Is The Left Too Disunited?
So, I was looking up some stuff on wikipedia about federal poltical parties in Canada, and I couldn't help but notice something. We have quite a few smaller parties that don't have a seat in parliament, and most of them (with the exception of the CHP. the Libertarians and the Western Block), are basically parties of the left. Granted, the United Party and the Progressive Canadian Party are probably closer to the centre, but that would still put them to the left of the Conservatives. Of course, it plays out with the larger parties as well, since the Greens,BQ, NDP and Liberals tend to split the left-wing vote the most in this country (I know some people here will argue that the Liberal Party isn't a left-wing party, but I think it's fair to say they still campaingn for left-leaning voters).
So I guess my question is, is the left too disunited in Canada? And if it is, why is it so?
I think it would be fair to say that the left in Canada is too disunited, and that's why the Conservatives are in power now (tough the election scandal may have something to do with that as well, but I'm still waiting for the final verdict on that). As for why the left is disunited, I'm not sure, but if I had to guess, I'd say we on the left have a tendency to put certain issues important to us above the issues that are important to others.As a result, we tend to demonize those who don't agree with us, which not only prevents us from working together, but also turns the general public off and into the arms of the right.
Now, I'd give an example of an issue that I think divides the left, but I worry that doing so in the first post would make this thread about that issue. So instead I'll just see what you guys think of my theory, and maybe chime in again later.
Yes because of the constant right-wing campaign to discredit unions - unions tend to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor.
Right-wingers know there is a fence and too many left wingers need to realize that there is a fence and which side of the fence they are on.
It wasn't long ago that the right-wing had the same problem. It was a combination of things that created the successful Conservative coalition. The Reforms did lock the movement out of political power for 10 years. But they dragged the whole conversation to the right. The Liberals gave us austerity to make a play for those disenfranchised PCs. And eventually the PCs had no choice but to join up with the hard right. The soft-right understood the need for principled courage (even wrongheaded ones), and once the coalition was created, Harper taught the hard-right how to compromise on hotbutton issues like abortion.
The short lesson: it takes two to tango.
Whatever remains of the soft-left Liberals, they need to rediscover principle. They have to stop preaching that everything the World Bank and IMF wants is 100% good, and that globalization critics are somehow bigots for wanting jobs created in Canada. They have to stop saying "Conservatives are right that we can't afford pensions and health care, but since we're progressive, we'll give you a progressive version of austerity."
And whatever remains of the hard-left, they need to discover compromise. It doesn't even matter on what issues they compromise, so long as they recognize that you choose your battles, and hold the line in some areas so you can make bigger advancements elsewhere. In my personal opinion, it makes the most sense that we focus our energy on winning domestic economic battles, and recognize that we have very little influence on the international stage beyond what we personally do with our soldiers.
The last thing is a matter of proof. If we honestly believe that this country is too far to the right, and that the NDP represents something closer to the true "middle"... then over time, Conservatives will be proven wrong, and we'll be proven right. The oil frenzy will overheat the dollar and kill our exports. Austerity will kill jobs, not create them. The Conservative prison policy will be a waste of money that does nothing to reduce crime. If we're wrong about any of those issues, the Conservatives will get their due, and we ought to re-evaluate why our beliefs didn't pan out. But again, everything I know about the world makes me believe we'll be proven right. In a democracy, that's everything.
When you say, "they need to discover compromise", are you saying that they don't know how to compromise? I'm just asking so that I can better understand.
When did they last have principles? Perhaps my memory fails. but they seem to have been morally bankrupt as far back as I can remember.
As for compromise -- I think I agree with you but would phrase it differently. We need to come together on top priorities we can all support, while agreeing to disagree on others which may be equally important. Just as an army can't generally fight a successful campaign on multiple fronts, we need to unite as much as possible on particular issues and avoid fracturing of our efforts. Not sure how to do this, though.
I'm no strategist myself (and don't have a highly specific agenda in mind), but undermining the corporatist oligarchy and halting the ever-increasing socio-economic disparities would rank high on my list of priorities....
Another point worth considering is that many people have authoritarian personalities, and will happily accept every opinion of whatever religious or political leader they have been taught to believe in. A much smaller proportion of any human population is inherently skeptical of authority, and want to decide what is right for themselves.
It seems to be a matter of experience that while there are authoritarians on both sides, the non-authoritarians fall almost exclusively somewhere on the "left" end of the political spectrum. (BTW, this business of a 1-dimensional political spectrum is generally nonsense. At least 3 or 4 dimensions seem to me to be necessary for any reasonably accurate model of political opinion.)
