Media: let's bury the party beneath praises of Jack

Me too, Winston. What a disgusting piece. rabble.ca editor emirita, writer, had this to say: "I want to thank Christie Blatchford for providing such a vivid contrast to the words Jack Layton chose to leave us with before his great departure. They will have a longer, richer, more vivid life than the very best of Blatchford's work. That can be a tough burden for the small-hearted professional hack."

I don't even want to touch the Kay piece. What a fucking rag that "paper" is.

On the actual coverage though, I was pleased to hear CBC radio lead the question of the party's future with a comment from someone who said she intends to stay with the party despite Layton's death. Of course they followed that with someone who said the party had a challenge ahead.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/now-no-one-stands-in-stephe...

The article is actually better than the headline. 

Thank you, Catchfire! The longer the media keeps trying to fit the current NDP into their old political narratives, the more irrelevant they will be seen as they continue to miss the story, caught short by what unfolds.

We just had a little tremor, with an epicentre in Virginia. Writer ‎Justin Stayshyn commented, "Please tell me the earth just swallowed up Christie Blatchford."

How much money would have to change hands to make Blatchford never commit another word to publication?

It is not a bad thing that Blatchford and Kay have soiled themselves in public. It will haunt them.

Stay classy, Roscoe.

To be fair, when Brian Mulroney kicks it, I don't imagine that all left-wing columnists will choose not to speak ill of the dead.

Have you ever wondered what determines longevity?  I suppose a lot of it just comes down to the genetics you get, but it seems that a lot of horrible people tend to live long lives and keep going year after year (eg. Dick Cheney) while much nicer individuals get struck down early.

At the time it was good to see the late Sir Alec Guiness getting the wide acclaim in this part of the world that he had already received across the Atlantic in the UK. Who cares what shlock he got it for; the character he played, simple as it was, was much loved. I was a huge Guiness fan in those days ... his films with Ealing Studios and as Gulley Jimson in the film version of The Horse's Mouth were legendary.

Jack Layton did a fine job right to the end, with failing hands, of passing on the torch in an orderly way and drawing attention away from himself. We should all be so neat and tidy.

I posted this elsewhere, and it seems to be resonating with others. Thought it might give some context for folks here – especially those who might not be aware of Toronto media / political history:

Blatchford would have been ridiculing Jack since she was a [Toronto] Sun writer and he was a gay-positive bike-riding jovial left-wing kook of an alderman.

I can only begin to imagine how much it has burned the right that used to belittle him constantly in this city. His star rose far beyond anything they've had to contribute, or could contribute, to our civic life.

The bitterness Blatchford has revealed is deeply held. It is the rage of a frustrated hack who predicted only humiliation and failure for Jack. Having missed the mark so widely, she has tried to fulfill her own prophesies with a miserable piece of drivel that only illustrates how miserly she is, and always has been. And how generous, positive and bursting with euphoric life Jack Layton was in contrast.

I wonder if Blatchford filed her venemous piece before it became obvious that people across the nation were absolutely gutted by Jack's death and doing everything possible to express their respect for him. Kay jumping in to defend her just smacks of smarmy desperation.

Kay jumping in to defend Blatchford is him jumping in to defend the very large investment the Post probably made in hiring her. Wouldn't it be a shame if that was money down the toilet for them.

I go away and there is at least some good news.

Blantchford at the Post?

I never read her drivel or commented when people talked about it. Life is too short. Now I wont even be seeing her name as often... and that smug picture.

Be angry about the issues not hateful towards the person

We will never win with an angry stance, you have to kill them with kindness,

It sounds like you want violent revolution but we live in one of the most controlled police states in the world. If any serious revolutionary dissidence were to arise it would be cracked down so hard you wouldn't even know about it. Just look at Vic Toews, the guy thinks he is Robocop or something. 

You say one angry thing and they turn it against you and it sets you back so far look at Howrd Dean

Some are trying to construct it as such:  http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1260532.html

I felt that was just the headline, though. The rest of the story never supported the headline (and of course the reporters don't write the heads, the editors do).

