Should the left split from the NDP?
December 1, 2008 - 12:43am
Before I continue with the topic at hand, I would like to express my lack of surprise at Harper's Nixonian machinations (political funding, bans on strikes, and especially eavesdropping) coming back at him, in the form of political machinations from the other side.
That being said, now that the NDP has formally "sold its soul" to the coalitionist devil (as opposed to less formal class collaboration in the post-war period), and given the surge in the interest in class politics resulting from this financial crap (Die Linke and the class-based third parties in the U.S. come to mind), should the left split from the NDP and finally form a politico-ideologically independent class party?
No.
Yes.Please.
Whatever.
The fundis are beginning to speak up! It is as I thought.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
They can try - but they will fail miserably. When the NDp expelled the Waffle faction in the early 70s - they tried to form a new party called Movement for an Independent Socialist Canada (MISC) and they got something like 0.00001% of the vote in the subsequent 1974 election.
Even after Tony Blair's outrages, attempts to create a force to the left of the Labour Party has only taken about 0.0001% of the vote. Some loony-left types in Saskatchewan tried to set up the "New Green Alliance" as a leftwing alternative to the NDP under Romanow and Calvert - against 0.0001% of the vote (notice a pattern here?)
Haha... MISC...
Almost as bad as C.R.A.P.P. !
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Ah yes, just when the political tide was shifting to the right, if I remember correctly. Then again, I'll respond to your "loony left" remark by calling you a "little Ebert," just for ignoring Die Linke.
Not the left, but perhaps the saints who recoil at rendering unto Caesar.
A coalition may end up being a failed experiment, but if New Democrats enter into it with clear eyes and good intentions I think it's well worth making.
This is stupid. Jack and the federal caucus are doing what JS Woodsworth and Ed Broadbent wish they could have done. Instead of holding the Liberals to accound in name, the federal New Democrats are going to have for the first time ministry positions and the ability to demand and negotiate our policy into action.
If the be-all and end-all of the organized electoral left was set out to simply propose ideas, never to be implemented-- we would have all joined the numerous NGOs in existance which promote (to whomever is in power) a position. The reality is that parties exist to get elected and eventually win power. If your party is not attempting to win power and push its agenda, it's doing nothing worth while. I happen to believe that Jack and the federal party have been acting in the interest of the membership and support base, and I believe they are carrying out the very vision on which the party was founded.
Remaining skeptical and wanting to keep a tennant of accountability and honesty is certainly needed. But to automatically denounce any attempt to implement our agenda beyond talking points is plain foolish
Yeah but the only reason Die Linke exists is because of MMP and East Germany's historical ties to the U.S.S.R. That's the only way they broke the 5% barrier to join the Bundestag.
There's some scary people in that party by the way. Some of their candidates have had ties to the Stasi.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Harper needs 9 votes to get things passed. If there are 9 MP's that want a hard left agenda they can split off, vote for the coalition and the VONC, but refuse to support the coalition if it makes centrist moves like corporate tax cuts.
Yeah but the only reason Die Linke exists is because of MMP and East Germany's historical ties to the U.S.S.R. That's the only way they broke the 5% barrier to join the Bundestag.
There's some scary people in that party by the way. Some of their candidates have had ties to the Stasi.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Eek! It means nothing.
Before I continue with the topic at hand, I would like to express my lack of surprise at Harper's Nixonian machinations (political funding, bans on strikes, and especially eavesdropping) coming back at him, in the form of political machinations from the other side.
That being said, now that the NDP has formally "sold its soul" to the coalitionist devil (as opposed to less formal class collaboration in the post-war period), and given the surge in the interest in class politics resulting from this financial crap (Die Linke and the class-based third parties in the U.S. come to mind), should the left split from the NDP and finally form a politico-ideologically independent class party?
Not really. The left should organize irregardless of the NDP. Effective organization, and dissolusionment will attract the left to any left wing orgnaization. The NDP is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and there is no reason to pay much attention to it. Its good to be critical, but this "sell-out" if it can really be called a sell out is entirely in keeping with the NDP's middle of the road policies. They are a good match for the Liberals, despite all the posturing during election seasone, as we shall see.
I dont expect it to be around more than the next five years anyway.
Erroneous Stasi claim deletedDeleted
as the claim was later corrected by the original source (Marianne Birthler, the official for the Stasi-document archive) - not seven, but an unknown, lesser number; and not Bundestag members, but Left Party candidates.[3] Rd232 talk 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Left_(Germany)]Link[/URL] *Not sure why the link does not work
I still think it is of some significance that they were "unofficial collaborators."
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Meh. One of the reasons the Stasi is reviled is because the preassured people into being "unofficial collaborators." Notice, "consistently violated human rights in East Germany".
Who is Rd232?
By the way, your source: Marianne Birthler also accused the Prime Minister of Brandeburg, of the CDU, of having links to the Stasi:
Interestingly, there has been some controversy over the handling of the Stasi files :
Stasi still in charge of Stasi filesAs I said, this leaves us with pretty much nothing.
No. it only serves to isolate the left from the established labour movement. though the labour movement at the moment is callaborationist in character there is no reason it wont learn from experience (example, winnipeg general strike, paris commune, russian revolution, german revolution and then counter-revolution). The left must work within the labour movement thay have not the revolutionary one we want. we must indeed organize independently and seek as much exposure within the instituitions of the working class which is including the CLC and the NDP. we organize seperately but march together, the left needs to patiently explain its position to the rank and file and when history inevitably proves class callaborationism is futile we must be there to harness the dissallusionment and in this attmosphear where we are known, time tested members and leaders in the labour movement can the lessons of history be explained by those who saw them and grasped by those who can apply them in the future (one hopes more people then not see the error of their ways but doesnt count on this, the left must got tot them). to reiterate all splitting serves to do is isolate the left from the movement.
