Energy Transition and Electrifying The Vehicles

So, this past week, Canada's environment minister, Steven Guilbeault unveiled plans that would ban the sale of new ICE vehicles in Canada by 2035.  Of course, the usual suspects are whining about how "unrealistic" this is.

Here's the thing, this is a generational shift in technology, and one that has to happen for serious reasons.  Anyone who lived through the 2023 fire season in Canada needs to understand that a big portion of that fire season had to do with climate change.  Maybe it's too late to hold back the storm we face on that front, but that doesn't change the fundamental obligation we have to both ourselves and future generations to act. 

Largely the complaints I hear are along the following lines: 

1 - building electric vehicles is hard, and retooling manufacturing plants to the new technology is harder.  

2 - the electricity grid isn't ready for everybody to start using electric cars - it would collapse if that happened tomorrow. 

Both of these are to varying degrees true. The fact that something is hard doesn't mean that it isn't a valid goal.  The automotive industry has been through this before.  In the 1970s, the introduction of CAFE regulations meant that suddenly cars had to get fuel efficient.  Guess what?  It happened.  A family sized car today has vastly better fuel consumption than a lot of the "economy" cars of the 1970s.

Did this happen overnight?  Nope.  Did it nearly kill the domestic automakers?  Yes.  But by the mid-1980s, they were finally starting to figure it out.  Japan was vastly ahead of them by that point, but that's another story.  

What did the CAFE standards and other related standards of the 1970s do?  They birthed the development of a range of technologies - some of which succeeded and survived, others died out.  Carburation was replaced by fuel injection; early pollution control was almost entirely vacuum driven, that got augmented by electronic controls; catalytic converters became mandatory; engines tightened up, and non-interference designs gave way to interference designs; transmissions evolved, and automatics eventually surpassed manual transmissions for efficiency.  

Innovation sometimes requires government to set the direction.  Capitalism is, at its core, fundamentally opposed to any change that affects profitability.  If we let the automotive sector alone, we'd still be driving cars designed in the 1960s.  Why?  Because making them is easy and profitable. 

So, when I hear "industry players" talking about how hard it is, or that it "can't be done".  Yeah - everybody said that as Henry Ford set up his first production line too.  Get down to the hard work of figuring out how you _can_ do it instead of telling us that it's hard.  

The electricity grid needs a massive overhaul anyhow.  In Alberta, 20 years ago, we built a ridiculous transmission line to sell "surplus" production into the US market.  We (rate payers) are still paying for that in spite of it never having been needed.  You were willing to have us pay for that because you understood how to use it for profit.  Now the electricity grid needs to change dramatically so we can produce fewer emissions for transportation.  I don't see a problem here.  

Again, there are a myriad of technologies that need to be considered - perhaps every roof should have solar added to it.  "Oh, but micro generation is hard say the megalith generating companies" - because they don't know how to profit from it. There are many possible solutions, and likely the real answer is a catch bag of multiple solutions put together. 

Engineers love solving problems - this objective creates a whole lot of problems to be solved.  The starter has fired the starting pistol.  Why are you standing around quibbling about how "difficult" it is? 

The blunt reality is that energy transition is happening whether you, the current automotive world, or the oil execs like it.  Get on board and figure it out, or be prepared to become part of the past just as bespoke buggy makers and stable keepers are today.  

I don't know that I expect the 2035 target to be hit, but one thing is certain:  You will never hit the target if you don't try to. 

The Spat With India

 So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.  To a certain extent, this is a “meh, so what?” kind of move, but on other fronts its more significant and an indicator of the Modi government’s larger agenda.  

One could infer from the level of outrage coming out of India that in fact the Canadian government’s expressed worries that in fact the allegations have some merit.  It’s very much a case of “India doth protest too much” - if they really had nothing to do with this Nijjar’s murder a few months ago, then why such a public temper tantrum? 

Part of it, no doubt, has to do with the Khalistan movement to create a “Sikh homeland”. The idea of a Sikh homeland isn’t new - it’s been rattling about for decades, and was very much the driving force behind a bombing launched from within Canada back in the 1980s. I don’t particularly want to spend a pile of time rehashing the Air India bombing here, I mention it to draw attention to the somewhat fraught relationship it created within Canada regarding the Khalistan movement.

Canada’s government might well be more reactive here in part because of the fallout from the Air India bombing - which many still feel has never been fully resolved in our courts.  There have been a few cases brought to trial, but many in the Canadian public felt the outcomes were deeply unsatisfying.  Canada would be naturally sensitive to any action which would appear to be an escalation of violence relating to the Khalistan movement taking place within its borders.  A repeat of the Air India bombing is hardly a desirable thing.