As a result of having essentially all the independent thinkers on their side, the "left" will inherently be less united than the "my tribe, right or wrong" bulk of "right" supporters.
One thing is certainly true, and I guess I sond like a tired partisan record, but if so-called "progressive" Libs are serious about uniting the left, then it is time for them to put their actions behind their words and join the NDP. Libs ALWAYS run left, govern right, and IGNORE the so-called "left wing" voices in their party. Its time to make a choice.
there isnt much of the left in Canada actually..
what? 100 people showed up in Ottawa May 5 protest? and it was organized like months and months ago on facebooK? geez.
Quebec is thew new Canada.
Indeed, they need to listen to what Victor Jara said in his song "Ni Chicha Ni Limona"(which literally translates as "neither beer nor lemonade", but which is actually the equivalent, in Chilean Spanish to the expression "neither fish nor fowl")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-vAkrVX-kM&feature=related
here's a rough English translation of the lyrics, from this link to the Counterpunch website:(http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/28/who-killed-victor-jara/)
Come closer\
here in the heat of the sun\
if you’re already accustomed\
to somersaulting about\
it won’t hurt you\
to be where the potatoes burn.
(REFRAIN)
You, you are nothing\
You’re neither hard cider nor lemonade\
you go about putting everybody down\
man you have no dignity.\
Both good points.
Whenever I think about a unified anti-authoritarian movement, I always think of George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", where he once refers to the "Revolutionary discipline" of the leftward forces. When they had it, they were winning. Once they lost it...
If people on the left want to be as effective as the right-wing without having a top-down structure, then they need to discover the self-imposed discipline to do what is necessary without being told.
Let me give you an example.
I'm first and foremost an anti-racist, which also incidentally keeps me thinking about anti-poverty and anti-imperialism. Me and most leftward thinking people probably agree about the kind of world we'd like to live in. If you ask me my actual opinion on any given issue, there isn't a lot to disagree about. I've marched against the Iraq war, for Palestinean statehood, against Globalization, and for Wall Street Accountability. I'm almost a stereotype in that I give a shit about Mumia Abu Jamal, and have educated myself and others about the issue. (Add to that the Jena 6, Trayvon Martin, and whatever has captured some kind of attention.)
And yet nothing pisses me off more than being at an "Occupy Wall Street" rally and finding someone insist that "Ending the Occupation of Palestine" be one of our planks. Vice versa, nothing pisses me off more than going to an anti-War rally to see a bunch of "Legalize It!" posters.
And it's not because I'm anti-Palestine or pro-Prohibition. To use the army analogy from infracaninophile, I'm angry because we're marching into battle, and 20 soldiers are facing the wrong direction.
If they're not going to take orders from some kind of protest organizer or political leader, they need to simply "know" what action is required at the current moment without being told. Revolutionary discipline.
Occupiers' Return Overshadowed - by Tony Spears
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/05/05/occupiers-return-overshadowed
"Most of the people who turned out are just regular people who are concerned about their democracy,' said Hugh Goldring, an NDP Parliament Hill intern, historical researcher and Occupied organizer. Others came armed with principles, like Francis Tremblay, an advocate of the libertarian Freeman on the Land Movement. 'We're not obliged to be tied to the government,' he said..."
sounds like revolution isn't quite here yet...but 15,000 showed up on Saturday in Toronto for the Marijuana March - about 15 X larger than the May Day March.
I hear you regarding sticking to the purpose of an action, when appropriate.
On the other hand, I don't think that is the biggest problem. The fact is we don't all have the same values, see the same problems, or - most importantly - see the same solutions.
And good luck with that discipline. Not everyone, and not even every organization has the same approach when it comes to that.
I think one thing that would help is to try to focus on issues of common interest rather than differences. As a general rule, I think we should care more about the fact that we can work with someone on an issue, than about the fact we might disagree on another.
And that goes double for division over the idea that there is one and only one solution to a problem.
Quite often what passes for center-left politics is indistinguishable from what the center-right is capable of, and therefore tends to become incompatible with left leaning opinion as tradition would have it. Disunity is better described as wholesale alienation. It appears to be the case that some people are just not suited to the regressive adaptations required of today's politics.
This is an evaporating breed. They dont need to re-discover prinicple. The reason for left and leftish intellectuals to engage with and support the Liberal Party was because of the idea that was the way to get something done.
