NDP Preamble Missing
October 12, 2011 - 1:36am
I checked the NDP website today and found that the Constitution had recently been restored. It went missing before last June's convention.
But the preamble of the Constitution has been deleted. The Party Executive tried but failed at Convention to replace the preamble, with its reference to democratic socialism and the primacy of human needs over private profit; a watered down version was proposed instead, drawn up by dessicated party insiders.
Since the proposed amendment was never approved--the resolution was tabled--the original preamble remains in force. So where is it and why has it mysteriously disappeared?
Kady O'Malley wonders too.
Disgraceful. What a bunch of cowards.
Here are links to the Constitution in English and French.
Bring back the preamble. It seems like the closer the Party gets to governing, the more of its soul it sells.
The main point to be noted here is that only Convention can amend the Party's Constitution--and by a minimum 2/3 majority. The Executive's efforts to excise the current preamble failed. Ergo, the preamble remains in force. So where the hell is it?
It discloses a breathtaking arrogance on the part of the Federal party's hierarchy to presume to delete those sections of the Constitution that don't suit them. Of course it's possible, though highly improbable, that the deletion was accidental. They may be hamfisted and even ruthless at times, but no one can accuse the higher ups in the party of gross incompetence.
I suggest that members and supporters inundate the Federal Office, and that of their local NDP MP, to demand that this "accidental" omission be rectified without delay.
If there is a case to change the Preamble, let the Executive present their case for it. This hiding game does not do any good. In politics, having a "hidden agenda" is almost always way worse than having an unpopular one.
Maybe someone should ask Brian Topp what happened to the preamble?
Obviously whoever is hiding it does not have the best interests of the party at heart. Brian Topp was clearly involved as he felt the need to involve himself on the floor of the convention and stopping it from even reaching a vote. How can we even think of electing someone for leader of our party that doesn't even care about the identity of the party?
Its not accidental, and its very old news. They use to hide the entire constituion. The source of this is probably the PR department.
I would be careful in assuming the new preamble was destined to fail. I would also be careful in assuming one single man is behind all of this, when there were individuals above this person in prestige and power within the party. I do also believe that this individual was only recently(if not at all) elected to this position at the time.
The reasoning behind this is they probably are afraid the media will drive the impression that they are interested in nationalizing everything that moves. Remember, only until recently under a small bit of pressure did they release who was on the federal council. I do think that future preambles should use different/modern language to stress promotion of a economically viable balance between co-ops/state/etc.
But maybe that's what everyone wants! Could be a good platform to have.
But maybe that's what everyone wants! Could be a good platform to have.
Yeah what's wrong with nationalization? If you have a party of privatization you should have an opposing party of nationalization. It is only natural.
@dacckon Of course, it is not just one person behind the hiding of the preamble but we do know that Brian Topp was involved because he stood up at the convention to stop the discussion.
Also, I don't think the new preamble was destined to fail, I was truly worried it would pass just like I was worried when the Liberal motion failed to pass.
It's been quite obvious for some time that socialism, or having anything to do with socialists, has become a source of embarrassment for the NDP. They're not in to you anymore. Just accept it and move on.
It's been quite obvious for some time that socialism, or having anything to do with socialists, has become a source of embarrassment for the NDP. They're not in to you anymore. Just accept it and move on.
Don't think so
First comes the denial stage...and then the stalking of celebrity NDP MPs by their biggest fans no doubt, shouting 'we love u.'
I am not in denial... it is obvious the NDP is trying to get rid of the socialists and when they succeed the party will be nothing more than the New Liberal Party...not a bad name what do you think?
You do realize that Tony Blair directly put the words "democratic socialist" in the labour party's constitution. The title does not matter, titles mean nothing in the long run of things. Actions and specific upheld promises is what will matter. And most important, the members of the party are what matters, for they are the ones who will ultimately decide what the party is.
The difference between socialist and social democrat is nationalization.
