Will the NDP have to become more like the US Democratic Party/New Labour to form the government?

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston
Will the NDP have to become more like the US Democratic Party/New Labour to form the government?

*

Lord Palmerston

My answer is...I hope not, though it may be the "easier" path (i.e. catering to the existing ideas of voters rather than seeking to build support for a more progressive worldview and thus trying to move to the "center").  

I wanted to start a thread here, separate from the horserace threads.

In a previous thread I wrote the following (though I made a few minor changes):

Quote:
There are essentially two strategies in terms of electoral appeal for the NDP to take in order to form the government (this isn't to say both can't be done).  One is to do better among the traditional manual working class and trade union base, expand electoral appeals that are really working class as well (clerical/office workers etc.) and reach out to the 40% that aren't voting (not all are "left" but there are certainly many who would be open to a social democratic message)

 

The other is to make more "classless" appeals, hope to retain the traditional base because the NDP is better than the other parties, and appeal more to affluent professionals and a fraction of the capitalist class and "enlightened" Bay St. types.  This is essentially the Obama coalition, which includes the social democratic universe but also the types of upscale demographics that have never voted NDP and now make up the core of what remains of the LPC base.   These are the demographics New Labour (who modeled themselves after Clinton) cultivated as well.

autoworker

The Democrats have a much larger tent. The NDP would need to merge with the Liberals, in order to be comparable. I don't think the NDP could even form a minority without that prerequisite. Should that happen, the resulting 'Liberal-Democrats' (or what have you) would become a centrist party, with the former NDP's Socialist faction fragmenting into it's own party. The Greens may or may not stand to benefit (pun intended).

socialdemocrati...

I think you're ignoring a key part of the Liberal coalition that might be more truly social democratic in philosophy, but has traditionally voted Liberal.

In and around the Greater Toronto Area, there are a ton of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities that share working class values. But Liberals reached out to them 20-30 years ago, and they've maintained them easily as new immigrants arrive. People who directly benefit from policies including a federal minimum wage, child care, senior and home care, affordable education, and so on.

I've met tons of people who fit this description in my lifetime. They hate Steven Harper. They feel disenchanted with the Liberals. But when you ask them if they'd ever vote NDP, they can't tell you why. (Sometimes it's strategic, sometimes it's a vague feeling of mistrust, sometimes they just don't know.)

I suppose some of our appeal to them might be "classless". That is, they prefer to think of themselves as middle class, and hate to think of themselves as mere "workers". They might technically be professional in the sense that they work in an office, or provide some other kind of service. So they might share their *interests* with working people, but they share their *identity* with professionals. (And yes, that might make them vulnerable to anti-Union appeals.) They want to think of themselves as ready to rise if only they got a fair shot, or believe they're doing okay but they sometimes worry about their family. So how we appeal to them does matter. (See Olivia Chow's slow but steady climb in Trinity-Spadina.)

I think we need to do both to win. But obviously, the more we can rally our base and appeal to new voters (young people in particular), the less we'll need the hard Liberals, and the more we can rely on soft-Liberals who (IMO) are also soft-socialists. (They just might not call themselves that.)

clambake

How about pulling a bizarro Liberal strategy? Campaign from the centre, govern from the far left? :)

NDPP

I would say that the process of 'learning from the best' is already well underway...

 

flight from kamakura

clambake wrote:

How about pulling a bizarro Liberal strategy? Campaign from the centre, govern from the far left? :)

+1

Lord Palmerston

Of course, but the NDP isn't quite there yet and is still more of a social democratic formation qualitatively different than a more "liberal" bourgeois formation like the US Democrats.  For it to become "just another capitalist party" it needs the support of the corporate elite (and only one candidate so far has received such support.)  

MegB

US Democrats are closer to our LPC than the NDP, and I would hate to see the NDP go that centrist.  I think any NDP alignment with the Libs is a mistake.  There's a reason Canada doesn't have the USian two-party system. 