Stasi? WTF? Back on topic! (*whipcrack*)
I have yet to see a political program put forward by the "left", of any practical relevance, that is in substance different from that of the NDP. That said, should a political formation appear with that tack in mind, I would be very interested to see how they would fare both electorally and in terms of grassroots organizing. As a moderate New Democrat, it would be good to see a formal iteration of exactly what constitutes the left positions the NDP has abandoned, and what program would actually be considered left-wing. Then we could actually have a fact-based discussion of the issue.
Bonne chance, sincerely.
That's a very good point. Showing people what socialism really is and how it differs from the NDP could only be good for the NDP.
Sorry Michelle.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
I can show that the Rabbi killed in Mumbai Chaba House likely had connections to international money launderers who most probably had connections to Mossad.
Really? I would be interested in seeing the proof.
No.
Use this opportunity to get some decent bills passed, gut Harper's corporate tax cuts, drastically move forward the end date of Afghanistan, and undo as much of the past few years as possible first.
Think of the good of the country and this chance to set the agenda.If this coalition can stick for awhile, the party can move forward on many priorities.Show the country that the NDP can be resposible and reasonable instead of the socialist nutbags the Globe/Natl Post/ CTV/right wing talk shows like to portray.
1.) I note yet again that the Waffle was only expelled in Onatrio - although there is some event about the expulsion / sanctioning of the entire New Brunswick NDP which somehow involves the Waffle. In Saskatchewan, far from being expelled, the Waffle walked out - with Premier Allan Blakeney standing at a mic and pleading with them to stay.
2.) Jacob's comment suggesting that the electoral failure of the post-1974 Waffle was due to the country was moving to the right suggests that Jacob wasn't alive yet in 1974 - or at least wasn't paying attention. The left generally was doing fairly well until much later in the decade.
This Generation Y person stands corrected (re. 1974).
I'm not sure who would go if a "split" occurred.
Is there a single MP (or elected MPP or MLA) who would go? A single trade union? A single union leader? Is there anyone who isn't already outside the NDP or marginal within it who opposes things at this point?
I think splits will come when splitting issues emerge. If the first coalition budget contains coroporate tax cuts but working mothers are told they have to wait for childcare.... we may see a split. But until then people are excited about the possible.
I too was genuinely excited about the prospects of a coalition until I started thinking about it more. I was thinking the same thing - the NDP has the Liberals over a barrel, so to speak (the Bloc does too) in that they cannot survive without them. It seemed to me that this would be a perfect opportunity to implement a number of progressive policies, including the ones you mentioned (but also some form of proportional representation, which I think would be massively important to the NDP's futures).
However, we've already seen the coalition partners (Lib and NDPs) stating, quite unequivocably, that there is no 'minimum requirement' for the NDP's participation. No policy demands, apparently, will make-or-break this coalition.
Including, I might add, killing the $50b corporate tax-cut giveaway the NDP more-or-less hinged their campaign on. Nope, the NDP gets a whiff of power and suddenly, massive corporate tax cuts are how social-democratic parties improve the economy.
(Edited to add that I don't think a new left party in Canada would be very useful, regardless of my disenchantment with the NDP. The conditions for it to actually happen just aren't there - look at QS in Quebec, which has far more hospitible conditions for a genuinely left party than the RoC. I thinkbuilding those conditions needs to be goal #1 for the left, not overly ambitious re-runs of fringe left parties).
I'm also worried the NDP's involvement in government will mean the neutering/spaying of otherwise-effective left social movements - it's happened in Manitoba, it can happen federally, too).
It's a good idea.
But rather than calling it a political party, perhaps you could just call it a study group of people who don't participate in the political process.
The left is fractured enough. No point in making it even easier for the Conservatives to take advantage of the Left's inability to compromise.
I can show that the Rabbi killed in Mumbai Chaba House likely had connections to international money launderers who most probably had connections to Mossad.
Really? I would be interested in seeing the proof.
Among the defendants was Rabbi Sholom Ber Levitin, director of Chabad House in Seattle and, for the past 16 years, leader of the local Hasidic community. Levitin and two other defendants arrested in Seattle recieved cash from the group's New Jersey-based leader, Adi Tal, according to court documents, and converted to cashier's checks at local banks, packed up the checks and shipped them off for deposit in Panama.
RABBI POSTS BAIL IN MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE
Prosecutors alleged in the indictments that millions of dollars were converted from cash to cashier's checks and money orders then sent illegally to Panama, Colombia, West Germany and Israel.
One package seized contained $450,000, according to an affidavit filed with the indictments.
RABBI IS LINKED TO DRUGS LAUNDERED MONEY CAME FROM COCAINE TRAFFIC, AGENT SAYS
Special Agent Mercier said all the defendants were apparently motivated by "personal gain . . . We have no information to believe there is any type of ideological interest involved."
The evidence centers on intercepted packages and hundreds of wiretapped telephone conversations. Several sites were searched Friday, including Zeltzer's room at the Chabad House.
Levitin allegedly got involved during the latter part of the enterprise, months after U.S. authorities began monitoring it, according to court documents. Levitin is mentioned in phone calls between Jan. 26 and March 11.
In May 1986, Rabner said, the alleged leader of the operation in the U.S., Adi Tal of Edison, N.J., was arrested briefly in Israel with $481,000 in cash but released because he had not violated any Israeli law.
Chabad-Lubavitch related controversiesGUILTY RABBI MEANT WELL, HIS LAWYER SAYS
A lawyer for a Seattle rabbi who pleaded guilty to federal money- laundering charges in Newark, N.J., says his client mistakenly thought he was helping Jews who were trying to emigrate to Israel.
Rabbi Sholom Levitin, a leader of the Lubavitch Hasidic community in Seattle, last week admitted conspiring to arrange currency transactions to evade reporting requirements.
He faces up to five years in prison at sentencing March 1.
Prosecutors linked Levitin to a ring they say concealed at least $25 million worldwide over 18 months. Levitin, a 41-year-old father of nine, founded Chabad House, a Seattle community center that gives Hasidic Jews emergency housing, food and money.
In answer to questions by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stuart J. Rabner, Levitin admitted taking chunks of cash larger than $10,000 - the amount that requires a banking report to the federal government - and depositing the money in smaller amounts in banks before sending it to Israel.