Socialism is a word used by many. Libertarian socialists might not agree with state socialism. There are many different schools of socialism. What about the ideas of syndicalism and all sorts of variants? How can we balance both the ideas of co-ops, state industies, etc?
The modern question now is how do we create a better economic system in an era of globalization? The most interesting example that the world is perhaps still not ready to move forward(as the move from feudalism to capitalism did not take one day) is subsidies. Do you agree that western farmers should be subsidized? Brazil, an emerging country, would incredibly disagree with this approach and for good reason. Perhaps this is my own opinion, but species did not gain a whole set of new traits in one day, they evolved quite slowly.
I'd be somewhat happier if they decided to revert back to mixed market capitalism instead of this neofeudal order that exists now. At least then we could get back to the ol' worker versus parasite confrontations. It's difficult to demand living wages and better working conditions, and hell, just some working conditions in general when the bastards have offshored so much of the means of production. 15 years ago they sent our jobs to Mexico. Today the jobs have gone all the way to China and Asia in general. We don't make so much as a hair pin in Bananada anymore. It's no wonder our corrupt stooges have run up such ginormous national and provincial debts and couldn't balance the books if their lives depended on it. It's almost as if they don't want the country to be able to pay the bills. It's almost as if they want their banker friends and foreign banksters to have more control of Canada than Canadians or any government we might democratically elect in future. It's almost as if they are ensuring that any future democratic decisions are renderered null and void by supranational corporations and the financial elite running the world. Their feigning political impotence is tantamount to invisible hand ideology made new again. The Bay Street and Wall Street Occupiers are not falling for it, though. People seem to be figuring out that the impotence is not real.
But maybe that's what everyone wants! Could be a good platform to have.
Yeah what's wrong with nationalization? If you have a party of privatization you should have an opposing party of nationalization. It is only natural.
@dacckon Of course, it is not just one person behind the hiding of the preamble but we do know that Brian Topp was involved because he stood up at the convention to stop the discussion.
Also, I don't think the new preamble was destined to fail, I was truly worried it would pass just like I was worried when the Liberal motion failed to pass.
Just because Brian Topp moved to refer the preamble (which was the responsible thing to do) does not necessarily mean that he was involved in excising it from the constitution on the web site. You may have noticed he is no longer the Party President. I believe that the new preamble should never have been allowed on the floor in the first place.
Socialism is a word used by many. Libertarian socialists might not agree with state socialism. There are many different schools of socialism. What about the ideas of syndicalism and all sorts of variants? How can we balance both the ideas of co-ops, state industies, etc?
The modern question now is how do we create a better economic system in an era of globalization? The most interesting example that the world is perhaps still not ready to move forward(as the move from feudalism to capitalism did not take one day) is subsidies. Do you agree that western farmers should be subsidized? Brazil, an emerging country, would incredibly disagree with this approach and for good reason. Perhaps this is my own opinion, but species did not gain a whole set of new traits in one day, they evolved quite slowly.
The question is how do we create a sustainable and resilient economic system (or economic systems). If you are going to limit your analysis to globalization then I think you will have a flawed solution. Peak Oil will bring an end to the age of globalization in any case. Sometimes evolution occurred very quickly, at least in terms of geologic time. Certalnly extinction can happen quickly.
But maybe that's what everyone wants! Could be a good platform to have.
Yeah what's wrong with nationalization? If you have a party of privatization you should have an opposing party of nationalization. It is only natural.
@dacckon Of course, it is not just one person behind the hiding of the preamble but we do know that Brian Topp was involved because he stood up at the convention to stop the discussion.
Also, I don't think the new preamble was destined to fail, I was truly worried it would pass just like I was worried when the Liberal motion failed to pass.
Just because Brian Topp moved to refer the preamble (which was the responsible thing to do) does not necessarily mean that he was involved in excising it from the constitution on the web site. You may have noticed he is no longer the Party President. I believe that the new preamble should never have been allowed on the floor in the first place.
