Boycottons Les Elections / Boycott The Elections 2011: Vote With Your Feet (2)
http://boycottelections2011.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-dont-endorse-voti...
continued from here
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/boycott-les-elections-boycott-...
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" Emma Goldman
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering.
Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
By not voting, I am letting a Harper supporter to speak for me. Hell no.
@ Tobold #120
In which case your position against voting because you think it legitimizes the electoral system - which would seem to be your main point - is nonsense.
Where did I say voting legitimizes the electoral system? This is weird because I gave you the quotes right there. I actually provided you with the direct quotes from my argument, none of which mentioned the electoral system, and yet you somehow come up with this claim that I am refering to voting as legitimizing the electoral system. Maybe you need to take a break or something because your errors are bogging down conversation.
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering.
Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
This is baiting and I'd like to know why it is being allowed here.
I also want to know why we have 3 threads at once derailed by this self proclaimed protest encouragin us to throw what little political power away. I know I don't have the energy to keep up with this and it is making we want to avoid this place right now. Of course I am sure that is what it is for.
Having to fight the ongoing discouraging of the political particip[ation of the left at this rate wears down a place like this. When we will agree at a point has been made -- perhaps 50,000 times. Are we going to believe it if it is repeated 100,000 times?
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering.
Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
This is baiting and I'd like to know why it is being allowed here.
I also want to know why we have 3 threads at once derailed by this self proclaimed protest encouragin us to throw what little political power away. I know I don't have the energy to keep up with this and it is making we want to avoid this place right now. Of course I am sure that is what it is for.
Having to fight the ongoing discouraging of the political particip[ation of the left at this rate wears down a place like this. When we will agree at a point has been made -- perhaps 50,000 times. Are we going to believe it if it is repeated 100,000 times?
I don`t know what`s funnier, the fact that you are arguing against allowing discussion of voting versus not voting as a tactic on a supposedly `left` message board, or the fact that you think casting a ballot for some charlatan mp every few years constitutes `participation` or `political power` :D
You have a theory that an NDP government would behave differently than former Liberal and Conservative governments. I think the theory is poorly articulated and deeply flawed.Your posts are littered with the theme that the federal NDP is just another neoliberal party in sheep's clothing. Your proposition says something along the lines that because there have only ever been two established lying-liar parties running the country, then the NDP must be the same. And that's called a fallacious argument. Youre basically saying that because the two lyingest-liar parties have poisoned the well of democracy in this country, we therefore can not trust any other political party based on the crooked and corrupted records of the only two parties that have governed federally since 1867.
And this is falsifiable on a number of levels. The NDP's voting record against the neoliberal agenda in Ottawa is a good place to start. The two oldest political parties have long and established ties to Bay Street money and influence whereas the NDP has never. Your knee-jerk reaction to the one party that actually opposed the Harper stoogeaucracy more times than any other party in Ottawa over the last five years is more conspiracy theory than anything.
I have never claimed that the NDP are ideologically neo-liberal or conservative, nor that they were hiding thier true colours behind socialist rhetoric. In fact I have explicitly argued the opposite. My claim is that party ideology doesn't matter because the strictures of governance decide the range of policy, not the party: http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1242011/Irsquove-laid-out-my
@ Tobold
Actually no, you have not said that before. And it would seem to be a contradition with your statement that we should not vote because you feel it (and even walking into a polling station to spoil a ballot) legitimizes the system. If you believe our electoral system is neutral then it should not matter to you whether one votes or not.
But you really don't need to bother answering.
Are you kidding me? Wake up, seriously.
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
This is baiting and I'd like to know why it is being allowed here.
Baiting?
I have never claimed that the NDP are ideologically neo-liberal or conservative, nor that they were hiding thier true colours behind socialist rhetoric. In fact I have explicitly argued the opposite. My claim is that party ideology doesn't matter because the strictures of governance decide the range of policy, not the party: http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1242011/Irsquove-laid-out-my#4 The popularity and electoral success of the federal NDP peaked in 1988 but failed to have any impact on the progression of neo-liberal polciies.
And it's the bad electoral system which tends to punish third parties and their voters. It's there in the numbers showing how much harder the NDP has to work for each seat they win compared to the old line parties. Our obsolete electoral system tends to freeze any and all momentum for third parties in that way while the other two wings of the same conservative party continue taking voters for granted. They know they only have to appeal to somewhere around 25% of registered voters in order to win a false majority.