Seattle rabbi knew Mumbai attack victims
They were prolly working for Liz and Phil.
I'm not sure who would go if a "split" occurred.
Is there a single MP (or elected MPP or MLA) who would go? A single trade union? A single union leader? Is there anyone who isn't already outside the NDP or marginal within it who opposes things at this point?
The departure of the Waffle, as far as I am aware, cost the NDP one elected official - an MLA in Saskatchewan.
Ironically, the current iteration of the hard left all despise John Richards since he's become a social democratic pragmatist with a soupcon of New Labour.
You think? Or is it possible that if the waffle had not left the NDP, Bob Rae might not have happened, and then the NDP might be on radar in Ontario? Just a thought.
And all Bay Street could afford to buy was a 22 percenter in Toronto. tsk tsk They'll be eating their stock and bond certificates before very long. Pinocchio is kindling in 2011.
No. No new parties until after we have some form of PR functioning in this country. I didn't hear it mentioned in their plan, however. Perhaps it's being saved for that last year, the part that Gilles wouldn't sign on to...
Cueball, let me understand this.
You posted several articles linking a Lubavitch rabbi in Seattle (Sholom Ber Levitin) to money laundering. The rabbi killed in Mumbai was Gavriel Holtzberg from Brooklyn. And the only connection you offer between the two is that "A Seattle rabbi knows the family of the rabbi killed by gunmen."
That's bullshit. Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
Where would the Left go?
Where would the Left go?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Around.....and around.
Cueball, let me understand this.
You posted several articles linking a Lubavitch rabbi in Seattle (Sholom Ber Levitin) to money laundering. The rabbi killed in Mumbai was Gavriel Holtzberg from Brooklyn. And the only connection you offer between the two is that "A Seattle rabbi knows the family of the rabbi killed by gunmen."
That's bullshit. Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
I am glad someone pointed this out. Cueball, how do you have any idea that the Rabbi who was killed (and gruesomely tortured according to reports - fortunately his orphan toddler did not have to witness this) has or had any connection to the Seattle-based rabbi? I am not sure how what you are doing is any different from the Islamaphobic attempts to link every last mosque and Muslim person to the radical extremist violent groups.
Cueball, let me understand this.
You posted several articles linking a Lubavitch rabbi in Seattle (Sholom Ber Levitin) to money laundering. The rabbi killed in Mumbai was Gavriel Holtzberg from Brooklyn. And the only connection you offer between the two is that "A Seattle rabbi knows the family of the rabbi killed by gunmen."
That's bullshit. Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
I am glad someone pointed this out. Cueball, how do you have any idea that the Rabbi who was killed (and gruesomely tortured according to reports - fortunately his orphan toddler did not have to witness this) has or had any connection to the Seattle-based rabbi? I am not sure how what you are doing is any different from the Islamaphobic attempts to link every last mosque and Muslim person to the radical extremist violent groups.
That it's tenuous and unrealistic was Cueball's point. His full initial statement was:
Anyone even vaguely associated with east German politics before unification had connections to the Stasi. I can show that the Rabbi killed in Mumbai Chaba House likely had connections to international money launderers who most probably had connections to Mossad.
Eek! It means nothing.
Many unions support the coalition.
Greens support the coalition.
Among communists, socialists, Marxists, and others:
the Young Communist League-stuck with the Communist Party have declared hmmm. well not overt support, but calls it "very important democratic development". Calls for the Tories to leave.
http://ycl-ljc.blogspot.com/
Fightback is calling for Harper's removal but is very vocal in opposing the coalition.
http://www.marxist.ca/
the Marxist-Leninist party is calling for Harper's defeat, and the set up of "committees for democratic renewal" I assume worker's councils/soviets.
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2008/D38173.htm#1
Well, that's today's political weather.
---------------------------------------------------------
why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?
Cueball, let me understand this.
You posted several articles linking a Lubavitch rabbi in Seattle (Sholom Ber Levitin) to money laundering. The rabbi killed in Mumbai was Gavriel Holtzberg from Brooklyn. And the only connection you offer between the two is that "A Seattle rabbi knows the family of the rabbi killed by gunmen."
That's bullshit. Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
How predictable. Point is this. And anyone who wants to establish the actual train of the conversation can see it, unless of course they are riding their ideological hobby horse like you, is charges that certain people in Eastern European politics having "connections" to the Stasi can be pretty spurious and tendentious. After all what is a "connection" anyway? The Stasi were everywhere, and connected to everyone.
In other words, I am glad you agree. As I said: "It means nothing." Same is true here. The fact that these two Rabbis, the one caught up in the international Israeli based money laundering scandal, and the one killed in Mumbai being connected in this manner, does not necessarily impugn the second.
No more than it impugns me.
But the connection is not just personal, it is also organizational.
As for this particular case. Lets get it straight right now. The Chabad Houses are not like the JCC. They Chabad movement is an extreme right wing, highly ideological messianic Hasidic cult. Many of its members believe that the last leader of the movement was the prophet, that all Palestinians Arabs should be expelled both from Israel, and the West Bank, and Gaza. They are very much a heart and soul element of the
settlers movement.
I for one believe Sholom Ber Levitin, when he says he had no idea of what he was getting into when he was mailing off half million dollar packages to Panama in the 1980's, I also think that his ideological predelictions brought him into contact with some unsavory types and allowed him to engage in more than a little wishful thinking and self-delussion. I would also note that the people in the Chabad movement seem to believe that their conscience supercedes the rule of law. I would not at all be suprised if the same were true of the operator of the Mumbai Chabad House.
Shin Beit are now operating in Kashmir in co-operation with Indian government. What precisely is the ISA doing in Kashmir, anyway? Where do its members go when they hang out in Mumbai?
Does this mean that Gavriel Noach Holtzberg was guilty of anything in particular? Not at all. But, I want to dispose of this fiction that Holtzberg was assassinated only because he was a Jew. There are lots of Jews in Mumbai, so why Chabad house and why Holtzberg and the people with him in particular?
