Should the left split from the NDP? (Part 2)
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, not so much the "social-democratic" Quebec Solidaire), should the left split from the NDP and finally form a politico-ideologically independent class party?
One thing that has puzzled me over these many months is the hyped claim that Canada is more "left-wing" than the US. While true (though I'm not sure about the economic side of things), that's only in regards to the "mainstream," politically correct, class-collaborationist left.
In the U$, you've got the SP-USA, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and perhaps the Peace and Freedom Party. Up here, all we've got are "official communist" parties, Trot sects, the utopian-socialist "Socialist Party of Canada," and the ever-content-as-think-tank "Socialist Project" - and maybe the Work Less Party.
Comments
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Jacob:
I guess you have to look at the political climates of various countries with strong socialist tendencies and compare them to the North American climate. There needs to be a recognition of the political make up of Canada as a whole. What you find is that most people are centrists in their political ideals in Canada. I guess you could almost call it a utopian sense of what people want. They want strong health care, education, transit, and other things, but also want strong management of the economy, balanced taxation policy, and strong fiscal management. Much like neo conservatism isn't palatable to the average Canadian voter, neither is hard left wing politics either. Granted the neo cons have a huge advantage given the media in this country and the concentration on the far right of the political spectrum, and have made in roads by conning people to believe that somehow Steve Harper is really being picked on and deserves to be lauded for standing up to the big nasty coalition.
The NDP has a tremendous opportunity, to grow and gain through balanced fair policies that appeal to all segments of the population. The Libs and Cons have gone to the right, and further right with Iggy at the helm of the Libs. The NDP did a great job with its advertising in the last election, cheeky, aggressive and showing Jack as a pragmatist. The coalition was an opportunity that in my opinion has come and gone. There is an opportunity to reach out to disaffected Liberals to join the NDP, as some have done in Quebec.
But as I said it comes down to being pragmatic and gaining more political influence to work towards some strong policies that benefit all Canadians, such as the worker's wage protection bill recently passed. I'm a strong trade unionist and also a supporter of the New Democrats. But I'm not a huge socialist, and I think I'm reflective of some of what average working Canadians believe in. I want the strong social policy of public health care, education and social programs to help out the people who need it, but I also believe in having strong solid economic fundamentals, that provide for those programs. Its been done before and can be done again.
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see that their tiny far-left parties are better than our tiny far-left parties.
It's an uphill battle for all sorts of reasons, some internal to the parties themselves, some external. For example, people sometimes don't seem to know how to communicate without using the technical language of the far left. Moreover, it's hard to get your message out when you have no money, when the media ignore you except when they're ridiculing you, and when the entire population is told from morning to night that your ideas have been proven a) not to work and b) to lead to mass murder. I could go on and on but I need to get to work.
I'll agree with what RosaL said, but at the same time, I think there might be something to this idea. Look at the effect of the Reform Party on Canadian politics. A fringe party, grown on populist anger, shifted the entire political spectrum to the right - eventually cannibalizing the Progressive Conservative party that it was spun out of. The same could be accomplished on the left. And probably should be.
The NDP plays it far too safe these days. Fundamental questions go unasked. Why is nationalization not an option?
Don't think this hasn't been tried before. When the Waffle was expelled from the NDP in the 70s, they formed a new party with the unfortunate acronym MISC (Movement for an Independent Socialist Canada), ran in a few ridings, got fewer votes than the Rhinoceros Party and then sank without a trace. Similarly in the UK despite everything Blair did - parties to the left of the Labour Party have received virtually no support whatsoever (ie: less than the Dog Lovers Party or the Raving Loony Party).
The only viable way the Left could split from the NDP is if we moved to some form of PR.
They have PR in New Zealand and the New Zealand Labour Party is actually a lot more middle of the road than the NDP. Yet, the only party that is to the left of Labour is "Jim Anderton's Progressive" and they got about 1% of the vote in the last election.
But I'm not a huge socialist, and I think I'm reflective of some of what average working Canadians believe in. I want the strong social policy of public health care, education and social programs to help out the people who need it, but I also believe in having strong solid economic fundamentals, that provide for those programs. Its been done before and can be done again.
Are you serious, or is the ultimate goal to make the NDP look safe in comparison?
Are you another Tory or Liberal troll?
The problem is that you are trying to cast this as a chicken-or-egg argument. Expanded "democratic" republican rights in this day and age can only be achieved through class struggle, as this politico-economic crisis has shown. Because the Blairite NDP has NEVER had the spine to even acknowledge class politics, their "struggle" for PR has and will continue to be ineffective.
Class struggle aside, and I wasn't discussing, GB, the only way I see a left wing party receiving representation under our current parliamentary system is if we move to a form of PR. And there is no guarantee they would achieve the threshhold for seats. YMMV...
"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, not so much the "social-democratic" Quebec Solidaire), should the left split from the NDP and finally form a politico-ideologically independent class party?"
--------------------------------------------------------
Separation should be seriously considered where the current take on a world-wide financial implosion and economic meltdown is summed up as "financial crap."
The Communist Party (in various forms) already exists outside the NDP and presumably to the left. So I guess you mean 'to the left of the NDP and not a communist'.
The Communist Party (in various forms) already exists outside the NDP and presumably to the left. So I guess you mean 'to the left of the NDP and not a communist'.
Yes, there are several marxist parties left of the ndp. I guess he must be talking about people left of the ndp but in the ndp. I don't know....
If you can't enter the NDP and move it left then how do you expect to make a dent on the wider political spectrum?
I'd rather see an NDP not as close to my ideal as I might prefer win power and do half of what I want than a party that represents everything I want fail to elect a single member while bringing the NDP out of party status.
Sure some say this of the Liberals as well but the difference is that the Liberals promise half of what I want and manage to do less than a hundredth while the NDP promise 3/4 of what I want and I think would likely do half. The Liberals I cannot live with. The NDP I can. And we already know that it would be an incredible feat for them to get elected. Promising more might not serve to help achieve what might be possible.
That said I would like a more courageous activist tone to the NDP and a stronger more persistent focus on economic issues rather than political personality points, petty issues and marginal concerns. Frankly I think the NDP has been doing much better at this over the last while - with a few relapses. I still think the NDP remains something we can work within. If you want 100% agreement then your group ends up being a group of one.
Also in a society you lean out a distance and lead people to you. If you go and reside on a different planet then you have no influence.
This point has been made about Obama in some circles-- that Obama may be leaning as far left as he can in US society and that he will need the dominant culture to catch up before he leans further. We can argue about details but even if he is to the right of Harper he is leaning and moving his country to the left while Harper is leaning and moving people to the right. It is unreasonable and foolhardy to ignore political context.
If you can't enter the NDP and move it left then how do you expect to make a dent on the wider political spectrum?
....
Sure some say this of the Liberals as well but the difference is that the Liberals promise half of what I want and manage to do less than a hundredth while the NDP promise 3/4 of what I want and I think would likely do half. The Liberals I cannot live with. The NDP I can. And we already know that it would be an incredible feat for them to get elected. Promising more might not serve to help achieve what might be possible.
There's your answer: The ndp don't promise three quarters of what I want. They aren't even talking about what I want.
People are sometimes - especially during times of crisis - willing to consider something radically different while remaining lukewarm to a slight amelioration of the same old thing.
What do you want that they are not behind-- can you give some examples?
An end to capitalism. Social ownership - and I'm not just talking about utilities!
Ok-- I don't expect an end to a political economic philosophy. I want to see it reined in as much as possible.
I do not as such have ending capitalism as a political goal.
Containing it and taking government out of the hands of private capitalists seems like a difficult enough political agenda.
An end to capitalism. Social ownership - and I'm not just talking about utilities!
Which is all very well and good to say, but how do you get there from here? More to the point, how do you get there from here and get elected and re-elected to be able to do it in the first place?
There are - as has been said already - a number of communist groupings in Canada. i do think they should put the past behind them and move on to present an explicitly anti-capitalist view to the voting public. I think it would be a good thing for Canada, and a good thing for the NDP - which is a proudly, and staunchly, social democratic party.
The Communist Party (in various forms) already exists outside the NDP and presumably to the left. So I guess you mean 'to the left of the NDP and not a communist'.
To be more accurate, it's "to the far left of the NDP and not 'Marxist-Leninist' (Stalinist) or Trotskyist or ultra-left (council-communist/Bordigist/left-communist/etc.)" - in substance a small-c communist party like those in the old Second International, except for the labelling.
And that is the problem with every official "Communist" party in the world today, combining an authoritarian leftover from the old Comintern with reformist opportunism (thereby continuously vulgarizing the "minimum progam").
The question of demarchy (mass assemblies, networks of smaller decision-making groups formed by lot and NOT elected) or radical left republicanism (election of all officials
) is, at this point, a secondary matter.
On the other hand, the SP-USA is for all intents and purposes a Marxist party (notwithstanding having non-workers in the party), and there's a smaller Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/) that has got it right with its class principles.
Well, if you believe "has got it right" equals "I have never heard of these people", then yes, they have it right.
In what sense?
I have never heard of these people. What, exactly, have they got right? Except ideology, which anyone can subscribe to.
Of course. That must be the only explanation for why someone would be skeptical of the idea that the U.S. "Party for Socialism and Liberation" is a good model to follow.
My question was legitimate. Since Canadians can barely find it in themselves to mark an x for the only idenifiably leftwing party in mainstream Canadian politics, what exactly is the advantage or the goal of creating another leftwing party? (Or in your view, an actual leftwing party).
Is merely asking this question evidence of my class collaboriationism? If so, at the very least you could answer Doug's very sensible question which I will repeat:
The French and Italian Communists don't have a chance in hell of winning a national election , but boy can they tap into the democratic spirit of the people by getting them out on the streets for one helluva general strike! And AKEL just won the presidency of Cyprus. Those parties are a lot more responsive and democratic than any pissant little merry band of Marxists in the U.S. or Canada. They've dropped the foolish rhetoric but kept the values.