Well obviously we will never know who was involved in excising it from the constitution on the website or who tried to change it at the convention but if we wait for evidence we wil wait forever. And whoever is doing it will keep screwing us over. Topp was involved. Why else would he stand up at the convention? Are u saying he was against the idea of changing the preamble? Yes it should not have been allowed on the floor. I remember at the session where we tweek the resolutions Brad Lavigne was there keeping an eye on the preceedings. Who knows who did it?
I will work on assumptions until I am proven wrong, they are all I have and may ever have
Socialism is a word used by many. Libertarian socialists might not agree with state socialism. There are many different schools of socialism. What about the ideas of syndicalism and all sorts of variants? How can we balance both the ideas of co-ops, state industies, etc?
The modern question now is how do we create a better economic system in an era of globalization? The most interesting example that the world is perhaps still not ready to move forward(as the move from feudalism to capitalism did not take one day) is subsidies. Do you agree that western farmers should be subsidized? Brazil, an emerging country, would incredibly disagree with this approach and for good reason. Perhaps this is my own opinion, but species did not gain a whole set of new traits in one day, they evolved quite slowly.
The question is how do we create a sustainable and resilient economic system (or economic systems). If you are going to limit your analysis to globalization then I think you will have a flawed solution. Peak Oil will bring an end to the age of globalization in any case. Sometimes evolution occurred very quickly, at least in terms of geologic time. Certalnly extinction can happen quickly.
I believe in Libertarian socialism but I believe we are from from any type of system like that. That will be the result of a perfected State Socialism where the state is properly regulated without a market system.
http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/chomsky-lecture-sept-7th-2011-libertarian-socialism
For now, in Canada, State Socialism is our only option, that or Third Way
Topp and Lavigne went on record before the Convention to make the case for replacing the current preamble with their anemic draft version. Rather than circulating the draft preamble to members ahead of time to solicit their input, or at least issuing a position paper setting out the rationale for a new preamble, the party establishment chose to communicate its message through sound-bytes in the corporate media, knowing full well that their arguments would be covered sympathetically and in a one-sided way. Naturally the media were all in favour of the NDP renouncing democratic socialism and the values with which it is associated, including the primacy of social needs over private profit (as proclaimed in the current preamble).
Deletion of the preamble from the Constitution--i.e., from the version of it now posted on the party website--is no accident. It is indicative of the lengths to which powerful and unaccountable party functionaries are prepared to go these days to advance their own views and interests. In this case, they have shown a brazen disregard for the Constitution itself and for the democratic rules by which the NDP governs itself. When did it become acceptable for party bureaucrats to pick and choose which sections of the Constitution are fit to be published or, worse yet, which sections shall be deemed to be operative?
It's high time to identify and hold accountable those anonymous people at the top who consider the NDP to be their plaything.
But maybe that's what everyone wants! Could be a good platform to have.
Yeah what's wrong with nationalization? If you have a party of privatization you should have an opposing party of nationalization. It is only natural.
@dacckon Of course, it is not just one person behind the hiding of the preamble but we do know that Brian Topp was involved because he stood up at the convention to stop the discussion.
Also, I don't think the new preamble was destined to fail, I was truly worried it would pass just like I was worried when the Liberal motion failed to pass.
Just because Brian Topp moved to refer the preamble (which was the responsible thing to do) does not necessarily mean that he was involved in excising it from the constitution on the web site. You may have noticed he is no longer the Party President. I believe that the new preamble should never have been allowed on the floor in the first place.
Well obviously we will never know who was involved in excising it from the constitution on the website or who tried to change it at the convention but if we wait for evidence we wil wait forever. And whoever is doing it will keep screwing us over. Topp was involved. Why else would he stand up at the convention? Are u saying he was against the idea of changing the preamble? Yes it should not have been allowed on the floor. I remember at the session where we tweek the resolutions Brad Lavigne was there keeping an eye on the preceedings. Who knows who did it?
