The Left is Left Behind
An interesting piece on the CCPA site by senior editor Ed Finn. In it, Finn address the following: If the left is right, politically, why isn't it more popular? A good catalyst for discussion, even if many NDPers will, no doubt, feel under attack.
But that's only fair. It's the NDP, as the largest organized force on the left, that has been such an utter failure to address alternatives to neo-liberal orthodoxy and failed to abandon that repulsive prejudice and allergy to socialist ideas.
In Canada, the Harper government's response has been similarly skewed.
The following gives a taste of Finn's remarks on the left...
Comments
I don't mean to imply that Finn is wrong about everything. Hardly.
But we really have to pardon the cliche, "think outside the box." And, in the final analysis, Finn, like almost everyone, keeps wanting to fight battles on the ground of our opponents choosing-- not just choosing, but ground of their own creation.
The wierd thing is that for, geez, a couple of decades at least, the left have been the conservatives, in that we have been trying to preserve this, protect that, advocate against this change or that. The right have been the agents of change.
We've been too long on the deffensive. Way, way too long.
Sure, he invokes he visage of St. Tommy, and laments the absence of strong leadership:
"The closest we’ve come to socialism in Canada was the CCF-NDP government Tommy Douglas headed in Saskatchewan. It was the government that, among its many accomplishments, overcame powerful medical, business and media opposition to bring public health care to this country. Political leadership and courage of that magnitude are nowhere to be seen in Canada today. The tendency is to shun any policy that might harm a party’s credibility or incur the wrath of the rich and powerful."
Sure, he laments the lack of leadership and courage, but if you read the last sentence you quoted (and the rest of Finn's column!) you will see he is lamenting primarily the lack of socialist policies, not individual political saviours.
Canadians have turned their backs on most of the NDP's socialist policies and some of the best leaders this country never had. Big money buys government in Ottawa. And now that the second-hand ideology is flopping again in a major way, the two old line big money parties are having to prop each up for a lack of voter enthusiasm. It's the democracy gap in Canada - it's become a gaping chasm.
We've been too long on the deffensive. Way, way too long.
This is consistent with Finn's claims. The failure to elaborate genuine, i.e., socialist, alternatives to neo-liberal orthodoxy in addition to defending past gains is precisely what he's addressing here.
I dont buy that. Canadians would not vote for socialist economic policies today in any greater numbers than they did in the 84, 88, and 93 elections. Liberals lied about opposing neoliberal free trade deals and balanced budgets at the expense of workers and the unemployed, and now what we have are voter turnouts that arent much better than in the US. The US doesnt want to trade freely with Canada - they want to dominate Canada. That's what the two old line parties are paid to make happen.
With the capitalist system in North America you get two flavours of democracy, chocolate and vanilla and always from the same old cow with taxpayers owning the end of the beast that wants feeding always. Those are the choices. It's actually duller and greyer than Soviet communism. It's rust
How can there be socialist policies without a socialist government? Are people voting against socialist politics or a weak capitalist party?
You are teetering on the edge of the answer, FM
The people haven't the foggiest idea of a way out, anymore. The environmental challenge on top of disappearance of the historical social relationships within capitalism (and consumer fetishism) make it all too much.
But, then, as you have pointed out, FM, there ain't a helluva lot of believable political-economic thought given over to national survival or global, evident hereabouts, either.
More or less, based on the observation that anything spoken of endearingly that comes prefixed with the word "New" has a familiar ring to it along the lines as you describe.
"The Left is Left Behind" for good reasons, and this thread describes them in outline, none of them having to do with the attachment of prefixes.
FM ran a thread, beginning in 2006, a saga that lists (it's active again) the many ways in which homo sapiens sapiens is fouling his nest. Three years ago, it began to be difficult to deny our species incredible penchant for self-destruction. A political cartoon by Gable from September,2007, shows a couple of people boating in Arctic waters, one saying: "Wonderful news! The unprecedented rate of Arctic ice melting...attributed by a growing number of scientists to global warming...will open to development vast untaped reserves of gas and oil!
A nearby, tiny cake of ice, barely supports two polar bears. One turns to the other and observes, reflecting on the "wonderful news" statement: "Homo sapiens - noun - latin translation - wise man".
One year earlier, another cartoonist had posed his subjects, a man and his son, in the living room of their house. The man is reading a "Hummer...User's Manual". He turns to his son and says:"Yes, the earth is getting hotter than ever and yes, its probably due to human activity. But I'll let you in on a little secret no other adult will ever tell you...we actually don't care about our kids' future."
In Canada, the "left" that appears on ballots across the country is unable to describe a way out of this environmental dilemma without being labelled radical and a threat to the finely balanced workings of an economy that is still expected to provide jobs and retirement in some sort of decent conditions - even if the "55 and out" mirage of tropical beaches is fading like the small print on that Asset Backed Commercial Paper. This is FM's "status quo", of dreams of a lifestyle that was laid down in postwar plenty, but faced with more than disappearing ice floes in the Arctic as a result of that lifestyle.
FM has been reading some more economics, lately, and finds, perhaps, a small ray of light in that dark world in the works of Jeff Rubin, late of the CIBC World Markets world.
Perhaps an economics that recognizes our dependency on fossil fuels will fuel a realistic political philosophy. But we have to deal with the reality of a despairing electorate and the bait and switch work of their tacticians in the meantime. And the meaningless offerings of the voyeurs hereabouts will certainly not lead to solutions for this immediate political crisis.
How can there be socialist policies without a socialist government? Are people voting against socialist politics or a weak capitalist party?
I think that of the Canadians who do vote, they vote for their interests. According to the last federal election, 22% of registered voters believed that Tories represent their interests. Somewhere less than that are Liberal Party supporters. Support for the old line parties combined is a couple of centimetres deep but a kilometre wide. It used to be a mile wide during the prosperous cold war era when no end could be seen for capitalist economic expansion.
And then there is the NDP with our 2.54 cm wide but kilometre deep support. We would need to spend as much money propagandizing the public as what those other two big money parties spend. We'd need a war chest of comparable amount in order to compete with the autocratic parties. Rules for sports say teams can't pay off the refs, so why should money be allowed in politics? Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always will be.
the difference between the left and the right is that the right HAS TO spend 'loadsa dough' to con the people outta their kids' virginity (hey, i'm getting old tired and nasty!) not to mention their personal wealth and all their countrys' futures; with their souls thrown into the pot iffen they believe in God (re: SHE gave humankind dominion over the earth, so extinction of gorillas/polar bears whales etc habitat might infuriate GOD at HER followers, who abetted in the poisoning of the earth's air water etc)...it seems empowering the masses just sets up the reactionaries to slip into power, which they then use to completely redraw the historical facts and feed the greedy lil bastards' illusions who then vote for the likes of bush harper and ghenhis khan and reagan/caligula etc because it is 'politically incorrect' when bush harper are the actual standard bearers of political correctness! The more one knows about this society the more one must marvel at its utter lack of any morality, or honesty. The allies, for example, hurriedly rush the D Day landing when the USSR in '43 began marching into Europe, and a communist Europe looked possible (the Dieppe landing 2 years earlier was just a feint to buy off Stalin, it turns out- the allied leaders wanted the Soviets and nazis to destroy each other while they sat back; though try tell 1800 dead Canadian troops that!)...the untold millions of people died for churchill's convenience, and the history books like to pretend it was all straight out good guy bad guy!
maybe being a leftist is being punished for caring
no good deeds go unpunished
BTW this thread title still is nasty
Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.
Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.
I think Ed Finn is depressing. He can not know what a federal NDP government would achieve, because in the same vein that we've never had a Marxist-socialist government, we've never had federal NDP rule either. All these crankyTrotskyites waiting for that perfect revolution which will never happen might as well suggest there is no point in trying to unite workers around the world or even democratize our huge corner of it here in the second largest country in the world. I wish people like Finn would go do something else other than point out the left's weaknesses instead of doing what Marx said to do, which is to revive the spirit of revolutionary change. Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country. If Marxists want to eventually have a chance at being elected to Parliament and have voters voting with their hearts and minds instead of by fear, then vote NDP damnit. You get one day every four years (until recently anyway) to protest and have it count for something. Don't waste that opportunity.
Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country.
An NDP majority government would get no where near the halls where real power resides in this country.
We have, in fact, a former NDPer in one of the very significant halls of power over at the PR firm Navigator; Robin Sears. He has more power than any M.P. will ever have. And the firm he's a flying monkey for has more power than any Cabinet Minister.
That's one of the things holding back the left-- we don't really understand power.
I think an NDP government would be better than the tory diumvarate, but I don't hold out much hope for the kind of significant changes we believe a majority government in a democracy could bring about. And it's not because they're namby pamby about it-- though they might be-- they could be fire breathing marxist idealogues for all it matters.
Parliament isn't where the power is.
nope it isn't, and speak for yourself, ;0 I understand power just fine, though I agree most people do not, the left included..
"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."