I won’t attempt to go deep into the Khalistan movement and the politics around it - I simply lack the background knowledge to do the subject justice.  What I can remark upon is the Modi government’s propensity for passing arbitrary laws with deliberately discriminatory consequences.  The BJP party is described as “Hindu Nationalist”, and over time we have also observed Modi becoming increasingly authoritarian.  

To be frank, ever since Trudeau’s disastrous trip to India in 2015/16, my trust of the Modi government has been very low. It was fairly obvious that Modi participated in setting a political booby trap engineered by Harper through the IDU.  Subsequently, numerous second-rate conservative politicians have attempted to polish their image with junkets to India as a result of the Modi government inviting them to visit.  So, on that alone, I am suspicious of the Modi government’s actions here.  

It’s entirely possible that this is a setup so that the CPC here can spend the next year or so making itself out to be “the reconcilers” where India is concerned.  India gets to play the “offended party” with its nose out of joint, and effectively cuts the current Canadian government out of the picture, making any diplomatic progress impossible.  Then the CPC can rail on about how Trudeau simply doesn’t have the standing on the world stage to be taken seriously …blah blah blah… I think you get the picture. 

Then, when in 2024/5 when a new government is elected (presumably CPC, or so the plotters imagine), India suddenly stops being hostile … mostly because an IDU-aligned government is in power, and the newly elected Conservative government gets a nice little “slam-dunk” win on the world stage to set its credentials in.  

From Modi’s perspective, it’s a win too, because he gets to deal a blow to a movement that he sees as a political danger with relative impunity.  

That might be a bit of a reach, but I don’t think it’s all that far off the mark. We already have evidence of close ties between Harper and Modi, and it’s fairly clear that they’ve collaborated on schemes to bolster conservative fortunes in Canada.  

[Update:  21/09/23 17:00]:  Well, it seems that Canada does have “the receipts” that implicate the Indian government.  The whole thing just got a lot harder for the CPC to leverage credibly. 

Moving Beyond The Partisan

A couple of years ago, I expressed my disgust with partisan politics and proposed a model that is intended to break the connection between party discipline, insularity, and policy platforms. 

One of the first things Danielle Smith has proposed in the wake of the UCP being shut out in Edmonton is literally creating a partisan committee of failed Edmonton UCP candidates from Edmonton to “advise” the government about matters pertaining to Edmonton. 

I want to point something out here about how wrong this is within a parliamentary system. Edmonton has duly elected representatives in the legislature. Those are the people that Smith should be consulting with about matters regarding Edmonton, or the impact of government legislation or policy on Edmonton. However, because they belong to “The Other Party”, she seems to have decided that rather than consult with them, she’ll form up a committee from within the UCP. 

The Problem

Not only is this grossly disrespectful of the voters of Edmonton, it effectively imposes on them a group of partisan “representatives” that they did not elect in the first place. At its core, this is fundamentally undermining the purpose of representative democracy in the first place. Edmonton elected those people as their MLAs, it is incumbent upon the governing party to find ways to work with them. 

However, in today’s world, the party comes first, the riding and the people second. This is backwards. 

We see the same thing federally as well. When a Liberal government is elected, very often they have scant or even no representation from the Prairie provinces. The government then struggles to consult adequately to understand how their policies might impact that region (which, of course the conservatives play up because … well, party first!). 

One of the guiding principles of any parliamentary system is the idea of collegiality. That is to say, your fellow MLAs/MPs (whatever the title) are in fact your peers, and you should be able to engage with them as needed, in the most appropriate way. This notion of collegiality is also a moderator of partisan behaviour because it puts representation ahead of partisanship. 

In essence, the thinking should be “I need your input on this matter because you represent this other region or perspective, and the fact you belong to another party shouldn’t matter”.  Instead, what has happened over the last 30+ years is that the notion of party as primary has created a wall that inhibits that collegial relationship, and instead enforces a “don’t talk to the other guy because they’re from the other camp” mentality. 

Party As An Artifact

The political party of today is largely an artifact of the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution. In theory, they provide a means to present to the people a coherent political platform that is grounded in some stream of political theory as to how best run a nation. 

That was then, this is now. The political musings of philosophers in the 19th century only provide the barest fig leaf of theory that informs today’s political parties. Today’s “Liberals” are not particularly reflective of what was deemed “liberalism”, the “Conservatives” have minimal connections to the thinkers they often refer to as well. The NDP (Canada’s equivalent of “Social Democrats” elsewhere) are a puzzling mishmash of ideas and tropes with only the barest of connections to the concepts of social democracy.  