I will work on assumptions until I am proven wrong, they are all I have and may ever have
Someone needed to stand up at Convention and move to refer it, as we were wasting our time on the floor discussing a preamble that did not deserve to be on the floor, although I felt his remarks were a little condescending. Of course he was in favour of changing the preamble, but he wants overwhelming support, and he knew that even if it passed it would be close. I'm comfortable with changing the preamble, but not to what was proposed, and certainly not without prior consultation. I don't think it would have passed, but it might have been too close for comfort. Had I been thinking I would have tried to move it to the bottom of the list during the preliminary session (and I did ask Lavigne where it had come from and he said it was enabled by a resolution at the Halifax Convention, which I only vaguely remember and would like to see the wording of). I suggest that most if not all of the leadership candidates would like to see the preamble changed, but not neccessarily to remove Democratic Socialism in favour of Social Democracy.
Who is the new President? The new National Director is Chantal Vallerand. They should be asked about this.
oh please! Why don't you ask by sending the party an email instead of doing all this angst and conjecture. Personally I'm tired of this witch hunting by some (or so it appears), instead of first getting the facts first and discussing it. Of course, maybe the real purpose is to do bashing and all of some within the party and services the "real" purpose.
I believe I agree with you jfb, if you are suggesting that concentration on a preamble at this point is a crock and is being raised, perhaps, for nefarious reasons. Just more of the timeless and tiring concerns for language rather than action on behalf of the marginalized and dispossesed...indeed, counterproductive as hell where it comes to helping those in need.
Or do I misinterpret?
Maybe you don't see how it is important but I do and obviously so do the people trying to hide the preamble
Yes, it could be very important, wielded by the enemies of democratic socialism...right or left. Destructive when fed to a mainstreet that is in the hands of the MSM, our friends.
"We must bury our constitutional principles, lest our enemies use them against us!"
Yes you are right we should hide our beliefs in case our enmies use our beliefs against us
In case you didn't notice there are thousands of people on the streets complaining about capitalism
I haven't heard any complain about the rise of the NDP or what it stands for. And you mustn't ever read,watch,listen to the mainstream media in their intent, watchful, salivating preparedness to f..k over the party and frighten those millions who are not out waving placards.
I don't believe we have to appeal to the occupiers of Wall Street. In the states, democratic socialists are the subject of surveillance. But then, perhaps the whole electoral procedure is boring for you?
At least be on their side, eh?
At least be on their side, eh?
It would be very difficult for anyone not to be, hereabouts, having waited for signs of life on mainstreet for a half century now. I'll bet you've noticed the signs of acquiescence to capitalist ways on the lower north shore for some time now Boom Boom. ? :)
No matter what they change the preamble to or whatever the NDP calls itself we will always be labeled socialists by big business and the Torys. When we run from it like you are suggesting it gives validation to their scare tactics.
I tell you one thing, if the NDP wins and the business community ISNT freaking out then there is something to be worried about.
You'd think that at least some worrying should have commenced by now though, with the recent status improvements.
Does anyone have links to the actual preamble and the proposed replacement?
Ha!
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that folks here on the LNS are seeing signs of capitalism's failure everywhere. The latest occurred in early spring of this year when the Newfoundland company that owns the fish plant in La Tabatiere decided not to open the plant this year, throwing roughly 100 folks out of work in what is a seasonal industry. The Mayor - who used to be the Liberal candidate here, and a good friend of mine - has been scrambling since then for job opportunities in the region, and some make-work programs funded by gov't have been found, but clearly these are not a long range solution. That same Newfoundland company shut down the fish plant here - forcing Kegaska workers to leave this community and head out west to the oil sands, or up north to work as construction labourers or at fishing camps as guides. A few were hired on here to unload the fishing boats onto a 'collector boat' which sends all the crab to Natashquan where it is all loaded onto huge refrigerated tractor trailers for processing in Montreal, Japan, and points south - all this processing of crab used to be done here on the coast - now I think there's only one crab processing plant on the entire Lower North Shore. With the closing of the fish plants, I estimate that well over 200 good paying (seasonal) jobs supplemented by UIC on the LNS have been lost, so it's no wonder that the LNS is going down in population as folks look for jobs elsewhere.