I guess, but that is in itself a problem that I think Jack was trying to fix with his message, nobody should be booed especially for doing something respectful

Or, it would support the headline were one to frame Stephen Lewis as some kind of dangerous radical-left firebrand.

rabble.ca

Where have we heard that before? *cough*Obama*cough*

Yes, you got that point very well. I also wish to add that the Tea Party didn't suddenly spring up after Obama got elected, they were there shreiking loudly and hysterically in the lead up to November 2008. Their influence was marginal precisely because Obama was thought to offer something new. It was only after Obama failed to live up to that hope that the Tea Party moved in to fill that vacuum.

It's quiet here and I'm thinking that my small, but important, point has no serious rebuttal. I encourage those who usually find themselves on the left IN the NDP - or left OF the NDP altogether -  to look at my claims here about the necessity for clarity on anti-imperialism, what this actually means, how it is not the same as the policies of the NDP (under Layton or under someone else) , and see if they don't agree with the general thrust of what I've written here. Anti-imperialism - what Roy has identified as resistance to Empire - is a step up from mainstram social democracy and is furthermore not identical to advocacy of some sort of socialist alternative. Anyway, any critique is welcome.

I'm not "condemning" anyone. (And you are one of those already yakking about who will replace the late J. Layton, ffs.) The point is a critique of Stephen Lewis' choice of quotes to describe the late Jack Layton and what I think is a misappropriation of someone else's eloquence. This thread was begun by someone who saw an effort by political rivals on the right and the MSM to harm the NDP by heaping excessive praise on Layton. In a way I'm saying that Lewis did the same thing.

I've waited an appropriate length of time to make such comments, IMHO. And my critique is ultimately of the NDP, and its weaknesses as I see it, and not really personally directed at Layton. I can hardly hold people accountable in the usual manner if their views are limited by the narrow horizons of the party they belong to and remain loyal to.

Yea, ok, np. I remember babble when ANY claim would be challenged. babble-algia, eh?

*GASP*

He prevented the head-on clash between the working class and the Harper government? 

Drat! And I had a new party dress picked out for the occasion and everything!

Clearly I have been reading the wrong papers!

I find articles on the WSWS in general to be written witih ideologically loaded terms without a great deal of specifics to back them up.

Nonetheless, I think some of the articles critical of Jack's letter to Canadians highlight that as a culture, we have a fluffy, superficial understanding of the concepts of love, hope, and optimism. Indeed, people can get cynical when we see that superficiality used for corporate ends, for example the Obama campaign. It's not that people don't ever get angry or that things don't ever get bleak, and sometimes we have to fight fire with fire. There was absolutely nothing superficial or fluffy about the NDP fillibuster during the Canada Post lockout, and it was warranted. But at all times, these struggles have to be rooted in the deeper sense of hope and optimism for the future, and love for the people affected by the struggle. Any revolution or political movement that lacks these positive attributes is dangerous, and there are so many examples of movements borne out of anger and struggle that ended up violently and badly. I would argue that several of the previous struggles, from women's rights to abolition of slavery to racial equality to labour rights to equal rights for gays and lesbians (along with other movements I probably haven't listed) were at their core, rooted in hope, love, and optimism. I would also argue that the Arab Spring phenomenon currently sweeping the globe is, at its core, rooted in hope, love, and optimism as well, and that's why it hasn't denegrated into violent, sectarian struggles we have seen in the past when some marginalized groups fight back.

I'd say that the writer of this article got it pretty well right. While I think it is fair to say that Jack did act in a very caring and compassionate manner at times and did accomplish some valuable things in Toronto, which puts him many levels above other self-serving politicians like Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and, of course, Stephen Harper, as the leader of the NDP he did indeed serve the interests of capital. He was a social democrat and that's what social democrats do, no matter how strenuously they may claim otherwise.