In so many ways, today’s political parties exist as an artifact of a time long past. 

What Parties Have Become

Instead, political parties have become sorting hats for those who seek political power. Party executives sit behind closed doors, but exert enormous influence over elected MLAs, and the decisions about who gets a seat at the cabinet table; Party discipline is used to ensure that Cabinet gets its legislation passed; Party discipline dictates which MLAs get to speak out on issues, with some being designated “disruptors”, others being told (more or less) to keep their mouths shut. Above all else, party discipline gets used to prevent elected representatives from interacting with each other, and thereby moderating their party’s worst instincts. 

The UCP embodies this so clearly. Formed in 2016/17, it was always a vehicle for one person to ride to power - Jason Kenney. An examination of the Party Constitution and other governing documents shows how much power over the party is placed in the hands of the leader and the party executive. This is no accident, but it is also a fatal weakness. In fall of 2022, Take Back Alberta (TBA) exploited that weakness to effectively stage a coup and take control of the UCP board. 

If you don’t think that’s significant, consider the fact that TBA and Danielle Smith decided to “shelve” the most controversial aspects of their platforms until _AFTER_ the provincial election. That should have sent shockwaves of discomfort through the electorate - a party literally saying “we won’t talk about the big parts of our platform until after you elect us” should have been a death sentence to their campaign. It wasn’t for a number of reasons, but what it did demonstrate is that it is now possible for a party to lie entirely about what it represents and believes in order to get elected, and once in power, well, then you find out what they really believe. 

Impact On Parliamentary Democracy

The impact of these changes on parliamentary democracy are significant and should not be ignored. First, it undermines the notion of your MP / MLA as your representative in the government. Instead, they are representing the party to you, and are beholden to the structure of party discipline in terms of how they vote in the legislature. This is backwards. 

Second, the rise of partisanship-first politics has meant that suddenly the member from the adjacent riding who belongs to another party is seen as a rival rather than as a colleague. This automatically causes MLAs to discount the commentary from that other member, and ultimately results in discussions being limited, and debates in the legislature itself have become a matter of “scoring points”. This mentality really took hold when Stephen Harper gave his MPs a “How To Disrupt Parliament” manual.  That manual was literally no less than a deliberate effort to undermine the effectiveness of parliamentary structures that all rely on the presence of a fundamentally collegial relationship between MPs. 

Today, debates on matters of substance are replaced with designated MPs trying to “score hits”, and Question Period has become a farce. This isn’t a hockey game, people. It’s not about “outfoxing the other guy”, it’s about governing the country for all of us.

The Role Of Collegiality

The concept of collegiality in parliament is important because it serves to act as a moderator of the actions of those in power. By undermining it to the degree that we have seen over the last 30 years, political parties have become ever more extreme and strident in their pursuit of some kind of ideological perfection to the detriment of many who may otherwise agree with some portion of those ideas. 

Having to reach out to colleagues you don’t agree with ideologically is a moderator. It means that parties and party leadership actually hear what the “other side” is thinking and the reasoning behind it. When was the last time you think that parties were able to do that? For me, it was sometime in the 1980s, possibly earlier than that. 

Today? It’s hard to imagine a member of the conservative caucuses reaching out to a peer in another party and engaging in sincere, reciprocal conversation. I just don’t think it happens now - the constant drone of attacks, even on matters that are relatively trivial tells me that we have become far too focused on power for its own sake. 

Conclusions

The next 4 years in Alberta are going to be horrific. David Parker and TBA are not a “collegial” organization, and neither is the UCP.  Although the UCP has a slim majority, it’s enough that they can get away with a lot, and I do not expect them to moderate their tendencies towards authoritarianism, if not outright fascism. 

Democracy in Canada is at a crossroads, and if we do not take dramatic steps to change course, it will fall apart in my lifetime. I don’t know what would replace it, but I do know that the path we are on leads to some very dark places. 

Spring Election?

Are Canada's conservatives lining up for a federal election this spring? 

Predicting such things is a bit like scrying, but there are signs that lean that way.  