Lord Palmerston

Rebecca and others, it's not necessarily a merger or alliance that I'm referring to.  I think a lot of NDP supporters are hoping the party crushes the Liberals even further and picks up most of their votes as well as that of disaffected Tory voters who will likely be sick of the Harper regime in 2015.  But in order to do so, the quick fix strategic solution requires moving more to the center to appeal to Liberals and to a lesser extent very soft Tories, and assuming those who voted NDP will stick with the party.  

(There is of course trying to build the left further, persuade people ideologically, bring out the disaffected and marginalized, etc. but that requires mobilization, education, etc. not just "marketing."  It's easier to "go where the votes are" so to speak.)

Lord Palmerston

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
In and around the Greater Toronto Area, there are a ton of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities that share working class values. But Liberals reached out to them 20-30 years ago, and they've maintained them easily as new immigrants arrive.

"Easily"???? Have you looked at the results in the GTA in the last federal election?

Otherwise, your post raises some good points about the difficulty about getting around the "classless" politics (though this is hardly by any means unique to immigrant and "ethnic" communities).

adma

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
In and around the Greater Toronto Area, there are a ton of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities that share working class values. But Liberals reached out to them 20-30 years ago, and they've maintained them easily as new immigrants arrive. People who directly benefit from policies including a federal minimum wage, child care, senior and home care, affordable education, and so on.

Well...maintained until relatively recently.  But don't forget cases like Bramalea-Gore-Malton and Scarborough-Rouge River...

wage zombie

flight from kamakura wrote:

clambake wrote:

How about pulling a bizarro Liberal strategy? Campaign from the centre, govern from the far left? :)

+1

That doesn't seem to ever happen.  I doubt there has ever been a govt in Canada, national or provincial, that governed more left than they ran.

So it doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me.

JKR

As long as the Conservativs keep winning phony FPTP election victories, the NDP will continue to be dragged to the centre and if the NDP or Liberals can't stop this process, the NDP and Liberals will eventually have to merge.

The 2015 election will be a watershed. In the event the Conservatives win yet another phony FPTP majority, joint NDP-Liberal nominations and an outright NDP-Liberal merger will become the go-to solution as the strong majority voting against the Conservatives will no longer have the patience for more phony FPTP Conservative government.

Replacing FPTP with PR / Fair Voting is best way to prevent the NDP from being dragged to the centre.

Replacing FPTP with Fair Voting / PR is also the best way to give social democrats a voice in our political process.

Chris Borst

Well, Palmerston, I'm not inclined to think so, but my main thought is "If they do have to, then it really doesn't matter if they form the government."

This is the perpetual problem with the "but don't you want to win?" argument. Of course I want to win. And the point that that requires more votes than the NDP presently has is perfectly obvious and clear. But if the NDP becomes just another neoliberal party, then I still lose, whatever the electoral consequences. The goal is not to form "an NDP government". The goal is to form an (at minimum) anti-neoliberal government. The NDP is presently the best, if slight, hope to achieve that goal. If the NDP gives up (or shluffs even more) that goal, then, well, you know, it's never really taken any special effort on my part to get a government elected that I oppose ...

So, I think the more pressing question is "what strategy will build a winning coalition for anti-neoliberal government in Canada?"

iancosh

But this is why PR is so important. I think there is a lot more potential to maintain and promote social democratic principles in a multi-party system with (mixed-member) PR. A two-party system would, I think, be a disaster for Canada. The question is not only "should the NDP become like the US Democrats", it's also, "should the NDP seek a two-party system" and I think the answer is definitely "no."

Michelle

In answer to the thread title: No, it doesn't have to.  But it will.  I have never felt so hopeless about the direction of the federal NDP as I do now, knowing how the leadership race is most likely to turn out at this point.  What a pity and a shame.

Michelle

Oh, and I don't agree that the Democrats are comparable to our Liberal Party.  I think the US Democrats are more on par with our Conservatives, actually.  The US Democrats who run the party oppose single-payer health care, oppose gay marriage, give bailout money to their corporate friends with no strings attached, and do as much religious pandering for votes as the Cons do here.

