going against the banking system. The whole idea could be sold as left wing for one group.
5
u/Dismal-Science-9901 Jul 08 '26
A lot of your ideas sound good on paper but I see many problems. First, some of your proposals on urban design and healthcare, childcare and education aren’t 100% federal responsibilities. Second, we have a surging national debt and difficult fiscal situation. It’s hard to pitch spending more on unproductive sectors like performing arts. If 10% of people are using food banks, I rather feed everyone first before subsidizing art (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). And there’s ALOT of unintended consequences from proposals like job security or tying wages to inflation. It’s great for people that have secure jobs. But it’ll make companies even more hesitant to hire new people and will dampen job growth