Of course. That must be the only explanation for why someone would be skeptical of the idea that the U.S. "Party for Socialism and Liberation" is a good model to follow.
My question was legitimate. Since Canadians can barely find it in themselves to mark an x for the only idenifiably leftwing party in mainstream Canadian politics, what exactly is the advantage or the goal of creating another leftwing party? (Or in your view, an actual leftwing party).
Is merely asking this question evidence of my class collaboriationism? If so, at the very least you could answer Doug's very sensible question which I will repeat:
I wasn't talking about the fetish for electoralism. In the case of either demarchy or radical republicanism (both being iterations of "participatory democracy"), liberal "democracy" / parliamentarism will have to be extinguished.
The goal of creating an actual workers' party (not "left-wing" in terms of obsessions with identity politics and "Green politics") is to foster more open class struggle around both more radical reforms (going beyond even "Swedish socialism" in its heyday) and the ultimate objectives of social labour and transnational emancipation.
This open class struggle may use the tactic of the liberal "ballot box" (but keep in mind that the radical-democratic models outlined above can be conceived as different types of "ballot boxes"), but it can also use the tactics associated with wildcat strikes and mass protests.
The French and Italian Communists don't have a chance in hell of winning a national election , but boy can they tap into the democratic spirit of the people by getting them out on the streets for one helluva general strike! And AKEL just won the presidency of Cyprus. Those parties are a lot more responsive and democratic than any pissant little merry band of Marxists in the U.S. or Canada. They've dropped the foolish rhetoric but kept the values.
In the past, before they dropped the 'foolish rhetoric', the French and Italian parties' electoral chances were extremely good. The Americans had to pull out all the stops - and implement PR - to keep the Italian party from getting elected as the governing party.
European communist parties differ greatly: some have become essentially social democratic; a few could fairly be called "stalinist". Quite a few have done a pretty fair job of returning to their roots and have a good claim to be called authentic marxist, working class parties. To say that they combine authoritarianism with opportunism is inaccurate and unfair.
Unless you spend a significant amount of time keeping up with the programs, literature, and activities of parties likes this, you probably shouldn't be commenting on them. That applies to just about everybody in this thread.
Agreed. But as far as I know, they have been doing that, i.e., they are explicitly anti-capitalist.
Of course, as someone mentioned, there's the issue of "how do you get from here to there". You can't just be anti-capitalist. You can't just preach socialism (though you should do both). You also need to propose some 'intermediate steps'.
I suppose accusations of both a) opportunism (on account of the intermediate steps) and b) having no idea how to get from here to there (on account of the anti-capitalism and socialism) might suggest that you are doing both! It might also suggest that no matter what you do, you are going to be dismissed in certain circles.
Unless you spend a significant amount of time keeping up with the programs, literature, and activities of parties likes this, you probably shouldn't be commenting on them.
I spend no time keeping up with any of these parties' programs, literature, or activities, so this question is addressed to those here that do:
Is there one of these groups that says:
All these parties, groups, etc. should dissolve on a set date and hold a constituent assembly to build one new organization. Differences of opinion, approach, etc. will be accommodated within the one new single organization. To lead by example, we will dissolve on May 1. We hope others will too, but our own decision is irrevocable."
Send me the contact info and a membership application form, please.
I spend no time keeping up with any of these parties' programs, literature, or activities, so this question is addressed to those here that do:
Is there one of these groups that says:
All these parties, groups, etc. should dissolve on a set date and hold a constituent assembly to build one new organization. Differences of opinion, approach, etc. will be accommodated within the one new single organization. To lead by example, we will dissolve on May 1. We hope others will too, but our own decision is irrevocable."
Send me the contact info and a membership application form, please.
I don't think so. I think people are working on it. For example, members of the IS and members of the CPC have appeared on joint panels and things like that. And in Quebec, especially, people have been working together. But it's a ridiculously slow process. I'm not sure organizational unity is essential, as long as people can respect each other and work together. I agree that the situation is appalling.
Ok, RosaL, I'll bite. Take the IS and the CPC. Can you give me one, or two, or three big reasons why they are separate organizations? Be patient with me, because I know nothing about them.
Big reasons. Reasons that ordinary people can understand.
Ok, RosaL, I'll bite. Take the IS and the CPC. Can you give me one, or two, or three big reasons why they are separate organizations? Be patient with me, because I know nothing about them.
Big reasons. Reasons that ordinary people can understand.
The only reason I know of is this: past history. (People in the Trotskyist tradition still use the word "stalinist" pretty freely!) As far as I'm concerned, there is no good reason.
As a smart person I know once said, why worry about what the right will do to you when the left will kill itself every time.
Do these parties even have to dissolve and reform into one big thing? It might be a lot easier to get them to all group into a left anti-capitalist somewhat decentralized federation which preserves their autonomy and then go from there.
I think a lot of these parties have a lot of past history, and a few major differences (communist or anarchist, regular or "anti-revisionist"), and they would all be worried about having their specific and unique agendas being subordinated to that of the larger federation. It would be a legitimate concern, especially given some of the "democratic centralist" (sometimes undemocratic) attributes of some of the parties. For example, it would be pretty hard to get all the anarchists to toe the party line...
Also, I would be concerned with what exactly this federation plans to do, and how it would avoid going down the path of the NDP, which is a long way from the Regina Manifesto.
But back to the original question, I wonder if there are enough actual anti-capitalists (not tame social democrats) in the NDP for there to be a significant split. I can imagine such a party might pick of a few, but (in my experiance) for the most part, actual anti-capitalists realize how bullshit the NDP is.
Richter, the vanguard isn't going to come from a split off the NDP. What are ya, some kind of IMTer?
Or maybe I'm just a crazy sectarian ultra-leftist...
Genstrike, I don't like the "original question". I'd like to see leftists unite, not split. Back in my day (long ago), they were badly fractured, and it hasn't changed much, except that the left seems less vocal than we were then.
And I didn't suggest a "federation", nor do I care about infinitesimal groups that want to retain their "autonomy". Let every tiny sect or individual do whatever they please in life. But let them all sit down in a constituent assembly, no preconditons, no holds barred, and develop a structure and a program. It doesn't have to be a political party (in fact, better if it isn't). Everyone should be welcome.
I think you're just a crazy sectarian ultra-leftist.
ETA: You know, I've spent my life in the union, where everyone belongs irrespective of their political or ideological beliefs or their "history" or their "agenda" or any of the other bullshit that's raised above by way of "explaining" why leftists like to do battle with each other (and kill each other - check the history books). We all sit together and work out our structure and fight the good fight together. It's based on having some actual real-life interests to defend, together. Bizarre notion, eh?
Genstrike, I don't like the "original question". I'd like to see leftists unite, not split. Back in my day (long ago), they were badly fractured, and it hasn't changed much, except that the left seems less vocal than we were then.
And I didn't suggest a "federation", nor do I care about infinitesimal groups that want to retain their "autonomy". Let every tiny sect or individual do whatever they please in life. But let them all sit down in a constituent assembly, no preconditons, no holds barred, and develop a structure and a program. It doesn't have to be a political party (in fact, better if it isn't). Everyone should be welcome.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, I thought you were saying that all the little groups should dissolve into one big organization (say, merge the CPC, CPC-ML and all the Trot sects into one big Communist Party). Quite frankly, that isn't going to happen. But I agree that it is possible (and necessary) for us to all work together, and there have been recent actions in Winnipeg that were a result of a lot of groups and people from a lot of groups working together.
It would be nice to see this assembly you're talking about, but I wouldn't want it to be a one time only thing and have everyone go back to the way it was before two days later. Whether you want to call it a federation or not, I would like to see some sort of round table where all these groups and any interested individuals can get together on a semi-regular basis and work together on day to day issues as well.
I think for the most part we are on the same page here, we're just quibbling over a few small details (hey, just like the left
)
But one other thing to worry about is how do you put out the call, and who do you address it to? Do you address it to people of a specific ideology, to anti-capitalists, to social democrats, to everyone to the left of Jack Layton, or to everyone to the left of Micheal Ignatieff, or to everyone in general? And how do you word it to get that target audience on board.
Regarding the original question, I think it is kind of an awkward question for me to confront because I'm not a member of the NDP. I can't see the benefits of a split, but I have problems with radical anti-capitalists subordinating themselves to the party of Gary Doer. Organizing against the provincial government's policies one day and promoting them the next isn't going to build a movement. And even if they do have a split (unlikely), and the new waffle is more successful than the oringial NDP (even more unlikely), what's to stop them from turning into another Blairite party in 20 years?
I don't really have an answer to the question, and as a non-NDPer, I don't really have much grounds to answer it because it isn't my party. And on a lot of the stuff I work on, I would be happy to work with NDPers (and do whenever I can), but it's not like they're trying to bang down the door to be let in. The door is open, they just aren't walking in.
Although admittedly sometimes I have problems with my frustrations with my provincial government, I try to put that aside (unless it's the provincial government I'm organizing against). But sometimes I have concerns over whether someone might be trying to get us to pull our punches because it's a "friendly government"
Thanks, I don't know if that is an insult or a compliment
Also, I would be concerned with what exactly this federation plans to do, and how it would avoid going down the path of the NDP, which is a long way from the Regina Manifesto.
I don't want a "federation," because the historical precedent for a no-no on such is the fragmented politics leading to the formation of the UK Labour Party (as commented upon by Kautsky in his Sects or Class Parties). The SPD model was that of a centralized party with democratic rights accorded to each member.
Richter, the vanguard isn't going to come from a split off the NDP. What are ya, some kind of IMTer?