That's one of the things holding back the left-- we don't really understand power.
The left doesn't want power. It wants those who are in power to be more generous to those closer (in proximity) to them.
nope it isn't, and speak for yourself, ;0 I understand power just fine, though I agree most people do not, the left included..
Okay, I'll revise that then, the left, save remind, don't understand power......
The left doesn't want power. It wants those who are in power to be more generous to those closer (in proximity) to them.
Hmm. Maybe that's what defines progressives from the left.
I agree generally though. We want power less concentrated. But that's asking those with power to share some out to us.
They aren't powerfull because they like sharing.
There's many more knowledgable in these things than I, and perhaps they can contradict me, but I don't know where those with power will part with it before there's serious bloodshed.
It's a game they play for keepsies.
There's many more knowledgable in these things than I, and perhaps they can contradict me, but I don't know where those with power will part with it before there's serious bloodshed.
They've shared the illusion of power and they've shared wealth, following bloodshed, WWI & WWII, through the Fordist compact, unionization and industrial wages, and through Keynesism.
The Left, in Canadian history at least, has never sought power. In fact, the established left, trade unions, political parties, have most often sacrificed the radical elements for accomodation with those in power even when such accomodation meant not only sacrificing the radical left's leadership, but the workers and followers as well.
The Candian Left is quite content with the spoils from industrial consumer capitalism and has no real stomach for challenging it other than at the hard margins where the power elite are prepared to tolerate a little give and take for the sake of maintaining the democratic illusion of choice.
Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country.
An NDP majority government would get no where near the halls where real power resides in this country.
We have, in fact, a former NDPer in one of the very significant halls of power over at the PR firm Navigator; Robin Sears. He has more power than any M.P. will ever have. And the firm he's a flying monkey for has more power than any Cabinet Minister.
That's one of the things holding back the left-- we don't really understand power.
So youre saying Robin Sears is a king-maker in the same vein as Paul Desmarais and Bay Street? And NDP MPs could be invited to shindigs at the Desmarais mansion in Florida, if they really wanted to run elbows with money and power and vice versa?
No, I'm saying Sears and others know that politics and power are nothing more than what one can do to, or for, people. Sears isn't, I imagine, a major power broker as you lay it out-- though it's clear he's no bit player.
It's more a measure of the impotence of MP's and Cabinet Ministers.
I think a first-time federal NDP government would be really good for democracy in this semi-frozen Puerto Rico with a few polar bears.
And besides, I still want to see all those old line party senators made to go out and get real jobs.
The left doesn't want power. It wants those who are in power to be more generous to those closer (in proximity) to them.
Hmm. Maybe that's what defines progressives from the left.
I agree generally though. We want power less concentrated. But that's asking those with power to share some out to us.
They aren't powerfull because they like sharing.
There's many more knowledgable in these things than I, and perhaps they can contradict me, but I don't know where those with power will part with it before there's serious bloodshed.
It's a game they play for keepsies.
Since you're a working-class person who's skeptical of independent working-class politics, what's your solution, then?
You'd be lookin' fa Spamalot on YouTube, mate. It in't there no more.
J.Chretien understood power. At one point he said (partly to defer responsibility in Liberal fashion) that the twenty somethiing in red suspenders on the floor of the exchange held more power than himself. That proved to be accurate indeed, a decade and a half later.
But while he was saying that, Chretien had also empowered his erstwhiile minister of finance, and PM-to-be, to cut the $40 billion yearly deficit and head off the charge of Tar Patch-funded masses under the CRAP banner from the west. That was a powerful blow to social services everywhere, and empowered the Harrisites of Ontario to continue the work of downloading destruction from which the province is struggling to recover by retaining some smidgin of power to tax. But even the masses who would benefit from that effort in their old age, have joined the happy anti-tax chorus.
Now, where were we in those explanations about the "seat" of power and its underpinnings? How about the "power of the purse" and the ignorance of the led?
The people swim in an ocean of poisoned media. Their thinking is conditioned by it -- which of course is it's exact purpose. Our voices don't reach the masses. Simple. They have been conditioned not to listen to us. I've had this experience recently: rightist-brainwashed workers shrieking at me that I'm a "conspiracy theorist" etc. for telling them the simple truth. They have been conditioned to shun truth as dangerous to them. They submit themselves to the "news"papers and watch TV to get their sports scores and celebrity gossip and with it they imbibe vast quantities of rightwing gibberish coded into the flow of pseudo-information that occupies their minds. That's it's intent. And obviously it works. For example, I was saying to some fairly intelligent fellows that The Simpsons is nothing but rightwing propaganda designed to make them complacent about the class system and cynical about the possibility of change (besides being an obvious shill for GE, Westinghouse, and the other Big Nuke corporations). Well, ha ha, as you might expect, the old man was mocked again (tin foil hat guy) and the whole conversation turned into a retelling of all the fabulous funnies from Homer and the gang. What can we expect at this point? The information ocean is poisoned like our lakes and rivers: pumped full of filth and lies crafted by whores hired by billionaire fascists and banksters. Can we be surprised then that the people sneer at socialism? They do what they've been told to do.
How can there be socialist policies without a socialist government? Are people voting against socialist politics or a weak capitalist party?
I think that of the Canadians who do vote, they vote for their interests. According to the last federal election, 22% of registered voters believed that Tories represent their interests. Somewhere less than that are Liberal Party supporters. Support for the old line parties combined is a couple of centimetres deep but a kilometre wide. It used to be a mile wide during the prosperous cold war era when no end could be seen for capitalist economic expansion.
And then there is the NDP with our 2.54 cm wide but kilometre deep support. We would need to spend as much money propagandizing the public as what those other two big money parties spend. We'd need a war chest of comparable amount in order to compete with the autocratic parties. Rules for sports say teams can't pay off the refs, so why should money be allowed in politics? Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always will be.
Normal 0 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} h2 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.submitted {mso-style-name:submitted;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
When people realize that the freedom and democracy they believe in is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the US, and Canada perhaps things will change. Meanwhile a slight majority still believe the hoax and continue to vote.
Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.
Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.
I think Ed Finn is depressing. He can not know what a federal NDP government would achieve, because in the same vein that we've never had a Marxist-socialist government, we've never had federal NDP rule either. All these crankyTrotskyites waiting for that perfect revolution which will never happen might as well suggest there is no point in trying to unite workers around the world or even democratize our huge corner of it here in the second largest country in the world. I wish people like Finn would go do something else other than point out the left's weaknesses instead of doing what Marx said to do, which is to revive the spirit of revolutionary change. Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country. If Marxists want to eventually have a chance at being elected to Parliament and have voters voting with their hearts and minds instead of by fear, then vote NDP damnit. You get one day every four years (until recently anyway) to protest and have it count for something. Don't waste that opportunity.
Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.
Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.
I think Ed Finn is depressing. He can not know what a federal NDP government would achieve, because in the same vein that we've never had a Marxist-socialist government, we've never had federal NDP rule either. All these crankyTrotskyites waiting for that perfect revolution which will never happen might as well suggest there is no point in trying to unite workers around the world or even democratize our huge corner of it here in the second largest country in the world. I wish people like Finn would go do something else other than point out the left's weaknesses instead of doing what Marx said to do, which is to revive the spirit of revolutionary change. Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country. If Marxists want to eventually have a chance at being elected to Parliament and have voters voting with their hearts and minds instead of by fear, then vote NDP damnit. You get one day every four years (until recently anyway) to protest and have it count for something. Don't waste that opportunity.
Normal 0 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Electing the federal NDP would be no more use than electing Rae in Ontario was. Corporations own and control this country and they would sabotage the country by moving jobs and their money offshore before giving up control. Bob Rae can tell you how that works.
What we need is to look at how we can obtain democracy and public control of the media. The new 21st century socialism appears to be the only hope for the future; perhaps we will have to wait until it sweeps all of South and Central America before the people wake up.
Normal 0
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} h2 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.submitted {mso-style-name:submitted;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
What we need is to look at how we can obtain democracy and public control of the media. The new 21st century socialism appears to be the only hope for the future; perhaps we will have to wait until it sweeps all of South and Central America before the people wake up.
The battle for a future with real democracy in the Americas is already underway in South America.
The Left, in Canadian history at least, has never sought power. In fact, the established left, trade unions, political parties, have most often sacrificed the radical elements for accomodation with those in power even when such accomodation meant not only sacrificing the radical left's leadership, but the workers and followers as well.
The Candian Left is quite content with the spoils from industrial consumer capitalism and has no real stomach for challenging it other than at the hard margins where the power elite are prepared to tolerate a little give and take for the sake of maintaining the democratic illusion of choice.
The reason why the NDP has never formed federal gov't, and why the same capitalistic earth-smashing dominance is an epidemic in the US as well, is precisely because too many buy into the hyper-cynical false alternative fallacy offered by the frustrated mess.
Which false alternative fallacy is being continually repeated ? The notion that there can only be either a radical systemic overhaul or ZERO change.