First are some questionable polling numbers which show the CPC getting very close to minority government territory, even while their current leader seems about as well liked as half a worm in your apple. This combined with the NDP apparently riding high in the polls is interesting. Years ago, I realized that the conservatives in Canada only win when the NDP starts rising in the polling. (* I'm not going to spend time here on a detailed critique of Poilievre and Singh as leaders of their parties - that isn't the point of this post *)

I say that the polling numbers are questionable for a few reasons. First, the general sampling strategy for polling these days is increasingly problematic from a statistical methods perspective, and second it's getting increasingly difficult to access fundamental materials like the questions asked.  The latter issue makes it very hard to assess whether a given poll is done with "push polling" tactics or not. 

The recent election in Ontario was an interesting case of the headlines for months pushing a polling-based narrative that "the conservatives have it all sewn up, and sure enough, Doug Ford's OPCs won handily - with one of the lowest voter turnouts in years. The argument can be made that the media campaign was designed to depress the overall vote - which always favours conservatives. 

The next sign comes out of Alberta. In theory Alberta is heading into an election this spring with newly-minted Premier Danielle Smith leading the incumbent UCP. Except the UCP is far from "united", and Ms. Smiths first months in office have been plagued by a series of missteps on her part that have many wondering if she is even suitable for office at all. 

For the last couple of months, the Alberta government has been flailing about trying to pick a fight with Ottawa. First it was the so-called "sovereignty act", then it was over LNG exports, and most recently over the federal government's proposed "just transition" legislation. These "fights" are intended to tee up an easy win in Alberta for Poilievre, who will be able to simply say he will stop the feds from "blocking Alberta", and presto, the conservatives have an easy 20 odd seats. 

However, given the bizarre behaviour of Danielle Smith, a UCP victory in a spring election is anything but a sure thing at the moment. Therefore, while the UCP fosters squabbles with the incumbent LPC government federally (sucking up oxygen for real issues), a federal election would also serve as a distraction for an Alberta electorate fatigued by a constant rush of missteps and scandals on the part of a UCP that is barely holding itself together. 

So, the second sign of a potential election call is in fact the chaos in Alberta which both the UCP and CPC stand to benefit from. 

The third sign is perhaps more important - and it's the ramping up of rhetoric in conservative aligned news media. In particular, I'm poking at PostMedia here. Long a part of the conservative propaganda machine, PostMedia has been ramping up both in its content, as well as how it is promoting itself on social media like Twitter. 

A quick glance at the National Post's front page online this morning turns up 2 columns about "free speech" (mostly roiling around Jordan Peterson), two columns which are designed to whip up more moral panic over transgender people, a bunch of "the world is falling apart" articles based on Ukraine, a handful of articles implying that the Liberals are corrupt, and a few praising Doug Ford for "innovating health care" by privatizing it.  

I think you get the picture - the conservative media is now lining up to take a broadside shot at the Trudeau-led LPC, in hopes of tipping a few more votes their way. 

What's harder to read is whether there are enough votes in the opposition parties willing to topple the current government.  While the CPC and NDP might be willing, that's only 144 votes, and they need support from the BQ - and it's not at all clear to me that the BQ sees a gain in going to the polls at this time. 

Regardless, there are definite signs of a move to kick off an election this spring.  Whether it happens or not is another matter. 

It's Time To Blow Up The Party System

I have never been a political partisan.  That isn't to say I don't have political beliefs, or positions.  But I simply don't buy into the broad idea of being a member of a political party.  My own politics are fairly complex, and I don't wish to find myself in the position of having to conform with some "party policy" or another on the basis of creating the appearance of unity.  

However, over the last decade or so, I have observed a disturbing change in the nature of our political parties in Canada. They have become businesses - businesses that sell access to power.  Perhaps most disturbingly, they do so on the backs of what is largely a volunteer workforce.  While a small number of people are employed by these parties, the vast majority of the work of fundraising (cash flow) is really done by the active volunteer base.  Meanwhile, the proposition to the voter is "if our party gets into power, we can give you what you want".  

This is true of all parties - everybody is jockeying for a position of influence somewhere.  However, it has also created a more disturbing industry of groups that are attempting to control the parties themselves.  Don't get me wrong, factions in a party are a normal social consequence of putting a group of people together to accomplish a common goal.  I'm talking about organizations like Campaign Life who have spent decades organizing their base in a bid to assert covert control over the Conservative Party. 

But there's more to this whole picture. 

The "But Communism Was Bad" Argument

Lately, when debating matters of economics, people that I will broadly call "small government advocates" (usually hardline fiscal hawk conservatives and libertarians) will inevitably start throwing about the argument that "communism is a failed ideology" when they are challenged directly about the specifics of what they would cut from government, or on the flaws in their understandings.  In the last week, I ran into one of these arguments when discussing (or trying to) several implicit assumptions in a libertarian's argument that governments have no right to levy taxes.