In the list of those killed in the attack on Mumbai are a number of notable law enforcement officials specializing in anti-terror operations, including the chief of the anti-terror squad Hemant Karkare, commissioner of police (east) Ashok Kamte, tactical co-ordinator Vijay Salaskar and Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg whose assassins believed was an associate of the ISA, which is now operating in Kashmir under the wing of the Indian government.
And this is ALL a good reason why the left should split.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try that modest whip again:
Stasi? WTF? Back on topic! (*whipcrack*)
----------------------------------------------------------------
No. This is the reason that people should not go around throwing around charges that X,Y and Z are members of such and such shady organization, without substantive proof. As we can see, the results can be horrific for people who for all we know, are perfectly innocent.
I am sorry someone made the allegation that the "Left" party in Germany is a Stasi outfit more or less, regardless of Michelle's intervention, the record needed to be corrected. I don't see why such a dangerous charge should be left to stand.
Bullshit. Your explanation is bullshit. Your non-apology is bullshit.
Someone posted about Die Linke and the Stasi, and you decided to accuse the rabbi killed in Mumbai of being connected to money laundering. When I challenged you, your "proof" was ridiculous.
You could have written, "I was wrong to post that. It was a mistake.", but you didn't. I don't believe for one second that it was purely coincidental that you choose a Jewish rabbi to accuse of criminal activities.
Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
Double post
Triple post
Bullshit. Your explanation is bullshit. Your non-apology is bullshit.
Someone posted about Die Linke and the Stasi, and you decided to accuse the rabbi killed in Mumbai of being connected to money laundering. When I challenged you, your "proof" was ridiculous.
You could have written, "I was wrong to post that. It was a mistake.", but you didn't. I don't believe for one second that it was purely coincidental that you choose a Jewish rabbi to accuse of criminal activities.
Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
Any intelligent person can read the thread and see what I said. You are right, I didn't appologize for anything. Nor will I. Everything I posted is a matter of public record.
I did not say that the Holtzberg was involved with money laundering. I said that he was connected to people who were. It is a fact.
Chabad is a tightly knit international extreme right wing Hasidic cult that has been used as a cover for money laundering operations of Israeli organizations. I personally suspect that the 1980's stuff was tied in with Iran-Contra, but I can't establish that.
How is it possible that in all this discussion people seem to miss that the reason for this crisis for the Tories is the global economic crisis.
Everyone can agree it is joyful to watch the Tories sink themselves everytime they open their mouths. It is fantastic, I can't think of a time when I've enjoyed watching tories speak on tv.
But the key question has to be will a coalition with the Liberals really put working people first?
The first signs are in. Here is the balance of proposals so far - $50 billion for business in tax cuts. $30 billion for stimulus package most of which will go to business.
Some changes to EI, no mention of what they really will be. Will Dion agree to rollback EI to UI -changes the liberals were never ready to make when they were in office.
Will they slash the $490 billion military budget and put it into housing, education, childcare, healthcare and a green jobs strategy?
What we need to do is ramp up our demands on whoever is in power. The coalition will be shaky - all the more reason to step up the pressure that the government stop rewarding business for this mess were in and start helping workers out.
I fear though that sections of the labour leadership and the NDP will do as they have in past and tell everyone to not push the new government, to stay at home or else we'll get the Tories back in.
Stay or leave the NDP is up to people, but those that stay hopefully will fight against the NDP leadership when it refuses to take on big business.
Real substantial change never happens via parliament, it has always happened because of mass movements that tap into the anger and disillusionment of people, and give an expression in the workplaces, campuses and streets. (that how we won the weekend, welfare, the right to a union etc..)
It is the same strategy that can begin to make sure the economic crisis we are in isn't taken out on the backs of working people.
Already
Bullshit. Your explanation is bullshit. Your non-apology is bullshit.
Someone posted about Die Linke and the Stasi, and you decided to accuse the rabbi killed in Mumbai of being connected to money laundering. When I challenged you, your "proof" was ridiculous.
You could have written, "I was wrong to post that. It was a mistake.", but you didn't. I don't believe for one second that it was purely coincidental that you choose a Jewish rabbi to accuse of criminal activities.
Pure anti-Semitic bullshit.
What the hell is your problem?
He was using this as an example to diffuse what I was saying about 'Die Linke' and how some candidates were accused of having 'colloaborated' with the Stasi under the soviet regime.
He was saying that it meant NOTHING just like HIS EXAMPLE MEANT NOTHING!
Please learn to use your intellect and use it rationally rather than throwing this crap around! You've completely misunderstood Cueballs intentions.
Now back on topic, Are there any significant figures in the left that could separate from the NDP? What good/bad would it do?
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Not sure whether your whip did the trick, Michelle, but we are struggling back onto the track of the thread. Whatever works, eh?
Many unions support the coalition.
Greens support the coalition.
Among communists, socialists, Marxists, and others:
the Young Communist League-stuck with the Communist Party have declared hmmm. well not overt support, but calls it "very important democratic development". Calls for the Tories to leave.
http://ycl-ljc.blogspot.com/
Fightback is calling for Harper's removal but is very vocal in opposing the coalition.
http://www.marxist.ca/
the Marxist-Leninist party is calling for Harper's defeat, and the set up of "committees for democratic renewal" I assume worker's councils/soviets.
http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2008/D38173.htm#1
Well, that's today's political weather.
---------------------------------------------------------
why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?
1) Union bureaucracies have long since been class-collaborationist. What about the militants in the rank-and-file?
2) Greens: so? Although not related to class struggle, Dion isn't going to implement the controversial carbon tax.
3) For the rest, at least they're opposing this new iteration of coalitionism a la Millerand.
Thank you!
Chabad is a tightly knit international extreme right wing Hasidic cult that has been used as a cover for money laundering operations of Israeli organizations.
You know, Cueball, you should watch your mouth. I know you never apologize, but this time you should. You talk about Lubavitcher Hassidim the way Islamophobes talk about Muslims. So just quit it, no matter how hard it is for you.
Oh! Now you are opposed to "defamation of religion". Or do you mean the defamation of some religions?