That's a blatant, elementary fallacy by FM. There are various *degrees* of change, not just radical systemic upheaval. The extent to which people agree with : "Either pursue my vague ideal of radical upheaval or pursue no change at all", is the extent to which the Canadian (and North American) left is depressed, weak, pessimistic, deflated and unmotivated. We can see that this is the reason there has not been and is no left or progressive force forming federal gov't in Canada or the US.
Even within the current economic system / monetary engine
a 10% income tax rate on the megarich is not the same as a 60% one (in Denmark) or a 90% one (present in the US after WW2).
The French (or Swedish) health care system is not the same as the US system.
The Finnish education system is not the same as the US education system.
The 3% child poverty rate in Denmark isn't the same as the 33% child poverty rate in Michigan.
The way Norway's oil industry is part nationalized, and people share in profits, isn't the same as the American oil industry.
The green technology advancements in Sweden and Germany are not the same as the Alberta or Texas scenarios.
The social safety net in the US is inferior to the Scandinavian social safety net for a reason. Absolutely ZERO leftist empowerment and a total hatred for the welfare state.
Change begets change, and sometimes small, moderate or gradual change *within the imperfect system* is better than no change at all. Why ? Because it significantly alleviates and reduces earth damage and suffering of the poor. The idea that we should not pursue ANY small to moderate to large changes within an imperfect system simply because it is not occuring within an imagined, ideal, radical systemic overhaul is simply *insane*, *wreckless* and *defeatist*.
Also, the whimsical notion that one could somehow be instantly catapulted into a radical change scenario from the political environment of a total Neoliberal/Neoconservative North American monopoly is silly. To expect to go from zero change to absolute, maximum change is extreme theoretical fantasy.
A smarter, more effective and scientific approach would be to empower as much change as is possible *currently*, in *reality*. This simply means a total political boycott of the 2 dinosaurs - the Liberals and Conservatives. An NDP gov't with a Green Party opposition would be a preferable scenario for *starting* to change the policies and negative effects of the Libs and Cons.
Well said leftypopulist. Chomsky is of the opinion that we should play it like a chess game - in small strategic moves: Anarchism and the State. That's my view as well. This is an old thread eh?
I like the chess match analogy overall, but sometimes it should be treated (tactically) as checkers : "Hey, lets all boycott the Libs & Cons, and vote NDP & Green." Print T-Shirts, stickers and signs, use sigs & e-mails saying, "The Liberals & Conservatives Suck. Vote NDP".
We've seen the Libs & Cons use the checkers approach and coast to victory for decades. Sometimes a convoluted approach (and rhetoric) discourages the neutral/indecisive voters.
i agree i think canada needs a version of democracy now or something to that effect, because noone is gonna get involved in democracy in this climate. education first, revolution second.
the social forums are going to help alot too....
the left may be right politically, but it will NEVER be popular...why?...people dont like to do what is right...it's really boring...look back on your life, and i think you will find that all the most interesting times were the result of you doing or being totally gloriously WRONG...psychotic fucktards have more fun, peoples...
I can tell you the problem of the left in Canada. The people and parties, like the NDP and Union leadership, are sell outs.
They precent nothing different. Everyt ime there is some kind of worker revolt, the leaders of the left in Canada, sell the revolt out, by trying to gain concessions from the bourgeoisie.
We just witnessed one of the biggest Capitalists convulsions of a life time and were was the NDP , Unions and other left winged organizations?
Were was the alternative to the bank bail outs?
Nope, they all just asked for more Government spending and tougher regulations, that was their answer.
There you go, that's the problem with the left right there. A bunch of people selling the same capitalist BS and people see it a mile away.
With corporations controlling the government and the media all political parties are impotent to do anything for the people; that was demonstrated when Bob Rae was elected in Ontario years ago. The only real alternative is a new constitution by and for the people, and real democracy: direct democracy, not bogus representative corporate spin. We can learn something by looking at the rise of real democracy in South America.
I don't know if my impression is wrong but at times it seemed to me that some of the poorest Canadians are some of the biggest believers in uncontrolled capitalism. I've known people living in abject poverty staunchly defending capitalist ideas and they always vote conservative! I don't get it, but from my experience it's the working and better educated who believe in social justice and caring about others.
If the left is left behind then the right is right behind us.....and the dominator trance will be lifted.
the lies are such a constant. And; who says it's a lie if vast majority believe it? The 'tea party' movement put up a billboard with 'national socialist, democratic socialist and marxist socialist' over pics of mr hitler, obama and john lennon....mr pig made them remove it (a piglet musta complained)! ..On AM640 Thurs morning, Susan Cole sat by and heard someone whine that when Alex Baldwin got caught couple years ago telling off his kid in taped ph. call, the 'media' were very quick to forgive, in comparison to how they act regards Mel gibson, who's a reactionary rightwing catholic racist (re: apocalypto) etc, and Cole didn't even try to counter the fiction that the ms media is liberal- she's with 'Now' magazine, which is supposedly leftwing! IOW, the entire media landscape is hard rightwing, reactionary and there's NOTHING anyone can do about it but try live w/out any news media...
The people swim in an ocean of poisoned media. Their thinking is conditioned by it -- which of course is it's exact purpose. Our voices don't reach the masses. Simple. They have been conditioned not to listen to us. I've had this experience recently: rightist-brainwashed workers shrieking at me that I'm a "conspiracy theorist" etc. for telling them the simple truth. They have been conditioned to shun truth as dangerous to them. They submit themselves to the "news"papers and watch TV to get their sports scores and celebrity gossip and with it they imbibe vast quantities of rightwing gibberish coded into the flow of pseudo-information that occupies their minds. That's it's intent. And obviously it works. For example, I was saying to some fairly intelligent fellows that The Simpsons is nothing but rightwing propaganda designed to make them complacent about the class system and cynical about the possibility of change (besides being an obvious shill for GE, Westinghouse, and the other Big Nuke corporations). Well, ha ha, as you might expect, the old man was mocked again (tin foil hat guy) and the whole conversation turned into a retelling of all the fabulous funnies from Homer and the gang. What can we expect at this point? The information ocean is poisoned like our lakes and rivers: pumped full of filth and lies crafted by whores hired by billionaire fascists and banksters. Can we be surprised then that the people sneer at socialism? They do what they've been told to do.
I'm sorry, but as much as conventional thinking is reinforced by the media, we do have learned people in positions of power who have abdicated their responsibilities.
I still vividly remember Jack Layton being asked long after he'd become leader to define socialism. He mentioned no programme, no worker ownership, no ultimate public control over the means of production, but instead, he tried to sound like he was auditioning for an open hosting job on polkadot door. He talked about how some Canadians want to have a country that's more caring and sharing.
When we stop flattering ourselves with the idea that our taxes need cutting, or endorse politicians who are equally cowardly...
When we stop running in a feckless fashion to bash criminals, or other 'deviants', to write laws that are draconian just to appear like we're doing something about the issue...
When we adopt some goddess-damn intellectual consistency...
Then it gets a little more difficult for people who pay attention to politics for a living to ignore the ideas and not raise themselves up as well. The media is always a little bit more superficial than the people to whom it caters and the people on whom it reports.
We're the ones who follwed them down.
J.Chretien understood power. At one point he said (partly to defer responsibility in Liberal fashion) that the twenty somethiing in red suspenders on the floor of the exchange held more power than himself. That proved to be accurate indeed, a decade and a half later.
But while he was saying that, Chretien had also empowered his erstwhiile minister of finance, and PM-to-be, to cut the $40 billion yearly deficit and head off the charge of Tar Patch-funded masses under the CRAP banner from the west. That was a powerful blow to social services everywhere, and empowered the Harrisites of Ontario to continue the work of downloading destruction from which the province is struggling to recover by retaining some smidgin of power to tax. But even the masses who would benefit from that effort in their old age, have joined the happy anti-tax chorus.
Now, where were we in those explanations about the "seat" of power and its underpinnings? How about the "power of the purse" and the ignorance of the led?
It's been nearly a year since that post, and still not one comment on the political-ECONOMY of the situation today. That, it seems to me, why the "left" is left behind. The rest of the world could not give a fiddler's fart about what the "left" thinks if the "left" has no foggy idea about how the rest of the world is going to feed itself and retire (now) at 70. Why should the rest of the world give a fiddler's fart about abstractions?
The link I provided in the first post last August is now out of date. Here is a more recent link.
From Ed Finn's The Left is Left Behind:
"Roosevelt in the 1930s, unlike Obama today, also fearlessly cut himself free of the capitalist ideology."
Yet we on the left back in the 70s always assumed that Roosefelt's intervention SAVED capitalism. And that is exactly why M'Lord Black said he wrote that (rather compelete) biography on Roosevelt. He would not have done it otherwise. No, Roosevelt only freed capitalism from the dogma of the 19th century and let Keynes in (John Kenneth Galbraith was hired to do that and was named "price control czar" just a couple of years before the U.S.entered the war).