You of all people should know about my RevLeft rants on the Grantites.
The primary call is for the class-strugglist left (no, not even the "Marxist" opportunists covering the left flank of Solidaire's green politics and identity politics) to come together, on a class basis, to take the first steps in achieving politico-ideological indepedence for the class of manual, clerical, and professional workers.
If they are numerically sufficient in the NDP, they should split. If not, they should leave individually.
I don't think the resident Babblers know what "ultra-leftist" means.
So Jacob, give us your take. What issue of principle keeps IS and CPC from merging with each other tomorrow?
PS: You can pick any other acronyms if you like and address the same question. My experience tells me that when two rival groups of leftists accuse each other of being wrong, they are both correct.
None, really (re. differences). You have to differentiate between actual principles and so-called "principles." The latter is based on historical pissing contests, philosophies, and non-programmatic "theories" developed by certain gurus (Cliff's state capitalism). Lenin said the wrong words when he said "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." He should've said "programme" instead of "theory" (read: philosophy and non-programmatic positions).
As for basic principles:
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=241But "social-democrats" and any other group that doesn't base its politics on class struggle (as opposed to "revolutionism") can only be approached on the basis of a united front. It isn't just a matter of "social reform"[ism] vs. "socialist revolution"[ism], because as I said above, the former relies more on identity politics and now also on "green politics" - and whatever is left of the unions' narrow trade-unions-only-ism is mere collective bargainism:
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=438
As far as being vocal goes, blame that on "social-democratic" dumbing down of reforms. I can give you a list of links to historic rev-socialist/worker programmes whose reforms are more radical than even those of "Swedish socialism."
[Genstrike, I really need your help elaborating on the reform-vs-class-struggle divide and on my draft reform stuff, since you have my work and since we're dealing with sympathetic left-reformists here.
]
A Marxist Communist would work with social democrat like the NDP, as well as with radicals, bourgeois, peasants, nationalist, whatever advances the struggle .
MIA: Marxists: Marx & Engels: Library: 1848: Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 4: [German Original]
Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats(1) against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.
But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!(1) The party then represented in Parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc, in the daily press by the Réforme. The name of Social-Democracy signifies, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican Party more or less tinged with socialism. [Engels, English Edition 1888]
* * *The famous final phrase of the Manifesto, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”, in the original German is: “Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!” Thus, a more correct translation would be “Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”
“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!” is a popularisation of the last three sentences, and is not found in any official translation. Since this English translation was approved by Engels, we have kept the original intact.
Photograph of a page of the Manifesto in Marx’s handwriting
Table of Contents: Manifesto of the Communist Party | Marx/Engels Library
Hey, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool reformist, and will take any and all cracks which that entails. Your "class-based" struggle resonates not at all with the class on which you claim to base your politics. The fact is that - despite massive failings both in and out of power - social democratic parties have provided the best impetus for, and implementation of, progressive change that has made real differences in the lives of working people, "working-class" or no.
I would love for the radical, ultra, communist, anti-capitialist, etc. left to get together and actually agree on an agenda, parliamentary or not, to put before the people. Once you actually worry about whether or not your ideas are relevant, or have any resonance whatsoever to the people you claim to represent, then we will see exactly where the ideological rubber meets the road.
And I don't say this as one who attacks the radical Left. I think my posting history here is pretty respectful of that discourse - hey, when my posting started here, I considered myself a part of the radical Left.
Personally, I don't think that a lot of mergers between this alphabet soup of left organizations is possible (for a lot of reasons, some of them good, most of them bad). But we do need to work together. Maybe I'm not going to join the NDP or the CPC or the NSG, but I've been part of groups which had NDPers, CPCers, NSGers and whatever working together for a common cause.
The way I see it, there's a couple big divides on the left that would be just too hard to bridge in the same organization. The first is between social democrats and Marxists/anarchists (or "class-strugglists" as Jacob says). The social democrats want to tame capitalism and try to make a mixed economy, and can accomplish that by reformism. The Marxists and anarchists want to destroy capitalism and can only accomplish that by revolution. The social democratic ideology has more to do with meeting people's immediate needs and making the system suck a little less, while Marxist/anarchist ideologies are more based on class struggle and building a new system. And then there's another big divide between anarchists and Marxists over the role of the state...
But compared to these big ideological divides, the differences within these categories are pretty tiny. For example, I can't tell the difference between all the different Trot groups in Canada, and I find it silly that they all seem to be pissed at each other.
Of course, this doesn't mean we should hide in our little sects and shun everyone who isn't a Groucho-Marxist-Lennonist-Meowist-whatever. Obviously, we have to go out and interact with people and work together in our common struggles in whatever way we see fit, and recognize that we are a minority and not a lot of people agree wiht us, and some of them come with some pretty nasty baggage. And that handing someone a copy of Das Kapital and saying "read this and get back to me" isn't going to work.
Jacob, I'm just not sold on democratic centralism. If you have a party that spans these broad ideologies (from social democracy (?) to Marxism to anarchism) and the members are bound by the results of some sort of resolution, you're going to wind up with factions breaking off. I mean, look at the CPC. I think cooperation between leftist groups is a lot more realistic goal than merging an alphabet soup of far left organizations which for the most part hate each other (although not always for good reasons). Maybe it could take the form of a federation, a coalition, a whatever, but I just don't think it is possible to make a frankenparty out of the CPC, CPC-ML, IS, NSG, and various anarchist groups, especially not one in which the majority rules and factions aren't allowed (like the CPC). Basically, on the radical left I think we need to strike the right balance between working together and being able to do our own thing. Hating on each other isn't going to work, but I don't think getting together into one big "democratic centralist" part will work either, and probably isn't even possible.
"Taming capitalism" is also part of the Marxist minimum program. It's just that this part is more radical than the maximum demands of those like the "Swedish socialists." Remember that "credit crunch" thread of mine? Also, I've double-posted a RevLeft article on GDP per capita and wages in the Labour and Consumption forum.
I wasn't advocating a party that would include class collaborationists, though.
The reason why I cited the SPD was that it was the party model of Lenin himself, in spite of class collaborationists and their factions being in that party (unlike Comintern-esque DC, "Kautskyan" DC doesn't mean a ban on factions).
Hypothetically speaking, one can be a worker-class-strugglist and not be an all-out anti-capitalist, but these kinds of radical left-reformists are really rare.
Hypothetically speaking, one can be a worker-class-strugglist and not be an all-out anti-capitalist, but these kinds of radical left-reformists are really rare.
Jacob, have you ever tried writing without hyphens? It's challenging but uplifting.
I love my hyphens!
Where's my homework? Oh dash it all, my hyphenated!
The question of the left splitting from the NDP assumes there are a significant number of left individuals now in the NDP who would leave en masse and en masse would form a ledt party or political organization of some significance. . Even if a few thousand New Democrats sprinkled acroos Canada bought that idea , quit the party and could get it together to form some new organizationt it probably y would be of little signifcance because there would have little resources or base to build upon (see Waffle M ISConception) Howver If say, a large number of e unions affilaiited to the NDP decided to "split" and form a labour or socialst party. there would be something to work with in terms of resoruces and base and we could see such a new formation having soem impact. . Fortunaltely or unfortunately the closest to such a split we have had has been, the CAW and NDP split, with the CAW seen as moving to supportiing t he Liberals. So long as the NDp remaisn the aprty of labour and the working class, the left shold stay within it and help build it as a socialsti party.And we should contieune to work outside the NDP in the various woring clas and community struggles .
Weird that the left seems so fractured. Must be a conspiracy.
Just a few thoughts in general:
1. Has anyone not found it hilarious that the Communist Party of Canada runs in every democratic election. Hypothetically, if they got into power, that would be the last election ever held.
2. Various factions of the NDP across Canada have been successful in getting elected, like in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It's great to have great policy and ideas like "nationalize this, nationalize that..." but if you don't have an appeal to the electorate, you can never get into power to be able to move forward your platform.
3. Seriously though, has anyone taken the time to talk to the rank and file workers in the various unions in Canada to find out what they think or stand for? I'll tell you its more likely than not completely all over the map. What I believe and stand for and fight for, isn't necessarily my "brothers and sisters" cup of tea. At my place of work, while I'm "NDP" there's a tonne of guys who aren't, who are more conservative / reform than anything else. Most of it is because somewhere along the line there's been a huge disconnect between the leaders of the labour movement and the working people they represent.
Most people in Canada today are in unions because they have to be to work where they are working (in a union job.) Some look at their union dues as a fee for getting better benefits and better pay. Or an insurance fee for protection against an obnoxious employer. I would state that the majority of union members don't link governmental politics to their everyday lives. Its a generalization I know, but if it were true that union people support the NDP, they would be alot more successful in elections then they are now. As Canada is (I believe) close to 38% unionized.
4. People sometimes look at the NDP both provincially and federally with rolling eyes, historically. The party stands for alot of good things, but once in awhile goes off on tangents that make you go "what the $*%&"
What percentage of the population is hard left in their political leanings? And even on the hard left, you have the "socialists" the "marxists" the "Shining Path" the "anarchists" and on and on and on. If the hard left split from the NDP, I don't think the NDP would change their tactics, platform and philosophy. But I do think that the "left coalition" or "left turn" as what was tried after Carole James was elected leader in 2003, to combat a move to the centre left, would be forever and a day unsuccessful electorally.
Without electoral success, you have no way at all to bring your policies to reality. Nothing short of a coup d'etat, which no doubt there are those on the hard left would advocate. But let's be real, this is Canada afterall. And look at how the electorate reacted to a legitimate parliamentary coalition.
2. Various factions of the NDP across Canada have been successful in getting elected, like in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It's great to have great policy and ideas like "nationalize this, nationalize that..." but if you don't have an appeal to the electorate, you can never get into power to be able to move forward your platform.