You provocateur, you never stop. You have a problem. How many people here have to tell you how ugly your statements are? Get back to the thread, even though you have said you don't care about these issues.
Lol. Now I am a provocateur (a spy maybe). I am not allowed to hold the opinion that the Chabad movement is a highly ideological radical Zionist (?) messianic cult?
Infant. Get lost.
Hypocrite.
Hi all:
OK comrades, sisters and brothers here are a few arguments I want to make:
First, the question of a coalition with the Liberals or any other boss or bourgeois party, is not a question of principle but a question of strategy and tactics: .What advances the interests of the working class, what advances the class struggle? See V.I. Lenin below.
Second, while we are all need to be prepared for the social democratic sell-out and the Liberal sell-out and the separatists and the union sell out etc. etc.
Third, At this critical moment of the dawning crisis of capitalism our party and our leader have continued to show some principles and some smarts. Yep, right now I back Jack,say GO JACK GO!!! and think we need to do the same, maybe with the traditional critical support. Think of him as a Prue rather than a Kerensky.
Right now we are in a political and constitutional crisis over the handling of the capitalism crisis and talking about state power. We need serious consideRAtions of strategy and tactics.
I believe the Conservative Economic Update was an open and opening attack on women, workers and the framework of the parliamentary democracy we have in Canada. BANG, ALL THE PROGRESSIVE FORCES ENTER INTO A COALITION/ACCORD TO TAKE POWER AND DEAL WITH THE CRISIS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE I say GO JACK GO!!!
---------------------
The "menshevik "positon in the Socialist Caucus debte about what our positoon should be.
I don't see any Lenin quotes there. In any event, I don't think that even in Left-Wing Communism (1920) he broke with Kautsky's anti-coalitionist warning in The Road to Power (1909).
A united left, eh?
Untied!
^^^ No, Angella - the NDP will fold into the Liberal Party. The "united left" of which is speak is one that returns to the basics of class struggle (despite all the class-collaborationist cries of "loony left" or "ultra-left").
Cueball, please respond to my PM.
===========================================================
"...All compromise with other parties ... any policy of manoeuvring and compromise must be emphatically rejected," the German Lefts write in the Frankfurt pamphlet.
It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!
Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance..
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm
=============================================-------------------
Tactical compromises and accords with bourgeois forces are not the same as formal coalitions. Lenin often denounced the latter as class-collaboration. For example, when the Mensheviks made a coalition with the bourgeois Provisional Government in 1917, he excoriated them in these terms:
In those countries where political freedom and democracy have existed side by side with the revolutionary movement of the workers – for example in England and France – the capitalists make use of this subterfuge, and very successfully too. The ‘Socialist’ leaders, upon entering the Ministries, invariably prove mere figure-heads, puppets, simply a shield for the capitalists, a tool with which to defraud the workers. The ‘democratic’ and ‘republican’ capitalists in Russia set in motion this very same scheme. The Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviki fell victim to it, and on June 1st a ‘Coalition’ Ministry, with the participation of Tchernov, Tseretelli, Skobeliev, Avksentiev, Savinkov, Zarudny and Nikitin became an accomplished fact….
- quoted by John Reed
Peter, I believe the full quote is "The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described themselves as socialists."
That is somewhat different from what is being opposed here (minus the heated rhetoric):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm
"What is opposed is the idea of the possibility that a proletarian party can during normal times regularly combine with a capitalist party for the purpose of maintaining a government or a governmental party, without being destroyed by the insuperable conflicts which must exist. The power of the state is everywhere an organ of class rule. The class antagonisms between the workers and the possessing class are so great that the proletariat can never share governmental power with any possessing class. The possessing class will always demand, and its interests will force it to demand, that the power of the state shall be used to hold the proletariat down. On the other hand the proletariat will always demand that any government in which their own party possesses power, shall use the power of the state to assist it in its battle against capital. Consequently every government based upon a coalition of capitalist and working class parties is foredoomed to disruption.
A proletarian party which shares power with a capitalist party in any government must share the blame for any acts of subjection of the working class. It thereby invites the hostility of its own supporters, and this in turn causes its capitalist allies to lose confidence and makes any progressive action impossible. No such arrangement can bring any strength to the working class. No capitalist party will permit it do so. It can only compromise a proletarian party- and confuse and split the working class.
It was just such a condition that constantly postponed the revolution of 1848 and brought about the political collapse of the bourgeois democracy, and excluded any co-operation with it for the purpose of winning and utilizing political power.
However willing Marx and Engels were to utilize the differences between capitalist parties for the furtherance of proletarian purposes, and however much they were opposed to the expression “reactionary mass,” they have, nevertheless, coined the phrase “dictation of the proletariat”, which Engels defended shortly before his death in 1891, as expressing the fact, that only through purely proletarian political domination can the working class exercise its political power."
Where is this document where he uses the phrase "dictation of the proletariat" in 1891? Its a forward tp something right, or a letter?
A fine debate. We could argue over the most advanced interpretion of the sacred works but I think we are at kest agreed we need to consider what advances the sturggle in this time of crisis,,recognziing the high probablility of sell=out. Preparing for the split is one option.laying the groundwork for denoucning the NDP as arevisonist class collaborationist party and calling for the creationa of a true socialitst party might appeal to some. . Personallly I would go for at least critical support. as the crisis unfolds.That is based on a best guesss analysis as to the balance of forces lining up.
Seriously, sisters and brothers, we are particating in a a major political poltical retrucuring in Canada in the midst of a crisis of capitalism. Onone side are pretty well all the major progressive political forces in Canada attemmpting to take state power to deal with the economic crisis. Yes they did not agree to decriminalize marijauna or bring in PR or get us out of Afghansitan or do a million other things but they are tyring to do somehting. On the other side some options discussed are thee firing of the Prime Minister by the Governor Gernral , the firing of the Governor General by the Prime Minsiter, the suspension of Parliament, the shutting down of the govenment, the taking over of the air waves by Rush Limbaugh type talk show hsots talking of separatists and socialists and ttreason with the call to takie to the streets of thousands fighting for their version of Canadian unity . And the demand of the left is for what?-split from the NDP and proclaim the Revolutionary Proletariat Party as the leader of the struggle?