ETA: it really pisses me off that local crab is sent to Montreal and Japan for processing - we did that here, and communities prospered.
Does anyone have links to the actual preamble and the proposed replacement?
Check out the Kady O'Malley link in the opening post above. She gives links to the existing preamble, the proposed change that was tabled at the convention, and the mutilated version of the constitution that the NDP is presenting at present.
No matter what they change the preamble to or whatever the NDP calls itself we will always be labeled socialists by big business and the Torys. When we run from it like you are suggesting it gives validation to their scare tactics.
I tell you one thing, if the NDP wins and the business community ISNT freaking out then there is something to be worried about.
kw, when mainstreet begins to show at least a smidgin' of understanding regarding the several variants of "socialist", when they can laugh at the negative ads of the right, and the sad scribblings of the hacks - understand what Chris Hedges is saying - I'll be all for flying the socialist flag. But in the current climate where folks are titillated by the brave words of the Don Cherrys and the Kevin O'Learys, it seems too much like a masochistic exercise. I'm not into self-flagellation just to satisfy some inner, noble sentiment.
I suppose it all depends on what sort of banner one is willing to stand under come hell or highwater, the Cherry-O'Leary's be damned.
Socialism yesterday and socialism tomorrow, but never socialism today.
I suppose it all depends on what sort of banner one is willing to stand under come hell or highwater, the Cherry-O'Leary's be damned.
That's the self-defeating, noble sentiment, exactly. Bang on.
Apparently with some strains of modern socialism, that old fashioned noble sentiment, where one is never called upon to contemplate the merits of imperial bombing against the citizens of other countries, constitutes an embarrassing anachronism that has no place within today's progressive momentum. The rest of us are left to wonder whether they've grounded their particular version of socialism with background research from the correct Marx.
Even moreso. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the NDP provincial governments have been pretty accomodating to the business community and yet the right wing press continues to make them out to be tax-and-spend socialists. In the last few years of the Calvert government, if you read the press, you would have had the impression that the Bolsheviks were about to take over Douglas Park any day.
I suppose it all depends on what sort of banner one is willing to stand under come hell or highwater, the Cherry-O'Leary's be damned.
If you want a party that is market-friendly and still believes in a strong social safety net isn't that what Liberals are?
What defines the NDP is its anti-capitalist stance. It is not something to be afraid of as we can see there is a quite a wave of anti-capitalist sentiment.
Also, socialism is an ideology ahead of its time, eventually the world will catch up with it.
I suppose it all depends on what sort of banner one is willing to stand under come hell or highwater, the Cherry-O'Leary's be damned.
If you want a party that is market-friendly and still believes in a strong social safety net isn't that what Liberals are?
What defines the NDP is its anti-capitalist stance. It is not something to be afraid of as we can see there is a quite a wave of anti-capitalist sentiment.
Also, socialism is an ideology ahead of its time, eventually the world will catch up with it.
kn, I'm not "market friendly", but I'm living off pensions that are market-dependent. Somehow we have to make it possible to invest in state ventures that are morally and environmentally sustainable. Perhaps in Slow Money, lower returns from investment in basic agriculture. How to get to that utopian condition has been my concern for some four decades now, and I'm running out of time, but it keeps my brain active, reading what others have to say on the subject. And if the media are going to continue poisoning and corrupting mainstreet - and in reading Hedges I see no light at the end of the tunnel - I'm just going to go a bit opaque, like the Occupiers of Streets, but holding steady to socialist objectives.
A rose by any other name.... :)
And you think a social democratic government that doesn't stand for nationalization has a chance of taking on capitalism in this country and the world?