The Arguments

Argument 1

The first form that these arguments often take is a consumer argument.  More or less, it boils down to "if you looked in a Soviet era grocery store, there was very little product available.  Therefore, the system was a failure.

For example:

What he's referring to are pictures like this from the late 1970s / early 1980s Soviet countries:  

... and yes, by the late 1970s, the consumer side of the Soviet economy was clearly in deep trouble.  

Argument 2

The second argument basically involves pointing to Venezuela, a country which is currently in the midst of economic collapse.  Of course, as the linked article points out, Venezuela's economic collapse is much more than a simple matter of having a "socialist" government (I'll come back to this in a little while).  Not unlike Alberta, Venezuela has relied for far too long almost exclusively on resource revenues.  When that sector tanks, so does their economy.  

Argument 3

The third argument is basically "communists have killed way more people than capitalists".  Yes, it's certainly true that Stalin in the USSR murdered millions, Pol Pot in Cambodia oversaw the so-called killing fields, and so on.  I don't think anyone can defend the actions of these dictators in any reasonable way, nor do I intend to.  However, the argument that this shows that communism is fundamentally a bad way to run a country's finances is also problematic.  

In Canada, we have seen the federal conservatives use this as a propaganda tool, often to rail against any kind of social policy.  (Government anything = socialism = communism, more or less).  

This argument is particularly annoying because it is fundamentally an emotional argument to start with, and one which is based on a resurrection of McCarthy era "red scare" propaganda.  

What's Wrong With These Arguments?

Communist Dictatorships

I'm going to go through these in almost reverse order.  First, let's start off with the basic assumption that "communism is bad".  The examples cited for why communism is bad are almost all better understood as totalitarian dictatorships.  Whether we talk about Stalin, Pol Pot or even Cuba's Fidel Castro, is that they were all fundamentally totalitarian dictators.  Dictators, regardless of their political stripe are prone to being deeply destructive as they struggle to hold on to personal power.  Whether we are talking about dictators the US supported for years like Panama's Manuel Noriega, or the monarchy in Iran, there were many abuses of power, both human rights, and greed focused.  

One only has to look at the history of American political interventions in Central and South America throughout the Cold War era, or in the Middle East since WWII to recognize that political expediency has ruled the day, with the government supporting governments that are ideologically aligned with them, even when that government is engaged in horrendous actions against its own people.  The history of "capitalism" when it comes to human rights is just as dark as the communist dictators, the only significant difference is that it was largely done through proxy states.

Communism = Socialism

This is a perplexing equivalence.  Anybody who has been through Canada's grade school system in the last fifty years would have gotten a pretty good dose of the different political "isms" that have been predominant since WWII.  As economic theories, Capitalism and Communism are often held up as being diametrically opposed to each other, and Socialism is often portrayed as many variations in between.  In Western countries, Capitalism is broadly understood in the context of greater individual liberty, where Communism is associated with high level economic planning being done by the central government.  

In North America, the so-called "Red Scare" era of the 1950s in the United States (peak Cold War) laid out a cultural framework in which US politicians drew an increasingly frightening picture of communism as the absolute withdrawal of personal liberties, and an overt attack on everything good that American life stood for.  The McArthy era in the US built on the existing mistrust of government in general that is pervasive in American culture, and used broad accusations to attack anyone who had even remotely "left-leaning" political ideas.  We see modern day conservatives in both countries attempting to leverage the resulting fabric by equating any kind of government intervention in society (including social safety net programs) with the extremes of the totalitarian dictators who led certain communist governments.   

However, most people who advocate for things like single payer (socialized) health care, are not arguing for the government to take over control of the economy.  Their ideals are often inspired by the successful governments in Europe which are largely Social Democracies.  The argument that somehow this represents an unwarranted intrusion by the state into the lives of individuals is at best hyperbole, at worst it represents a classic example of the Slippery Slope fallacy by drawing Socialism as being far closer to Communism than it actually is.  

Failed Economies

The failed economy argument is a more complex one to address. Usually the argument goes something along the lines of "government cannot / should not borrow money because communist regimes suffered economic collapse".  Superficially, this almost seems reasonable. The collapse of the Soviet Union is fairly well documented, and the relative lack of consumer goods in Soviet Russia is pointed to as a primary example of how central planning failed.  