I live in one of those provinces, and it is incredibly frustrating. Despite what they use as a slogan, "Today's NDP" isn't moving forward at all. They've cut corporate taxes, have welfare policies to the right of the Chamber of Commerce, raised tuition, kept the threshold for card-check certification at the level Filmon set it to, and a whole laundry list of things which show they either aren't moving or are moving the wrong way. They know how to "appeal to the electorate", though, but that doesn't make them right and all the radicals who are pissed at them (such as myself) wrong.
You can talk about some sort of incrementalist approach, but when we're not even moving (or worse, moving in the wrong direction), I really don't have that kind of patience.
Aside from my criticisms of some people for treating certain dead white guys as some sort of prophets...
A Marxist Communist would work with social democrat like the NDP, as well as with radicals, bourgeois, peasants, nationalist, whatever advances the struggle .
Okay, but what does "work with" and "advance the struggle" mean?
Surely you're not suggesting that Marxists should drop everything and focus on electing someone like Roy Romanow, Gary Doer, Bob Rae, Tony Blair, David Lange, Bob Hawke, etc. I live in Manitoba, and electing Gary Doer has probably done just as much to turn down the struggle (due to people being reluctant to criticize a "friendly government") as it has to advance it.
Does "work with" mean join? Because quite frankly, I am not willing to join the NDP.
And what do we mean by "the NDP"? Do we mean the party, or with individual members? And to what extent does "the party" even work with extraparliamentary social movements (especially when they govern)? If it's individual members, I have no problems working with individual members of any party on any issue.
I'm not going to up and join the NDP and work to elect assholes like Pat Martin and Gary Doer for the sake of unity with social democrats in the hope that it somehow "advances the struggle"
Just a few thoughts in general:
1. Has anyone not found it hilarious that the Communist Party of Canada runs in every democratic election. Hypothetically, if they got into power, that would be the last election ever held.
Not necessarily. Some of the Western European communist parties came to terms with democracy (see Eurocommunism) so it isn't a foregone conclusion that if such a party takes office it installs itself as a dictatorship.
Now that I can't agree enough with - to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you fight an election with the electorate you've got, not the electorate you'd want to have.
Also between the representatives and parties of organized labour and the wider working class.
It's not so much the occasional odd tangent that concerns people, it's the perceived inability to "mind the store", if you will. Conservatives love to stoke this fear, but that doesn't mean it's entirely without basis. Good management is important.
All of the opposition parties both in and outside of parliament had "electoral failure"...some parties more than others. And yet, they were able to get a very right-wing government to back down on a large number of their policies.
Why? New tactics. For a brief period of time the opposition parties agreed to work together in a way that was quite unprecidented in Canadian political culture.
The "crisis" came very close to bringing the government down. On top of that, a critically important thing was the pressure from the mass social movements.
The parties did not organize the "pro coalition" rallies held across Canada, the social movements did.
If you looked at who was at the Toronto rally, it was predominantly folks from the labour, peace, solidarity, womens and environmental movements. I'm sure it was similar in other parts of Canada.
No matter what party holds power, it's important to have powerful grassroots social movements working on all manner of issues in all manner of ways.
Obviously it's going to be easier to "push" a government of "the left" than a government of "the right" but no matter what you maintain and build your movements.
Governments led by "left" parties are always going to have a tendency to backslide once in power. They might have control over the state but they don't have power. Power is always in the hands of the corporate elites.
In the Central America of the 1980's you had governments in places like Guatemala and El Salvador that didn't even control the state! The death squads and the military controlled the state...they were the "death squad democracies". That's still true in Colombia today...also the same in the Phillipines.
The Communist Party of Canada, which pre-dates the CCF/NDP, had little success electorally...only ever winning one seat federally and a few seats here and there in provincial legislatures. It's main contribution (yes despite it's flaws) was in the labour and social movements...particularly during the 1930's and 1940's. Many workers would never have been organized into unions without the efforts of CPC activists.
This idea of creating some kind of new political party/movement "to the left of the NDP" has been around for a very long time. I recall participating in a conference on this very topic over twenty years ago...and that wasn't a "first" by any means.
I honestly don't think that this is the most important project to spend time on. Building sustainable grass roots social movements is much more important IMHO. It's also very long term hard work. There are no "shortcuts".
Movements (and economic/political circumstances) can shift an entire political culture to the left...and the existing parties have no choice other than to shift with them.
In Quebec, large segments of the social movements have come to the conclusion that the Parti Quebecois no longer serves them. So, Quebec Solidaire has emerged.
The QS has done what they've needed to do in our FPTP electoral system to win a seat, and to be "in the game" in a few other seats...namely...build some strong local constituency organizations.
Outside of Quebec, I don't think that the bulk of labour and social organizations have come to the conclusion that the NDP is no longer their "champion". Until or unless that happens, don't expect any new "left" political party/movement to be viable.
Forgive me for not clarifying much earlier, but my definition of "party" is much different from the traditional definition. My definition comes straight from the Communist Manifesto itself and from IWMA literature, which referred to the class as a whole "organizing itself into a political party distinct from, and opposed to, all other parties."
This "party" isn't a mere "grassroots social movement," which can never pose the question of political power in the medium term (not to mention the excessive decentralization presented by the existence of multiple "grassroots social movements" and their single issues, even if such single-issue emphasis is much more effective in the short term).
This "party" I'm advocating would most likely have a dedicated section of the membership registering with the electoral authorities to form an "electoral party" (traditional parties). This would be the complete opposite of organizational frontism (wherein a smaller ideological group has control over a larger, more public group).
Just a few thoughts in general:
1. Has anyone not found it hilarious that the Communist Party of Canada runs in every democratic election. Hypothetically, if they got into power, that would be the last election ever held.
Not necessarily. Some of the Western European communist parties came to terms with democracy (see Eurocommunism) so it isn't a foregone conclusion that if such a party takes office it installs itself as a dictatorship.
Agreed, Doug. I made the exact same point earlier to counter something JR said about "official" communist parties. Anti-capitalist parties on the left that: (a) compete in elections, (b) have roots in the union movement, and (c) are NOT social democrats, are relatively successful in Europe, but in different ways. In a way, I brought this up to ask "Why can't this happen in, or, why wouldn't this work in Canada?"
But tread carefully here: RosaL thinks you shouldn't comment about such things unless your PhD thesis was on comparative communist parties.
What I meant by "official" Communist reformism is that their immediate/action/minimum programs generally coincide with social-democratic sloganeering (contrast that with my Babble thread on the credit crunch), including identity politics (First Nations, Quebec, LGBT, etc.).
I apologize if my remarks were interpreted as being overly anti-parliamentary (though, as I said above, demarchy is the way to go and not parliamentarism or even the radical republicanism of Marx, Engels, pre-war Kautsky, and Lenin).
Forgive me for not clarifying much earlier, but my definition of "party" is much different from the traditional definition. My definition comes straight from the Communist Manifesto itself and from IWMA literature, which referred to the class as a whole "organizing itself into a political party distinct from, and opposed to, all other parties."
Well, that's kind of what I said before. One big organization (not a "federation"), no rival little (or big) parties. Although I don't think I'd necessarily restrict it to the working class, but that would be a possible start: a constituent assembly of workers, deciding their own structure, their aims, etc. Everyone welcome.
I think leftists and progressives parcelling themselves out into different rival parties, with slightly different beliefs, and holding separate meetings, etc., resembles nothing so much as good people parcelling themselves out into different rival religions.
It's a bad thing.
It should be restricted to the "working class," just not the "industrial proletariat" stereotype that has resulted from bourgeois distortions and even errors on the part of key Marxists. The modern proletariat is comprised of manual, clerical, and many "middle-income" professional workers (non-coordinating and excludes lawyers, cops, and judges).
Once your suggested group of workers at least recognizes class struggle and the need to continuously organize independently, they will have filtered out 90% of reformists (stuck in identity politics, Green politics, and collective bargainism and disavowing class struggle or downplaying it like Quebec's Solidaire
) and 10-20% of revolutionaries (the conspiratorial, minoritarian "revolutionists").
[I get the feeling that you're one of those 10% of reformists who emphasize class struggle, but that's a good thing.
]
at the end of the day, as I said previously, you have to convince the electorate that your way is the best way. Splitting the left even more is not a wise concept. Much like the entire spectrum, you can fit the citizens of Canada into one mold. There are hard lefties, marxist leninists, CPC'ers, "labour" party types, labour lite, NDP, Red Liberals, Red Torys, Green anything, blue liberals, reformers, neo cons and neo libs. And anything and everything in between.
Currently the organs of society are controlled by the hard right Conservatives. The media makes huge $$$$ off of the Cons and all their mass advertising. Same with the Libs. Until the left puts its money where its mouth is, we'll all be in effect just pissing in the wind. In BC all the Fiberals are talking about now, is the 90s. Again. A decade after the 90s ended, and 2 terms of Campbell's fiberals, and all the crap going on in BC all the bad shit is the 90s Clark Dosanjh's fault. When you have nothing at all to run on, run on fear.
But Anglo countries have all been test labs for neoliberal capitalism for the last three decades. And now Gordon Brown, the very face of neoliberal-third way in Britain under Blair, is swerving left somewhat in an attempt to save his political future.
Okay, but what does "work with" and "advance the struggle" mean?
The way i see it is that there are a few ways to work politically. There's a lot of work that can be done locally, organizing people, creating local infrastructure, actually doing things. This kind of work can be very gratifying because near-immediate results can be achieved and appreciated. Also it's much easier to work with a smaller number of people with much more local common interests. And there's certainly no shortage of work to be done at the local level.
Beyond the local level most decisions are made by government composed of parties. And if you want to have certain changes made, they need to be promoted through the party system.