The US Democrats occupy the same space on the political spectrum as the Harpocons here.  US Democrats can only dream of their party being as progressive as the Liberal Party in Canada.  And that's setting the bar pretty damn low - I'm sure not complimenting the Liberal Party here.

iancosh

JKR wrote:

As long as the Conservativs keep winning phony FPTP election victories, the NDP will continue to be dragged to the centre and if the NDP or Liberals can't stop this process, the NDP and Liberals will eventually have to merge.

The 2015 election will be a watershed. In the event the Conservatives win yet another phony FPTP majority, joint NDP-Liberal nominations and an outright NDP-Liberal merger will become the go-to solution as the strong majority voting against the Conservatives will no longer have the patience for more phony FPTP Conservative government.

Replacing FPTP with PR / Fair Voting is best way to prevent the NDP from being dragged to the centre.

Replacing FPTP with Fair Voting / PR is also the best way to give social democrats a voice in our political process.

 

+1

Sorry, I didn't see your added comments until after I posted mine! I agree completely.

Can I just add this?

Replacing FPTP with Fair Voting / PR also happens to be the best thing to do for all Canadians, even if they're not social democrats. (But let's remind them who brought it to them; just as unions won us the weekend...)

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Michelle wrote:
In answer to the thread title: No, it doesn't have to.  But it will.  I have never felt so hopeless about the direction of the federal NDP as I do now, knowing how the leadership race is most likely to turn out at this point.  What a pity and a shame.

I don't know about that, Michelle. I think Niki Ashton will keep the party close to its leftist roots...

Of course, the NDP has a chance to permanently shift the political discourse in this country. The proof has never been stronger and popular will has never been more against neoliberal politics. The NDP have the opportunity to show true leadership and vision, promoting an alternative to every aspect of the capitalist policies which are destroying the social fabric. They can say that we and all Canadians believe in a society where everyone is clothed, fed, housed, cared for and valued; they can recognize our colonialist and imperialist past and make unprecedented strides to heal those wounds and create a true, just, equal and representative democracy which protects and strengthens its most marginalized and vulnerable. They can send a message to Bay Street that people matter before profits, that social justice and community co-operation are what truly mobilize, and have always mobilized an electorate. They can prove what Tariq Ali once told me after UK Labour had lost one of the safest seats in Britain: if you base your politics on a lie, you will get found out. Instead, they can prove the truism that courage is always, always rewarded. The opportunities presented to the NDP over the next four years are truly breathless.

I ask myself who among the candidates has the bravery to make this happen. And the answer does not inspire me.

socialdemocrati...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
In and around the Greater Toronto Area, there are a ton of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities that share working class values. But Liberals reached out to them 20-30 years ago, and they've maintained them easily as new immigrants arrive.

"Easily"???? Have you looked at the results in the GTA in the last federal election?

Otherwise, your post raises some good points about the difficulty about getting around the "classless" politics (though this is hardly by any means unique to immigrant and "ethnic" communities).

Well, easily, until recently :) These groups should be our next pickup. But there's just as much appeal in sticking with the Liberal party that was so good to them / their parents. And then there's the lure of false consciousness, shopped around by the Conservatives.

socialdemocrati...

Obama is the best viable option that America's got. But I'm glad I live here. In that country, Obama could never get away with single payer health care. Here, Harper could never get away with eliminating it.

Lord Palmerston

Michelle wrote:

Oh, and I don't agree that the Democrats are comparable to our Liberal Party.  I think the US Democrats are more on par with our Conservatives, actually.  The US Democrats who run the party oppose single-payer health care, oppose gay marriage, give bailout money to their corporate friends with no strings attached, and do as much religious pandering for votes as the Cons do here.

The US Democrats occupy the same space on the political spectrum as the Harpocons here.  US Democrats can only dream of their party being as progressive as the Liberal Party in Canada.  And that's setting the bar pretty damn low - I'm sure not complimenting the Liberal Party here.