But maybe I've missed Finn's take on the economic imperatives.
Finn deals with what a Marxist might call "false consciousness" and his piece is more about political leadership than political economy. Or were you critiquing the participants in this thread only, and not Finn himself?
I've been through Finn's column, again, NB, and I do see his concern for leadership...and that is the central concern hereaouts.
However, he makes no mention of the central fact of capitalism IN NORTH AMERICA today (and he separates us from South America, viva la revolucion) which is our total and increasing dependency on THE MARKET (may the South Americans never reach this state of dependency). THE WORKER in North America knows the importance of the market and his corporation as a viable entity on that market. So if der leader has something to say about that dependency - and one has to chuckle at Finn's "lecture" to workers about their tendency to vote for Libs and Cons and even those poor, out to lunch leaderless New Democrats - the antennae of the individual hoping to remain a part of the workforce and having a meaningful pension, goes up! And that's assuming they assiduously scan the news looking for signs of economic health and their bought and paid for newscasters tell it like it is.
What is there, in particular, that a political leader should tell them? And just as importantly, how would they get the message if their own union is busy lauding the virtues of , say, Rafferty's take on their pension situation?
But, then, maybe I missed Finn's take on the role of unions in this political enterprise today. With only a couple of exceptions, they've been less than revolutionary...of course, in keeping with their membership's concern for a roof over the head, a full belly, and a couple of weeks off with the family.
Perhaps Finn's conclusions don't suit you and that's why they're not so clear?
The worker demands some mention of market competition, some sign that "the left" understands the economics on which their livelihood has come to depend. Finn's conclusions make no mention of this...far as I can make out.
Finn demands some mention of a human-centred economy, some sign that the political leaders that call themselves "socialists", of one sort or another, understand that market idolatry is leading humanity to death, mass extinction, and worse. Your remarks seem to continue this unquestioned market idolatry ... as far as I can make out.
Have a nice day.
Please, NB, I see the market as our doom. It demands limitless growth on a finite planet. But we do not fight that by ignoring its centrality. I can write letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail making fun of some middle class assumptions, and some of those letters are published. And my letters to the local press ALWAYS ask how we address concerns for social welfare by voting for lower taxes.
And may I say that I very much respect your position and the concern for humanity on which it is based. If we can find some way to market it to the average masses, we might yet see a future for the grandkids. And that is my only concern at this moment.
the problem is we always get mislaid by boss god (or whoever, runs this universe) and exert our energy defeating each other...instead, i think perhaps POSTERING is the answer. Putting up anti fascist/harper/foxnews/war/cbc/cia/kkk etc posters everywhere, anywhere, to get as many taxpayers to lift their noses up from down and look. It'z not as if mister pig has just found his formulae. Dickens wrote the 'tale of 2 cities' long ago and Charles is a working class hero today BUT! But Mr dickens: despite the infamy of the 'reign of terror' and nobility of mister pig, only 2500 people were actually killed in the French Revolution while the leftwing ran the show! Carlyle and the dood who wrote "scarlet pimpernel' and you kinda overlook the fact the Revolution was PROVOKED by sheer viciousness and greed on part of the haves, who told us to 'eat kake'. See tex murphy. And the same story pervades EVERY SINGLE facet of the pig's version of history, including the recent g20 bullcrap. No wonder ordinary joes believe 'greed is only good' (it's all they'rre ever told!) Here's some more grist for the mill: During the 'Paris Commune' in 1870, 250 persons were killed by the Commune...when the 'royalists' retook Paris, they murdered an estimated 40 thousand (i kid you not) including 10 year old schoolchildren lined up and shot ..the Commune inspired the Russian revolutionaries- which MIGHT EXPLAIN some of the utter ruthlessness shown by Gensec Stalin /Trotsky etc! Also, the 'iron curtain' dividing up germany/europe against Stalin's wishes and foisted upon humanity after ww2 was a child of the allied leadership (who actually were sympathetic to fascism, and have never admitted they enabled hitler, see 'prescott bush' and duke o windsor etc!) and the child support for the bastard 'cold war' that resulted was forcilbly paid by the USSR! The innocent USSR which wanted to share in Marshal Plan rebuilding of europe but instead were FORCED by nuke power west (see hiroshima, aug7th1945) to occupy east europe! Joe Stalin was a HERO! Yet his name is now synonomous with brutal dictatorship, and ignorant cruelty! Maybe too many charles dicken's type books got snake oiled and not enough books based upon truth!
Why is truth so hard to recognise?
Well the truth is we can only get to a socialist society thru violent revolution so that idea has been held up as repugnant but I have a feeling that things are going to turn around and that the people are going to start to get much more militant AFTER HARPER has his way with the country and people feel the full impact of his policies on the their lives and the country. Revolutions just don't happen spontaneously, it takes years to educate people and it also has to have the right social conditions for it to occur. A revolutionary situation comes up. This can heppen in a time of prosperity when the government does something particularly abhorent or during times of diminishing returns like now. My only problem with this is that once Harper completes his privitization program it is all so much harder to undo it. We need to get the labour movement to start up the days of action once again and then in the end leave our misleaders in the dust and go for it. We must end with cresendo in Ottawa and show them that the parliament belongs to the people. We need a general strike and we need to transition into socialism, set up committees to keep the people eating during the strike and make sure it is protracted and makes gains. Soon people will not have much to gain under the capitalist system as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top...I do have faith in Canadians and think they will go for it and do the right thing in the long run. But we can't alienate the public in the meantime by trying to force the issue. There are enough educated Marxists in this country to help us transition to socialism and consciousness can change the minute one gets a billy club over the head at a peaceful demonstration. Those roots back to the CCF are deep in this country and so is trade union militancy. Everyday brings us one day closer to the revolution folks...crisis is inevitable under capitalism and with it the opportunity for socialist "transformation" ya all know what I am talking about.
Cheers,
RR
Trotsky and Lenin were not at all like Stalin, those bourgeoisie who wanted to further the aims of the revolution were allowed to those who did not were exilled and those who attempted a counter revolution were fought against and shot much like a civil war. In fact teh October revolution ushered in the greatest democracy the world had ever seen. Homosexualisty was legalized ( reversed by STalin) divorce wes free and easy, women got the vote and a host of other democratic reforms that we are still fighting for today. Trying to bring an agrarian society through and industrial revolution and into socialism was a monumental task. it would have worked without regenerating into Stalinism and socialism in one country if the social democrates in Germany didnt stick with their own bourgeoisie and vote to keep the war going. IF one of those advanced capitalist countries would have shunned national chauvinistic tendencies and united with their comrades in Russia socialist progress would have taken place on a whole different plane. This is not to say socialized property forms didn't prove themselves to be superior to capitalist ones, but socialism in one country ( an oxcymoron) capitalist encirclement deformed the workers state and gave rise to the need for a bureaucracy and that allowed a capitalist counter revolution to take p lace rather than full blown international socialism. Trotsky gives the best explaination for this and people can only stay in a revolutionary mind frame for so long...Normalacy has to take the place of fatigue sooner or later or losses start to replace gains--and all the other capitlaist countries were against them actively encircled them and they still pulled it off and gave us an alternative for oh so many years and the working class in Canada always said we could go over to the soviets if you don';t give us this or that and we got it too. The fall of the soviet union was a defeat for the worling class world wide and you all know how the capitalists have taken advantage of the situation and gone out and shot themselves in the foot once again...keep on pushing straight ahead!
Stalin's forces collectivization was a complete failure and totally undemocratic. Stalin was certainly no hero of the revolution.
RR
Stalin also helped cause the famines of the early 1930's by swapping a large portion of the Soviet wheat crop for weaponry from other countries. If only he'd accepted the fact that full dinner plates provide far better national security than ANY number of tanks or guns.
Or if he'd even remembered the first line of the Internationale.
I would hope that this thread does not degenerate to the level of supporting an assassin of so many good people. Just finished reading how Stalin murdered Trotsky and all of his children, one by one, wherever they were, at home or in a hospital bed. What's to defend? Get a life, Rocky.
Socialized property that is what is left to protect and I never defended Stalin the gravedigger of revolutions if you actually read my post.
Stalin's forces collectivization was a complete failure and totally undemocratic. Stalin was certainly no hero of the revolution.
RR
Does this sound like a defence of Stalinism? Starvation and famine are included under the rubric forced collectivization to which I could also add cannabilism Still Stalin crimes pale in comparison to those committed during the primative accumulation of capital and if you want to go into the inter imperialist and imperialist wars such as Korea Vietnam, Iraq Afghanistan and all the right wing dictatorships we have supported from the Phillipeans to Chili to Argentina Panama....noone says capitalism doesn;t work as a result of these crimes against humanity but those committed in the name of Marx get overplayed the world over by any idiot with a pencil electronic or otherwise.
RR
While "the left is left behind"...