There is one line in this article that sums up what needs to happen now: "Workers and young people in search of a world free of oppression and war must learn to speak the language of socialism and the class struggle." This is what has been lacking in the NDP for a long time, well before Jack took over as leader. But he did nothing to provide this space in the party and in fact, probably hastened its demise. By all means, celebrate Jack for his accomplishments as a caring person living in a harsh economic system, but it will be very difficult to make a strong argument that he made the NDP a strong bulwark against the rapacious forces of capitalism.

Then it kind of begs the question of what the "working class" are waiting for, and how it is that Jack was so powerful that he could apparently prevent them from doing anything. If they are going to clash, perhaps they should just clash and be done with it rather than blaming it on the presumed failings and actions of others.

Where did I say that violence by the master was okay?

You clearly did not understand my post. Are you saying there was something superficial and fluffy about all those movements that I listed? That those movements did not accomplish anything? Where did I say that you don't fight back. Absolutely I support people fighting back and getting their hands dirty. I support the right of workers to go on strike, I supported the NDP fillibuster during the Canada Post lockout.

Once violence enters the pictures, it becomes very dangerous. For one, any violent uprising would be crushed in a heartbeat, and the whatever cause was represented would lose traction with the wider public. The other problem is that it can go horribly wrong. Do you think the Russian Revolution was a success? Many people in the Ukraine would beg to differ. Look at the fascist movements that brought Hitler and Mousolinni to power. Hitler and Mousolinni appealed for the affections of sections of the working class that were struggling, and we all know how that ended. Look at the ethnic strife that happened in the former Yugoslavia. Even look south of the border at the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party speaks to the legitimate anger that many Americans feel about their current economic situation, but is dangerous precisely because it is wrapped up in anger and bitterness without articulating a better vision for the future.

And what does imperialism have to do with the point I made, and where did you get the idea that I support imperialist military adventures?

Giving lectures about the harmfulness of violence by those who resist IS the master's voice. Sorry if you don't understand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought this was to the point and rather amusing ....

I'm feeling particularly chloroformed.

Actually melikesocialism, when I refered to the "working class" I wasn't talking about the working class so much as the fellow who presumed to speak for them, Mr Richard Dufour.

And Ikosmos, I know what you mean. This talk of unconcious entities is making me sleepy.

and i read the star today and they said the Ontario NDP is standing up for the right of condo buyers...that sounds very.. socialist to me lol.

So how do you see the resistance playing itself out? What do you see as the goal for this resistance?

Imperialism has changed over time. Lower classes who lived in those times had no vote. They had no right to protest. There was no such thing as women's rights. And basically money chased power for centuries at a time. Today it's the reverse.

After imperialism came feudalism, then colonialism, and then industrial capitalism. Today it's called capitalism and even predatory capitalism and corporatism. But in Marx' day, industrial capitalism was the way. Marx did not predict that bankers and financiers would overthrow industrial capitalism. He thought industrialists would never be so complacent as to let a parasitic banking system take over. Marx said that parasitic bankers and financiers would undermine capitalism, and it has. The old theory of capitalism worked by the formula MCM - money invested in commodities and labour produces profit. As of about 30 - 35 years ago, it's just M-M, or today's system of financial engineering and chaos as jobs are offshored and crippling various nations' abilities to pay their bills.

But they have taken over. Supranational corporations are more powerful today than the state or any previous capitalist entity in the traditional sense. The relationships between workers and the owners of the means has changed drastically over just the last three decades. Marx is still relevant but not in the same way Marx thought he would be. Marx said let industrial capitalism globalize and develop into every part of the world. Because at some point all of that will belong to the workers. Materialism and capitalism, from what I can fathom, must either give way to the will of people and populism or transform itself into something that does not consume itself the way it normally does. Wars will eventually be fought by robots and remote control drones as they are being waged and most one-sidedly so today as we post notes to one another. Over 43 countries have robotic military equipment and-or aerial drones. This will either end in total destruction or culminate in tech advancements which could eliminate problems with scarce energy and other resources. Scientists say the next 100 years will be the most important in human history and likely determine our fate as a viable species. Like the sci-fi movie says, at the precipe we will either change our ways or perish. But this is highly speculative.