I say Go Jack GO!!!
Yes, we could just say "go jack go!" But I am not particularly interested in the coalition stuff so, I thought I would track down this Kautsky reference to Engels for my own amusement, even though I agree it may not be as relevant as all that, either.
So when do we takeover the factories? I'm ready.
Viva La Revolución
"We" already control the factories. Guess you missed the part between "A Spectre is haunting Europe" and "they have a world to win."
I think what's happening now is an attempted change of ownership for sure. It's more revolution from above with financial capitalists making a grab for the means of production from increasingly bankrupt industrial capitalists.
What about the chartered accounting offices, micro-lending institutions and Web 2.0 start-ups? What, don't they deserve the same attention as factories?
Sweatshop Bloggers Unite!
Who's with me?
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Where is this document where he uses the phrase "dictation of the proletariat" in 1891? Its a forward tp something right, or a letter?
I think it's a translation error, when it's obvious what was originally said was "dictatorship of the proletariat." It's interesting to note that The Road to Power faced initial censorship by the SPD press itself!
Yes, well where is that? I am asking because the only real reference I saw to this concept was in the thing he wrote about the Paris Communes.
I believe Engels wrote about the DOTP, 1891-wise, in his Critique of the Erfurt Program (authored by Kautsky and Bernstein):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm
"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown. It would be inconceivable for our best people to become ministers under an emperor, as Miquel. It would seem that from a legal point of view it is inadvisable to include the demand for a republic directly in the programme, although this was possible even under Louis Phillippe in France, and is now in Italy. But the fact that in Germany it is not permitted to advance even a republican party programme openly, proves how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and not only a republic, but also communist society, can be established in a cosy, peaceful way.
However, the question of the republic could possibly be passed by. What, however, in my opinion should and could be included is the demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of the people’s representatives. That would suffice for the time being if it is impossible to go any further."
Thanks. Pragmatic, and anything but uncompromising. Sadly there is not a lot added to the original description of what he means by "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Haha, I think Engels was using "wink-wink" code-speak here. I mean, look at something he said earlier in his critique:
"Instead of 'class-conscious', which in our circles is an easily understood abbreviation, I would say the following to facilitate universal understanding and translation into foreign languages: 'with workers conscious of their class position', or something like it."
BTW, I still await your response.
I will respond in due time.
You see the thing is that for all of the fuss the Leninists have made over the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and what this means, the fact is that what it means is largely deduced. It is hardly a well developed concept in the work of Engels, and given its frequency of use and explication, it hardly seems central to the Marx and Engels analysis of "the way forward." The Leninist thesis is almost entirely based in revolutionary politics, and it quite inflexible in this regard. On the other hand it is quite evident that Engels himself was of the "by any means necessary" school of social transformation, up to and including outright siezure of power by force. But, he never precludes other possible means, as your clipping suggests.
It seems to me that the concept of "dictatorship" is given a kind of literal meaning in the latter day Leninist lexicon of political thought that basically asserts that revolution, force, and dictatoriship are the only means by which social transformation can be achieved, and this is given authority and made "orthodox" by what amounts to a single reference, in one tract, by Engels.
I don't think the Leninist interpretation is justified, really, and I think Marxist are justified in taking a more flexible approach to the means of social transformation, though I can understand why this view was given such prominence by the Bolsheviks given the specific circumstances of the Tsarist regieme.
"But, he never precludes other possible means, as your clipping suggests."
Keep in mind, however, that the meaning of "democratic republic" was far more radical in the day of Marx and Engels than it is today:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm
Macnair has written boat-loads of CPGB articles on the meaning of the term "democratic republic," especially with regards to the recallability of all public officials, the formation of militias, and scrapping the "third branch" of government (thereby limiting the courts to criminal and civil cases).
As for "Leninists," most of them neither know nor appreciate the lost fact that Lenin was a [Marxist-]Kautskyist. It was only during the civil war that his concept of the DOTP hardened (in response to Kautsky's dilution of the "democratic republic," following previous bourgeois dilutions, as well as to his mentor's break with Marxism).
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Care to clarify?
In response to the O.P.
If "it" does I predict the most obvious signs will be:
1) familiar faces missing at National Convention, and
2) shorter lines at the microphones at National Convention.
I know of one riding association that would lose an executive member.
I'm not certain how much electoral success a new grouping would have -- since I suspect it would be a little light in the experience department when running campaigns in the vast majority of ridings. I do believe it would have a very carefully reasoned platform and, if it could afford a domain name, would provide interesting internet reading. On the other hand, I am very doubtful about the chances of such a grouping being able to communicate its message outside of the cyber realm. Donor base would, in my estimation, be minimal.
Nothing to clarify. I just wanted to see if I could write a syntactically-correct sentence containing the word "left" three times in succession.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
It appears that none of the Harpers nor you are willing to find out.
Where are they now, in Bavaria? Switzerland? Berchtesgaden? I hear the poulet cordon blew at Berchtesgaden is quite nice.
Canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
We are living in a matrix, a dreamworld created by the corporate capitalist Empire if we think that DOTP has any relevance or significance. The issues touching all humanity are ecological in nature like those of climate change.
All progressives must unite to keep the conservatives out of power. Conservatives support extracting non renewable resources as quickly as possible in order to maximise profits to shareholders. We all know this. More people understand this and can be motivated to act in a collective fashion than fighting class enemies that share the same pension plans.
A DOTP leads to the same stratification, concentration of power and corruption that every society is vulnerable to. Such stratification, power, and corruption is the enemy of the population of the earth.
Democracy and consensus are the least painful way of leading the people of the earth into a coalition that will deal with the environmenal issues facing us all.
The philosophy and rhetoric of classical Marxism does not serve us well in analysis of these issues, or communication with the people of the earth. The lingua franca of the planet is that of consumer corporate capitalism, so we need to speak that language. The concepts of democratic socialism can be successfully communicated in that language, so we need to do that.
