babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Then go up the road to Moscow, ND.
ha ha jokers all... i cringe when mom and the rest use NDPer. i like the way AB uses NDs not NDPs. it makes way more sense.
Leftist political parties in this country have no conceivable pathway toward affecting change, nor do they have the ability to bring about change themselves. This is due to the impossibility of overcoming the tremendous obstacles dead set against the various ideological strains by the prevailing political climate, in the form of corporate media concentration, financial challenges stemming from the unlikelihood that corporations and the well heeled would ever front the expenses; as the current IOU arrangements with the traditional parties provides for; and the result as well of the deeply entrenched mainstream political current within the unconsciousness of the general electorate. As a result it has no unifying incentive. There is no brass ring in sight by which everyone involved might observe for themselves as something close at hand, which might inspire and perhaps cause a few minor historical specifics in the context of today's circumstances to be set aside, on behalf of the cause of a leftist coalition movement that could at least echo a little louder across the all too normal barren landscape we see before us today. Fragmentation is the privilege of those who never conceive of a time when it might be their turn. This is not so much their fault as it is the reality.
They denounced Stalin as a person, along with his purges and show trials and all that. Yet as recently as 2008 I heard their leader Miguel Figueroa give a speech in support of Stalin's foreign policy of a "popular front against fascism". As far a I know they havn't renounced their support for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and continue to have a positive view of the popular front movements in France and Spain in the late 30's which were instrumental in crushing the revolutionary uprisings in both countries.
I've had conversations with a couple of their members in Vancouver who've advocated an alliance (popular front) with the liberal wing of capital against Stephen Harper; and back in the fall they had a front page article in their newspaper advocating a vote for Vision Vancouver in the municipal election -- Vision Vancouver is an alliance between the unions and the developers.
I used the term Maoist to define them as coming from the wing of the worldwide communist movement that sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split in 1960.
They currently have a position of uncritical support of North Korea.
How else do you propose that I define these groups?
I define Socialist Project as non-sectarian because their members actually engage in the broader class struggle; don't use their involvement in the broader class struggle to try to sell some newspaper they publish; and have a basis of unity that is not based on a particular analysis of the Soviet Union, or the nature of the Cuban revolution, or other such petty differences that we need to put behind us.
Apologies, I should have said that most of the labour movement in English Canada is pro-NDP. The labour movement in Quebec by and large is not. I was mainly referring to the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) affiliated unions -- the CLC is definitely pro-NDP.
For starters, state power is necessary if we are to engage in the process of transcending capitalism. This is the starting point for the conversation of uniting the anti-capitalist left and getting it more politically organized. To include the anarchists who reject the idea of taking state power is to turn the whole thing into just another version of what we already have -- and that doesn't get us anywhere that we can't already get with the level of organization we already have.
I'm open to including those who are currently in the various sects, provided they don't use their participation in the regroupment process to:
a) push the program of their group against the wishes of the majority
b) denounce the regroupment process
c) Use their involvement in the regroupment process to recruit new members to their group
Way to provide a total caricature of what I actually wrote. Besides which, the program I put forth is merely a starting point for discussion. I'd be more than willing to alter the program in the interest of maintaining unity. Provided it doesn't devlolve into a debate over which wording will enable us to attract more people to the regroupment process -- as though somehow this is more important than getting people past the defeatist notion that Mulcair is the best we can ever do.
Ok, Left Turn, what did you think of my 3-point program?
Oops, I thought your three-point plan was an attempt to mock what I wrote.
I'd be open to considering your three-point plan, but I'm not really sure what it would mean in practice for the anti-capitalist movement and whether it would get us anywhere that we can't already get with the organizations we already have.
First, I find it very ironic that someone whose handle is "socialdemocraticmiddle" is calling for "Revolutionary Discipline"
That's just plain wrong. Radicals and revolutionaries advocate for reforms all the time. There's a difference between agitating for specific reforms and reformism (or the neoliberal sub-reformism practiced by the NDP). Many reforms can help make revolution more possible. For example, it's easier to carry on revolutionary organizing when you don't have to work 80 hours a day. People are more confident and willing to take action when there is some sort of social welfare system that can be a bit of a safety net. Improved access to genuinely liberatory education can help people understand the world we live in and the importance of radical change.
Note that none of the revolutionary organizations in Quebec are supporting Charest's massive tuition hikes to speed the revolutionary process. Similarly, I don't see any radicals or revolutionaries supporting right-wing initiatives to make people worse off.
I'm an open revolutionary, and I have always supported better wages, conditions, and benefits for the members of my union. My reformist social-democratic government, on the other hand...
Well said, genstrike.
Well, there could be a long-term justification for the Liberals to run "left of the NDP"--but that's in the event that the NDP grows into an overentrenched "establishment" governing party. (Sort of how the Lib Dems under Charles Kennedy took to running to the left of Blair, in their way.)
@ adma
Hadn't considered that. I was thinking more in terms of individual people who are aligned wiht those parties.
On the other hand, it was probably a shock to a few people when Brian Mulroney got that environmental award some years back.
genstrike, I'm not trying to make the case that all revolutionaries are against reform. Only explaining why some would rather accept no gains than incremental gains.
Personally, I'm happy to take the full cooperation of anyone who wants a more equal society, considering the current state of affairs. I'd like to think we can all support even a marginal improvement in wages, benefits, and working conditions, whether your end game is the obliteration of private property or not.
But not all people feel that way. On quite a regular basis I see people saying that half a loaf of bread is unacceptable, that we insist on a full loaf, no matter how many times we end up with no loaf at all.