Things have changed. I can think of a number of individuals who have given up on that- referring to their former association with the LPC. Presumably thay are just the tip of the iceberg.
I wonder why folks like Justin Trudeau stay with that party.
They have to realize that that's not the way back to power by now.
Why DON'T they all jump off the sinking ship?
I'll agree with the basic premise that the left is tood disunited in Canada.
Then I'll turn it around and disagree entirely with CanadaApple's analysis of the Canadian political landscape.
The NDP is a bourgeois workers party that occupies the political centre (not left or centre-left). Where it has governed at the provincial level during the neo-liberal era, it has governed at best in a centrist fashion, implementing a combination of left-wing and right-wing policies; and at worst, as in the case of the Nova Scotia NDP government of Darrell Dexter, in an indistinguishable fashion from the parties of capital. In mulptiple cases it has implemented brutal austerity cuts.
The Liberals and Conservatives are the parties of capital. They occupy the centre-right and far right respectively. The conservatives are currently in favor with the capitalist class, with the liberals being more out of favor. Workers have nothing to gain from rapproachment with either party.
The Conservative's impulse towards social conservatism and economic libertarianism is tempered by the interests of their financial backers. The capitalist class favors political stability and the reshaping of Canda's political landscape in their image over the fastest possible elimination of of all social spending. On the social policy front, many capitalists are simply not religious social conservatives, but nonetheless support the Conservatives as the best means of advancing their economic interest in the current period. Accordingly, the Conservatives subordinate their social conservatism to the interests of their true masters.
During the Keynesian era, the Liberals were the party that capital chose to implement reforms to the capitalist system to pacify the working class. During the neo-liberal era, as the capitalist class abandoned any attempt to appease the working class, the Liberals became a party fully committed to the neo-liberal agenda of austerity, tax cuts, privatizations, and transnational trade deals. In power from 1993 to 2006, the party implemented brutal austerity that led to a dramatic reduction in the role of the federal government. Only in the minority Liberal government of Paul Martin from 2004 to 2006 was the NDP able to extract the timidest of new social spending initiatives, all of which were subsequently cancelled by the Conservatives.
Which brings us to the left. Most of the left is not organized politically. The only official political parties of note on the left are:
Communist Party of Canada -- Stalinist party
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist Leninist) -- Maoist party
Much of the left is embedded within the NDP, either as individuals or as members of left factions within the party.
The Official socialist group within the NDP is called the NDP Socialist Caucus -- It's leader is involved in a Trotskyist sect called Socialist Action.
The other Marxist sect which engages in official entryism in the NDP is Fightback.
There are a few other Marxist sects on the Canadian left, remnants of the Trotskyist movement and the various splits within it. Those that I am aware of are:
International Socialists
Communist League
New Socialist Group
The one non-sectarian socialist group in canada is the Socialist Project. The Socialist Project is based in Toronto, and contains both former Trotskyists and former Maoists. The Socialist project was instrumental in the creation of the Greater Toronto Worker's Assembly.
A similar group to the socialist project, called Vancouver Socialist Forum, existed in Vancouver from mid-2007 until late 2009, when its members voted to disband due to declining activity within the group. Vancouver Socialist Forum consisted mainly of ex-Communist League members, and ex-members of the group Mobilization Against War and Occupation, a Trotskyist cult which developed out of a split in the anti-war movement in Vancouver in the fall of 2003.
Then there's all the other activist groupings on the left: The remnants of the Occupy Movement; the remnants of the anti-war movement; various international solidarity movements, most notably the Palestine solidarity movement; immigrant solidarity organizations, the most visible being the anarchist group No One is Illegal; anti-poverty groups of various stripes; the environmental movement; indigenous movements; ect. Many of the members of various solidarity movements are members of the NDP; many others are not; and many activists are involved in multiple groups.
The union movement continues to officially support the NDP. The rank and file membership of the union movement is all over the map politically, though public sector union members tend to vote NDP in higher numbers than the general population.
There is a desperate need to unite as much of the revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist left -- that which does not denounce the concept of taking state power; is not hopelessly wedded to one of the Marxist sects; or hopelessly embedded in the NDP -- into a single organization.
I would envision the basic tenets of such an organization as being along the lines of the following: opposition to capitalism and its attendant institutions; recognition of the need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the recognition that so doing represents a serious challenge to the capitalist system; rejection of war and occupation, and support for national self-determination for all peoples -- including both for the Québecois people, and for the indiginous peoples in the Americas; recognition of Israel as an apartheid state, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel; opposition to racism, sexism, and homophobia; and support for people's movements fighting against capitalism and/or oppression.