So in order to push your interests, there are a few different options.
1. Join a party.
2. Start your own party.
3. Try to have influence on the political system be being non-partisan and pushing issues or interests as opposed to a particular party.
For #1 we have a few different options for parties. When joining a party there are a few factors to consider and everyone needs to find their own balance. Parties that currently have a lot of power are generally harder to influence, however their large membership and infrastructure and electoral prowess can actually allow the party to make some changes.
In my opinion the Liberals and Conservatives are both owned by the corporate elite. I don't live in Quebec so i can't vote for the Bloc. That means for me the NDP is the only major party that's not bought. Perhaps you would argue that they are bought or at least partially. In any case when evaluating the NDP (or any party) the question is, "Does this party have enough electoral prowess to justify the compromises i'll have to make in what issues will be put forward?"
I did not include the Green Party as one of the major parties since they have no seat--but when considering the GP i asked the same question. For me the GP does not stack up to the NDP. Possibly i would be able to more easily have influence as a member--but i'm not so sure. The NDP today, already is closer to my political orientation than the GP. And when trying to compare their level of leadership, the Green Party, with Jim Harris and Elizabeth May seem much more co-opted than Layton, certainly, and likely Doer or Romanow. Plus the Green Party can't really deliver, and don't really have any relevance.
The smaller parties have even less relevance IMO.
As far as starting a new party goes, with new branding, new name, with a great agenda, it's certainly something to dream about. But i don't think we can wait 10-20 years for a new party to have influence. And the Green Party has certainly not made it look easy.
So then beyond joining or creating a party, the other option is a non-partisan org looking to influence the pther parties' policies. This might work in the USA a bit better than here, where there are few whipped votes and legislation can be passed by exerting pressure on individual politicians.
But here almost every vote is whipped and most politicians will vote with their parties. Despite what credentials Briony Penn may have, she would be voting for Liberal legislation across the board. So it seems to me that a non-partisan org can really only exert pressure on parties, not individual politicians.
And now we're again back to where the NDP is the only party not bought. I simply can't imagine working in a non partisan org and recommending that people vote other than NDP. While i may have serious issues with some aspects of the NDP, they are clearly the least bad of the options.
So given that, if i want to work above the local level, i'm going to work to make the NDP better.
Does "work with" mean join? Because quite frankly, I am not willing to join the NDP.
OK, here it is--it's unrealistic to think you will ever have much influence in the direction that the party takes if you are not willing to join. So if you are not willing to join the NDP you will have to accept that you don't have any influence on it. You don't like Gary Doer? Well it's not your call on what policies he and the NDP put forth. You don't want to be part of that discussion.
I'm not going to up and join the NDP and work to elect assholes like Pat Martin and Gary Doer for the sake of unity with social democrats in the hope that it somehow "advances the struggle"
No of course not. Join the NDP and work to elect radical nominees. Join the party and try to promote more radical stances on issues. Join the party and go to the convention and slag Gary Doer AND Pat Martin. If your MP is NDP and not to your liking then find a better candidate and try to get them the NDP nomination. Join the party and work to elect people you believe in.
It's all pretty hard work and it will take a long time.
Just a few thoughts in general:Agreed, Doug. I made the exact same point earlier to counter something JR said about "official" communist parties. Anti-capitalist parties on the left that: (a) compete in elections, (b) have roots in the union movement, and (c) are NOT social democrats, are relatively successful in Europe, but in different ways. In a way, I brought this up to ask "Why can't this happen in, or, why wouldn't this work in Canada?"
But tread carefully here: RosaL thinks you shouldn't comment about such things unless your PhD thesis was on comparative communist parties.
You keep using these same examples of parties that have much less support than formerly - whose support is in fact declining rapidly - and which, in my opinion, have few if any radical principles left and are very close to being social democratic parties, as models for us to follow. That's part of what bothers me.
But if you are saying that a truly democratic, "anti-capitalist" (and socialist) party can succeed at some point, I agree. (Mind you, I don't define "democratic" as "competing in elections", though I do think there should be democratic elections, along with other forms of democratic decision-making.)
In any case when evaluating the NDP (or any party) the question is, "Does this party have enough electoral prowess to justify the compromises i'll have to make in what issues will be put forward?"
Under our current electoral system, the NDP does not have enough "electoral prowess." As long as Canada has the Single-member Plurality (SMP) voting system, the NDP will continue to be shut out of power at the federal level. Sadly, if current attempts at electoral reform fail, the left's best course of action will be to hitch its cart to the Liberal horse. Under SMP, creating a northern version of the Democratic Party is the best the left can hope for. In Canada we could then end up electing our own version of Obama instead of being stuck with a version of George W. Bush.
The fact is that SMP is a two-party electoral system. That's why the Reform/Alliance/PC parties became the Conservative Party.
The left in Canada makes up roughly 20% of the electorate. Under proportional representation, that would give the left a lot of power within governments.
That all depends on whether you're willing to look beyond France and Italy, if you're willing to look at why the rapid decline is taking place in those two countries, and of course how you define "support" but also influence and power. In most other countries support - in elections - for the so-called Eurocommunist and democratic socialist parties is either modestly increasing or at a plateau.
Die Linke, the Dutch Socialist Party (not to be confused with the Dutch Labour Party), Sinn Fein in the 6 counties, and the Red/Green alliance parties in all Scandinavian countries are growing.
The two main radical-left parties in each of Greece and Italy, most Eastern European communist and "ex-communist" parties, and the Portuguese Communist Party, are stagnating.
The PCF is in major decline electorally, and I would argue it's due to the sort of factionalism that happens when people on the left become more interested in talking about theory, egos, and dead Russians rather than real world issues and policy in an accessable discourse. The same can be witnessed in Scotland where the SSP made a promising but brief debut and then largely fell apart due to internal silliness.
You can also thank the crowding of the left. Unlike in Canada, Europe's Green Parties (and even some of their Liberal parties, such as D'66 or the radicals in Italy) are actually progressive, for instance.
I'm thinking broadly of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the parties that fall under the umbrella of that grouping. This is a group that expresses solidarity with Cuba, Venezuela and the Palestinians, and is adamently opposed to NATO and militarism more broadly. It has organic and formal links with organized labour and social movements and is opposed to capitalism. It is not on the wishy-washy left. And its members say most if not all the right things. I don't think they are doing anything wrong, and they would be a fine model to follow in Canada if their modest success could be replicated and if it could tilt the spectrum back to the left.
And that's exactly why I cited the PCF and Rifondazione as examples of parties that have little electoral appeal (anymore) but a LOT of democratic power. One reason is that they have most of the leadership in the union movement. When the French demonstrate, the PCF are not sitting on the sidelines, they're leading the march. They are intricately connected to the struggle of workers and disenfranchised groups and have an enviable ability to mobilize. Something neither the NDP nor any Canadian union or leftwing group or movement seems able or willing to do anymore.
Which brings us back to the original topic. What would be the benefit of the left splitting from the NDP? Electorally, it might be none. But tactically it could work if power could be found elsewhere. Ideally, the left could split from the NDP, form a new party or bloc, and succeed both at the street level and at the electoral level. I don't think it can, but then, I also think Canada is a rightwing and imperialistic society.
The PCF is in major decline electorally, and I would argue it's due to the sort of factionalism that happens when people on the left become more interested in talking about theory, egos, and dead Russians rather than real world issues and policy in an accessable discourse. .
Well, that doesn't seem to be hurting other elements in the French far-left! And I don't think it's the reason for the deline (electorally and in other respects) of the PCF (which I am not defending, by the way). [note: prior to editing, I had typed 'PDF'. heh.]
This is a very short response to a very long post. I'll try to come back to it tomorrow. Essentially, though, I think your argument is that where parties exhibit features of which you approve, they succeed; where they show characteristics of which you disapprove, they fail. I find that kind of argument rather suspicious a priori. (Some parties of which I approve are doing badly and some are doing very well. Some parties of which I disapprove are spectacularly successful!)
However, I don't know if there's much point. You and I disagree over what is happening in various parties and why. It might be fun to talk about over a beer but it's rather tedious and frustrating to discuss here! Moreover, it's kind of off-topic.
As to the original topic, what part of the socialist (as opposed to social democratic) left is actually in the ndp? It seems to me there's something wrong with the original question.
^^^ The so-called "Socialist Caucus," if we take its word to be accurate.
Can't we all get along?
As to the original topic, what part of the socialist (as opposed to social democratic) left is actually in the ndp? It seems to me there's something wrong with the original question.
Which takes us back to the question I asked in the previous thread: "Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?"
What would you say is the current population of the left left in Canada? How many people are we talking here?
Invariably, one of the main challenges facing us when we attempt to create a mass organization based on the principles of class struggle, whether it be a coalition, or a party, is how to achieve sufficient mass. Regardless of the politics of such an organization, if it does not achieve sufficient mass, it becomes just another small, far left group that provides in-services for the left.
To use an example, the IS has, for a while now, devoted most of its energies to the war resisters campaign. I would argue that much of this effort has been wasted. However, it has been wasted not because asylum for war resisters is in any way an undesirable or irrelevant goal (quite the opposite, it is an important cause, and would be a desirable victory). Rather, much of the effort has been wasted because there have not been large enough mass mobilisations on this issue to actually force the Conservatives to implement the parliamentary resolution calling on the government to grant asylum for US war resisters.
Ok, RosaL, I'll bite. Take the IS and the CPC. Can you give me one, or two, or three big reasons why they are separate organizations? Be patient with me, because I know nothing about them.
Big reasons. Reasons that ordinary people can understand.
The only reason I know of is this: past history. (People in the Trotskyist tradition still use the word "stalinist" pretty freely!) As far as I'm concerned, there is no good reason.