Siddiqui: Harper's Ottawa Becomes Republican La-La Land
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/845013--siddiqu...
"When you have finished laughing at Stockwell Day for building jails for criminals he cannot find - think of the failed American regime of crime and punishment.
To his estimated $9 Billion expenditure there, add the $1 Billion bill for security at the G20 summit and the $16 Billion purchase of F-35s in an untendered contract.
Stack such expenditures against Stephen Harper's commitment to halve the $54 Billion debt in five years, and wonder what he plans to slash and burn to get there...
We can see where the Prime Minister is going. How he's getting there we can see from his ideological, authoritarian, secretive, even demagogic methodology.."
Well how about privatized municipal water supplies for a start? That is what he was doing in Europe last week. Atomic Energy of Canada is going going almost gone like Canada Post along with it. This idiot instead of locking up the safe to keep the crooks out is opening the vault and leaving the back door open. This will be a fait accompli no matter who we put in next time around and don't forget about the sub prime crisis that he has gotten us into through the CMHC. You can read about that here to.
RR
That fact that socialized production managed to accomplish what it did in spite of Stalin...that is what is so incredible and why we have to do it here. All of the wealth that we have created is astronomical, Christ Oprah Whinfrey makes 279 million a year. Our productive capacity is almost beyond human comprehension. Scarcity is a myth-We just need to Turn things around things need to revolve.
RR
Oh and the Paris Commune inspired Marx to look to the working class as the objective social force that could bring socialism into being just like capitalism brought the working class into being. The Bolsheviks got it from him.
RR
Crises of Various Types of Consciousness: Revisiting False Consciousness and Ideology
"The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the [...] intelligentsia; modern socialism arises among individual members of this stratum and then is communicated by them to proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring it into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow." (Karl Kautsky)
One of the "scandalous passages" in What Is To Be Done? dealt with the subject of consciousness or awareness from a sociological perspective. The historian Lars Lih has shown that the controversy was in the emphasis and not the passage as a whole. The proper emphasis is not in the glorification of the intelligentsia, but in those educated proletarians (such as this author at the time of writing) who bring revolutionary theory into the class struggle of the proletariat. More importantly, the class movement referred to in Kautsky's words is by no means the class as a whole!
In my earlier work, I gave a contemporary answer to how the "vehicle of science" has changed:
1) Only those workers who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of open class struggle), support radical or revolutionary change due to their education are capable of "spontaneously" leaving behind underclass or petit-bourgeois false consciousness. All others ("the proletarian masses"), according to Kautsky, "still vegetate, helpless and hopeless" through having little free time or through being unemployed.
2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the "spontaneous" development and proliferation of specifically revolutionary class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the "class of flux."
3) When the process of introducing specifically revolutionary class consciousness to the proletarian masses and even radicalized workers begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians."
This third point is "profoundly true and important," because modern "vanguard" circles today act as "ordinary workers" in trying to spread specifically revolutionary class consciousness. This is the main reason why they have been ineffective!
However, because of the third point, the genuine class separation that existed between the non-proletarian intellectuals and the proletarian masses has been replaced by an artificial "theory gulf" between different groups of proletarians, so to speak. Socialist theoreticians, especially those without direct experience in either the immediate worker struggles or the open class struggle later on, can overcome this gulf by connecting their dynamic-materialist knowledge with the material conditions of the proletarian masses as a whole, thereby finding real expression of the newfound knowledge.
What I said above addresses in fact two types of consciousness, one of which pertains to "the struggle for socialism." For anti-economist reasons explained below, in the next chapter, and in the Appendix B commentary on the forgotten story of syndicalism, the two types of consciousness should be addressed separately.
In her book Rebuilding the Left, Marta Harnecker did note another aspect of confusion on the question of consciousness:
I find it difficult to argue against these statements that history has confirmed. I think the problem arises when we identify socialist consciousness with class consciousness.
[...]
I find it necessary, therefore, to distinguish three levels of consciousness in the working class:
Spontaneous or naive consciousness is consciousness necessarily deformed by the effects of the ruling ideology, and most of Althusser's reflections on ideology as deformed knowledge of reality are applicable to this type of consciousness. It is typical, as Sanchez Vazquez says, of a class society in the past, when the working class knew only of economic class practice.
Class consciousness - the very existence of which implies a distancing from bourgeois ideology - is no longer a factor of cohesion for the dominant system but one of antagonism and is not necessarily deformed. This is the consciousness acquired when the class struggle takes on a political dimension, but this consciousness is still not socialist, in as far as it represents resistance to the situation of exploitation rather than a proposal for an alternative to do away with it.
Enlightened class consciousness or socialist consciousness is that class consciousness enlightened by Marxist science.
[...]
To conclude, I think that it is correct to say that socialism, as scientific theory, cannot arise solely from the practice of the labour movement but needs to be imported from without. On the other hand, I think that the acquisition of class consciousness is indeed linked to social practice, to the class struggle.
But is this separate definition of class consciousness correct? It is simply too broad, ranging from "resistance to the situation of exploitation" to "distancing from bourgeois ideology." In fact, "resistance to the situation of exploitation" can be and has been interpreted in a way that counters the premise that every class struggle is a political struggle, and one such way can be found in the forgotten story of syndicalism.
Suggested below are at least four different types of consciousness, and how they relate to the class movement and even to the class as a whole:
1) Naïve consciousness is the more proper term to use than spontaneous consciousness, since spontaneity already spans across all kinds of consciousness. Here one can find the usual labour struggles around wages, hours, and conditions. One can also find populist rhetoric from economic populism of the lowest common denominator (pertaining to tax-and-spend politics, subsidies, business regulations, monetary policy, and international trade) up to the point of outright demagoguery, all based on underclass or petit-bourgeois false consciousness. So-called "identity politics" based on race, gender, etc. and "Green politics" based on countering pollution can be found here, as well. Overall, the "social-democratic" or "social justice" interpretation of "class consciousness" prevails here, and this naïve consciousness emerges from the class as a whole, with no class movement involved.
2) So-called "socialist consciousness," or the consciousness pertaining to "the struggle for socialism," is at the furthest end apart from naïve consciousness, and as mentioned above, is something that can emerge from inside the class but is also something that originates outside any class movement. It should be noted that "outside the class as a whole" means coming from sources like tenured professors with subordinate research staff - the former being coordinator intellectuals, once the elite of the old petit-bourgeois intelligentsia, and not proletarians.
3) Political consciousness is something identified mainly in discussions on the lack thereof. For example, today's deficit of political consciousness or awareness is one of a few obstacles preventing ordinary people from being more politically active beyond marching every few years to that woefully limited political venue that is the ballot box. Even then, there is more talk about the voter cynicism towards all electoral parties that has been translated into ever-ineffective abstentions, thus threatening the legitimacy of the entire bourgeois "liberal-democratic" project. In some cases political consciousness can be identified in discussions on clear signs, such as communal politics in Venezuela or voter awareness of numerous national issues in Bolivia. In extreme cases, political consciousness is the type of consciousness referred to by the anarchist likes of Michael Bakunin when they are obsessed with provoking mass action by any means necessary. Almost like with "socialist consciousness," political consciousness generally comes from outside any class movement but not necessarily the class as a whole.
4) Full class consciousness or revolutionary class consciousness stems from political consciousness, since every class struggle is a political struggle, and is defined in the goals of "proletarian parties" mentioned in the Communist Manifesto, especially the third goal: the transformation of the working class in itself into a class for itself, the establishment of working-class hegemony at the expense of bourgeois hegemony, and the implementation of minimum programs like the one in the next chapter - whereby individual demands could easily be implemented without eliminating the bourgeois state order, but whereby full implementation would mean that the working class will have expropriated ruling-class political power in policymaking, legislation, execution-administration, and other areas. Because the first type of consciousness contains the aims of so-called "bourgeois workers parties" that lay claim to "Labour" or "Social-Democratic" or even "Democratic Socialist" labels, no such parties aspire towards the goals that mark full or revolutionary class consciousness, no matter how distinct this is from "socialist consciousness." Organized expression of this form of consciousness is precisely a genuine worker-class movement, where "worker-class" is used instead of "working-class" to emphasize the merger of worker demographics and class issues!
REFERENCES
Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context by Lars Lih [http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover]
Rebuilding the Left by Marta Harnecker [http://books.google.com/books?id=G92v5aCq8QAC&printsec=frontcover]
An interesting piece on the CCPA site by senior editor Ed Finn. In it, Finn address the following: If the left is right, politically, why isn't it more popular? A good catalyst for discussion, even if many NDPers will, no doubt, feel under attack.
But that's only fair. It's the NDP, as the largest organized force on the left, that has been such an utter failure to address alternatives to neo-liberal orthodoxy and failed to abandon that repulsive prejudice and allergy to socialist ideas.
The link doesnt work.
And whats the link or ref for what Jacob just posted?
BTW: why would Dippers feel under attack? How do you feel attacked by someone going at you with a stick pin?