Ken, first off, Trudeau believes his own propaganda, you know, "Canada's Natural and only Governing Party". Secondly, and I say it again, mark my words, he will be elected LPC leader. He wants to be PM. You know, I'm a Trudeau. My dad was PM and now its my turn.
So in other words, let's bemoan the fact that others don't think like we do, talk about how wrong they are, and push those wedges even further in.
That - in fact, the whole framing of this discussion in terms of who people are and where we think they fit on the spectrum - is a great strategy for getting fuck all done.
I don't think I'd ever vote for the party, but I know Liberal supporters who I'd wager are more progressive and principled on certain issues than many people here. And frankly I'd work (and in fact, HAVE worked) with a Liberal, a Conservative, or anyone on an issue of common concern if it meant actually having a chance to get something done.
Focus on the issue. Not what we think the person is all about.
Left Turn's overview is excellent. It was especially gratifying to see his analysis correctly classify the NDP as centre not left. Not in the wildest stretch of imagination can the NDP be considered 'left'. If this isn't obvious already, it will become so as the NDP moves even more rightwards under Mulcair, as I predict it will.
The issue deals with what we can typically observe of the centrist willingness to compromise, (and we're always conditioned to think of compromise as something to strive toward in getting things done) some of the most egregious facets of right wing ideology; that which doesn't actually get anything done except on behalf a certain demographic if we were to apply every conceivable analysis there is available to us today; if these things are not being adopted and supported outright, are largely ignored, off the radar entirely in other words, without being confronted by elements of the centrist view who primarily see the chance to obtain power itself, and everything that has to be considered on the established path to power, as the preferred means to their own end. When we like to talk about such things, it is the leftist point of view who are always told how wrong headed they are. Many actually start believing it because it skips back at people like a busted recording.
The premise of this thread is a huge understatement that "disunity" is completely inaccurate.
There ARE legitimate and fundamental differences of opinion on the left, and not just differences in degree or strategy.
It's the old reform/revolutionary debate. Some people see reforms to capitalist system as the goal. Some people see reforms to the capitalist system as "pacifying" any chance of a truly new system. (One with fundamental changes to property and ownership.)
If you have a good faith belief that the NDP is fundamentally indistinguishable from the Conservatives, then shared hatred of the far right isn't enough to make you vote NDP. In fact, you'll vote for a party with less than 1% of the popular vote even if the Conservatives win, because you believe that things need to get worse before they get better. The type of person who believes that workers need to be angered by the far right, instead of pacified with better pensions and health care.
Really? Like the Liberals compromised themselves right out of western Canada on the gun registry issue?
And non-compromising positions like the one that says the first priority in environmentalism is not to work on the environmental front, but to work to overthrow the capitalist system?
The question of who is compromising, and whether in fact that is always bad thing - and in fact, whether it is compromise at all - depends on whether you like it or not.
Wasn't there in fact a statement in #2 above about the need to discover compromise?
(edit)
And yes, the thread title is a bit of an understatement.
"Why doesn't everyone think like us?" seems to be the more the tenor of the conversation.
The liberals are slightly more out of touch with reality than you are, I'll give you that. On the registry they're playing to a base that no longer exists in their corner, having evaporated before their very eyes. But the reality for anyone who's been following is they were run out of Western Canada decades ago because of their inability to effectively present a case to people, which persists today, that they're being robbed by big oil and their representatives at the provincial and federal government level. Such talk isn't exactly business friendly you see.
I didn't think so. In fact, I thought it was an excellent example of some of the impediments to unity of progressive people. I thought it was opinionated, inaccurate, but most of all - profoundly sectarian. Let me give you some examples as to why I say that.
That party renounced Stalin about 55 years ago. So, to call them "Stalinist" is to say, "yeah, but they're liars or they're kidding themselves, I know better what they really are!" That may well be true... but do you think that's conducive to uniting with people, especially those who "wrongly believe" that they're no longer Stalinist?
That party renounced Mao about 35 years ago. Now, take my earlier comment and replace "Stalin" by "Mao" throughout.
It's just more name-calling. Are we going to have a commission to determine whether all these insulting characterizations are "objective accurate" or not? Or are we just going to stop acting like the sectarians that we supposedly are better than, and find grounds on which to unite?