But this doesn't dissuade me or other NDPers from voting for a party with electoral reform as one its many progressive campaign planks.
Youre suggesting that the only real path to democracy is blood in the streets and to lay down for the stoogeaucracy on election days every four years.
So, why would a blood in the streets kind of person also be an advocate for laying down for the stoogeaucracy on election day every four years? Don't the two themes tend to conflict with each other, one for violent revolution and the other a silent protest that could be described as inaction and impotence that can only favour the corrupt two-party stoogeaucracy in Ottawa? Can you show us that you advocate this same strategy for not voting on a social forum friendly to Lib/Tory voters as well? Why here on babble, a bastion of NDP support? What's so special about telling NDPers not to bother voting on the one day that counts for anything every four years?
Youre suggesting that the only real path to democracy is blood in the streets and to lay down for the stoogeaucracy on election days every four years.
So, why would a blood in the streets kind of person also be an advocate for laying down for the stoogeaucracy on election day every four years? Don't the two themes tend to conflict with each other, one for violent revolution and the other a silent protest that could be described as inaction and impotence that can only favour the corrupt two-party stoogeaucracy in Ottawa? Can you show us that you advocate this same strategy for not voting on a social forum friendly to Lib/Tory voters as well? Why here on babble, a bastion of NDP support? What's so special about telling NDPers not to bother voting on the one day that counts for anything every four years?
You obviously didn't read the argument. Please get serious.
(edit)
I means seriously. Where have I ever mentioned, let alone advocated, "violent revolution"?
And if you think election day is the only day "that counts for anything" then you have played right into their hands.
Not voting doesn't send the message that you want more change than what's on offer, it just sends the message that you don't care.
Youre suggesting that the only real path to democracy is blood in the streets and to lay down for the stoogeaucracy on election days every four years.
So, why would a blood in the streets kind of person also be an advocate for laying down for the stoogeaucracy on election day every four years? Don't the two themes tend to conflict with each other, one for violent revolution and the other a silent protest that could be described as inaction and impotence that can only favour the corrupt two-party stoogeaucracy in Ottawa? Can you show us that you advocate this same strategy for not voting on a social forum friendly to Lib/Tory voters as well? Why here on babble, a bastion of NDP support? What's so special about telling NDPers not to bother voting on the one day that counts for anything every four years?
You obviously didn't read the argument.
Sorry but all I got out of your other post was that the NDP is worthless and weak, and that voting NDP is futile. Meanwhile the Bay Street stoogeaucracy is scrambling to try and win a phony-baloney majority by May 2nd. For all their big money campaign support, they suddenly don't seem so invincible. In fact, the Liberals and Tories are more beatable now than they have been in a long time. Why is that?
You say that voting against the neoliberal agenda in Canada is futile. But we don't have the full neoliberal regime in Canadian economy and politics.
Canada is still not what existed in 1973-85 Chile. There has been no privatization of social welfare administration here. Our national pension plan is still not privatized similarly. We still have publicly funded medicare in Canada while they lie to us about not wanting to privatize and deregulate.
Canadians are not being asked to pay for drinking water, like Bolivians and Argentinans were told they would have to.
Boris Yeltsin took Thatcher's and Bush I's advice to heart and did try to be a dictator. Russians didn't appreciate it very much at all.
No, we still don't have the neoliberal full monty here in Canada. At least not yet with some of it stalled for lack of producing the goods, and the rest of the agenda is just too far right wing and wacky for them to try it on for size here in the Puerto Rico du Nord.
There is still much of the neoliberal agenda that has not been implemented in Canada. Not while the effective opposition NDP has been in Ottawa and breathing down their necks anyway. This could change if either of the two big money Bay Street parties manage to win a phony majority. You'd think that with big money campaigns and a wonky electoral system favouring neoliberal stoogeacracy that they could pull it off. Not so. Not with Jack Layton and the NDP providing so much hope to millions of voters in our Northern Puerto Rico. Even their bad electoral system doesn't seem to be rewarding the ideology these days.
Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin, VI
Sorry but all I got out of your other post was that the NDP is worthless and weak, and that voting NDP is futile.
Then you didn't read the argument.
Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments? Lenin, VI
Lenin's answer is, of course, an emphatic yes and he elaborated many good reasons to substantiate that view.