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
So, not only should the left not split off from the NDP, we should lead the NDP into the coalition. We need to be reconcilers and bridge builders in order to achieve the goal of leading Canadians into a society where all have a chance to contribute to and benefit from the investment in labour, creativity that we all are making.
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
Can't quite best that, but here's the best that I can do:
Once the truly left left left, the left left left left principles behind.
It also has the advantage of being historically accurate.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
I'm not certain how much electoral success a new grouping would have -- since I suspect it would be a little light in the experience department when running campaigns in the vast majority of ridings. I do believe it would have a very carefully reasoned platform and, if it could afford a domain name, would provide interesting internet reading. On the other hand, I am very doubtful about the chances of such a grouping being able to communicate its message outside of the cyber realm. Donor base would, in my estimation, be minimal.
All that, and they'd still be called sellouts by the two communist parties.
I've been following this debate, and I see a major weakness in the anti-coalition side. I have long been against entering into any formal coalition deals because of some of the concerns raised in this thread and because I fear that compromises the NDP's political independence. At the same time, what is the alternative?
Just a recap. The Bloc and the NDP from the outset said they would not support the Conservatives on the economic update. The Liberals decided they would not after the Conservatives indicated they would cut public party financing, and it now seems inevitable that the Conservatives will lose confidence. These are circumstances that were thrust upon us, to which we now have to respond. Now that confidence is lost, what happens? The first obvious answer is to have an election. Problem is, the combination of voter fatigue, Conservative determination and the unpreparedness of the opposition to fight a campaign right now will almost certainly guarantee a Harper majority. All of us agree that this an undesirable situation.
So what else can we do? The Liberals and the NDP decide to form a governing coalition, but since they don't have the numbers combined, they bring in the Bloc. Maybe this thing can work. In the last election, all parties, to varying extents, ran on a "stop Harper" campaign. There has been talk about such things as fixing income support programs, building public housing, etc. These things are beneficial. On the other hand, there is concern about the Liberal's past activities, and some people feel the NDP has caved on issues that are too important. I respect this viewpoint, and maybe the coalition is an undesirable situation also.
So we have 2 undesirable situations. Now we have to come up with a situation that is desirable. The thing with the coalition is that it has specifics: "we will do this because it will accomplish that, and this is the way it will work." I haven't heard any such solutions from the anti-coalition supporters. The only thing I have heard are vauge references to such things as "taking to the streets to demand better." What will this accomplish? It certainly didn't prevent the US from invading Iraq. What specific steps and proposals do you have that will get us out of this mess?
And I say this as one who did not support Obama in the most recent US elections.
The Conservatives are a minority in the House, and they manage to rule without a coalition.
It's not out of the question for the Liberals to do the same. All they need to do is demonstrate that they have the confidence of the House. That doesn't require a coalition. All it requires is an agreement to support the governing party on confidence votes so long as the government does certain things in return.
That's how Paul Martin was kept going for a while by the NDP. There was no coalition.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
The Conservatives are a minority in the House, and they manage to rule without a coalition.
What are you talking about? They're afraid to show up for work!
I don't know if you've noticed, but they've been showing up for work for almost the last three years, and have never lost a confidence vote. They were propped up by your newfound allies, the Liberal Party of Canada.
You don't need a coalition in order to have a minority government. You just have to have a government party on a short leash, and an opposition that's willing to combine to defeat them if they get too far out of line.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Well, they did get too far out of line and have been defeated. So what now?
They haven't been defeated in the House yet. That will come in January, if at all.
Then the GG can either call an election or ask the Liberals to govern if they have the confidence of the House. A coalition is not necessary.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Haha... MISC...
Almost as bad as C.R.A.P.P. !
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
It was C.C.R.A.P. btw ...
Id personally like to see the Greens and NDP join forces, lets face it the reason the CONServatives are in power is because they consolidated power, sure we know that the cons are a p.o.s. but most Canadians dont know this and the time it takes for the rest of Canada to understand the fact that the cons dont care about them will be exactly the amount of time it takes to gut Canada of everything good we have and compared to Europe we have very little good left to destroy ...
I doubt that its possible right now but I would like to see the greens and ndp join forces, we obviously cant wait for Harper to sour all of Canada ...
The LAST thing we should do is break up within the NDP, we need to bring more ppl into the fold ...
I don't know if you've noticed, but they've been showing up for work for almost the last three years, and have never lost a confidence vote. They were propped up by your newfound allies, the Liberal Party of Canada.
2006 to 08 was just a get to know and trust him and his reformaTory-rightwingLiberals-Cons coalition period.
They were looking for a phony-baloney majority a few weeks ago at a cost of $300 million bucks and didnt get one. Out came the fangs and claws, and now the Harpers have hid themselves away at the eagle's nest because they're afraid of a little bit of democracy. Democracy is the right's most hated institution, as you know.
With his newfound exaggerated minority in hand, herr Harper proceeded to threaten political opposition with pulling public funding for those parties not familiar with bay street kick-back and graft - tried to cancel women's rights to sue for pay equity - cancel public workers' right to strike and free wage increases - spend half a trillion on military buildup Raygun and herr Bushlers I&II style - and whips up anti-Quebec sentiment at a time when separtism has rarely been lower on their list of things to do in that province. And his stimulus pkg was actually a non-stimulus package
In a few words, I'm not real high on herr Harper. And not only that, the shine is off Harper as far as the 62% of democratically-elected MP's in Ottawa are concerned. And herr Harper is a going concern. Now he's put a padlock on the doors of parliament and refuses to show up for work. I think he's lost his marbles, if you ask me.
Okay, but Harper goes first. Deal or no deal
Sigh, and I remember the good old days (1980s) when there were three:
CPC(M-L) whom we referred to as the friend (singular) of Albania
WCP (Workers' Communist Party) remembered best for their knock down drag out fight as to whether or not the working class used marijuana (they decided that the working class didn't, so they confined themselves to alcohol at parties) and, of course
The official Communist Part of Canada (CPC) --- I am so surprised they never got around to suing the Conservatives (CPC) for copyright infringement.
