Corporatism, the Canadian Way!

It is always amusing when liberals who run around bleeding out their eyeballs about “corporatism” get slapped with a little dose of reality.  Canadian citizens are now learning that hard little lesson.  Then again, this is the nation that has such a wonderful health care system that their citizens flee to the United States for real treatment.

Recently, Bell Canada decided to let its “customers” suck on one very sour lemon when it managed to get “Usage-Based Billing” (UBB) approved through Canada’s communications regulatory agency, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  Here are the details:

Metered Internet usage (also called “Usage-Based Billing”) is coming to Canada, and it’s going to cost Internet users. While an advance guard of Canadians are expressing creative outrage at the prospect of having to pay inflated prices for Internet use charged by the gigabyte, the consequences probably haven’t set in for most consumers. Now, however, independent Canadian ISPs are publishing their revised data plans, and they aren’t pretty.

“Like our customers, and Canadian internet users everywhere, we are not happy with this new development,” wrote the Ontario-based indie ISP TekSavvy in a recent e-mail message to its subscribers.

But like it or not, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved UBB for the incumbent carrier Bell Canada in September. Competitive ISPs, which connect to Canada’s top telco for last-mile copper connections to customers, will also be metered by Bell. Even though the CRTC gave these ISPs a 15 percent discount this month (TekSavvy asked for 50 percent), it’s still going to mean a real adjustment for consumers.

This is going to hurt

Starting on March 1, Ontario TekSavvy members who subscribed to the 5Mbps plan have a new usage cap of 25GB, “substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC’s decision to impose usage based billing,” the message added.

By way of comparison, Comcast here in the United States has a 250GB data cap. Looks like lots of Canadians can kiss that kind of high ceiling goodbye. And going over will cost you: according to TekSavvy, the CRTC put data overage rates at CAN $1.90 per gigabyte for most of Canada, and $2.35 for the country’s French-speaking region.

Bottom line: no more unlimited buffet. TekSavvy users who bought the “High Speed Internet Premium” plan at $31.95 now get 175GB less per month.

“Extensive web surfing, sharing music, video streaming, downloading and playing games, online shopping and email,” could put users over the 25GB cap, TekSavvy warns. Also, watch out “power users that use multiple computers, smartphones, and game consoles at the same time.”

[…]

Starting to hate this? TekSavvy hates it, too.

“The ostensible, theoretical reason behind UBB is to conserve capacity, but that issue is very questionable,” noted the ISP’s CEO Rocky Gaudrault on TekSavvy’s news page. “One certain result though, is that Bell will make much more profit on its Internet service, and discourage Canadians from watching TV and movies on the internet instead of CTV, which Bell now owns.”

Did you get that: “conserve capacity?”  As if we’re “running out” of bandwidth, and no one can “mine” any more of it?  Pffth!

Now, you’ll get a few of those liberals out there that will blame this all on Bell Canada (who, in all fairness, is partly to blame), and go off on their typical “corporatist” rant that big, mega-corporations (a. k. a. evil multi-national corporations) are taking over the world.  The reality is: this is socialism in action.  Hell, this move was even blessed by the government regulators.

Why?  Because Bell Canada is a bona fide, government-backed monopoly.  Lest anyone forget that they came into being via legislation from the Canadian Parliament back in the 1880s.  Even to this very day, it cannot make a single move without the consent of the CRTC.  In fact, much of what Bell Canada does as far as pricing is done to subsidize users who cannot pay their way, and with the Canadian government’s “blessing.”

But your average liberal idiot will whine and complain that greedy fat-cats running monolithic institutions have “politicians and regulators” in their back pockets.  Therefore, they can do whatever they want, whenever they want and those poor, virtuous civil servant regulators are helpless to stop them.

Pffth!  Please!

So what does this have to do with corporatism?  Well, the real definition of corporatism is a system or governance that organized individuals and institutions into “groups,” or “bodies” (from the Latin corpus).  So, workers are organized into unions, businesses into cartels, and so on.  The individual is no longer important, only his participation in his assigned group.

And who likes corporatism?  Well Mussolini – a well-known Fascist – was a big fan of corporatism.  So was Hitler.  You might know these guys for their core belief system: Socialism.

Corporatism, National Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, Marxism, and State-Run Capitalism are all collectivist in nature.  They place the concept of the group – or the collective – in high regard, and show utter disdain for the individual.  And while liberals LOVE to claim that groups like the Nazis are “right-wing,” they are not; right-wingers are individualists.  American Conservatives hold the principles of the Founding Fathers as being core to their principles and beliefs: individual freedoms.  It is your average run-of-the-mill liberal, these days stumping for all of this collectivist crap.  And now it’s going to eat into their enjoyment of online porn.  Sucks to be them…

Basically, what Bell Canada is very much mirrors the purpose of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the USA.  They are government-backed monopolies, heavily regulated by the federal government, and touted to be “free market institutions.”  This couldn’t be any further from the truth.  They are de-facto monopolies regulated, and supported by the government.  Does anyone else out there do what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does? 

Nope.  That’s by design.  In fact, I think there’s legislation out there that prevents private entities from encroaching into Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s sandbox.  Then again, no one with a functioning brain would try to make a business off of bad loans.