An infantile disorder. I must say that I find that term highly amusing.
Tobold/anondrogys
telling people to wake up and get serious is baiting k?
not allowed k?
I think we have to continue to be engaged and planting the seeds of democracy for future crops to bear fruit. I don't stop the day after the election. I often talk politics and like to point out the significant flaws in our stoogeaucracy the other 1,460 days either side of fraudulent FPTP elections when and where the opportunity arises.
Tobold/anondrogys
telling people to wake up and get serious is baiting k?
not allowed k?
Wow. Clear double standard going on but fine, I'll play along.
'Bastion' of NDP support' is an understatement. It's worse than that. And since all the party faithful are so numerous here along with all your threads of hosannas and praise to the glories of the dipster party, I must say I'm a bit intrigued at the degree of panic which has ensued when a small discussion of the pros and cons of voting occurs...
Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments? Lenin, VI
Lenin's answer is, of course, an emphatic yes and he elaborated many good reasons to substantiate that view.
An infantile disorder. I must say that I find that term highly amusing.
A couple of takes on this from Leninist boycotters. Not everything he said was gospel you know.
http://sorev.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/a-communist-position-on-bourgeois-...
http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/changes-ahead-and-...
Tobold/anondrogys
telling people to wake up and get serious is baiting k?
not allowed k?
I wasn`t familiar with this, I will play along but honestly the boycott group has been more civil than the response we were met with.
Fidel, if you really think Canada is immune to the direction of global capitalism then you are buying into the Harper narrative of Canada being a strong economy in a sea of turbulence. Just because it`s not advanced to the point is has in the UK (which was accelerating just as much under Labour, an NDP-type party) doesn`t meant Canada hasn`t been wrapped up in the same theft from workers and increased exploitation as the rest of the world. Our capitalists do exploit people in other countries of course too. But the privatizations, cutbacks, whatever depend more on who is calling the shots - not me, or you, or MPs, but the Canadian ruling class, capitalists and landlords, etc, and the objective economic situation. NDP has behaved similarly to every other party when in power and even takes on the same sheen, as does Labour, and the `Socialist` parties in Europe, even if some of them truly `believe` in social justice or whatever.
Might I add, neoliberalism has already produced a large population of proletarians in precarious labour, forced part time, or many multiple jobs with no rights based on the dire situation for many working class youth. These `honourable` MPs you want to represent you are of an age that they will remember being able to afford their year of University from their summer job. There is real neoliberal (which is nothing more than capital on the offensive...) exploitation going on under your nose, so why should be just go drop a vote and shut our mouths, knowing full well that there won`t be a `debate` on it in our `house` and the government can do little to alter the situation at this time.
1. Lenin argued, for example, that showing the worthlessness of Parliament BY PARTICIPATING IN IT was important and useful.
it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before - the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism "politically obsolete".
2. The 2nd point was around the importance of combining legal and illegal struggles.
The authors of the theses are engaged in muddled thinking; they have forgotten the experience of many, if not all, revolutions, which shows the great usefulness, during a revolution, of a combination of mass action outside a reactionary parliament with an opposition sympathetic to (or, better still, directly supporting) the revolution within it. The Dutch, and the "Lefts" in general, argue in this respect like doctrinaires of the revolution, who have never taken part in a real revolution, have never given thought to the history of revolutions, or have naively mistaken subjective "rejection" of a reactionary institution for its actual destruction by the combined operation of a number of objective factors. The surest way of discrediting and damaging a new political (and not only political) idea is to reduce it to absurdity on the plea of defending it.
3. The author acknowledges that there are circumstances in which a boycott could be positive. However, he rejects a blanket boycott approach for what are excellent reasons.
------------------------------------------
The bolded sentence is quite famous and rightly so.
Just so I'm clear, what is the language I am permitted to use with regard to someone who seems to grossly and consistently misrepresent an other's arguments - to someone who appears not to be serious about constructive dialogue? Perhaps if I had a couple phrases that were officially allowed I could use those.
Ok... I am down for quoting Lenin but you didn`t deal with anything raised in the links I posted. All I can say is that argument is dealing with a very different context and not all Lenin said is gospel.