Whom the hive does not cherish it eats.
[edit] whoops, hit the submit comment button by mistake, I know, I'll say I did it so Spector can add another tag line to his collection - yeah, that's the ticket[/edit]
Your point being?
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
Well, it is interesting to see Ignatiev cosying up to the conservatives. It's not too surprising. The only reason to get in bed with the Liberals is to get them to pass proportional representation electoral laws through the House as well as the Senate, and that is technically, still possible. I think that is a pill too bitter for the Liberals to swallow. They, after all, have visions of returning to majority status and PR would hamper them too much in acheiving that.
ArghMonkey stated:
"Id personally like to see the Greens and NDP join forces, lets face it the reason the CONServatives are in power is because they consolidated power, sure we know that the cons are a p.o.s. but most Canadians dont know this and the time it takes for the rest of Canada to understand the fact that the cons dont care about them will be exactly the amount of time it takes to gut Canada of everything good we have and compared to Europe we have very little good left to destroy ..."
In regards to the first statement about the Greens and NDP joining forces, probably never going to happen in all reality. The Greens are the voting choice for those who, in their own words, don't support any of the political alternatives in Canada. It is more a protest vote than that of any substantive ideas. A look at the Green Party platform will find ideas plucked from the other 3 political parties. And whats more damning about the party itself was May's slathering over a Senate appointment when the coalition was in its infancy. She did a lot of damage to herself with that manoever.
Objectively at one time you could say that the 3 main parties once all sat in the middle of the political spectrum, before Mulroney,Bouchard and Manning. At one point, the PCs were centre right, the libs were centre which ever the way the wind was blowing, and the NDP was centre left.
Ever since the Free trade agreement was passed, there has been a radical shift of the spectrum in Canada. The Cons are on the far right of the spectrum, the Libs are in total disarray at this point but normally occupy the centre right, but have moved further right to offset the Cons, leaving the NDP with the centre and centre left.
The conservative party of 2009 is definitely not the party of your parents, grandparents etc. Harper is more of a nixon clone than anything else. In his mind there are 2 important things, POWER and ABSOLUTE POWER. How else to explain the machinations going on over the Christmas break. We on the blogs are deeply involved in the politics of the day, have opinions, love debating and arguing positions, and above all, for the most part, get it. Joe and Jane Canuck, get most of their information from the media (see appointments of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin to the Senate by President for Life... err Prime Minister Harper).
Canwest Global, Rogers Communications, BellGlobe Media, Sun Media, TorStar enterprises... all of these companies, disgustingly monied and opinionated and for the most part all to one side of the political spectrum in Canada..... the far right. How else does a prime minister get away with what Harper did. Cause a major political crisis in amongst the deepest economic crisis to hit Canada in the past decade, and then stuff the senate like stuffing a turkey. And not take a single hit in the media over it at all, skate away unscathed like an ice dancer at the Olympics.
I think that the NDP needs to get their numbers up with Jack's. Consistently he is named the most trusted politician in poll after poll. Yet while he is dynamic and a good leader, the party's numbers haven't come up to his. One thing the federal party could do is focus on the successes the party has had in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the governance models that exist there. In terms of the left splitting away from the NDP, I think there needs to be some realistic thoughts on just how the party is going to get to the point of winning elections, provincially or federally. Its great to be dogmatic to the far left, but its pragmatism that wins elections. And if you can't win elections, how can you institute those policies that appeal to people?
At the end of the day, its politics stupid. Those that win, call the tune. There are huge hurdles to overcome. The NDP has overcome some major obstacles over the past couple years under Jack and others. But the predominant right wing media in this country is a huge block. I guess the NDP needs to have a look at itself and figure out where they want to go as a whole. Personally, I believe that pragmatism wins elections. Just ask the Sask and Man. NDP'ers. I'm baffled why the party doesn't talk about them as much, especially when the media throws Bob Rae and the Ontario NDP, as well as Glen Clark / Ujjal Dosanjh and the BCNDP.
They might not talk about them that much because it's a bit of a double-edged sword. I thought Elizabeth May's biggest fumble in the debate was when Duceppe corrected the other leaders on the fact that it was Saskatchewan not Alberta that had the highest rate of increase in carbon emissions and she didn't take that ball and run with it. Fortunately, as an NDP supporter, her failure left me mildly relieved.
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
I agree with keglerdave:
The experience of the NDP in Saskat5chewan and Manitoba was that you have to build up trust amongst the electorate that the NDP is not going to trash the economy. The right always scares electors with this assertion, but in Manitoba and saskatchewan we have consistantly managed the economy better than anyone else, so the electorate here are much less susceptible to this tactic.
Ontario NDP failed this test in difficult circumstances. When the economic experiment of "kickstarting the economy" by massive government spending failed, whatever the reasons, the other parties were able to say "I told you so." When the Ontario NDP failed the litmus test by refusing to implement Government auto insurance, joe average elector, who would have been the one who benefited the most, would not trust us again.
We have to be perceived as governing on behalf of the whole of the electorate, because, let's face it we are all, small business people, farmers, hourly waged workers, part time workers, retirees, professionals, government funded workers, all of us are part of the same economy. We have been perceived as agents of class warfare when what we need to do is be perceived as the political party that will do whatever it takes to advance the welfare of the average citizen, and that will stand up in the face of injustice wherever it is found.
In BC we did well even in the face of united opposition for decades, until we fell victim to that bane of governing parties, opportunists and corruption.
Usually any party comes to power as a result of a protest vote, and that gives us a chance of proving ourselves, when the others fail dramatically.
I think that we will not be able to gain credibility on the federal level until we participate in a coalition, and that may not happen until proportional representation arrives, unless this coalition that we are a part of gains power and works well. This may be the equivalent of that protest vote that has brought our provincial parties to goverment.
It is possible that participation in a coalitionwill give us the credibility that will allow us at long last, in another 5 years to win a federal election outright.
Closing for length.