And why would it would be failure to "address" alternatives? The rest of the left has no responsibility- or just a pro forma formalistic acceptance of responsibility- for the failure of alternatives to have any traction?
They looked like refs at the bottom of text- ie, for looking further. And there are two links to two differenet authors, but what looks to be one block of text.
George, don't tell other babblers to "get a life." Geez. Do I really need to remind you of that?
I think we betray our own when we allow the demonization of Stalin to go on ...you know/i know that our rightwing ruling class lies-indeed it's via lies that the rightwing 'privilege of the few' trumps leftwing 'needs of the many' over generations. And lying is easy. Lookat WW2. Does it make sense that USSR- knowing it was ultimate enemy not only of hitler but of churchill, eton, nicholson, george 6, dulles brothers, william bullitt, je hoover, the bush/walker families etc, and virtually entire news mass media of the day (see Spanish Civil War)- does it make sense that Stalin made a non aggression pact with hitler in '39, who then betrayed him in 1941, nearly destroying USSR, does it make sense that Stalin had anything BUT the revolution and its success, in mind (referring, of course to the ally's Nazi sympathies-re duke/windsor)? By sheer might, the USSR saved itself (ok, allies lendlease supplies helped) but by time DDay in june'44 the Red Army already enroute to Atlantic ocean, already in Germany! The Soviets took Berlin in april 45, only 10 months AFTER D-Day, and by time allies met Red Army, Berlin was 300 miles inside East Germany. It defies sense that Stalin gave allies 2/3rds of Berlin and the richer 1/2 of Germany unless he hoped for a PROSPEROUS UNTITED GERMANY to pay the reparations he promised at Yalta. And remember, the BERLIN WALL only put up in 1961! Sixteen years after the war. East/West Germany date from 1970 ; until then Germany was divied up into 'zones'
And the nuking of Japanese cities in Aug 45 only makes sense in terms of terrifying USSR into hard (see Paris Commune!) ruthless realpolitics postwar! MAYBE USSR hoped for share rebuilding of europe- the USA was so incredibly powerful, its industry vastly larger the Soviets Union- doesn't the so called 'cold war' and 'iron curtain' look kinda suspicious? Stalin had lost 20 million people (more people died in Leningrad seige then combines losses of US and Britain!)
Ithink we're being snookered on Joe Stalin....I think the tragedy is almost beyond belief, the terrible thing our rulers did to poor old Soviet Union. And clearly they never stop schemeing against us (see JFK, 911, October surprise, G20 meeting etc)!
I think we betray our own when we allow the demonization of Stalin to go on ...you know/i know that our rightwing ruling class lies-indeed it's via lies that the rightwing 'privilege of the few' trumps leftwing 'needs of the many' over generations. And lying is easy. Lookat WW2. Does it make sense that USSR- knowing it was ultimate enemy not only of hitler but of churchill, eton, nicholson, george 6, dulles brothers, william bullitt, je hoover, the bush/walker families etc, and virtually entire news mass media of the day (see Spanish Civil War)-
You can say this with a straight face?
Stalin did an enormous amount of harm to socialism: from the virtual coup in the late 1920's, the purges, show trials, decimation of the old Bolsheviks, disastrous collectivisation approaches, Russification of non-Russian speaking areas, wiping out the officer corps on the eve of WW2, cult of personality, terrible harm to the development of science in Russia, famine, etc., etc., etc..
21st century socialists should, of course, make use of past negative experience as much as positive experience. Maybe clandestiny check out some of the english language media from Russia, such as Russia Today, eg, for the differing views in that country about the legacy and meaning of the role of Stalin in Russian history. Other sources exist as well.
Read some of what, eg, Chavez in Venezuela writes about this subject. And maybe have a look over here ...
1. The Socialist Alternative - Real Human Development by Michael Lebowitz
and/or
2. JB Foster Forward to special issue on 21st cnetury socialism
That's how you overcome the terrible legacy of Stalin. By getting it right.
It strikes me that the refusal of certain "lefties" to allow any discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in predominantly muslim countries parallels the refusal of Stalin-era communists to allow any public discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in socialist countries. If you're going to defend the former, I don't see how you can criticize the latter.
What the difference between telling someone to get a life or to fuck off ? is there any?
You mean explain Stalinization, something like this? but socialism in one country ( an oxcymoron) capitalist encirclement deformed the workers state and gave rise to the need for a bureaucracy and that allowed a capitalist counter revolution to take p lace rather than full blown international socialism. Trotsky gives the best explaination for this and people can only stay in a revolutionary mind frame for so long..
It strikes me that the refusal of certain "lefties" to allow any discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in predominantly muslim countries parallels the refusal of Stalin-era communists to allow any public discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in socialist countries. If you're going to defend the former, I don't see how you can criticize the latter.
Most of these Muslim countries are dictatorships as well, so I'm not sure if the impetus behind the oppression within them is because they're Muslim or that they're totalitarian. My guess is the latter.
explaining a phenomena and excusing it are two different kettle of fish.
RR
I think we betray our own when we allow the demonization of Stalin to go on
Stalin is NOT "our own". Stalin's brutality and repression, even allowing for the tactics used towards the USSR by the West, was an absolute betrayal of the sacred ideals of socialism-ideals which include the right NOT to live in fear.
There was NEVER a justification for any of the purges.
There was NEVER a justification for suppressing all dissent and debate within the Party.
There was NEVER a justification for the destruction of the independent Lefts with the USSR.
There was NEVER a justification for the abandonment of Spain to Franco.
There was NEVER a justification for the killing of the poets and the reduction of the role of the creative worker to crude propagandist.
There was NEVER a justification for the insistence, after the war, that the Eastern European states be just as repressive as the USSR, or for having the Red Army troops stationed in those places treat the local populations as the enemy, rather than simply the Western capitalists. Those states should have been into socialist paradises, with fully democratic decision-making and open borders so that the ordinary people of The West could see how glorious genuine socialism could be. This policy would have done far more to protect the USSR from another invasion than having ten million troops stationed there for twenty million years.
Yes, defensive measures were needed to protect Mother Russia from Western Invasion. And yes, Operation Gladio did have nefarious intent(we can assume that none of the types of the government "The West" wanted to impose on the USSR and what came to be known as the Warsaw Pact countries would have been an improvement for the Soviet and East European peoples.
But that does not excuse Stalin's decision to make the USSR, a state in which the dreams of tens, possibly hundreds of millions, of people around the world resided, into a bigoted, repressive, militarist state, a state in which defending the state was the only rationale for the existence of the state.
If you assume that it does, you assume that there was no way for socialism or communism to have survived on their merits as systems or ideolgies. That such systems could never have been made enticing enough to hold the VOLUNTARY allegiance of large sections of the global population.
Sorry, but I just can't accept that.
The USSR COULD have survived and defended itself from outside attack without becoming a complete mockery of its founding ideals. Even if repression had been needed in the run-up to the war, all of that could have been lifted after VE Day. The people of Europe venerated the Soviet Union at that point for saving them from Hitler, and would have stood as a bloc to prevent the West from invading it again.
The ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution still have merit and deserve to live. Stalin never needed to discard all of them.
Little of what Stalin did(other than what he achieved on the battlefield in the Great Patriotic War, which was impressive)should be emulated by the Left today. Especially given even sounding as if we are doing to dooms us to marginalization and irrelevance.
The test any leader faces is...can he or she stay in power without being a monster? Stalin failed that test....and it's not clear if he ever had any interest in passing it.
We don't need Stalins. Or Maos. I'm not even sure we need Ches(although I'm wearing a Che t-shirt as I write this-a souvenir from a trip to Derry). We need OURSELVES and the capacity to struggle, fight, dream, love and remain human.
One thing that does need to be said - and perhaps this is what clandestiny was getting at - is that a self-flagellation over Stalinism is not a requirement for passing the "legitimate" leftist test. If this was so, then everyone who supports capitalism should self-flagellate over Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, and all the other lesser capitalist tyrants and shit-bags to pass the "legitimate" rightist test.
PS - Ive started a new thread. See Part 2, etc
By the way, for those who complained that the link didn't work, I've added a link to Finn's article on the Part 2 thread.
I wasn't saying we should flagellate ourselves about Stalinism-rather, that we simply need to make clear that it's an approach that the Left will never use again.
That's not really asking that much.
I get what you're asking. "And whats the link or ref for what Jacob just posted?" It's my work, actually, and PM me if you're interested in the whole stack. The Google Books links link to the cover pages of both books, not to the pages where the quotes can be found. Naturally, you can Google the texts I've quoted and Google will give you the appropriate Google Books page search result.
The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact the battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization and reports from NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts and regional and national economic experts provide hard evidence to discuss the merits of capitalism and socialism.
Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of "transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and general welfare of the population.
Economic Performance: Growth, Employment and Poverty
Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. This has led to massive unemployment and temporary employment, relative stagnation, vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the economy via illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources.