Consider the situation where a party has somehow come to elected power and it proposes nationalizing the means of production...and all those workers with pensions riding on the success of all that industry, acquiesce. Read my last post again.
Fundamental change is coming, kn. And not much of it will be pretty. But as Hedges, Wolin, et al maintain, we must be in a position to lead that change or our "inverted totalitarianism" becomes the real McCoy, and there's boo-all that we could do about it in democratic fashion. In fact, democracy would be very unfashionable. And as Joe Bageant explained, it's his family and their friends that have the guns. (It always mystified me, back in the 1960s when I still picked up a shotgun from time to time, that the revolutionaries would not hear of gun ownerhip. Even while pointing out that Allende should have armed the workers...somehow, without exciting the military.
I disagree. I think real fascism would be easier to fight against then the inverted variety we have now. True fascism is obviously a problem, what we have is not obvious to most people. And as long as you keep advocating moderation of anti-capitalist sentiment you are feeding the inverted totalitarianism.
You keep worrying about your pension and the powers that be know they got you by the balls.
I disagree. I think real fascism would be easier to fight against then the inverted variety we have now. True fascism is obviously a problem, what we have is not obvious to most people. And as long as you keep advocating moderation of anti-capitalist sentiment you are feeding the inverted totalitarianism.
You keep worrying about your pension and the powers that be know they got you by the balls.
Tell that, my friend, to all those folks working toward something for their golden years. I'm past that point, one of the really lucky generation,rode in on the cusp of the welfare state, missed the Great Depression, the war and what's about to happen.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of real people - those folk for whom it's now "not obvious" - when you "THINK real fascism would be easier to fight."
Tell that to all the people of my generation who don't even have a prospect for a pension and you want me to worry about you and your pension.
I blame the baby boomers. Oh, wait, I am one.
A new explanation for your name I see.
I've decided to come clean.
Tell that to all the people of my generation who don't even have a prospect for a pension and you want me to worry about you and your pension.
Dear old kn, you keep repeating that I'm worried about my pension and that I'm appealing for your sympathy. Some oldtimers I know are in a bad way. I'm not. In about two years, that will not be a concern for anyone.
No, I'm worried about how you and your generation and my family - I must admit I'm worried about my family more than about you - will be right up against it, suffering from what I'm concerned about now.
Kn, gather all your 20 or 30 something friends, fill them in on the political economy of the world, and lead them out to glory, free of lamentation.
But please, don't keep saying that I'm worried about me. Far too late for that. However, I manage to bear up with a good bar, a couple of good friends, and an active mental life, reading or skimming two or three new non-fiction works each month. Oh, and did I mention that I keep a good bar? :)
Sorry I don't drink.
Good news! The preamble has miraculously re-appeared:
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2011/2011-constitution/2011-11-CONSTITUTION-ENG.pdf
All right! Thank you whoever is in charge of that!
The word "socialism" may be back in the preamble, but it's not really a part of the party itself.
The NDP has evolved into a party much like the others. There is little political ferment. Riding association meetings, party conferences and provincial and federal conventions are not occasions for basic debate and education about the state of society and what needs to be done, but rather focus on fundraising, holding raffles and showcasing the leader for the media. The only time when there is genuine democracy in the NDP is during leadership campaigns. At least during these intervals, real debate becomes possible. Once the leader is chosen, however, party policy, decided on at conventions, is ignored. That has been the case for decades. Between leadership campaigns, the leader, surrounded by his or her inner staff and pollsters, determines the political course of the party.
The campaigns of the party establishment to replace the Regina Manifesto with the Winnipeg Declaration in 1956 (which effectively replaced socialism with the humanization of capitalism as the party's objective), to suppress the Waffle in the early 1970s (to eliminate a grassroots movement that sought to move the party to the left) and to contain the New Politics Initiative a number of years ago were episodes in a decades-old effort to make vote-winning the paramount, almost exclusive, legitimate activity of the party.