Sure, if the most militant sectors of the proletariat in the area of Canada could go and have a sing and dance in parliament and unmask it from the inside, well that would be wonderful wouldn`t it. Where we are as the left right now and what bourgeois elections are like in Canada means that this is not a real thing we`re speaking about, but a totally detached idea that frankly can`t apply to the current reality on the ground. Currently, participating in the elections we argue is at the same time counter-productive, corrosive to revolutionary movement, and dishonest.
Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments? Lenin, VI
Lenin's answer is, of course, an emphatic yes and he elaborated many good reasons to substantiate that view.
An infantile disorder. I must say that I find that term highly amusing.
I think Lenin was talking in reference to a corrupt imperialist system in Russia where the Tsar and his cousin in Germany liked to wage terf wars with one another while millions of Russian troops went without winter boots and sometimes rifles and ammunition. They were cannon fodder for a couple of megalomaniacal psychopaths.
We have no breadlines in Ottawa or Toronto policed by a Tsarist Okrana on horses. There are no throngs of hungry protesters ordered shot to death at the palace gates.
There are no Canadian peasants obligated to throw themselves down prostrate on the ground in the presence of royalty, as it once was in imperial China in the last century.
Canadians do not do back-breaking work in cane fields from sunup to sundown under the tropical sun for what amounts to slave wages while their sons and daughters sell themselves to wealthy tourists. like it was in Cuba leading up to 1959.
Canadians still have the right to see a doctor when necessary, even if the neoliberal stooges in Ottawa undermine Tommy's idea every chance they get while Canadians aren't looking. We still have a socialized pension plan and publicly funded services everywhere we look. Canada is still more socialist than the USSA in many ways.
Canadians are just not ready for violent revolution in the streets.
Oh yeah, but they do back breaking work in hotel rooms and plenty of other places. Are they not actually exploited or do you just not think about them? Also no one claimed Canadians are `ready` for revolution, hell I`m not ready to have one today, what kind of idea is this? We wouldn`t need a boycott campaign if Canadians were ready for revolution...
Should we participate in bourgeois parliaments? Lenin, VI
Lenin's answer is, of course, an emphatic yes and he elaborated many good reasons to substantiate that view.
An infantile disorder. I must say that I find that term highly amusing.
I think Lenin was talking in reference to a corrupt imperialist system in Russia where the Tsar and his cousin in Germany liked to wage terf wars with one another while millions of Russian troops went without winter boots and sometimes rifles and ammunition. They were cannon fodder for a couple of megalomaniacal psychopaths.
We have no breadlines in Ottawa or Toronto policed by a Tsarist Okrana on horses. There are no throngs of hungry protesters ordered shot to death at the palace gates.
There are no Canadian peasants obligated to throw themselves down prostrate on the ground in the presence of royalty, as it once was in imperial China in the last century.
Canadians do not do back-breaking work in cane fields from sunup to sundown under the tropical sun for what amounts to slave wages while their sons and daughters sell themselves to wealthy tourists. like it was in Cuba leading up to 1959.
Canadians still have the right to see a doctor when necessary, even if the neoliberal stooges in Ottawa undermine Tommy's idea every chance they get while Canadians aren't looking. We still have a socialized pension plan and publicly funded services everywhere we look. Canada is still more socialist than the USSA in many ways.
Canadians are just not ready for violent revolution in the streets. Canada is not pregnant with revolution, like Tsarist era Russia was, or Puyi's China, or Batista's Cuba. The neoliberal order of things emanating from Ottawa is still not what it was in Pinochet's Chile or Rodríguez' Bolivia. Not by a lot.
It`s weird for me to see a person called Fidel arguing cynically that things aren`t `that bad` and we don`t need to do away with capitalism. I don`t know if your namesake would agree.
anondrogys - you're welcome to describe the very successful "proletarian organs of power" that have been developed by the RCP in Canada as a result of their "wise" approach to avoid wasting time with elections and so on.
However, in the absence of such "organs of power" the traditional willingness to use any means of struggle seems a good one. Have a nice day.
Edited to add: Gilles Duceppe of the BQ seems to be remarkably successful at using Parliament to advance a separatist agenda as best he can. His Party uses the platform in Parliament to a)get the best deal for Quebec, and b)to show how awful the current arrangement is. This seems to be remarkably similar to what Lenin wrote about 100 years ago. Except Lenin was writing about advancing a socialist agenda rather than a separatist one.
Oh yeah, but they do back breaking work in hotel rooms and plenty of other places. Are they not actually exploited or do you just not think about them?