In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is "employed" in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity.
In Russia the pillage was even worse and the economic decline was if anything more severe. By the mid 1990's, over 50% of the population (and even more outside of Moscow and St. Peterburg - formerly Leningrad) lived in poverty, homelessness increased and universal comprehensive health and education services collapsed. Never in peace-time modern history has a country fallen so quickly and profoundly as is the case of capitalist Russia. The economy was "privatized" - that is, it was taken over by Russian gangsters led by the eight billionaire oligarchs who shipped over $200 billion dollars out of the country, mainly to banks in New York, Tel Aviv, London and Switzerland. Murder and terror was the chosen weapon of "economic competitiveness" as every sector of the economy and science was decimated and most highly trained world class scientists were starved of resources, basic facilities and income. The principal beneficiaries were former Soviet bureaucrats, mafia bosses, US and Israeli banks, European land speculators, US empire-builders, militarists and multinational corporations. Presidents Bush (father) and Clinton provided the political and economic backing to the Gorbachov and Yeltsin regimes which oversaw the pillage of Russia, aided and abetted by the European Union and Israel. The result of massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times. Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba's 74 years (Cuban National Statistics 2002). The transition to capitalism in Russia alone led to over 15 million premature deaths (deaths which would not have occurred if life expectancy rates had remained at the levels under socialism). These socially induced deaths under emerging capitalism are comparable to the worst period of the purges of the 1930's. Demographic experts predict Russia's population will decline by 30% over the next decades (WSJ Feb 4, 2004).
The worst consequences of Western supported "transition" to capitalism are still to come over the next few years. The introduction of capitalism has totally undermined the system of public health, leading to an explosion of deadly but previously well-controlled infectious diseases. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) published a comprehensive empirical report which found that in Eastern Europe and Central Asia..."infection levels are growing faster than anywhere else, more than 1.5 million people in the region are infected today (2004) compared to 30,000 in 1995" (and less than 10,000 in the socialist period). The infection rates are even higher in the Russian Federation, where the rate of increase in HIV infection among young people who came of age under the Western-backed 'capitalist' regimes between 1998-2004 is among the highest in the world.
A big contributor to the AIDS epidemic are the criminal gangs of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic countries, who trade in heroin and each year deliver over 200,000 'sex-slaves' to brothels throughout the world. The violent Albanian mafia operating out of the newly "liberated" Kosova controls a significant part of the heroin trade and trafficking in sex-slaves throughout Western Europe and North America. Huge amounts of heroin produced by the US allied war lords of "liberated" Afghanistan pass through the mini-states of former Yugoslavia flooding Western European countries. The newly 'emancipated' Russian Jewish mafia oligarchs have a major stake in the trafficking of drugs, illegal arms, women and girls bound for the sex- industry and in money-laundering throughout the US, Europe and Canada (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya ,2000). Mafia billionaires have bought and sold practically all major electoral politicians and political parties in the self-styled "Eastern democracies", always in informal or formal alliance with US and European intelligence services.
Economic and social indicators conclusively document that "real existing capitalism" is substantially worse than the full employment, moderate growth, welfare states that existed during the previous socialist period. On personal grounds -in terms of public and private security of life, employment, retirement, and savings -the socialist system represented a far safer place to live than the gang-controlled capitalist societies that replaced them. Politically, the communist states were far more responsive to the social demands of workers, provided some limits on income inequalities, and, while accommodating Russian foreign policies interests, diversified, industrialized and owned all the major sectors of the economy. Under capitalism, the electoral politicians of the ex-communist states sold, at bargain prices, all major industries to foreign or local monopolies, fostering monstrous inequalities and ignore worker health and employment interests. With regard to ownership of the mass media, the state monopoly has been replaced by foreign or domestic monopolies with the same homogenous effects. There is little question that an objective analysis of comparative data between 15 years of capitalist 'transition' and the previous 15 years of socialism, the socialist period is superior on almost all quality of life indicators.
Let us turn now to compare Cuban socialism to the newly emerging capitalist countries of Russia, Easter Europe and south-central Asia.
Cuban socialism was badly hit by the turn to capitalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Industrial production and trade fell by 60% and the daily caloric intake of individual Cubans fell by half. Nevertheless infant mortality in Cuba continued to decline from 11per 1000 live births in 1989 to 6 in 2003 (comparing favorably to the U.S.). While Russia spends only 3.8% of its GNP on public healthcare and 1.5% on private care, the Cubans spend 16.7%. While life expectancy among males declined to 58 years in capitalist Russia, it rose to 74 years in socialist Cuba. While unemployment rose to 21% in capitalist Poland, it declined to 3% in Cuba. While drugs and criminal gangs are rampant among the emerging capitalist countries, Cuba has initiated educational and training programs for unemployed youth, paying them salaries to learn a skill and providing job placement. Cuba's continued scientific advances in biotechnology and medicine are world-class while the scientific infrastructure of the former communist countries has collapsed and their scientists have emigrated or are without resources. Cuba retains its political and economic independence while the emerging capitalist countries have become military clients of the US, providing mercenaries to service the US empire in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast to Eastern Europeans working as mercenary soldiers for the US in the Third World, 14,000 Cuban medical workers serve some of the poorest regions in Latin America and Africa in cooperation with various national governments that have requested their skills. There are more than 500 Cuban medical workers in Haiti. In Cuba, most industries are national and public with enclaves of private markets and joint ventures with foreign capital. In ex-communist countries, almost all basics industries are foreign-owned, as are most of the mass media and "culture industries". While Cuba retains a social safety net for basic foodstuff, housing, health, education and sports, in the emerging capitalist countries the "market" excludes substantial sectors of the unemployed and underpaid from access to many of those goods and services.
Comparative data on economy and society demonstrate that "reformed socialism" in Cuba has greatly surpassed the performance of the emerging capitalist countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, not to speak of Central Asia. Even with the negative fall-out from the crisis of the early 1990's, and the growing tourist sector, Cuba's moral and cultural climate is far healthier than any and all of the corrupt mafia- ridden electoral regimes with their complicity in drugs, sex slavery and subordination to U.S. empire building. Equally important while AIDS infects millions in Eastern Europe and Russia, Cuba has the best preventive and most humane treatment facilities in the world for dealing with HIV. Free anti-viral drugs, humane cost-free treatment and well-organized, extensive public health programs and health education explains why Cuba has the lowest incidence of HIV in the developing world despite the presence of small-scale prostitution related to tourism and low incomes.
The debate over the superiority of socialism and capitalism continues because what has replaced socialism after the collapse of the USSR is far worse on every significant indictor. The debate continues because the achievements of Cuba far surpass those of the emerging capitalist countries and because in Latin America the emerging social movements have realized changes in self-government (Zapatistas), in democratizing land ownership (MST Brazil) and natural resource control (Bolivia) which are far superior to anything US imperialism and local capitalism has to offer.
The emerging socialism is a new configuration which combines the welfare state of the past, the humane social programs and security measure of Cuba and the self-government experiments of the EZLN and MST. Wish us well!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=...
Interestly,
These socially induced deaths under emerging capitalism are comparable to the worst period of the purges of the 1930's. Demographic experts predict Russia's population will decline by 30% over the next decades (WSJ Feb 4, 2004).
A list of Petra articles can be reached through rabble and in the link provided. He gives a very good analysis of what is happening in Latin and South America as opposed to what we get in the capitalist press up here. Little wonder we have so much difficulty attaining class consciousness when the hegemony of the capitalist class controls every aspect of ideological content in society. What we do have to counter this if only on an intuitive level is "how is it working out for us" Capitalism clearly does not deliver the goods especially when you look at it from a global perspective-India Mexico Haiti Pakistan India South Africa capitalist countries all.
Cheers,
RR
The people swim in an ocean of poisoned media. Their thinking is conditioned by it -- which of course is it's exact purpose. Our voices don't reach the masses. Simple. They have been conditioned not to listen to us. I've had this experience recently: rightist-brainwashed workers shrieking at me that I'm a "conspiracy theorist" etc. for telling them the simple truth. They have been conditioned to shun truth as dangerous to them. They submit themselves to the "news"papers and watch TV to get their sports scores and celebrity gossip and with it they imbibe vast quantities of rightwing gibberish coded into the flow of pseudo-information that occupies their minds. That's it's intent. And obviously it works. For example, I was saying to some fairly intelligent fellows that The Simpsons is nothing but rightwing propaganda designed to make them complacent about the class system and cynical about the possibility of change (besides being an obvious shill for GE, Westinghouse, and the other Big Nuke corporations). Well, ha ha, as you might expect, the old man was mocked again (tin foil hat guy) and the whole conversation turned into a retelling of all the fabulous funnies from Homer and the gang. What can we expect at this point? The information ocean is poisoned like our lakes and rivers: pumped full of filth and lies crafted by whores hired by billionaire fascists and banksters. Can we be surprised then that the people sneer at socialism? They do what they've been told to do.