A failed economy is a disaster for the people who live in the country.  This is unquestionably true. One only has to look at the regional failures in North America to understand a "closer to home" example - the Rust Belt.  The decline of industrial production in North America gutted regional economies which had previously relied on local heavy industry to sustain them.  While this hasn't resulted in the outright collapse of the US economy, it has caused a major exodus of population, and at least one municipality has had to declare bankruptcy and abandon providing infrastructure services to major areas.  

Generally, a robust economy will survive one or two segments experiencing a downturn.  So, why did  the Soviet Union's economy collapse so thoroughly? The simplistic answer is to claim that central planning is an inherently flawed way to run an economy, and the bureaucrats simply couldn't see what was happening through their own fantasies.  However, such a claim is both overly simplistic, and it ignores a lot of context.  First, we cannot ignore that the Soviet Union had been largely isolated in many ways.  Much of its trade was within the confines of its allied countries and vassal states under its direct control. China was, at the time, not the industrial power it has become in the last few decades, and the Soviet Union found itself trapped in a cycle of competing demands which it could only meet some of.  In many respects, the Cold War became a proxy war for control over client states.  The US was able to force the Soviet Union to expend significant resources in that conflict while limiting the ability of the Soviet Union to acquire cash reserves needed to support their efforts in a world that was using the US dollar as a reserve currency.  In short, the Soviet Union's economy collapsed from a series of internal and external pressures which the US economy has never faced to date.  

External pressures like sanctions, or volatile resource prices play a significant role in the collapse of an economy.  Venezuela is one such example, where its dependence on oil prices at a time when other players in the oil market decided to increase production caused a major drop in government revenues.  Coupled with US economic sanctions and political upheaval in the wake of Chavez's death, the government has floundered with the economy.  Remove the sanctions and political uncertainty, and one might well see a substantially different outcome. 

Again, one might well look to how various states that are nominally allied with the US are doing in various regions of the world and ask whether those states have prospered under governments that the US has backed. The answer here is more mixed. Some, like South Korea, certainly have. Yet others, such as some Central American nations, have suffered under the yoke of brutal dictatorships.  Yeah - there's that dictator word again - it's important, isn't it?  

Consumer Economy Versus Other Models

It is also quite important to recognize that there are significant differences between a "consumer economy" such as the United States has fostered, and other models.  The consumer economy looks at everything through the lens of consumption.  Basically, the function of the economy is solely measured on the basis of product sales.  Nobody pays attention to other factors like whether the product is necessary, or if the price is fair (the magical "invisible hand" of the free market corrects this ... right?), or whether a given product or service needs to be universally accessible (e.g. healthcare).  So ... what does all this mean?  

The Soviet Union opted for a centrally controlled model which did not emphasize the consumer.  However, it's important to recognize that it did work reasonably well for the Soviet Union until the 1970s.  Further, in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, it has become much clearer that the Soviet Union cannot be seen as a simple economy. The ability of that country to create its own variations on many Western consumer goods (e.g. Russian versions of numerous western home computers from the 1980s) suggests that the centralized planning only went so far.  We who live in the western countries need to be cautiously skeptical about the picture that was painted for us in the latter years of the Soviet Union.  

Although China is a communist country, it is a much different conceptualization of communism, and one that has adopted a much different model of market economics in the last thirty years.  It is "neither fish nor fowl". It has a strong, often overbearing it seems, central government but this is contrasted with an economy that has adopted much of the principles of the western market economy (and often without the controlling regulations we have added).  It is perhaps the unique pragmatism of the Chinese approach that makes me skeptical about blithely condemning approaches to politics and economics in other countries.  Often, we only have a partial picture painted for us by those who sit in positions of power. 

However, there is a big difference between the command-and-control economy of the Soviet Union and the more market driven economies of democratic socialist countries like Norway or Sweden.  These are countries with comprehensive social programs for all of their people, and yet you cannot by any means argue that they are centrally planned.  They tend to have a greater emphasis on government delivery of key services like health care, and regulation of industry compared to the market fundamentalism that we have seen in the United States.  Does that make them bad countries?  Not at all - in fact they are stable nations which have relatively content populations.  To conflate government intervention in domains intended to protect the people of a nation with the centralized "command-and-control" model of the Soviet Union is at best a stretch, at worst a false analogy.  

Conclusions

For the most part, the "but, but ... Communism!" cry often heard from the libertarian influenced right is nonsense.  It is, at its heart, an attempt to resurrect the zombie of McArthyism.  McArthy was a terrible human being who used the politics of fear to forward his personal agenda for greater power.  We should fear those who would resurrect his politics far more.