Any good Marxist-Leninist would tell them to organize and join workers collectives.
But they should put their collective foot down when it comes to conscription and being forced to fight a senseless winter war against the Kaiser's army while Nicky occasionally rides off back to Moscow to make nooky with his wife. Russians endured some horrible famines, anti-semitic pogroms and grinding poverty that Canadians will probably never experience in their life times. No, Russians had the full imperialist monty leading up to the revolution. And so were the Chinese fed up with imperialism.
This watered-down North American version of neoliberalism pales in comparison to the full right wing agenda.
And there aren't many Canadians or Americans alive today who would remember what real laissez-faire capitalism was like for 30 years to 1929. Canadians and Americans rejected it by democratic choice in the 1930s. Things are not close to being that far to the political and economic right wing in Canada today.
Also no one claimed Canadians are `ready` for revolution, hell I`m not ready to have one today, what kind of idea is this? We wouldn`t need a boycott campaign if Canadians were ready for revolution...
You can lay down for the stoogeaucracy on election day if you want to. I will continue voting until they take that right away from me as well. In the mean time, there is still too much socialism in Canada and the US for people to take to the streets in protest never mind picking up rifles, like millions of Russians and Maoists and Cuban campesinos once felt they had no other alternatives. Things are just not that bad in Bananada. At least not yet anyway.
anond ... Those proletarian "organs of power" are what are advocated by the authors at one of the links you provided. This is in contrast to involvement in Parliament as advocated by most babblers and left wing orgs such as the Canadian CP.
So, if you have nothing to say about such new "organs of power" , and little or nothing is done in that regard, why the antipathy towards other methods of struggle, such as through an election? It seems like a foolish waste of YOUR time. lol.
ditto for Tobold who seems unwilling to advance any alternative whatsoever.
Hm. I don`t live in Quebec so I can`t comment on that but I appreciate your cynicism and total disgust at the idea of working for something outside a bourgeois framework. Yes, indeed, people can worry about their worrisome proletarian power, meanwhile you will be at the polls :D
anondrogys - you're welcome to describe the very successful "proletarian organs of power" that have been developed by the RCP in Canada as a result of their "wise" approach to avoid wasting time with elections and so on.
However, in the absence of such "organs of power" the traditional willingness to use any means of struggle seems a good one. Have a nice day.
Edited to add: Gilles Duceppe of the BQ seems to be remarkably successful at using Parliament to advance a separatist agenda as best he can. His Party uses the platform in Parliament to a)get the best deal for Quebec, and b)to show how awful the current arrangement is. This seems to be remarkably similar to what Lenin wrote about 100 years ago. Except Lenin was writing about advancing a socialist agenda rather than a separatist one.
I`m not sure what to say to this... It doesn`t address anything I said. Are you proposing we get on board with the neoliberal agenda and start a political party and get elected to then suddenly preach socialism in parliament? Or start another pseudo-left wing electoral party to provide a `voice` for workers in Parliament? I`ve already brought up how unrealistic this is. We have to deal with the reality of where we are right now. There is no home for revolutionary workers in parliament, nor a path there. And if they get to parliament and they speak, who is listening? The working class watching CPAC? The majority totally disconnected from parliament?
anond ... Those proletarian "organs of power" are what are advocated by the authors at one of the links you provided. This is in contrast to involvement in Parliament as advocated by most babblers and left wing orgs such as the Canadian CP.
So, if you have nothing to say about such new "organs of power" , and little or nothing is done in that regard, why the antipathy towards other methods of struggle, such as through an election? It seems like a foolish waste of YOUR time. lol.
ditto for Tobold who seems unwilling to advance any alternative whatsoever.
Sorry if you misunderstand, I said I haven`t experienced organizing with the RCP or groups they are active in among the working class. I am familiar with their material and agree with their political line on these issues. I am for building proletarian organs of power.
Oh yeah, but they do back breaking work in hotel rooms and plenty of other places. Are they not actually exploited or do you just not think about them?Any good Marxist-Leninist would tell them to organize and join workers collectives.
But they should put their collective foot down when it comes to conscription and being forced to fight a senseless winter war against the Kaiser's army while Nicky occasionally rides off back to Moscow to make nooky with his wife. Russians endured some horrible famines, anti-semitic pogroms and grinding poverty that Canadians will probably never experience in their life times. No, Russians had the full imperialist monty leading up to the revolution. And so were the Chinese fed up with imperialism.