I always find it kind of amusing when NDPers think Obama is "one of us" (as if the Democrats are part of the Socialist International!) and then go a tirade about the LPC being "right-wing."  For instance I'm FB friends with Sid Ryan and he posted something recently about how the US corporate media was "biased" against Obama, and I said something that they're no more biased against Obama than the media here is against Bob Rae (who is getting very favorable coverage these days, the media certainly wants us to think the LPC is the opposition).   He basically responded by saying Obama and Rae can't be compared because Rae is a right-wing sellout! (and Obama isn't???)

I'd say the LPC and Democrats are comparable in that they both represent the more "liberal" wings of the capitalist class. 

Fidel

I think the NDP's job is to shift Canadian politics anywhere toward the political centre. We are situated immediately nextdoor to a country that is the last bastion of far right political conservatism in the world, and this will be a tough slog considering how big money has influenced past election results in North America in general.

Most all of the English speaking countries still use dated FPTP electoral systems that favour exactly two big money parties, or one private property party pretending to be two. We need a united front on the left, and I think that scrapping FPTP and the very undemocratic senate would be a good place to start. This robocalls scandal proves that they are only really interested in appealing to/coercing  voters in swing ridings.

I still think the majority of Canadians want to support a Laurentian consensus of sorts as opposed to a Western agenda headed by the likes of Stephen Harper. Harper is a pretender, a divisive and fake leader. I think Canadians will vote strategically for the NDP next election. After that, for the first time in history Canadians will vote with their hearts and minds instead of out of fear of electing another Brian Mulroney or Steve Harper. And it will be a lot easier for a united front on the left to put in check the already unified right in Canada.

Lord Palmerston

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Obama is the best viable option that America's got. But I'm glad I live here. In that country, Obama could never get away with single payer health care. Here, Harper could never get away with eliminating it.

But proroguing Parliament and rigging elections?  Yes. 

wage zombie

Michelle wrote:

Oh, and I don't agree that the Democrats are comparable to our Liberal Party.  I think the US Democrats are more on par with our Conservatives, actually.  The US Democrats who run the party oppose single-payer health care, oppose gay marriage, give bailout money to their corporate friends with no strings attached, and do as much religious pandering for votes as the Cons do here.

The US Democrats occupy the same space on the political spectrum as the Harpocons here.  US Democrats can only dream of their party being as progressive as the Liberal Party in Canada.  And that's setting the bar pretty damn low - I'm sure not complimenting the Liberal Party here.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I always find it kind of amusing when NDPers think Obama is "one of us" (as if the Democrats are part of the Socialist International!) and then go a tirade about the LPC being "right-wing."  For instance I'm FB friends with Sid Ryan and he posted something recently about how the US corporate media was "biased" against Obama, and I said something that they're no more biased against Obama than the media here is against Bob Rae (who is getting very favorable coverage these days, the media certainly wants us to think the LPC is the opposition).   He basically responded by saying Obama and Rae can't be compared because Rae is a right-wing sellout! (and Obama isn't???)

I'd say the LPC and Democrats are comparable in that they both represent the more "liberal" wings of the capitalist class. 

The difference is the Canadian MSM is much less owned by the right wing establishment.  And that's a big difference.  A good chunk of the media in the USA is an extension of the right wing machine, and that's just not the case here.  No media figures these days are calling Bob Rae a radical Marxist.  No one would think of saying that Bob Rae wants death panels.

I'd put Obama solidly in the leftest 20% of currently elected USian politicians.  Sad but true.

socialdemocrati...

It's a few things that makes Canada better off than America. We have a three party system here, which makes for just a little more choice. We also have far more stringent campaign finance rules, which prevents a complete corporate takeover of Parliament the way they've taken over congress and the supreme court. And our media is certainly better. I wonder if that's because our education system is more egalitarian and so the audience expects more, or if that's because the CBC actually has a moderating effect on the other corporate networks. The last thing is we have a genuinely different political culture. Our health care system validates the idea that government can do good things. Sometimes I think it's more than a symptom of our leftward political culture, and it's actually a cause that keeps us believing in the mixed economy.