To take a recent example, the CPC supported the NDP-Liberal coalition (they have supported a coalition with the Liberals since 1935, when Stalin mandated that all official Communist parties adopt a "common front" policy). The IS opposed the coalition, their primary stated reason being that they opposed the NDP dropping any opposition to the Afghanistan war. Big Difference.
Another substantive difference is that the CPC supports the FARC in Columbia, while the IS does not. As far as I know, the CPC is the only Communist/Marxist group in Canada that supports the FARC.
Invariably, one of the main challenges facing us when we attempt to create a mass organization based on the principles of class struggle, whether it be a coalition, or a party, is how to achieve sufficient mass. Regardless of the politics of such an organization, if it does not achieve sufficient mass, it becomes just another small, far left group that provides in-services for the left.
To use an example, the IS has, for a while now, devoted most of its energies to the war resisters campaign. I would argue that much of this effort has been wasted. However, it has been wasted not because asylum for war resisters is in any way an undesirable or irrelevant goal (quite the opposite, it is an important cause, and would be a desirable victory). Rather, much of the effort has been wasted because there have not been large enough mass mobilisations on this issue to actually force the Conservatives to implement the parliamentary resolution calling on the government to grant asylum for US war resisters.
On the other hand, the IS may have found working in the war resisters campaign to be a fruitful area for attracting new members to the IS (I have no idea if that is so; I'm just supposing). If that is the case, it would help them towards achieving the "sufficient mass" of which you speak.
To take a recent example, the CPC supported the NDP-Liberal coalition (they have supported a coalition with the Liberals since 1935, when Stalin mandated that all official Communist parties adopt a "common front" policy). The IS opposed the coalition, their primary stated reason being that they opposed the NDP dropping any opposition to the Afghanistan war. Big Difference.
Another substantive difference is that the CPC supports the FARC in Columbia, while the IS does not. As far as I know, the CPC is the only Communist/Marxist group in Canada that supports the FARC.
These are "big" reasons to have two separate organizations - separate meetings, separate structures, separate discussion, everything? Do they even get together to talk through these two issues above?
Can leftists legitimately have different opinions about whether a particular coalition is a good or bad idea; where Afghanistan fits into that; or whether to support FARC???
If they have different opinions, are they doomed to inhabit separate rooms in the Left hotel?
You've just encapsulated nicely for me foolish sectarian spirit which plagued the left when I was young (long long ago), and, if you are correct, is just as bad today.
They should start planning a constituent assembly right away, with the following criteria:
1. Anyone who considers themselves vaguely left or progressive is welcome to attend, or send delegates.
2. Everyone leaves their other "affiliations" at home. No one is allowed to get up and say, "As a lifelong supporter of CPC, IS, FLQ, ACROKAOS..." or whatever. They just say what they have to say and give their arguments.
3. No "federations" or "united fronts". Just one organization. People can carry on with their tiny sects and theological disputations as much as they please - but here, they are all together without labels. But the truly committed ones will disband their groupuscules, now or later.
unionist: "Anyone who considers themselves vaguely left or progressive is welcome to attend, or send delegates."
Good grief. We've already got one Liberal party, and another in waiting. Why form a third? Genuinely left groups already work together locally on specific issues.
My experience teaches me that what is most important is NOT to demoralize the young people that have the energy and time and idealism for politics. I think it is not just provocateurs and the police that do this demoralizing. OTOH, I like what I see when I see what look like non-sectarian workshops for young activists.
In the last Great Depression, there were plenty of genuine leftists (anarchists, socialists, communists, etc.) who did a huge amount of organizing those affected by the roller coaster of the boom and bust of capitalism. Many of the same people organized the large industries in the following decades. We don't seem to have the same numbers today. But it is also true that the "soma" and distractions and manufacture of consent for social injustice is much larger and sophisticated today. The "mis-consciousness" industry is big business.
Successful organizing is worth studying no matter what time period or what country it takes place in. My 2 bits.
Thanks, N.Beltov. But I didn't understand your answer:
Why would my suggestion be bad? I never suggested a "party". And whom would you like to exclude from such an assembly?
Your dismissal of the idea reflects the same sectarian spirit I pointed to earlier. Why not let everyone come? Trust the people to sort out right from wrong (or left).
OK, I apologize for not having read both threads in their entirety. I'm just noting that pulling together an organization without more clearly defined goals or purposes is unnecessary.
What would you say is the current population of the left left in Canada? How many people are we talking here?
More than a telephone booth, less than a movie theatre.
Thanks, N.Beltov. But I didn't understand your answer:
Why would my suggestion be bad? I never suggested a "party". And whom would you like to exclude from such an assembly?
Your dismissal of the idea reflects the same sectarian spirit I pointed to earlier. Why not let everyone come? Trust the people to sort out right from wrong (or left).
Although your question isn't directed at me, I would say that an independent class organization, socialist or otherwise, goes against the idea of members who downplay class politics in favour of identity politics, Green politics, etc.
In the last Great Depression, there were plenty of genuine leftists (anarchists, socialists, communists, etc.) who did a huge amount of organizing those affected by the roller coaster of the boom and bust of capitalism. Many of the same people organized the large industries in the following decades. We don't seem to have the same numbers today.
It seems to me that a vast swath of the middle class is ripening for radicalization. Who is mobilizing the laid-off workers across the country?
...unfortunately, no one. Without such focus by the left, the "mis-consciousness industry" is free to hold sway.
BTW, Corvin Russell's latest blog is a good fit for this thread: Imagine if we had a left-wing party...
Not as faras I can tell. At least not in Vancouver, where the IS still only has one member. The fact that this guy has no real organizing ability (all he does when he meets people is try to sell them the IS newspaper). This guy is also a member of Stopwar, and would try recruit people to that organization rather than to the IS.
To take a recent example, the CPC supported the NDP-Liberal coalition (they have supported a coalition with the Liberals since 1935, when Stalin mandated that all official Communist parties adopt a "common front" policy). The IS opposed the coalition, their primary stated reason being that they opposed the NDP dropping any opposition to the Afghanistan war. Big Difference.
Another substantive difference is that the CPC supports the FARC in Columbia, while the IS does not. As far as I know, the CPC is the only Communist/Marxist group in Canada that supports the FARC.
These are "big" reasons to have two separate organizations - separate meetings, separate structures, separate discussion, everything? Do they even get together to talk through these two issues above?
The one member of the IS in Vancouver, and one of the members the CPC in Vancouver, do work together in Stopwar. Stopwar discussed whether or not the Canadian Peace alliance should endorse the Coalition. Fortunately, Stopwar, and the Canadian Peace Alliance, decided against endorsing the coalition, although they did not take a public position against the coalition either.
Interesting thread. I didn't get through all of it as it is quite long but had a few cents to throw in.
As a former member of the IS for several years as a teenager I think that the IS is a fine organization which includes a lot of great activists. The IS, and IS alum, have been important members of the anti-war movement and strong community organizers.
Some of the IS membership are quite doctrinaire but I always found the IS to be frustrated with sectarian differences. For the most part they present themselves as a large tent movement, so long as people agree on certain basics of Socialism and anti-capitalism.
In fact, Several years ago at the annual Marxism conference in Toronto I remember that the UFP (Precursor to Quebec Solidaire) had just been formed and many of its representatives (including Amir Khadir) were present and lauded for their efforts. To this day the IS has strong representation in QS.
The bottom line is that even Marx talked extensively about the need for an intermediate, transitional phase. You have to have a plan for how to get there (a rejection of capitalism and a truly just society) from here.
Unfortunately, here is a pretty right wing, MSM brainwashed place. Opposition to the current order needs to be focused, at least insofar as electoral politics goes, into a united alternative.
In Quebec that is QS. Any other party or grouping that presents itself for election is doing more harm than good.
Nationally, that alternative is the NDP. As someone said above, you can only lead from a few steps in front of the population, otherwise you lose them. The NDP needs to be built and strengthened. Activists need to stop kvetching about how lousy the NDP is and indulging in pipe dreams of forming a new party and instead join the NDP, help it gain power and influence and promote their ideas from within it.
The NDP is the best choice we have. Where it is weak, it is imeasurably easier and more effective to strengthen it than to start from scratch.
Once we have an NDP government then the time will be ripe for a more radical party of class consciousness. Right now there is no class consciousness. You can hardly have a class based party when people aren't even aware of their class.
Oh, and by the way, the IS support the NDP and argue that a strengthened NDP is the best way to acheive their goals.
Not as faras I can tell. At least not in Vancouver, where the IS still only has one member. The fact that this guy has no real organizing ability (all he does when he meets people is try to sell them the IS newspaper). This guy is also a member of Stopwar, and would try recruit people to that organization rather than to the IS.
If it's just one guy, then isn't it a bit unfair to use him as an example of the failure of the left to mobilize masses of Canadians in support of war resisters, sufficient to get the Harper government to change its policy?
Once we have an NDP government then the time will be ripe for a more radical party of class consciousness.
We should sink our efforts into electing the NDP so that we can replace them?
Then the IS should disband.
This is way too subtle for me.
...
Nationally, that alternative is the NDP. As someone said above, you can only lead from a few steps in front of the population, otherwise you lose them. The NDP needs to be built and strengthened. Activists need to stop kvetching about how lousy the NDP is and indulging in pipe dreams of forming a new party and instead join the NDP, help it gain power and influence and promote their ideas from within it.
The NDP is the best choice we have. Where it is weak, it is imeasurably easier and more effective to strengthen it than to start from scratch.
You're talking about a "united alternative", but where I live the NDP isn't an alternative to anything. They're the governing party!