This watered-down North American version of neoliberalism pales in comparison to the full right wing agenda.
And there aren't many Canadians or Americans alive today who would remember what real laissez-faire capitalism was like for 30 years to 1929. Canadians and Americans rejected it by democratic choice in the 1930s. Things are not close to being that far to the political and economic right wing in Canada today.
Also no one claimed Canadians are `ready` for revolution, hell I`m not ready to have one today, what kind of idea is this? We wouldn`t need a boycott campaign if Canadians were ready for revolution...You can lay down for the stoogeaucracy on election day if you want to. I will continue voting until they take that right away from me as well. In the mean time, there is still too much socialism in Canada and the US for people to take to the streets in protest never mind picking up rifles, like millions of Russians and Maoists and Cuban campesinos once felt they had no other alternatives. Things are just not that bad in Bananada. At least not yet anyway.
We`re definitely not speaking the same language , but I can tell you you`re not advancing a Marxist-Leninist historical or theoretical viewpoint here. If you read Theses on Feurbach you will note that Marx said `the point is to change it.`
You seem to think it`s more important to shut up and vote, rather than actually working and organizing to destroy capitalism right now. Even if you have some hokey theory about how destitute things have to be for a revolution, does that mean people shouldn`t do anything to prepare, or actively do things to contribute to the kind of world they want to see, a world without class exploitation?
Freedom 55
Can you explain that last sentence? Sorry, I'm not getting your meaning.
I'm saying that no one can seriously claim to be surprised that Harper didn't refuse the prime ministership just because he received the weakest mandate in the history of the federal government. None of the advocates on non-voting are suggesting that that's how things work. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.
I'd be happy to see one speck of evidence that not voting does anything at all to change the electoral system
The referenda on electoral reforms in B.C., P.E.I., Ontario, and New Brunswick over the last six years have followed downward trends in voter turnout in each of those provinces. Although to date none of the reform efforts have been successful, the fact that those in power are - even reluctantly - considering making changes to the very systems that have put them into power suggests that they are concerned about the legitimacy of their mandates and their own ability to govern.
Voter Turnout in British Columbia:
1986 - 77.2%
1991 - 75.1%
1996 - 71.5%
2001 - 71%
- May 17, 2005 - referendum in B.C. on single transferrable vote (BC-STV)
- May 12 ,2009 - referendum in B.C. on single transferrable vote (BC-STV)
Voter Turnout in P.E.I.:
1996 - 85.5%
2000 - 84.9%
2003 - 83.3%
- November 28, 2005 - plebiscite in P.E.I. on mixed member proportional representation (MMP)
Voter Turnout in Ontario:
1990 - 64.4%
1995 - 63%
1999 - 58.3%
2003 - 56.9%
- October 10, 2007 - referendum in Ontario on mixed member proportional representation (MMP)
Voter Turnout in New Brunswick:
1987 - 81.9%
1991 - 80.1%
1995 - 74.8%
1999 - 75.6%
2003 - 68.7%
- New Brunswick's referendum on mixed member proportional representation (MMP) was announced by Bernard Lord's Conservative government, and was scheduled for May 2008, but it was later cancelled by after the Liberals won power.
ditto for Tobold who seems unwilling to advance any alternative whatsoever.
I'm not in the business of writing constitutions.
By the way, those Maoists would say that we should do like them and make revolution here in this country. It would certainly help the comrades in Nepal, Philippines, India in their fight against imperialism.
Tobold if you're not willing to advance anything positive then your position amounts to crapping on the political actions of others. Period. But why bother? There's nothing you're in favour of.
I've read through most of the posts here, and it doesn't look like any one is discussing the reasons for the boycott campaign as mentioned NDPP's link at the top.
The spokesperson for this group does not wish to participate in the May 2 election because it will legitimize and reinforce Canada's labour aristocracy made up of the settler class at the expense of Canada's indigenous population.
I personally think it is a wonderful idea for left wing elements in Canada to hand the Conservative Party parliamentary power on a silver platter. If your goal is to promote solidarity with the colonized, even better. Let's give free reign to Stephen Harper and his team of dedicated environmentalists and Aboriginal rights activists.
Our inaction on election day will surely improve the lives of Canada's Aboriginal population, and will also probably reverse 500 years of history!