There are true populists and reactionary "anti-imperialists" in the democratic capitalist third world who are unafraid of mobilizing the working class toward revolution. But in those countries the imperialists bared their fangs long ago under a number of brutal US-backed right wing dictatorships themselves unafraid to haul out the military and shoot protesters in the streets if necessary. We don't see much of that reported in our corporate sponsored newz papers here though. What we have here is called fascism or even neofascism and all the trappings of "democracy". Marx didn't mention fascism, but it arose in opposition to another movement born of the same French revolution, socialism. Fascism began as a mix of nationalism and socialism, but then shifted to the far right politically by the 1920s. It's fake democracy, we know, but millions of us on the left and right are not willing to call it imperialism here in the richest countries. We are privileged not to have to suffer under naked imperialism in its true form. They didn't have medicare, UI-Ei-O or pensions in Cuba, for instance, leading up to the revolution. We are not as poor as Venezuelans were before Hugo Chavez and who still are to a large degree. in other words, Canadians are not ready to pick up pitch forks and rifles to storm Parliament Hill. We're not there yet, and the bastards are still not brave enough to create those kinds of conditons here that existed in pre-1959 Cuba or pre-Chavez, pre-MMP elections in Venezuela, a country where CIA spooks look a lot like Mormons, tourists, righties posing as lefty critics of the Chavez government etc and are hard to miss.

Fascists work in more subtle ways than imperialists of old. We have to be just as clever. Jack Layton was clever in a good way imo. Jack Layton spoke truth to power but in ways that neofascists and the colonial administrativeship  found difficult to counter, and millions loved him for it.

Yes, and as I was saying there are real revolutionaries in this hemisphere. But they live lives few of us could tolerate given the comforts we're accustomed to here with everything from universal health care to EI, pensions, and basic human rights that just don't exist in countries I visited when I was younger. The people there in countries like Guatemala and Honduras, and Belize etc are really oppressed and for many years. And I've read about the revolutionaries. I can sort of relate to them living in the bush on the run from government soldiers and paramilitaries. I've lived and worked in the bush in remote parts of Northern Canada, but it's not the same as the jungle. And I am "mature" now and doubt I could hack Canadian bush life anymore let alone running around the jungles of Central and South America. Yes they are in need of anyone willing to go down there and stick it to the imperialists any which way. I don't recommend it though for anyone over the age of 35 or so. A word for anyone thinking of going down to those countries to realize their purpose in life against the backdrop of actual imperialism in the raw: The US-backed militaries and right wing death squads don't screw around down there. Lots of road side check points, maybe a little shack in the middle of nowhere with maybe one guy and a machine gun strapped around his shoulder and ten chances to one never heard of Arundhati Roy or Stephen Lewis.

But if volunteering for the revolutionary's life isn't for you, then consider doing as much as you can in this country to affect change for the better and right next door to the heart of imperialism central and dictating things to the stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. You can vote for the NDP and still be a socialist. I've come to the conclusion that it makes the most sense to vote for the most democratic party with the best overall platform and with the best mathematical chances of overthrowing the long-time stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. Unless you're being oppressed in the traditional sense, we should get out there and pound the pavement for the NDP and do what we can when not organizing the masses to storm Parliament Hill and takeover the factories - the ones that weren't offshored or pawned off to rich Americans decades ago and counting. I'm not even sure we want to own some of the old world economy factories they've offshored. A lot of it is not worthwhile and even harmful to the environment anyway.