Ippurigakko

I see Green Party of USA is very closer to NDP than Green Party of Canada, they very similar platform.

josh

Michelle wrote:

Oh, and I don't agree that the Democrats are comparable to our Liberal Party.  I think the US Democrats are more on par with our Conservatives, actually.  The US Democrats who run the party oppose single-payer health care, oppose gay marriage, give bailout money to their corporate friends with no strings attached, and do as much religious pandering for votes as the Cons do here.

The US Democrats occupy the same space on the political spectrum as the Harpocons here.  US Democrats can only dream of their party being as progressive as the Liberal Party in Canada.  And that's setting the bar pretty damn low - I'm sure not complimenting the Liberal Party here.

Not entirely fair. I would say somewhere between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

josh

I would drop the "have" and the "to form the government" in the sentence, and you'd have the more pertinent question.

KenS

I dont like the frameing of the title- the kind of truncated or simplistic questions it tends to lead to.

The more or less classless one is interesting. But thats a different one. Many of us see a continued weakening of the old class basis of social democratic parties, and the NDP in particular, as inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. Loooked overall, maybe/probably for the best.

Plus, it needs to said that social democratic parties- and revolutionary socialist ones as well- have always been broad tents when it comes to class and the mass base. It is questionable whether they have changed any more than the social structure has.

At any rate, become 'more classless' is not necessarily the same thing as becoming more waterd down social democracy in goals.

Michelle

You think so, josh?  Convince me.  Tell me what the Democratic Party and the Conservative Party disagree on.

KenS

You also have to be careful about what you consider to be watered down goals. A lot of people in the NDP and the left in general still hold out for the possibility of the old goals of nationalizing ownership. While many of us pushing for a more aggressive social democracy than we get think that one belongs in the dustbin of history. [Not that there could not be exceptions.]

And no, I do not agree that is a reflection of generally lowered horizons. Nationalization is useless, possibly even worse than what we have, and would not help if we could have it with a snap of the fingers.

In assessing what is 'watered down' or what is progress in vision/goals the focus has to be on universally shared criteria. Social democrats vary on how devoted they are to working on inequality and income distribution- but improvement is a universaly shared goal. So is regulation of capitalism to a degree currently considered by the mainstrem to be 'umwarranted/undesirable interference'.

KenS

Nobody seems to be taking seriously the 'campaign from the centre, govern on the left'.

But to seal the deal: a lot of people thing the Hrper Cons did/do the opposite, but its not true. They did not, and neither can we.

Only the recently but not necessarily permanently departed "natural governing party" can do blatant bait and switch.

The visceral dislike lefties have of Harper and company blind them to the reality that in the main the Conservatives have told Candians what they are going to get. Clever and manipulative about it. Certainly not forthright in 'ful disclosure' of where this is going. But no bait and switch.

autoworker

I think the question would be better framed if asked: "Is a U.S. Democratic Party paradigm necessary to counter the U.S. Republican paradigm currently governing Canada?

josh

Michelle wrote:

You think so, josh?  Convince me.  Tell me what the Democratic Party and the Conservative Party disagree on.

The Democratic party is overwhelming pro-choice, there may be a pro-gay marriage plank in this year's platform, they advance policies (albeit fitfully) that tend to advance the role of government in the economy, they generally oppose cuts to the social safety net.

Moreover, while I get the impression that rank and file Conservatives are to the right of their leadership, rank and file Democrats are to the left of their leadership.  The problem for Democratic leadership in fighting for more progressive policies relates a great deal to the nature of the political system in the U.S.  With its division between the executive and the legislature, and the Senate filibuster.  And that members of congress can vote against their leadership with little fear of reprisal.  I suspect that if you surveyed an average Liberal and an average Democrat, there would be little to separate them.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The main difference between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Democratic Party of the United States is that the latter is basically a party of the (entitled) status quo, whereas the former is ideologically bent on dragging Canada far to the right of the political spectrum and dismantling what little social democracy Canadians have managed to build over the last hundred and fifty-odd years.

socialdemocrati...