Let's fill the House of Commons with reactionaries who hate Native People and don't give the slightest damn about the environment!
Freedom 55
Can you explain that last sentence? Sorry, I'm not getting your meaning.
I'm saying that no one can seriously claim to be surprised that Harper didn't refuse the prime ministership just because he received the weakest mandate in the history of the federal government. None of the advocates on non-voting are suggesting that that's how things work. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.
I'd be happy to see one speck of evidence that not voting does anything at all to change the electoral system
The referenda on electoral reforms in B.C., P.E.I., Ontario, and New Brunswick over the last six years have followed downward trends in voter turnout in each of those provinces. Although to date none of the reform efforts have been successful, the fact that those in power are - even reluctantly - considering making changes to the very systems that have put them into power suggests that they are concerned about the legitimacy of their mandates and their own ability to govern.
Those who argue these points have put themselves in a peculiar bind, for they are saying on the one hand that governments don't care about voter turnout or legitimacy, but then they claim that we should vote because not voting isn't 'doing anything'. Which is it? Should we vote, because governments care about our votes. Or do they not care about our votes?
I've read through most of the posts here, and it doesn't look like any one is discussing the reasons for the boycott campaign as mentioned NDPP's link at the top.
The spokesperson for this group does not wish to participate in the May 2 election because it will legitimize and reinforce Canada's labour aristocracy made up of the settler class at the expense of Canada's indigenous population.
I personally think it is a wonderful idea for left wing elements in Canada to hand the Conservative Party parliamentary power on a silver platter. If your goal is to promote solidarity with the colonized, even better. Let's give free reign to Stephen Harper and his team of dedicated environmentalists and Aboriginal rights activists.
Our inaction on election day will surely improve the lives of Canada's Aboriginal population, and will also probably reverse 500 years of history!
Let's fill the House of Commons with reactionaries who hate Native People and don't give the slightest damn about the environment!
You miss the point. The personal and ideological attitudes of MPs and parties don't matter to governance, which is governance for the rich. Non-racist parties can enact racist policies. Racist parties can enact non-racist polcies. What decides policy is not what parties think, it's what rich people think. If rich people want a racist policy, they get it. If they want a non-racist polciy, they get it.
We`re definitely not speaking the same language , but I can tell you you`re not advancing a Marxist-Leninist historical or theoretical viewpoint here. If you read Theses on Feurbach you will note that Marx said `the point is to change it.` You seem to think it`s more important to shut up and vote, rather than actually working and organizing to destroy capitalism right now. Even if you have some hokey theory about how destitute things have to be for a revolution, does that mean people shouldn`t do anything to prepare, or actively do things to contribute to the kind of world they want to see, a world without class exploitation?
Why can I not be both a Marxist-socialist and vote for the NDP on May 2nd at the same time? Why should I not support the effective opposition party, the only one in Ottawa with a snowball's chance and advocating: pulling the colonial troops out of Afghanistan - a national drug plan - a national housing strategy - federally funded daycare - poverty reduction and mixed member proportional voting? Or is this some sort of inquisition where it's either your way or the highway?
We`re definitely not speaking the same language , but I can tell you you`re not advancing a Marxist-Leninist historical or theoretical viewpoint here. If you read Theses on Feurbach you will note that Marx said `the point is to change it.` You seem to think it`s more important to shut up and vote, rather than actually working and organizing to destroy capitalism right now. Even if you have some hokey theory about how destitute things have to be for a revolution, does that mean people shouldn`t do anything to prepare, or actively do things to contribute to the kind of world they want to see, a world without class exploitation?Why can I not be both a Marxist-socialist and vote for the NDP on May 2nd at the same time? Why should I not support the effective opposition party, the only one in Ottawa with a snowball's chance and advocating: pulling the colonial troops out of Afghanistan - a national drug plan - a national housing strategy - federally funded daycare - poverty reduction and mixed member proportional voting? Or is this some sort of inquisition where it's either your way or the highway?
You can do whatever you want, I don`t think any boycotters give a hoot. For one you`re already being dishonest and adopting bourgeois language rolling out that set of NDP campaign promises like it means something, or that it`s even properly left wing program.
