[...]
> How would you measure this? Canada got universal suffrage much later (ie,
> no property qualification but of course excluding blacks in the us and
> Aboriginals in Canada). And scholars such as R.T. Naylor would argue...
[...]
> The feds did not jointly fund it until later once the socialists proved it
> could be done. And yes the knee jerk petite bourgeoisie doctors backed
> off. But the point is, and this where your argument erred, the cdn
> constitution has a very strong division of powers between the feds and the
> provinces...
[...]
> This is just a counter factual assertion on your part. There is no
> evidence in hansert or otherwise that the cdn cap class was clamoring for
> universal health care...
[...]
> Not at all. The point is that Canada never had a slave mode of production
> and as such never had a substantial freed slave pop as a percent of the
> working class pop. So even if there was an equally amount of racism its
> effects would be much different. Please re-read the original paragraph.
> There is no difference of opinion here.
=====================================
I'm having trouble following where we agree and/or disagree and, with
respect, the subject seems a bit too remote for me to want to pursue it in
more detail, much less go back and review the academic literature. My remark
about the Canadian bourgeoisie being weaker than the US bourgeoisie - in
some ways, an adjunct of it - was made in passing, to contrast why the
greater history of state intervention in Canada provided a more congenial
environment for the development of social democracy in its labour movement
than was the case in the US. I added that the reliance (not the "clamour")
by the private sector on the state for medicare, as opposed to the US corps
who until recently were able to finance health coverage for their workers on
their own, could be seen in this context. I didn't think these points would
be so controversial, and I'm ready to move on.