I think it's kind of like when Izzy Mandelbaum said in an old Seinfeld episode, It's go time! We should decide whether we are true revolutionaries and go where needed to bang heads with actual militarist governments and their mercenaries, or that we are ready to fight a good fight here on home turf where the CCF-NDP have helped make life so much more worth living than in those countries where imperialists violate basic human rights daily and with impunity. The problem is that they need good people in Central and South America, but the left also needs clever and articulate people here in the pseudo-democratic northern colony. We could bring modern democracy and perhaps raise social spending in Canada as a percentage of GDP to at least the kapitalist OECD country average, and kind of like when the CCF introduced medicare in North America for the first time. There are still very many revolutionary achievements to be made right here in this country and without having to prove our mettle as revolutionary heroes pushed beyond the brink of fearing a government's bullets. 

Fidel wrote that "Fascists work in more subtle ways than imperialists of old. We have to be just as clever. Jack Layton was clever in a good way imo. Jack Layton spoke truth to power but in ways that neofascists and the colonial administrativeship  found difficult to counter, and millions loved him for it." The point that Richard Dufour makes in the WSWS article is that the capitalists (I don't want to get into the debate about whether we live in a fascist society at this point) didn't have to counter what Jack was saying. It wasn't a threat to them. The corporate state (as Chris Hedges appropriately calls it) has been prepared to make concessions to workers to prevent any major challenges to their dominance. The reason they made those concessions was because there was a time when the workers had some power and a higher level of class consciousness. There were strong communist parties and unions, and there was the CCF and later the NDP with the Waffle and many of those worker intellectuals that Sam Gindin referred to in the interview with Jack.

The beef I had with Jack was not that he wasn't a clever politician and that he didn't fight for the right things. There is no doubt that he was  basically a good man trying to do the right thing in a hostile environment. I was a member of the NDP for many years and have fought in many elections, using the same tactics, understanding the necessisty of doing so in the existing political process.

That is not the point. If I believed that Jack was being clever in the short term in order to lay the groundwork for the ultimate transformation of capitalism, then I would wholeheartedly praise him. But there is nothing to indicate that he was doing that. If he was, then we would  have some evidence of that in his approach to the development of democracy and open debate within the NDP and the development of those kinds of socialists described by Gindin.

This never happened. During Jacks' tenure as party leader, the party has become less democratic and debate has been stifled. And, as everyone is aware, Brad Lavigne and the other party bureaucrats are making a push to purge the party of the last vestiges of socialism through major revisions of the preamble to the constitution. There is nothing to indicate that Jack wanted anything other than a social democratic party with an ultimate goal of a permament accomodation with capitalism.

Fidel also wrote that "There are still very many revolutionary achievements to be made right here in this country." If he means by revolutionary achievements  further concessions in public health care, public pensions, unemployment insurance, affordable housing and environmental legislation, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I know that many social democrats in Canada think that, with the proper strategies and the right language, we can convince capital to create another Sweden right here. Well, their fellow social democrats  in Sweden are going to be hard pressed to preserve what they have. And capital in Canada has no reason to make further concessions, because there are no social formations that can bring that kind of pressure on them, due in part to Jack's unwillingness to strengthen the socialist element within the NDP. There is no reason to believe that an NDP government will result in any fundamental change simply because it will have no reason to do so.

Then Mr. Dufour wasn't paying that close attention. Jack attracted plenty of venom during his tenure. He was smeared with the scandals for living in co-op housing, Shouldice clinic, and the "massage parlour" incident. When he called for troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, he was called "Taliban Jack." Not to mention the shrieking editorials in the dying days of the 2011 campaign about how a federal NDP government would be a disaster. If you look at the comment section of any mainstream media outlet, you can always find comments suggesting that the NDP are far-left communists, that Canadians reject their crazy far-left socialist ideals, and that an NDP government would mean that the Bolsheviks have taken over.

As for Sam Gindin, what kind of practical experience does he have in terms of on-the-ground social movements?

God, I wish I had said that. Nicely put. It's amazing how someone else can express what you are thinking better than you can. And I would like to emphasize as well that it is not personal -  it is indeed social democracy that is not good enough.