And the NDP is plenty strong here. They don't need strengthening. In fact, I would go so far as to say that their electoral success in recent years has only made the right of the party more powerful, and the NDP leftists are nearly completely disarmed. I would also say that 10 years of an NDP government have done nothing to raise class consciousness. How the heck does the election of a particular capitalist party raise class consciousness? In fact, in some ways it has contributed to a reduction in class consciousness, because there is no opposition to their Blairite policies.
Furthermore, how do we promote new ideas in a party which ignores convention resolutions?
Or are you suggesting that now that we've elected Gary Doer, it's time to join the CP?
Since when has the NDP done anything to raise class consciousness? They seem to avoid the issue whenever possible (ie: "working families" instead of "working class") or somehow try to distinguish between working class and middle class, as if people are afraid to be associated with the working class.
Good grief. We've already got one Liberal party,
And which party would that be?
The Liberals stopped being a liberal party at the start of the 1980s. They flipped and flopped on campaign promises and were awarded the phoniest majority ever in 1997. And their reward for shifting to the political right in 2008 elections was their lowest voter support in several decades. Big money-big business parties are supposed to be able to buy phony majorities in Canada. So what's happening?
Very interesting genstrike how hard it is for me, outside Manitoba at least, to understand how different the NDP can really be to some. I don't know which is better. I think the left should focus on developing the most innovative online prescence. Tap into their youth, it's most powerful demographic.
If I was making that argument, these parties would get a parliamentary or congressional majority once in a while in countries other than Cyprus and Venezuela. :)
I was originally going to ask "Who is this 'left'?" or more specifically "Who, or what is this unitary left that can be found within the NDP and yet are nevertheless distinct from the NDP that are so monolithic that they, or it, can split en masse?"
I agree with most of the other posters that we'd probably find out the answer to that question if Canada had a democratic electoral system, or, at least a political culture that tolerated dissent and a diversity of views.
The Liberals stopped being a liberal party at the start of the 1980s. They flipped and flopped on campaign promises and were awarded the phoniest majority ever in 1997. And their reward for shifting to the political right in 2008 elections was their lowest voter support in several decades. Big money-big business parties are supposed to be able to buy phony majorities in Canada. So what's happening?
Actually, "big money" and "big business" is a cornerstone of liberalism, at least in the classic sense.
"Very interesting genstrike how hard it is for me, outside Manitoba at least, to understand how different the NDP can really be to some. I don't know which is better. I think the left should focus on developing the most innovative online prescence. Tap into their youth, it's most powerful demographic."
I should point out that few years ago a leading member of the NDP Youth here in Manitoba joined the CPC. And students are getting screwed over by the MB NDP. I can't see North End kids joining the NDP or any elctoral politcs for that matter. The Communist parties, are not solely based on elections (knowing that fpp is a sham) and is half the story. THey do plenty of organizing, and that it not "don't do it yourselves, vote for us". POlicy based on votes makes for psychotic policies down the road how can a Leftist party not raise welfare rates, raise tuition and support the war in afghanistan?.
The Liberals stopped being a liberal party at the start of the 1980s. They flipped and flopped on campaign promises and were awarded the phoniest majority ever in 1997. And their reward for shifting to the political right in 2008 elections was their lowest voter support in several decades. Big money-big business parties are supposed to be able to buy phony majorities in Canada. So what's happening?
Actually, "big money" and "big business" is a cornerstone of liberalism, at least in the classic sense.
Canada's Liberals began handing off control of our energy and other resources to rich Americans during St Laurent's time. But sometimes they were Liberal when in government and prodded by the CCF-NDP.
Canada's federal Liberals became virtually indistinguishable from political conservatives though since the start of the 1980s. Second-hand neoliberal ideology spread into Canada, and rightwing think tanks that were once considered extreme rightwing special interest groups were suddenly bending the ears of red chamberers and federal governments alike.
I couldn't follow 100% bush is gone ha. I'm now paying more attention to provincial NDP parties as I naively assumed they would lean to the left. babble's opened my eyes. Hopefully it will open others.
POlicy based on votes makes for psychotic policies down the road how can a Leftist party not raise welfare rates, raise tuition and support the war in afghanistan?.
This the result of 30 years of Liberal-Tory federal government in Ottawa. Canada is 25th out of 30 OECD capitalist countries when it comes to social spending. The Chretien Liberals through to Paulie Pockets' Libranos pared tens of billions of dollars in social transfers from the provinces since 1993, and stole $48 billion from the workers' UI-EI-O fund.
I've come to think of the NDP as the party that waters down traditional, regressive ideas and presents them as "bold policy initiatives". It seems that in its eagerness to become acceptable, they've become a kinder, gentler version of Liberals.
Take for example, the recent gang wars in Vancouver. They've provided Harper the perfect opportunity to implement his 'law and order' agenda. While former judges, former cops and criminologists point out that you could deflate the gangs by legalizing drugs and removing their number one source of income, politicians all across the spectrum surrender to the knee-jerk reaction of increasing police and calling for tougher sentencing. Sadly, this includes NDP politicians.
Once, the NDP brought fresh ideas. Now, they're just another voice in the crowd.
Not as faras I can tell. At least not in Vancouver, where the IS still only has one member. The fact that this guy has no real organizing ability (all he does when he meets people is try to sell them the IS newspaper). This guy is also a member of Stopwar, and would try recruit people to that organization rather than to the IS.
If it's just one guy, then isn't it a bit unfair to use him as an example of the failure of the left to mobilize masses of Canadians in support of war resisters, sufficient to get the Harper government to change its policy?
The IS nationally has been narrowly focused on the War Resisters Campaign, not just in Vancouver. Plus, The IS has other members in other parts of Canada, and members from other groups are also working on the War Resisters campaign, notably the Catholic Worker organization (at least in Vancouver). So it's more than just one guy failing to mobilize the masses of Canadians in support of war resisters, sufficient to get the Harper govenment to change it's policy. It the entire War Resisters campaign that's failing to mobilize the masses in support of war resisters, sufficient to get the Harper government to change it's policy. As such, some of the effort devoted to the War Resisters Campaign might have been better spent elsewhere (though some of the effort has been well placed, since the War Resisters do need a place to stay when they come here).
So why is the NDP following Liberal-Tory example?
also...
My apologies for the previous post as babble really screws up my computer. 5 sec delay on typing.
Here is a reference for post #91.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040614144759/www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum&f=35
"Former NDP Exec member running as a Commie"
There must be plenty of disgruntled NDPers if one actually (if briefly) joined the CPC.
---------------------------------------------------------
why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?
This the result of 30 years of Liberal-Tory federal government in Ottawa. Canada is 25th out of 30 OECD capitalist countries when it comes to social spending. The Chretien Liberals through to Paulie Pockets' Libranos pared tens of billions of dollars in social transfers from the provinces since 1993, and stole $48 billion from the workers' UI-EI-O fund.
So, how do you plan on blaming the yellow ribbon garden outside the Manitoba legislature, the NDP government's support for Red Friday rallies, or the government partnering with Sears, Rona and Wal-Mart to poison young minds with yellow ribbon bullshit on the federal Liberals?
This is going to be good...
This the result of 30 years of Liberal-Tory federal government in Ottawa. Canada is 25th out of 30 OECD capitalist countries when it comes to social spending. The Chretien Liberals through to Paulie Pockets' Libranos pared tens of billions of dollars in social transfers from the provinces since 1993, and stole $48 billion from the workers' UI-EI-O fund.
So, how do you plan on blaming the yellow ribbon garden outside the Manitoba legislature, the NDP government's support for Red Friday rallies, or the government partnering with Sears, Rona and Wal-Mart to poison young minds with yellow ribbon bullshit on the federal Liberals?
This is going to be good...
I didn't ask how you would blame them for the war itself, I asked how you would blame the federal Liberals for the yellow ribbon garden outside the Manitoba legislature, the NDP government's support for Red Friday rallies, or the NDP government partnering with Sears, Rona and Wal-Mart to poison young minds with yellow ribbon bullshit.
So, how do you blame the federal Liberals for the Manitoba NDP's support for war and militarism?
I didn't ask how you would blame them for the war itself,
Did the federal Liberals drag Canada into crazy George's phony war in Afghanistan or not? It's a simple question, slippery.
I didn't ask how you would blame them for the war itself,
Did the federal Liberals drag Canada into crazy George's phony war in Afghanistan or not? It's a simple question, slippery.
Yes, but "the Liberals also do it" isn't really an answer, especiallywhen a big part of this thread is about looking for alternatives. If the NDP did everything the Liberals did, there wouldn't be a point to having an NDP, would there be? If all the other parties jumped off a bridge...
Did the Manitoba NDP plant the yellow ribbon garden outside the Manitoba legislature, support Red Friday rallies, and partner with Sears, Rona and Wal-Mart to poison young minds with yellow ribbon bullshit or not? It's a simple question, slippery.
I didn't ask how you would blame them for the war itself,
Did the federal Liberals drag Canada into crazy George's phony war in Afghanistan or not? It's a simple question, slippery.
Yes, but "the Liberals also do it" isn't really an answer, especiallywhen a big part of this thread is about looking for alternatives. If the NDP did everything the Liberals did, there wouldn't be a point to having an NDP, would there be? If all the other parties jumped off a bridge...
Provincial NDP governments have no power to volunteer Canadian troops to Crazy Jorge de la Yayo-led phony wars in Central Asia.
It was federal Liberals under crazy Jean Chretien who sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and Paulie Pockets Martin basically lied to parliament as to what the new role would be for Canadians relieving US imperial troops in the colonial outpost province of Kandahar in the stan.
The federal NDP voted against mission extension in Afghanistan, whereas the Liberals voted with the Tories on their vicious toadying to the US in Afghanistan. Conclusion?
Tories = Liberals and vice versa
I think we're having communication issues here.
bush is gone asked how the NDP could do three things, one of which was support for the war in Afghanistan.