I actually don`t get to choose what `way` it is. People will choose to do whatever they want for different reasons. I am simply choosing to make an argument, but I appreciate that it`s getting a strong reaction.
edit: good night
because you're not serious and neither are the ndp - "advocates pulling the colonial troops out of Afghanistan" yeah sure and 'transforming NATO from within' too while they bomb the shit out of Libya - what bs around this nasty little ndp hornet's nest - that's enough for me. They buzz around in the same ever decreasing concentric circles and it's called babble because that's pretty much all there is - enough.
telling people to wake up and get serious is baiting k?
not allowed k?
As is [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1241094/Imagine-party-so-arrogant] throwing around baseless insinuations that someone is a Conservative plant[/url].
k?
Those who argue these points have put themselves in a peculiar bind, for they are saying on the one hand that governments don't care about voter turnout or legitimacy, but then they claim that we should vote because not voting isn't 'doing anything'. Which is it? Should we vote, because governments care about our votes. Or do they not care about our votes?
what gobble-dee-gook. Who claimed that people should vote based on whether the government cared whether they voted or not? It's about the value of voting FOR the voter, not for the gov't.
This sort of playing with words is just arguing for the fun of it. No wonder you don't have anything positive to add.
Those who argue these points have put themselves in a peculiar bind, for they are saying on the one hand that governments don't care about voter turnout or legitimacy, but then they claim that we should vote because not voting isn't 'doing anything'. Which is it? Should we vote, because governments care about our votes. Or do they not care about our votes?
It seems that certain babblers as well as the corrupt two-party stoogeaucracy in Ottawa would like all NDPers to stay home on election day in order that at least one wing of the conservative party is able to secure a phony majority.
The much coveted FPTP phony majority is the real reason why Canadian taxpayers will foot the $300,000,000 dollar bill for another election. This election is all about legitimizing the stoogeaucracy, or at least in their puny undemocratic minds, and who were supported by just 22% of eligible Canadian voters in 2008. Why is it that NDPers' collective effort to prevent a phony majority stoogeaucracy is so wrong?
because you're not serious and neither are the ndp - "advocates pulling the colonial troops out of Afghanistan" yeah sure and 'transforming NATO from within' too while they bomb the shit out of Libya - what bs around this nasty little ndp hornet's nest - that's enough for me. They buzz around in the same ever decreasing concentric circles and it's called babble because that's pretty much all there is - enough.
The NDP supported a no-fly zone over Libya. This was after Gadhafi order his troops to "show no mercy" on Libyan citizens protesting the government. And Al-CIA'da in Libya wasn't really reported until some time later. Yes, gadhafi was right on about Qaeda in Libya and the vicious empire is supporting them like they have in numerous other countries since the 1990s.
But NATO is not upholding no-fly policy today, is it? Could this be one of the reasons why the NDP says NATO, "a cold war era relic", needs democratizing?
participation in Parliamentary elections is not universally worthless as babbler Tobold is claiming.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good smear...
"Voting does not carry some timeless and universal democratic value; it's contextual. Like opening up an unbrella on a windy day, sometimes voting is the worst thing you can do for democracy." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1240992/Quote-Sorry-stakes
and again here:
"Voting does not admit of some timeless and universal value - sometimes it works in favour of democracy and sometimes against democracy. As citizens we have to be diligent about the context of voting. The value and force of voting turns on the presence or absence of social pressures. In the presence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting progressive policies. In the absence of social pressures voting legitimates the resulting regressive policies." http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241245/Quote-Tobold-I-disagree
And a dozen other places where I repeat that voting "in the present context" is counter-productive, which is quite different from "voting is always counter-productive, let's get rid of it". I would respectfully ask that you get serious about the conversation and stop wasting everyone's time with lazy accusations.
Fidel - I'm not convinced that the NDP's policy on NATO can swing the debate around an electoral boycott one way or the other.
F55 - Tobold has still failed to provide anything positive whatsoever - and basically preaches social inaction - and doesn's substantiate his claim about the current situation. Even if his claim is about the present only, it still doesn't stand up.
And that leaves aside the whole "playing with words" and arguing for the fun of it which suggests just wasting the time of other babblers. There was no response to that critique either.
F55 - Tobold has still failed to provide anything positive whatsoever - and basically preaches social inaction - and doesn's substantiate his claim about the current situation. Even if his claim is about the present only, it still doesn't stand up.
And that leaves aside the whole "playing with words" and arguing for the fun of it which suggests just wasting the time of other babblers. There was no response to that critique either.
Your allegation that he preaches social inaction is false. The rest is subjective.