There are 20 some odd registered political parties in Canada. I personally would love nothing better than for the Marxist-Leninists to have a strong voice in Ottawa. Right now even the Green Party is underrepresented by a mathematically absurd electoral system that makes it easiest for two old line parties to elect their MPs than any other party. Unfortunately the right and their corporate newz media did a job on communism over the last 70 years or so. We have a responsibility to our socialist roots to take advantage of the real opportunities that exist for the left. We need to position ourselves in the best possible way numerically within an obsolete electoral system which many other other rich capitalist countries scrapped 50 and 100 years ago. Canada is more behind the capitalist times than many capitalist countries more democratic than this one and where the left have stronger voices in houses of parliament. Marx said to win the battle for democracy, and that's what the NDP has been trying to do for a long time. We need a modern democracy and to fight for at least the same social advances made in other rich countries by the left decades ago. Otherwise there are real revolutionaries waiting for us to join them and mobilize the workers against brutally oppressive imperialist regimes in Latin America. Most of those heroic revolutionaries would give their lives for the chance for their children to attend public school and see a doctor when necessary. Many have sacrificed their lives to the good fight already, in fact. Don't throw that in their faces. Get out there and make a difference in the most realistic way, here or there. Choose your fight wisely or get out of the road. The NDP is in the best position to win election than at any time in history of the party. Democracy and the country is at stake here. It might not be as sexy as running around the jungles of Central America and mobilizing the oppressed, but I think it's a worthwhile cause.

Wow... the National Post is still hammering away on the funeral:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/worshipping+idols/5336973...

I think every second editorial has been about Layton since his death. 

It's getting kind of pathetic, though I suppose it might be a perverse ploy to get readers, since I doubt I'd even bother looking at it otherwise.

...Never mind that Stephen Harper did far more to damage the Christian left by cutting funding to Kairos than Jack Layton ever did.

I thought his sermon was a great example of putting "love your enemies" into practice. As he mentioned, Hawkes is gay and married to his partner. I can't imagine what it must have been like during the fight for equal marriage, when the Conservatives were vehemently opposed, with Harper making noises defending traditional marriage, the homophobia that was expressed including in the Conservative caucus, and the fact that Harper voted against equal marriage essentially telling Hawkes that he was less than human.

And yet, with sincerity and honesty, Hawkes said, "hi Stephen, how is Laureen doing?"

Yeah, I'm sure deSouza could leach Hawkes a few lessons about dogma and judgment Though before he goes slagging other Christians he should probably read what the boss has to say about it in Mark 9:38-41

And I'm sure he didn't mention the Christmas Eve service because he's jealous that Hawke's congregation can fill Roy Thompson Hall.

I don't know why he is blathering about the death of the Christian left anyway. It's not like the Conservatives had any foundation in church ministries like the CCF. And if you look at the organizations that set up in church basements there aren't too many of them working to build the military or more prisons.

And as for our current government, near as I can tell the Harperites seem to be doing their best to hide their true beliefs under a bushel basket.

Another babbler (M.Spector) made reference to a blog by Daniel Tanuro. On this blog Tanuro mentioned something that could be added to the list I made, viz, "Every struggle of the workers, even the most immediate, must be supported and considered as an opportunity to increase consciousness and orient it toward a socialist perspective."

On the one hand, we see how important this is and, on the other hand, we see the million and one excuses why the NDP - even its best and most articulate leaders - never gets around to this. And that's just not good enough.

Alot of people don't seem to know what social democracy means anymore and like many other once descriptive terms, like liberal democracy or humanism or socialism, become almost meaningless or twisted for all the wrong reasons.  The Marxist fringe is of course as frightened of social democracy in action as the neo-Liberal right is, as its message is a fundamental challenge to both hidden agendas.  Social DEmocracy does have a track record of success, and some ideological underpinnings, but doesn't require permanent social warfare or the over-the-rainbow promises that go with it, which is probably why it frightens the extremes so much.

The NDP supporting the Libyan war (not humanitarian intervention) was a big mistake which will continue to hurt them on their left flank, but I'm afraid Muammar Qaddafi just isn't a figure that the average Canuck is going to rally behind.