You said that those three things were the result of 30 years of Liberal and Conservative government.
I just want to know how you blame the provincial NDP's support for war in Afghanistan, as evidenced by the yellow ribbon garden, support for Red Fridays (why is it easier to get an NDP MLA to speak at pro-war events than anti-war events?), and partnering with Sears, Rona and Wal-Mart to put yellow ribbons in schools, on the federal Liberals.
Good thing too, because they would.
The federal NDP voted against extending Canadian troop occupation in Afghanistan to 2011. And that's because it's a federal matter, like when the federal Liberals peeled several billion dollars from PSE beginning in 1993. Hey, that even rhymes.
How did your Liberals vote? On prolonging Canadian troop presence in Afghanistan, that is?
???????????
A yellow ribbon campaign is evidence of Gary Doer's militarism?
You don't say.
This is not even close to the first time that you and Fidel have hijacked a thread only so that you can make the point that the Manitoba NDP isn't socialist enough, and Fidel can deflect that criticism by saying something about the "Whigs and Tories".
genstrike still refuses to explain how Gary Doer robbed several billion federal dollars from post-secondary funding between the years 1993 and 2006. He's overly protective of our neoliberal ideologgers, me tinks
My Liberals? I'm sorry, I don't have any Liberals, because I have no association with any Liberal party at any level.
And, for good measure, fuck Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Fuck Jon Gerrard, and Kevin Lamoureaux is a crazy idiot. Happy?
A yellow ribbon campaign is evidence of Gary Doer's militarism?
I would say yes, particularly when combined with his general support for the war, NDP MLAs appearing at Red Friday rallies, and making a special position titled "Special Envoy for Military Affairs" for one of his MLAs. What is the yellow ribbon campaign if not militarist? What are these actions if not militarist?
This is not even close to the first time that you and Fidel have hijacked a thread only so that you can make the point that the Manitoba NDP isn't socialist enough, and Fidel can deflect that criticism by saying something about the "Whigs and Tories".
I'm only trying to make that point as an example to illustrate what I think is wrong with the NDP, especially when it is electorally successful. I think one of the best ways to really look at the NDP and what they would do is to look at their policies while elected, and right now Manitoba is the only province which has an NDP government. Is there a single province where the NDP has both been electorally successful and avoided a slide to the right? Why would it be any different federally?
If we are condemned to this rightward slide, then why should the anti-capitalist left continue to support a party which will only move further and further away from our values? What is to be gained in working to strengthen a party which does not reflect our values and never will?
Why would it be any different federally?
You continue with this lie that there is no difference between federal and provincial government. And I dont know if its your general all around ignorance of Canadian politics or it's deliberate.
I think youre afraid that if elected federally, the NDP would restore the several billion dollars to PSE stolen by the Liberals, and pull the troops out of Afghanistan. The NDP in power in Ottawa would restore strong central government as it is in EU and Nordic countries, and have the power to raise overall taxation to just the OECD average level and restore tens of billions of dollars in social transfers robbed from the provinces by the federal Liberals and Tories in Ottawa over the last 30 years.
So what is to be done, genstrike?
If we are condemned to this rightward slide, then why should the anti-capitalist left continue to support a party which will only move further and further away from our values? What is to be gained in working to strengthen a party which does not reflect our values and never will?
As more of the anti capitalist left leave the NDP, the further the party moves to the right.
ETA: yeah i'm also interested to hear what is to be done.
Well, I don't want to pretend to be an expert on planning revolutions, but I would say that the anti-capitalist left needs to come together in some way, but it can't be a Leninist-style party for a variety of reasons (I am not a fan of "democratic centralism"). And there would have to be a long talk about whether to contest elections and what sort of electoral strategy to have, considering the capitalist pressures involved with contesting elections, which it seems like no other electoral party in the world has resisted (it would be pointless to create a party which in 75 years time will have evolved into the Manitoba NDP).
I would propose at the very least some sort of left federation or coalition, but a single organization if possible. However, I think it would be necessary to allow things like factions and caucuses in order to ensure that differing viewpoints are accepted and recognized and that the party doesn't splinter like cheap Ikea furniture, and the party would have to be structured in such a way that it involves everyone and you don't get a "party brass" and all the rightward pressures that would entail. This organization would have to be clearly and explicitly anti-capitalist, and could work on a variety of issues and tactics (elections(?), propaganda, mass rallies, labour organizing, building worker co-ops, survival programs, publications, etc.)
Of course, this would probably be pretty difficult, as getting leftists together can sometimes be like herding cats, and there are some pretty big gaps in ideology, especially between Marxists and Anarchists. But things have been looking up a little, at least in Winnipeg, as there have been a few initiatives in recent years which got a lot of people from a lot of different organizations together.
And, this would of course entail what actual anti-capitalists there are left in the NDP leaving.
As more of the anti capitalist left leave the NDP, the further the party moves to the right.
Does the anti-capitalist left have any decent numbers or influence in the NDP at all? If the Socialist Caucus or Fightback denounced Gary Doer, would it make one bit of difference? If they had ten times as many members as they do now, would it still matter? Would they ever be able to overcome the rightward pressures of electoral politics, the "party brass", the right-wing social democrats, the political machines, the office-holders interested in keeping the status quo, the careerists, etc.?
Has there been a single electorally successful party which has bucked these rightward forces of electoralism?
Why not just vote for the local Marxist candidate instead of trying to bust up the NDP and helping the rightwing Liberal Party gain votes in the process? Doh! Unless, that is, if you think post-secondary tuition isnt high enough already, and that Canadian troops havent been playing at colonialism in the stan for long enough, then by all means try to break up the NDP and HELP the Libranos, the LIEbrals, that other wing of the big business and big banking party to stooge it up some more in Ottawa.
I understand that you're referring to the concentrated, Comintern-style party when saying "Leninist style," but the class movement itself has to be both centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of class power. This was the Marxist definition of "party" in the late 19th century. The definition of "socialist party" was thus: "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement."
Like I said, the broader group should set up a smaller group that registers itself as the standard "political party," even if said group isn't the class party-movement itself.
Who said that factions are a no-no? You should read more on the SPD model in Germany, where there were differing positions on even the question of national self-determination for the colonies.
That can only come through demarchy, not the radical republicanism of frequent elections.
Yep: you're repeating the history of the SPD, Lenin's party model when he wrote WITBD and, more importantly, more underrated earlier works.
It depends on which "anarchists" and even which "Marxists" you're referring to. You're a class-strugglist anarchist, for example, so I don't see any fundamental problems working with someone like you, even if the question of the state will be a long-term "we'll agree to disagree" thing. Contrast yourself with, say, lifestylists, hooliganists, and ultra-insurrectionists ("propaganda of the deed").
On the "Marxist" side, I wouldn't want to work with New Left bozos who grossly downplay class struggle in favour of their cherished Identity Politics (there's one such irritant on RevLeft, BTW
).
I understand that you're referring to the concentrated, Comintern-style party when saying "Leninist style," but the class movement itself has to be both centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of class power. This was the Marxist definition of "party" in the late 19th century. The definition of "socialist party" was thus: "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement."
Still, I'm a little worried about being "disciplined" when we're talking about Leninist parties. I think we really need to strike the right balance between centralization and decentralized autonomy.
It depends on which "anarchists" and even which "Marxists" you're referring to. You're a class-strugglist anarchist, for example, so I don't see any fundamental problems working with someone like you, even if the question of the state will be a long-term "we'll agree to disagree" thing. Contrast yourself with, say, lifestylists, hooliganists, and ultra-insurrectionists ("propaganda of the deed").
On the "Marxist" side, I wouldn't want to work with New Left bozos who grossly downplay class struggle in favour of their cherished Identity Politics (there's one such irritant on RevLeft, BTW
).
Well, when I wrote that I initially had in mind unreformed Stalinists and anti-revisionists versus most anarchists, given the differences in what each thinks a post-revolutionary society should look like and the historical mistrust (ie: Kronstadt, Spain, etc). But on the other hand there has been some good work in Winnipeg between the local NSG and IWW branches, and we've been able to work with a variety of people on specific issues.
Regarding identity politics, while we obviously shouldn't let them replace class politics, I think there is definitely room for them in whatever movements or stuggles we have. We can't really talk about universal liberation if we don't recognize that specific liberation movements are a part of that (of course, we can't take the eye off class either)
Fidel, I'd reply to your idiotic accusations, but I'm trying to avoid getting into this bullshit with you again. Needless to say, they are complete bullshit and probably not worth my time responding to. I think I'll pass on taking the bait this time...
Youre quick to blame a lot of what's wrong across Canada on provincial NDP governments instead of where the blame lies, with our two old line parties and the very neoliberal trade deals of the 80s and 90s. Not a peep from self-described "lefties" about those issues, which is conspicuous to say the least.
And you or perhaps others here have claimed that Gary Doer has the power to raise corporate taxes in a tiny provincial economy sandwiched between conservative Alberta and Sask to the west and McGuilty's Ontario on the other, two of the largest economies in the country. We have growing child poverty and low minimum wage rates in Ontario, and provinces have been racing to the bottom with provincial corporate tax rates for years. The largest provincial economies pretty much dictate these kinds of things, especially so without strong central government in Ottawa.
I think youre either willfully ignorant of what's been happening to this country over the last 30 years or are just wet behind the ears, one or the other.
I see no problem with that. My polemic is with those fetishizing decentralized social movements. To quote a Kautskyist, "They bent the stick one direction [and continue to do so]. In order to straighten the stick it was necessary to bend it in the other direction, and that is what I did."
It depends on how demands dealing with Identity Politics are formulated:
http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62
The Social Demands are quite good in tying what could have easily been vulgarized into cheap Identity Politics with class struggle.