Finn rightly points out that it is also a failure of the left, and here I include the NDP, to do its job. Finn speaks of a failure of political courage.
The closest we've come to socialism in Canada was the CCF-NDP government Tommy Douglas headed in Saskatchewan. It was the government that, among its many accomplishments, overcame powerful medical, business and media opposition to bring public health care to this country. Political leadership and courage of that magnitude are nowhere to be seen in Canada today. The tendency is to shun any policy that might harm a party's credibility or incur the wrath of the rich and powerful.
If people are not offered a genuine alternative, but rather simply capitalism with a human face, or a "nice" capitalism, now long gone to that period of post-WW2 boom that shall never return, why shouldn't they vote for right wing parties? At least the right wingers actually believe the codswallop they're selling.
Mind you, in Latin America, there is a a socialist left that is having success after success, as Finn points out.
I think it is far more complicated than that.
I think consumer capitalism has been highly effective as it separates humans from our best interests in exchange for the illusion of prosperity. It offers cultural, intellectual, and economic layers all appealing to different sectors of the population to act in the interests of capitalism, as a master, and without examination of the realities or consequences.
I don't have much time right now, but here is, I think, a very good example:
Stephen Harper is Canada's Prime Minister. He and many of his supporters regard him as an intellectual with strong strategic instincts. He is educated as an economist and, presumably, has some grounding in modern history.
However, Stephen Harper, intellectually, adopts a philosophy, neo-liberalism, which calls him to the service of interests that often run counter to the nation and people which he leads. His unexamined role, intellectually and politically, in the neo-liberal philosophical world, is to render Canada's natural heritage, its resources, to an invisible class of investors.
This is has been wonderfully illustrated this past week with the prime minister in the Arctic promising to improve the lives of northerners while simultaneously he promotes and perpetuates the erasure of the northern cultural landscape in the service of the invisible investor class. When the northern fish species has been wiped out, when the oil has been drilled, and the minerals raped from the land, Harper's role, intellectually and politically, will have been fulfilled.
It is perfect.
It's far from perfect. Quit exaggerating.
PM Harper, for example, will never get a majority government due, in part, to the disgusting attack by him and his storm troopers on cultural funding in the province of Quebec. Without a victory in Quebec, Harper can kiss his majority goodbye. How is that perfect?
You missed the point.
Medicare was not enacted until 1962. Eighteen years after Douglas became Premier, and in fact not introduced under Douglas, rather under Woodrow Lloyd. One of the keys to Douglas's electoral success was sound fiscal management and the paying down of the previous Liberal debt.
Ha ha. Maybe I should find a discussion board ... with people that are actually on the left. Good grief.
Douglas presided at a time when thrift was a value. It is no longer. Today what is valued is cheap and big and the bigger and cheaper the better.
But the point I was attempting to make is that all of us are products of a consumer capitalist culture from whose embrace we really don't want to escape no matter haw harmful the results. It is like a drug addiction. We know its killing us but we like the high. Even on issues of sustainability and ecological degradation, we look for false solutions that offer us the fantasy of maintaining our current lifestyles.
The failure of the left isn't a lack of a coherent political voice. The failure of the left is that left, the left of Western culture, really does like consumer capitalism and all the gadgets and conveniences it brings to us at the cost of our global land base, colonialism, and the dispossession and extermination of the world's indigenous peoples. The modern left, since WWII, has never really said "STOP!". It just says, "nicer, please." The modern left doesn't want to end the degradation it just wants to slow it down. It doesn't want to end the dispossession it just wants to leave behind more crumbs. It doesn't want to end the raping and pillaging, it just wants to leave a few bucks on the night stand.
The reason the left isn't popular is because there is no real political left of any consequence in Western society. There is only a nicer, friendlier imperialist political class. As Neil Young might have put it, "a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand".
Drowned out by the louder voice of consumer culture is not silenced altogether. Rabble itself is such an unsilenced voice.
And you might save a little venom ... for the right. Have a better one.
Ha ha. Maybe I should find a discussion board ... with people that are actually on the left. Good grief.
N., I'm not going to respond in kind to this because I'm sure it was said out of frustration. Okay? We're both good people who have been on the same or opposite sides of many arguments without question each other's lefty cred before, I'm sure we can continue in that vein.
That said, I'm not at all going to claim to be the voice of the Left. On some issues, you have to drag me kicking and screaming leftwards to put me in eyesight of the Libs; on some issues, Che might tell me tone it down. I think most people are like that.
Everything I said is verifiable fact. You can check it out. And I do think Douglas, who was referenced in the piece we are discussing, can stand on his own without the hagiography of those who like to pretend he was not a practical, social democratic leader.
--
Drowned out by the louder voice of consumer culture is not silenced altogether. Rabble itself is such an unsilenced voice.
And you might save a little venom ... for the right. Have a better one.
Rabble is no such thing. Rabble is a diverse group of people representing any number of interests but no coherent political movement, analysis, or strategy. Most people come here to debate the issues of the day, some to grind an axe, some to provide the dessiminated talking points, and some purely for entertainment. But babble is not changing the world.
If anything, babble proves my point in that the people here, generally, are supportive and engaged in the political system that perpetuates the status quo.
Your comment about venom strikes me as quite odd. What, exactly, did I say that was venomous? I made no personal comments or attacks, I expressed no anger, and I have, I think, been quite polite. I simply argued that the left is left behind because it doesn't really exist in viable and radical form that actually challenges the established consumer capitalist order. And the reason for that is because most people who regard themeselves as left don't really oppose the fundamentals of that system.
Edited to add: The lnked article in the OP in this thread is very good: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/canada-you-sto...
I think all these NDP threads-- not all of which I have waded through, so I appologize ahead of time if I am rehashing the points of others-- is that there's this idea that all we have to do is get the NDP elected, and the left wins. And, when the NDP does get elected, and nothing much changes, it's because of betrayal or what have you.
I believe that it's rather unfair to the NDP to be a revolutionary party inside a system that was constructed specifically to stop anything that challenges the established powers in this country.
Review your elementary school social studies, Canadian history. The political system was constructed by people who had a deep and abiding hatred and contempt for democracy, for sharing power, and a deep and abiding hatred of anyone but those from thier own class with proper breeding.
We still live in a time where "United Empire Loyalist" is a title attached with honour in some circles.
I mean, ewwwww.
We on the left have unreasonable expectations of the NDP, not to mention Parliament and our Legislatures. We have this expectation that those institutions can be our vehicles for change.
Stuff and nonesence.
Well framing this whole arguement from a right wing religious analogy does not help any left framing of anything
Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.
Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.
But Finn argues that all we need is a strong leader, a leader with guts.
Some...paternalistic figure...to save us....
What we need is people like ourselves to notice that we're alone, that no one is going to save us, that it's time to become adults and look to our own two hands.
But Finn argues that all we need is a strong leader, a leader with guts.
Some...paternalistic figure...to save us....
He doesn't argue any such thing.
Sure, he invokes he visage of St. Tommy, and laments the absence of strong leadership:
"The closest we’ve come to socialism in Canada was the CCF-NDP government Tommy Douglas headed in Saskatchewan. It was the government that, among its many accomplishments, overcame powerful medical, business and media opposition to bring public health care to this country. Political leadership and courage of that magnitude are nowhere to be seen in Canada today. The tendency is to shun any policy that might harm a party’s credibility or incur the wrath of the rich and powerful."
And later, he finishes with the example of Obama who is trying to steer a course away from inevitable conflict.
Obama's not the problem, nor is a lack of gutsy leadership here in Canada.
Maybe they're waiting for us.
Exactly Tommy!
Fair enough. I'm not personally advocating that the NDP play such a role. I also think, just to make it clear, that the existence of the NDP in the Canadian political context, by providing some support for working class approaches to politics makes the Canadian political landscape better than the one in the USA in which the Democrats and Republicans have appropriated the terrain and turned their political battles into a meaningless choice between Pepsi and Coke.
The problem is that the NDP is far more successful at stamping out political fires on its left flank than similar fires on its right flank. Part of what the NDP does is to undermine support for political formations and movements to the left of it. The fact is, and obstinate NDP heads can explode in apoplexy for all I care, a stronger left would mean a stronger NDP. But, by and large, this isn' t wanted and is, in fact, sabotaged. We now have a situation, for example, in which decades of pathological anti-communism, a political trend that the NDP played no small part in nurturing and benefiting from, has led to a situation in the labour movement where efforts to organize, union density, and other key factors in the health and future growth of that movement are at a very low ebb. The working class socialist and other left political trends have, for the most part, been marginalized and virtually silenced in the labour movement. But these trends were a rich source of past successes, of a fighting tradition, and a wellspring of activists who helped organize and thereby mobilize the working class in the past. Therefore, the NDP DOES bear a general responsibility for the problems as outlined by Ed Finn even if the NDP is not, ever, going to be a vehicle for socialist change in Canada.