Gee if only the NDP had voted against the Tories and Liberals, like the NDP usually does 90% of the time. Moammar Gadaffi would still be in power, and the Warshington-based IMF would still be heaping praise on Gadaffi for pursuing his "ambitious reform agenda", just like they did with their former ideologically aligned friend Slobodan Milosevic. The treacherous bastards could have been reasoned with for the sake of maintaining political integrity if only for the sake of avoiding the anti-NDP rhetoric. Because, and you know, our system in Canada is very democratic, and it's the NDP falling short of that mark. Far better that we endure the vicious toadies in federal power rather than jump ship for any unknown quantity that comes along, like those ugly social democrats.

And screw those guys in Central America. They've spit on the memory of Marx by falling so short. Latinos should aspire to more than just universal health care and education for their children who currently have no future as cane cutters and mowing the grass of sprawling ranches owned by the rich with just machetes in their pathetic little hands, their child labour is that cheap nowadays. What low life underachievers they turned out to be. 

Yes, and look where it got Tommy and the NDP then and all. After some stern words from the NDP, trudeau and his muscle the little fascist from Shawinigan went right out and ordered the rounding up of hundreds of socialists, union leaders, social workers etc.  Those were the good old days when "Profunc" was in effect.

It's called democracy. Or at least, this is what a lot of Canadians think it is. Do we sit in the corner and preach to the inch-wide and mile deep, or do we compromise and extend ourselves a little? 

What was Tommy's policy on CIA-al-Qa'eda terrorism and colder war maneuvering? Come to think of it, there are still very many who fully believe that Qaeda is a genuine anti-NATO outfit opposed to the blood-for-oil crusaders. Yeah, let's hash all that out in Canada's Parliament before the NDP has a chance to get down to the incidentals, like forcing our dirty oil on unsuspecting oil magnates in Texas, poverty, homelessness, and unemployment. Because I'd much rather the NDP settle this colder war baloney for us once and for all. Afterall, it's why a record number of Canadians voted for Jack and the NDP. No they are not foreign policy experts nor are they all agreeable to 100% socialism either, but they did cast votes. Someone has to represent them and their interests if only for four years at a time. Yes it's very easy to find the speck in someone else's eye. Right-rightists in the U.S.A. and this country are extremely good at it. It's not an ideal situation.

And I am not sure why the Socialist International printed anti-Gadaffi material around the same time the NDP was turned off of him. Do you know? 

Back to the subject, yes, the media is obviously trying to make it look like the NDP's success was only a product of Jack Layton (whom they previously wrote off) and therefore a temprary aberation from the natural order.   It's fascinating watching the national press corp embarrassing themselves so openly, going after the official opposition over nothing rather than the sitting government which openly flouts the rule of law. 

Oh I just like to hold other anti-imperialists to a consistent standards themselves, especially when they try to use it for obviously partisan means.  Communists calling themseves socialists have about as much credibility on world peace, democracy and human rights as neo-liberals calling themselves social democrats do.

Calling someone what they are isn't 'red baiting' Beltov.  And you can hardly run to the mods to complain when you purposely diverted this whole thread to call social democrats names for partisan purposes.  I'm at least honest about my associations, and am willing to deal with it in a way that others can see and decide for themselves, according to consistent standards, the essential element of both democracy and science.

I already stated my position Beltov/ikosmos, but I too find it amusing that you 'revolutionaries' still have to run to higher authorities to defend yourselves, and that you still insist that idetifying you is somehow baiting, especially when you in fact are the one doing it.  Good luck in getting me banned, that too has been tried before when I got too close to what's actually behind the never ending power struggle here.

Let me know if you ever want to argue an issue in an honest, straightfwd manner.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that communists are in fact socialists. If I remember correctly, Marx said something to the effect that, after capitalism collapsed due to its inherent contradictions, the capitalist state would be replaced by the proletarian state. This state would create a socialist economy and a classless society. Once this was accomplished, there would be no need for the state, and it would wither away. Remember that?