KenS wrote:

I dont like the frameing of the title- the kind of truncated or simplistic questions it tends to lead to.

...

At any rate, become 'more classless' is not necessarily the same thing as becoming more waterd down social democracy in goals.

On point.

Also agree with your follow-up post about nationalization. There are some ancient social democratic ideas that are more trouble than they're worth. I can't think of many industries that, in the context of a global economy, would be better off with a national provider. Auto insurance (at the provincial level) maybe.

Petro Canada is a good example. There were good intentions behind it: reduce the price of gas. But with the inevitabilities of peak oil, and the pressures of the international fuel supply, gas prices went up anyway. Meanwhile, other companies that sold gas at full price fared better, and Canadians were assuming the economic risk if Petro Canada found itself in trouble. Even if we managed to reduce the price of gas slightly by internalizing the profits back into the price... It was fighting a losing battle. It was sticking our finger in the metaphorical levee.

And on top of all that, "Western alienation".

Compare that to merely regulatating the shit out of the tar sands, forcing them to build refineries domestically, and investing in green energy infrastructure. Not only are all those things better politics -- an easier sell across the country. They actually have a hope of reducing the *demand* for oil, reducing gas prices in a more sustainable way, and creating more jobs here that we can maintain.

I mean we can argue about the nitty gritty of policy. But nationalization is political suicide, and offers marginal benefits beyond what we could do with a few well placed regulations and incentives. Which is still far more than what the Harper would do.

Lord Palmerston

adma wrote:
Well...maintained until relatively recently.  But don't forget cases like Bramalea-Gore-Malton and Scarborough-Rouge River...

Yes, these pickups were a surprise to many including myself.  The NDP ran very strong local candidates and made inroads in the Sikh and Tamil communities in the last election.  The people at Project Democracy had no clue about what was going on at the ground level and in BGM wrongly thought that it was a Liberal/Tory race rather than an NDP/Tory race.

Lord Palmerston

josh wrote:
there may be a pro-gay marriage plank in this year's platform

Wow, in 2012 they might consider supporting gay marriage?  How progressive!  

(I agree the Harper Conservatives however are more supportive of the neoliberal orthodoxy than the Obama Democrats are right now.) 

socialdemocrati...

I figure the Democrats now occupy same relative space as the Progressive Conservatives when they were up against the Reform. See the 1990s, or present day Alberta for their positioning. They don't play up the same bigotry, and they don't campaign against social services, but do end up cutting them in the name of "fiscal responsibility".

Lord Palmerston

That sounds a lot like the LPC.  

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, that's been the LPC since Trudeau's last days. They're more or less PCs.

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:

adma wrote:
Well...maintained until relatively recently.  But don't forget cases like Bramalea-Gore-Malton and Scarborough-Rouge River...

Yes, these pickups were a surprise to many including myself.  The NDP ran very strong local candidates and made inroads in the Sikh and Tamil communities in the last election.  The people at Project Democracy had no clue about what was going on at the ground level and in BGM wrongly thought that it was a Liberal/Tory race rather than an NDP/Tory race.

And, y'know; there could be a lot more like them, if the NDP's enterprising in its candidacies and campaigns.  Which'd turn the whole "redistribution favours the Tories" theorem on its head...

Lord Palmerston

KenS wrote:
Nationalization is useless, possibly even worse than what we have, and would not help if we could have it with a snap of the fingers.

You state that as if it's as self-evident as the sun rising in the east.

KenS

Sorry if it sounds that way.

It is this:

- it is a firmly held opinion

- it is firmly held by a big swath of the party, and cutting across ideological lines.

- there are a lot of people in the party who dont have strong opinions. IE, they neither have a particular attraction to going back there, nor rule it out.