Good to know. So there's one sect which isn't sectarian. Why? Because they have both "former Trotskyists" and "former Maoists" in it! What if someone were a present Trotskyist or Maoist or Stalinist or Mulcairite or member of the Liberal party or member of the Green party or ... Would they have to swear off all that in order to join the "non-sectarian" Socialist Project?
Nonsense. There's not a single union I know in Québec (speaking of either Québec-based unions or Québec sections of other unions) that "officially" supports the NDP. Not saying it can't happen, just never heard of it. And there are many many unions outside Québec that don't support the NDP. So what is it with these sweeping nonsensical generalizations? Or is Québec not worthy of inclusion in this discussion?
Ah, so before we can unite with anyone, let's list and insult those who aren't welcome.
There follows Left Turn's definition of what it means to be left. I'm sure there are at least five people who will agree with that list to the letter, then we can have our New United Left organization set up in no time.
Here's my idea:
1. We should unite with whoever wants to unite in any real campaign or movement or struggle - even if they don't "believe" anything or "denounce" anything or don't want to get involved in anything else.
2. We should exclude anyone who has been proven to repeatedly engage in acts aiming to divide, sabotage, undermine the unity built as per #1.
3. We should have as our guiding principle that no one can be excluded, insulted, or condemned just because of their adherence to any organization - except those that are avowedly and unmistakably racist, fascist, sexist, or homophobic - and even in those cases, persons who renounce those aspects should not be excluded. To be clear, I can vote Conservative or Liberal or NDP without being excluded on the grounds that I am aiding and abetting imperialism, capitalism, etc. Otherwise, we're back to Left Turn's five (5) members.
I think that's good enough for me. Exclude no one, except those who exclude themselves.
Too broad?? Great! Victory will be all the nearer!
Good points, Unionist.
I don't know where the line in the sand is for you, but for me, it is good enough that people do their best to not bring their racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination to the table.
I am sure we have all had to work with people at different places on those issues than we are.
The problems arise when people enter movements on behalf of their political parties with the object of either 'steering' or stealing the issue away from the intentions of a campaign or movement. The NDP in particular has been notorious for hijacking issues and pimping them off for their own ends.
Fully agree with that - and in my original post, I was only referring to individuals who publicly associate with such organizations. If we excluded people with racist or sexist or homophobic or other personal failings from our struggles, we'd have no one on the picket line during a strike. The defining character of our movement has to be unity in action, in deeds - what people think is their own business, and what they say can be debated or opposed. But division - nah, what we need is multiplication.
In particular? Name one political party - or even a political philosophy - which has not had some members do exactly the same thing.
Of course situations like that are a delicate game, and not everyone involved plays in good faith. But to single out and make a sweeping generalization about the members of one party is baseless.
And @ Unionist
I'd say we see eye-to-eye on that. Although I think even when it comes to organizations there are grey areas, for instance, members of the Catholic church who might happen to be onside on a political issue. I understand that working with people associated with certain groups can be a major and sometimes an imposible problem. I don't bring it up to undercut your argument, but rather to point out that the circle can be wider than we might think in certain circumstances .
Really, I would take it as far as to say that we should work together unless there is something in the way that makes it impossible to do so. And I think that comes down to case-by-case circumstances.
The true left (Trotskyists, Maoists, Marxists, Stalinists, and Leninists) are fair to call the NDP a centrist party. At the present moment, the NDP's goal is to create/maintain a mixed economy. It's always been a Reformist organization, not a Revolutionary one.
If your goal is a mixed economy -- progressive taxation and a robust social safety net -- then you can work with anyone to achieve incremental gains. Even the dreaded Liberal party! If the Liberals say "okay, fine, we'll put a bit more money into education and child care", you can claim victory, even if you wanted much more. That's certainly what Jack Layton did when he was alive. "What's the best we can achieve with the limited power that we have now, and still gain credit that allows us to gain more power later?"
But if your goal is a something more drastic and revolutionary (such as the eradication of personal property), then you can't support incrementalism. In fact, incrementalism actually works against your cause. Better pensions and health care is to sell out your dream, because all you're doing is pacifying the revolution that we need to eradicate the real source of injustice.
Those people make up less than 1% of the electorate. But as Unionist said, I'm sure you can find a few. I suppose the reformists will have to continue without the revolutionaries. I'm sure that they'll manage.
IMWV communists are equal to fascists. they meet on the extreme political circle continuum. never met a ND person who believed in communism. not sayin there isn't any just never met 1.
Lemme know next time you're travelling to Bismarck, and I'll give you some contact info.