I in fact am a communist in this sense, as I believe that the ultimate aim should be a classless society as Marx describes it. However, I understand that this will only be accompished in stages. In Marxist theory, socialism, or the socialist mode of production, is a historical phase of economic development that supersedes capitalism. In this phase, the criteria for economic activity is use-value and direct production for use through economic planning. This phase is characterized by the working class effectively controlling the means of production and their livelihood through co-operative enterprises or public ownership (under a re-organized truly democratic state) and self-management.

There are in fact lots of communists out there who use the word socialism. Given that we live in an advanced capitalist society where the ruling elites have made concessions to the workers to prevent them from challenging their supremacy, it is only logical that they would come to the conclusion that this will be a long struggle. You have to get to socialism before you get to communism. So, they are not being disingenuous. And, they are not necessarily members of a particular communist party. They are merely philosophical communists.

And, it should be noted that nobody has fought harder for workers rights and fundamental freedoms than professed communists. That is the reason that we have many of the social programs that we value so highly. I think social democrats are given far too much credit for these things. Would they have been so effective in the absence of the belief among many in the ruling elite that the workers had a broad sense of class consciousness and that capitalism was in fact in real danger of being brought down? Even Conrad Black recognized this. And what are the future possibilities for social democracy given the current absence of this consciousness and the destruction of communist parties and unions, as well as the successful weakening if not complete destruction of a strong debate on socialism within the NDP?

So, quit with the red baiting and address the arguments that are being made about the weaknesses of social democracy. It will be far more productive.

Oh I knw youd try that one. 

Of course not, I'm simply saying thats its always the same lot here, always going after other 'less pure' lefties, then crying victim when they anyone even tries to defend themselves or their beliefs.  I use 'usual suspects' in the ironic sense   Not like anyone really sees the communists parties in Canada as actual political threats anymore, theyre even allowed to run for office, have been for sometime.  The NDP gets far more flack from the right. 

But it's not 'red baiting' new guy, I don't care about the CPC or CPC-ML either way.  Its pointing out the need for consistency if one is to be taken seriously on a subject.  I try to maintain a consistent approach myself, or explain why I think theres a need for compromise.    What set off this latest bout of hysteria is my simple comment that Ghaddafi aint going to recive the necessary sympathy in CAnada to use it politically. THats just a fact, but it was OC implied more than once that it meant that *I* didn't care about imperialism myself.  That to me is baiting, especially when I have already gone out of my way to explain my own position. Ciao.

melikesocialism, You won't get a flea hop closer to socialism by supporting a party that makes ideological warfare on socialism. Of course reforms under capitalism are possible. Hell, the gatekeepers might even throw a few crumbs your way now and then. Just look at what Harper did by allowing a state funeral for the late NDP leader. What a huge sacrifice. He even had to "bite his lip" when Lewis spoke glowingly about social democracy. It's a wonder Harper didn't dissolve right there like the wicked witch of the west.

Erik's remark "I already stated my position" on Lewis's inappropriate use of that quote by Arundhati Roy seems misleading and false to me. Maybe I missed the remark or it has since been edited. Stephen Lewis's remarks were indicative of a party willing to use anti-imperialist rhetoric when it suits them to lend themselves a more anti-imperialistic credibility. Calling the NDP leader on that is totally appropriate.

Good ideas come from anywhere. Sometimes the best ones are from people we disagree with. Or they come from a garbage can. Or the class clown. Shakespeare even made a habit of having the most idiotic characters say the smartest things. I may not be a very religious person but I have endless faith in good ideas, clear thinking, and the courage to go where those ideas take me. There is no ne plus ultra to the march of reason and there never shall be.

However, as a final note to Eric, calling self-identifying socialists "Communists pretending to be socialists" is most definitely red-baiting.  So don't, okay?  And please refer to babblers by the name they use, and not some previous incarnation - real or imagined.