- but there are a lot more of us firmly opposed to ever going back there than those of you who would like to and figure the opportunity will arise. We just dont have to express it since the laissez faire de facto direction of the party is against going back there.

There would have to be a groundswell majoritarian demand to bring nationalization back into active NDP policy, or even policy possibilities. And it ain't going to happen. That will be chalked up to the establishment stopping it, blah, blah. But it wont fly because there is too much of the grassroots ready to shoot it down if it ever looked serious.

Lord Palmerston

Catchfire wrote:
Of course, the NDP has a chance to permanently shift the political discourse in this country. The proof has never been stronger and popular will has never been more against neoliberal politics. The NDP have the opportunity to show true leadership and vision, promoting an alternative to every aspect of the capitalist policies which are destroying the social fabric. They can say that we and all Canadians believe in a society where everyone is clothed, fed, housed, cared for and valued; they can recognize our colonialist and imperialist past and make unprecedented strides to heal those wounds and create a true, just, equal and representative democracy which protects and strengthens its most marginalized and vulnerable. They can send a message to Bay Street that people matter before profits, that social justice and community co-operation are what truly mobilize, and have always mobilized an electorate. They can prove what Tariq Ali once told me after UK Labour had lost one of the safest seats in Britain: if you base your politics on a lie, you will get found out. Instead, they can prove the truism that courage is always, always rewarded. The opportunities presented to the NDP over the next four years are truly breathless.

Very good, I very much agree with this but like Michelle I certainly agree they don't "have to" but they are very likely to do so.  Shifting the discourse is harder work, and it's easier to "go where the votes are."  But Tariq Ali is right, eventually you will be found out.

So I keep hearing from many social democrats that class-based politics and nationalization was OK in the 1960s but not today...why is that? My question is why someone in say a routine white-collar occupation is inherently less "socialist" and less open to a redistributionist platform or a class-based appeal than an industrial worker? I would think given the changes in the capitalist structure, redistributionist politics would have to move leftward because capitalism isn't so accommodating anymore, as it was during the prosperous "Keynesian" postwar times.  But the response has generally to be more accomodating to the new capitalism.

There's indeed a contradiction in social democracy in that the ability to pursue reforms (that are opposed by capital) depends on a healthy capitalist economy.  

KenS

Less "socialist" and less class based does NOT at all necessarily even imply less into a redistributionist platform [and a more fulsomely regulationist one].

A lot of us think that nationalization was a failed experiment. We are not uninterested in going back there simply because it would be a vote losing albatross. We're just not interested in going there period, anyway.

And since getting a more fulsomely and unapologetic redistributionist and regulationsist social democratic agenda is already going to be a hard slog, why shed tears that a lot of us who want that have NO interest in the old socialist nostrums.

Goodbye Lenin. Goodbye Kautsky. And goodbye Bernstein as well. Sayonara.

If you want to have a left with some mass, then you are going just going to have to get over that.

And explain to me the relevance of 'how accomodating capitalism is'?  We have to fight for the crumbs let alone dispossesing them. They arent the problem. The problem is the interest or lack thereof of the working class. The deadweight socialist nostrums arent going to help with that.

Lord Palmerston

I don't recall even mentioning nationalization initially, I think you did, and others have trotted out the abandoning of nationalization presumably as a means of saying that the "old ways" don't work anymore.  It's funny how people invoke "nationalization" as a caricature of postwar social democracy, given that it was only a small part.  It was during the 1950s revisionism that the emphasis on public ownership was dropped and the idea of working with capitalism with Keynesian welfare state measures etc. was embraced.

Lord Palmerston

KenS wrote:
Goodbye Lenin. Goodbye Kautsky. And goodbye Bernstein as well. Sayonara.

If you want to have a left with some mass, then you are going just going to have to get over that.

I don't recall mentioning any of these people. 

KenS

They belong in the discussion whether you mentioned them or not.

Except that too many people dont know what the relevance in, so its like shop talk jargon.

Pages

Topic locked