The same goes with Bell Canada.  Strip away all of the anti-capitalist buzzwords, and they’re nothing more than an extension of the Canadian federal government.  They have no competition.  There are enough regulations in place to make sure that no one challenges Bell Canada’s Divine Right to rule virtually that nation’s communications infrastructure.

So, in supporting a socialist form of government, Canadian citizens are getting bent over the furniture…with corporatism.

As for corporations ruling the world, name for me one big, multi-national corporation with a standing army, armored divisions, nuclear bombs, investigative bureaus, and revenue collections agents and we’ll talk.  Last time I looked, those institutions were the exclusive prevue of the government.  When not restricted by the populace, the government will run roughshod over the average citizen.  The corporations and those “evil fat-cats” are more than happy to go along for the ride, so long as they make a decent living at it.  Is that right?  No.  But then again, business people are opportunists by nature.  If they weren’t, then they’d be greedy little civil servants, lusting for the day that they too can rule their own little fiefdom at the expense of the serfs.

And when I say “serfs,” what I mean is “you.”

So, in short, by supporting big government interference into private markets, liberals are getting exactly what they hate the most.  Then again, I’ve never credited liberals with having an overabundance of brains.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Corporatism, the Canadian Way!

  1. Nic says:

    Careful with your monikers. “Socialism”, “Fascism” and “Communism” are not synonyms. Hitler and Mussolini were right of centre, but the main difference between them and Obama or Romney is that they were extreme authoritarians — proponents of a police state, racists, and homophobes. But in terms of Corporatism, the nazis and the U.S. (whether Republican or Democrat) are actually very similar.
    As an ordinary citizen, I think everyone should be opposed to Corporatism. It doesn’t matter whether you vote for the Green Party or for Ron Paul. As lon as you don’t vote for Obama or Romney.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

  2. unknownconservative says:

    Hitler and Mussolini were NOT right-of-center. This is a huge lie propagated by left-of-center types to place an extreme end on a truly progressive philosophy. Those people were socialists, pure and simple (people seem to forget that the term Nazi comes from National SOCIALIST). They were not socialists in the Marxist sense, but they were collectivists, and demanded a strong central government for the allocation of property. This differs very little from the philosophy of people like Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi. All three of them advocate for redistribution of wealth according to social needs and whims and/or the desires of the central planners. Period. This centeral belief is what ties all three “isms” together.

    In Europe, to be on the conservative and/or right-side of the spectrum was to be a reactionary, which was to be for traditional forms of governence. It varied depending on region. For England, it meant having a parlimentarian monarchy. In the US, however, it means advocating for a Constitutional federal goverenment that is limited. This is considered “reactionary.” A constitution (or the US Constitution) is a static document that details the roles and limits of the US government. The main differenece is that collectivist philosophies consider all property and wealth to be property of the state. The US, however, is based off the philosophy esposed by John Locke that all wealth is property of the individual. THAT’S where the core difference lies.

    The Green Party is filled to the gills with socialists and communists. In fact the classical definition of Corporatism is a collectivist philosophy. The modern definition is the end-result of the gross, blatant failures of Communism, Fascism, and Socialism. It is not well known, but the Nazis had to “modify” their views to include “private” ownership of corporations (of course, the “private” owners were Nazi party loyalists) and accumulation of profits because central planning in those early days was an abject failure. The same thing basically occured when the Baathists took over in the Middle East (specifically, Saddam Hussein and Iraq). True communists, like the Soviets, never relied on any sort of private corporations for their production. This – in addition to Stalin’s purges in the military – proabaly also explains why they got their a** handed to them on a plate by the Nazis when they invaded. And it probably also explains why a nation of Russia’s vast size, population, and rich natural resources had to go running to the US and Canada to supply them with war materiale…because they sucked at producing it themselves. That is one of the biggest untold stores of WWII.

    It also might explain why a non-collectivist nation was able to smash the Nazis, and successfully lay seige to the Soviets in the Cold War that followed.

    Corporitism is the flailing attempt for a failed philisophy to tread water while having a boat-anchor tied to its legs. In time, the people who practice it eventually drown. The only true progressive philosophy that’s actually worked for a time was the stuff that inspired the Founding Fathers of the US…and that was both Christianity, and the writings of John Locke. And it worked up until the socialists started to infiltrate and pervert our system of government.

    So no, you’re wrong. There is no difference between socialism, fascism, and communism. They are collectivist philisophies that don’t work. In short, they a different flavors of the same deadly poison. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether it is grape-flavored or mango: it’ll still kill you.

    As for not voting for either Obama or Romney: when you can tell when me in the last 50 years the nation has elected a president that wasn’t either a Republican or Democrat, I’ll listen. To expect someone that isn’t from one of these two parties to get elected is, frankly, delusional. I may not like Romney. I may not like the fact that he helped usher in Romney-care. But my alternatives are Obama (communist), Nader (or a Nader clone – an even BIGGER communist) or whomever the Librtarians throw up – and generally they never get elected.

    So not voting for Romney is basically guaranteeing the election of a communist. Sorry. That’s the way the world works.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: