What does Ed Broadbent really think of Mulcair?

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

alan smithee wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

And "no compromises, you had your turn, sit down and shut up"? Are you sure you shouldn't be voting for Stephen Harper? He raised that tactic to a high art.

That's the point. I want the next government to undo EVERYTHING the Cons have done,implement a bonafide social-democratic program. And ignore the Conservatives just like they have done to the over 60% of Canadians who did not and will not vote for them.

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

Unionist

When Broadbent came back from retirement to praise Topp and question Mulcair's credentials, I condemned him for it in these pages - primarily, because doing so was 1) sowing division when the priority should have been working together; 2) entrenching the notion that the leader is everything - as if a party like the NDP is filled with obedient sheep; 3) trying to suggest that there was some huge difference in vision between Mulcair, Topp, and yes, Broadbent himself.

And I condemn and ridicule Broadbent once again for having done that.

Mulcair is my MP. He made a tough move to run federally for the NDP. I have voted from him since 2007, mostly (but not only) because the alternatives have been unpalatable, and because he showed sensitivity to issues facing the riding in addition to taking some decent stands on important issues (uncompromising support for the Sherbrooke Declaration, withdrawal from Afghanistan, some others).

The man was a Liberal cabinet minister. He was complicit in every sin, both ideological and policy, that that government committed. But he can be judged today only on what he is today. Sure, if he takes Thatcherite directions, it is quite legitimate to say, "yeah, we saw that coming!" And if he purges candidates who make mild critiques of Israel and waits weeks before condemning the slaughter of Gazan civilians, he should be raked over the coals for that.

But however I determine my verdict on Mulcair, one thing is certain. I will never ask Saint Edward Broadbent. As I said on babble at the time, his world view is not so much broad, as it is ____.

ETA: And just reading some of josh's posts - much wisdom there - and as he says, the red-baiting here has to stop. It is worthy of Harper. It is the cancer of the Left.

mark_alfred

Cryptic.

jjuares

josh wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ josh

Stomp on her grave, you mean? That might be satisfying for you and me. Not so prime ministerial for someone trying to convince the undecided that his party's policies are best for the country. Again, is this about demonstrating purity and denouncing enemies of the people, or getting the work done?

If one looks at the point of his comment that government can't replace the market  and his explanation of that context when the question was put to him, this isn't quite how some are trying to pigeonhole it.

He's not cut from the same revolutionary cloth as you are? Why should you expect that, and so what?

Again, I am just looking for better policies and a government which might have a more open ear. I sure ain't looking for Che Guevara, whether I agree with some of his policies or not. The point is to form a government for more than five years before getting turfed.

 

 

 

 

A strawman and red baiting to boot. But worse than that, a cop out. You're the one who claimed he was a convert.

.


I am sorry but I don't see the red baiting here. I also don't see high expectations either. I believe that a NDP gov. Under Mulcair will be good on the other evironment and as for the other issues they will be better than the alternatives which is not saying much but so be it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

 

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

If what I said makes you think I'm Stephen Harper you either (A) didn't bother reading what I said or (B) you don\'t know what you're talking about.

I've been called a Communist (which doesn't offend me) but Stephen Harper? With all due respect and no offense intended but have you been smoking crack?

Unionist

Evening Star wrote:

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/448391/elections-federales-sant... lauded the merits of the free market[/url]

Some context would help. (I might also have missed something, since French is definitely a second language for me.) I watched and read the general neoliberal ideological comments about how the PLQ would free the market and lower taxes etc. And then he says that in the area of health insurance/coverage, the government needs to prioritze the public's health, and that he is going to vote in favour of a motion that was before the Assembly. But what was the motion? And what was the connection between the broader ideological statement and the topic of health care? Was he advocating in favour of a stronger role for the private sector in the area of health care specifically?

Sorry Evening Star, just saw your question - and yes, it's the right question to ask.

In fact, Mulcair (in the Liberal opposition at the time) was speaking to a motion of censure of the PQ government, moved by a fellow Liberal (Julie Boulet), regarding its handling of the relatively new (at the time) public drug insurance plan. The thrust of Mulcair's intervention (like Boulet's before) is to criticize the PQ for being more interested in spending millions on bureaucratic infrastructure than on providing health care services to the population - for example, they point to the shortage of physicians in remote areas and the need to provide incentives, etc. While he lauds the ability of the free market, he does so by contrast with politicians who only talk to functionaries, and not people in the real business, before planning projects. He definitely promotes more, not less, injection of funds into health care. And he doesn't promote privatization of health care.

Shows how comments can be chopped and served up for all kinds of purposes.

Here's his full speech and a pretty sketchy Google Translate version. And here is the full November 8, 2001 proceedings of the National Assembly.

6079_Smith_W

Red baiting? How? Sorry, but I'm not the one who wasn't aware of who the CPC-ML were.

As I said, this has nothing to do with whether I might agree or disagree with Mr. Guevera's policies, it is a question for me of the policies at hand, and who has the best chance of forming the best government. And making your first policy plank denouncing enemies won't get you too far, IMO, especially in my riding which at this point is too close to call.

And just because Mr. Mulcair hasn't been converted to something far enough left and dictatorial for some people's tastes doesn't mean he hasn't changed his mind.

Or maybe I should have waltzed in screaming about how the left eating itself over ideology is a cancer, and has no place here. Silly me for being a bit more prudent about it.

 

josh

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

 

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

If what I said makes you think I'm Stephen Harper you either (A) didn't bother reading what I said or (B) you don\'t know what you're talking about.

I've been called a Communist (which doesn't offend me) but Stephen Harper? With all due respect and no offense intended but have you been smoking crack?

No, but I guess my sarcasm was too cryptic.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

 

Well then you're obviously Che Guevera. Or at least Stephen Harper. You're supposed to be neo-liberal, but kinder and gentler..

If what I said makes you think I'm Stephen Harper you either (A) didn't bother reading what I said or (B) you don\'t know what you're talking about.

I've been called a Communist (which doesn't offend me) but Stephen Harper? With all due respect and no offense intended but have you been smoking crack?

No, but I guess my sarcasm was too cryptic.

OK,I get it now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

josh

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Red baiting? How? Sorry, but I'm not the one who wasn't aware of who the CPC-ML were.

As I said, this has nothing to do with whether I might agree or disagree with Mr. Guevera's policies, it is a question for me of the policies at hand, and who has the best chance of forming the best government. And making your first policy plank denouncing enemies won't get you too far, IMO, especially in my riding which at this point is too close to call.

And just because Mr. Mulcair hasn't been converted to something far enough left and dictatorial for some people's tastes doesn't mean he hasn't changed his mind.

Or maybe I should have waltzed in screaming about how the left eating itself over ideology is a cancer, and has no place here. Silly me for being a bit more prudent about it.

 

The best evidence that he has "converted" would be for him to say he would no longer make the remarks about Thatcherism today that he made 14 years ago. That was an easy one. And he wouldn't even do that!

josh

Evade, deflect, and distract. The surest signs of being unable to defend.

6079_Smith_W

Ah.

Maybe you should get your lawyer to draw up a prepared statement for him to sign so he can recant his heretical words to your satisfaction.

I guess you probably don't need a hair shirt and ashes proviso; this is 2015, after all.

That should play well in Ontario. A game changing strategy if I ever heard one.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Look josh, you'll notice I'm not holding anyone's nose to the grindstone for actual evidence for casting him as a disciple of Thatcher. Aside from calling it pigeonholing, I think it is kind of naive, and this whole discussion a bit silly, really.

He gave a politician's answer about the bottom line being the best service for the people, and frankly, I think it was an appropriate answer on a number of fronts.

As I said to alan, if he's not your guy there are a number of other parties to choose from.

duncan cameron

This latest nonsense from the NDP campaign on balancing the budget reminds me of Ed Broadbent giving a speech in Hamilton in the middle of the 1982 recession (something like 750,000 jobs lost) and calling for an attack on the deficit. That convinced me not to join the party. Now I am a member, have been for nearly 15 years and this stuff quoting Andrew Thomson makes my angry. It is in line with the Sask party that did in the legacy of Tommy Douglas when Thomson and Janice MacKinnon were finance ministers and Brian Topp was Deputy Chief of Stafff to Romanow. Of course Sask does not have a central bank, and interest rates were through the roof in those days, but now interest rates are low, and the Bank of Canada exists, so fighting the deficit as the economy tanks thanks to falling oil and commodity prices makes no sense at all. 

Could this be so stupid that the media will back the NDP? I am tempted to think that journalists will go out to talk to economists and find out the NDP is blowing smoke.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/federal-election-2015/1307647-mulcair-says-...’t-come-immediately

6079_Smith_W

There was someone on CBC The House a few weeks ago who mentioned that while there were policy differences in some things, the NDP and Liberals had both "drunk the Tory koolaid" on economic policy.

On that, it might be good to remember something Harper is good at besides steamrolling: saying one thing to get elected and then doing something different.

If that smoke gets them elected, I wouldn't mind at all.

mark_alfred

duncan cameron wrote:
Of course Sask does not have a central bank, and interest rates were through the roof in those days, but now interest rates are low, and the Bank of Canada exists, so fighting the deficit as the economy tanks thanks to falling oil and commodity prices makes no sense at all.

I don't think it's accurate to say the economy has tanked.  link

Quote:
It’s probably true that we are now in deficit, though not to a degree that should trouble anyone: the Parliamentary Budget Office issued a report last month projecting that the current year, fiscal 2015-16, would show a deficit of $1.5-billion. In a $2-trillion economy, that doesn’t even register as rounding error. Even if it ballooned to four times that, it would still amount to less than one-third of one per cent of gross domestic product.

Evening Star

Unionist wrote:

Sorry Evening Star, just saw your question - and yes, it's the right question to ask.

In fact, Mulcair (in the Liberal opposition at the time) was speaking to a motion of censure of the PQ government, moved by a fellow Liberal (Julie Boulet), regarding its handling of the relatively new (at the time) public drug insurance plan. The thrust of Mulcair's intervention (like Boulet's before) is to criticize the PQ for being more interested in spending millions on bureaucratic infrastructure than on providing health care services to the population - for example, they point to the shortage of physicians in remote areas and the need to provide incentives, etc. While he lauds the ability of the free market, he does so by contrast with politicians who only talk to functionaries, and not people in the real business, before planning projects. He definitely promotes more, not less, injection of funds into health care. And he doesn't promote privatization of health care.

Shows how comments can be chopped and served up for all kinds of purposes.

Here's his full speech and a pretty sketchy Google Translate version. And here is the full November 8, 2001 proceedings of the National Assembly.

 

Thanks. I'll read those when I can but I appreciate you clearing that up. Do you have more context for the Thatcher comments, by the way? They were 30s out of context so I tried a little to find a little more but didn't come across more info.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I want a government that reviles the right wing. One that would stand up in Parliament and say 'You've had your turn,now sit down and SHUT UP' No compromises or middle ground. Give them a taste of their own medicine and pass omnibus bill after omnibus bill of left wing policies.

If that's the Communist Party,count me in.

See, there are alternatives that you can agree with, and who agree with you!

Quote:
Unfortunately,this election is too important to waste my vote on them.

Uh-oh.  You just got them all excited for nothing.

Well, maybe the next election there won't be anything at stake and you can vote for what you believe.

Quote:
I live in an NDP riding so guess who I'm voting for even if their values don't reflect every one of mine.

Uh, if it's an NDP riding, wouldn't you be safe giving your one vote to someone else?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

Uh, if it's an NDP riding, wouldn't you be safe giving your one vote to someone else?

Not this time around. Perhaps in 2020.

Until then,please feel free to defend the right wing party of your choice. I'll stick to the left,thanks.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...Stomp on her grave, you mean?

Who suggested stomping on her grave? Remember it was her own party that turfed her. They couldn't stand her anymore. Also remember she was partners with Reagan in setting up al-Qaeda. She was a terrorist supporting, laissez-faire neo-liberal with a deep fear of, and hatred for, the working class, and not above ignoring the law when it suited her purpose.

I don't suggest stomping on her grave, although some in her own party would, but I do suggest that the leader of a social democratic party, a party that Thatcher would have excoriated mercilessly, has no business using her as a fine example.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Until then,please feel free to defend the right wing party of your choice.

I'm not sure how encouraging the dissatisfied to vote for a true radical party constitutes supporting the right.

Quote:
I'll stick to the left,thanks.

But are they really left?  Left ENOUGH??

Here's my thinking.  Folk who bemoan the lack of "alternatives" or the lack of a "REAL left party" avert their eyes and studiously ignore the alternatives, and the REAL left parties that already exist.  Because they don't just want a radical left party, they want a radical left party that enjoys the popularity of a centrist party.

And they'll be delighted to support them as soon as everyone else does first.

Unionist

Lovely degeneration of another conversation into meaningless horseshit of what is "left" and what is "right". As if those terms mean anything.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But are they really left?  Left ENOUGH??

Here's my thinking.  Folk who bemoan the lack of "alternatives" or the lack of a "REAL left party" avert their eyes and studiously ignore the alternatives, and the REAL left parties that already exist.  Because they don't just want a radical left party, they want a radical left party that enjoys the popularity of a centrist party.

And they'll be delighted to support them as soon as everyone else does first.

You have a point. Provincially we have a true leftist party called Québec Solidaire. Their platform is very populist,for the people not the rich.But they can't best 13% support.

I'd say that your average Canadian is centrist but drunk from the fiscal kool-aid constantly served up for them.

As a socialist and leftist,I know I'm on the fringe. But I shouldn't be.

People have a nasty habit of voting against their own self interests and believe their interests are one and the same as the corporations and the filthy rich. It's a sad reality.

So I'll hold my nose and vote for the least conservative party and hope that something,anything I strongly support becomes policy and law.

6079_Smith_W

I have to say I agree with you Unionist, especially considering that some of us were encouraging those not satisfied with what they consider too right wing to vote for those options more to their liking.

And of course it is not as if communist candidates can't get elected. Joe Zuken did repeatedly, and sadly I was not quite old enough to vote (and sadly had only just moved to town) when he came in second with 18 percent in his mayoral bid.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
People have a nasty habit of voting against their own self interests and believe their interests are one and the same as the corporations and the filthy rich. It's a sad reality.

I don't think that people's only self-interest is their relationship to the means of production -- and that's pretty much the only interest on which they and the rich could be said to consistently and self-evidently part ways.

People seem to also vote for parties that share their morals, for example.  If it's very important to someone to prevent two men from marrying, I think some of them will suck up a slightly worse tax burden to ensure that.  If it's very important to someone to ensure that "foreigners" aren't here taking all of our good scut jobs, I think some of them will suck up a little income disparity for that.

kropotkin1951

alan smithee wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But are they really left?  Left ENOUGH??

Here's my thinking.  Folk who bemoan the lack of "alternatives" or the lack of a "REAL left party" avert their eyes and studiously ignore the alternatives, and the REAL left parties that already exist.  Because they don't just want a radical left party, they want a radical left party that enjoys the popularity of a centrist party.

And they'll be delighted to support them as soon as everyone else does first.

You have a point. Provincially we have a true leftist party called Québec Solidaire. Their platform is very populist,for the people not the rich.But they can't best 13% support.

I don't believe my views are shared by more than about a third of potential voters. That is never enough to elect a FPTP candidate. PR is the only solution so that we hear the full spectrum of political voices in the H of C instead of only voices that are nearly indistinquisable on most policies. I'd be happy with a 45 to 50 seat caucus of a real left party like Québec Solidaire. At least then the debates would not sound like an echo chamber.

I took one of those stupid who should you vote for quizzees and found I agreed with 94%, 92% and 90% of the pap presented by the three main parties trying to get rid of Harper. Hell I even agreed with 28% of the Conservative platform because they all sound the same on many issues. It didn't tell me who to vote for it only told me there is little to be learned from reading the respective platforms.

josh

duncan cameron wrote:

This latest nonsense from the NDP campaign on balancing the budget reminds me of Ed Broadbent giving a speech in Hamilton in the middle of the 1982 recession (something like 750,000 jobs lost) and calling for an attack on the deficit. That convinced me not to join the party. Now I am a member, have been for nearly 15 years and this stuff quoting Andrew Thomson makes my angry. It is in line with the Sask party that did in the legacy of Tommy Douglas when Thomson and Janice MacKinnon were finance ministers and Brian Topp was Deputy Chief of Stafff to Romanow. Of course Sask does not have a central bank, and interest rates were through the roof in those days, but now interest rates are low, and the Bank of Canada exists, so fighting the deficit as the economy tanks thanks to falling oil and commodity prices makes no sense at all. 

Could this be so stupid that the media will back the NDP? I am tempted to think that journalists will go out to talk to economists and find out the NDP is blowing smoke.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/federal-election-2015/1307647-mulcair-says-...’t-come-immediately

Seems like Mulcair and Co. are determined accountants.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Your average voter is extremely uninformed.

I love it when people go on about the 'good old days' .They can't connect the dots that governments of the past 30 years or so sold them out to Third World countries with 'Free Trade' agreements.

They can't wrap their heads around the fact that most jobs were unionized and our system was more socialistic.

They can't see that neocon governments always leave us in the hole fiscally and are job killers,not job creators.

They don't understand that the brilliant 'global economy' was implemented to give unlimited blowjobs to the 1% and corporations while they bend over and take it again and again because the parties they vote for do not work for them.

In short,a good chunk of the populace is dumber than a bag of rocks. And it's even worse in the US.

In that vain,I'd say that people do usually vote against their self interests.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
In that vain,I'd say that people do usually vote against their self interests.

That's all in the same vein I was referring to:  the purely economic one.

If you think it's just stupidity or gullibility on the part of the electorate, show me where people who fundamentally disagree with equal marriage voted for a party that supports it just to get a modest tax break.

If a party were to say "we'll repeal equal marriage, AND we'll hike your taxes to finance a tax break for the 1%" then I think a not-insignificant part of the electorate would say "Right ON!  It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!!"

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

[

If a party were to say "we'll repeal equal marriage, AND we'll hike your taxes to finance a tax break for the 1%" then I think a not-insignificant part of the electorate would say "Right ON!  It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!!"

That's what makes them stupid.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
Sean in Ottawa

No idea what Broadbent thinks right now but comments from the leadership race are out of context-- just as the ones made about Trudeau in the Liberal leadership are.

I think the NDP has made these budget statements not out of conviction but out of an understanding that their first mandate would have to be a cautious one and the party cannot run a deficit in it -- unless some external factor makes that unavoidable (global economy worse than projected for example or details hidden or wrong in the public accounts).

The NDP needed to make this burget committment in order to have a hopd of governing -- and even with this the party is in a position to re-orient the priorities of government within the existing envelope and the party can increase some corporate taxes to help this.

This is a practical, political issue that the party understands and I think most of the membership are comfortable with.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I think the NDP has made these budget statements not out of conviction but out of an understanding that their first mandate would have to be a cautious one and the party cannot run a deficit in it -- unless some external factor makes that unavoidable (global economy worse than projected for example or details hidden or wrong in the public accounts).

I'm inclined to agree.  If one of your party's most persisent electoral Achilles' Heels has been the perception that if in power you'd spend like a drunk sailor on shore leave, it's probably not the worst idea to assure the electorate that you won't.

That not spending money you don't have is going to resonate as "common sense" with some voters is just gravy.

And if they wanted to live off the credit card for a little bit, I wouldn't get out my pitchfork.  But I don't think a "socialist" government has the same luxury to spend, spend, spend that a Conservative government has.

quizzical

i'd like to think some of the cuts would be coming from; the contracting out of government services like Coast Guard responsibilities, the stopping of all the stupid billions spent on self promoting ads we've seen over the years, and through letting the make up artists and private camera crews go.

and  the security bill for guarding the prime minister won't be so high. :D

you gotta know any contracting out is probably double or triple the cost of it being done by government employees.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I think the NDP has made these budget statements not out of conviction but out of an understanding that their first mandate would have to be a cautious one and the party cannot run a deficit in it -- unless some external factor makes that unavoidable (global economy worse than projected for example or details hidden or wrong in the public accounts).

The NDP needed to make this burget committment in order to have a hopd of governing -- and even with this the party is in a position to re-orient the priorities of government within the existing envelope and the party can increase some corporate taxes to help this.

This is a practical, political issue that the party understands and I think most of the membership are comfortable with.

I'll also note that any specific examples of "what would you not do" that Mulcair and the NDP have given thus far involve reversing particular Conservative policies designed to enrich the 1% at the expense of everyone else. I can live with that.

youngsocialist

Only the liberals can campaign on the left and get away with governing from the right. When liberals do it, it's pragmatic. When the NDP does it, it's a betrayal. Mulcair positioned himself well and he'll benefit more from the Cons collapsing.

youngsocialist

Ultimtately who do we trust more to actually not push through cuts, the NDP or liberals? Liberals can play up the austerity drum all they want but they don't have the record to show that they wouldn't consider it either... Red book anyone?

Marco C

I'll admit I'm on the inside and I can assure you what I'm sugesting isn't the case.

 

However it would be interesing, and I wonder what would be the reaction if the NDP campaigned from the right and governed from the left.

NDPP

Canada's NDP Pledges Balanced Budget, Signals Support For Bigger Military

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/27/cane-a27.html

"...Mulcair's unwavering commitment to a 'balanced budget' is aimed at reassuring big business that an NDP government will faithfully uphold their interests. It should be taken by working people as a warning that in response to the deepening capitalist crisis Canada's social democrats will implement brutal austerity measures.

The NDP's platform is so far to the right that the big business Liberals, who served as the Canadian bourgeoisie's preferred party of government for much of the 20th century, are posturing as a 'left' alternative to the social democrats.

The NDP, having largely convinvced the ruling elite of its right-wing economic credentials, now appears to be preparing to open a new front in the election campaign by attacking the Conservatives for failing to spend enough on the military..."

Marco C

WOW, I didn't think I'd ever read let alone see someone use the word bourgeoisie outside my 2nd year univerity history text.

 

Well good on ya for bringing me back... all the way to 1798...

 

 

inkameep

Yes, "bourgeoisie" is a hopelessly outdated term. We're all "middle-class" now.

Rev Pesky

Bourgeoisie, according to Marx, refers to the owners of the means of production (and the means of coercion). That class still exists, is indeed the "1%" who own and control the economy. As such the term is still very relevant. The term will become outdated when that class no longer exists.

josh

1798? I think maybe you should retake that history class.

NDPP

inkameep wrote:

We're all "middle-class" now.

... a class that has very much forgotten what it's in the middle of.

youngsocialist

The NDP is not proposing a right wing budget. Why do you think Liberals are getting support from the business elites for their embracing of deficits? Their proposed infrastructure spending would raise profitability. Their whole platform is for the business elite, even the mirage of a tax raise on the top bracket that will actually benefit the 1%. What would not raise profitability is the NDP's pledge to spend more on welfare. The potential for an NDP win is already putting CIBC investor groups in a scare. Now that the Liberals are the preferred choice of a section of the elite (just look at the amount of propaganda being published in support of the Liberals), there is a massive push to have them catipulted into first place. They've already undergone a cosmetic transformation from being opportunists to underdogs who are being "bullied" left and right with attack ads. Are we going to let the Liberal co-opt the anti-Harper vote and bring us Harper-lite, the same way sly Wynne brought us Hudak...

Marco C

josh wrote:

1798? I think maybe you should retake that history class.

 

French revolution 1789-1799, i just choose 1798 off hand because it falls in those dates... So maybe you should retake history... I guess? whatever...

josh

Marco C wrote:

josh wrote:

1798? I think maybe you should retake that history class.

 

French revolution 1789-1799, i just choose 1798 off hand because it falls in those dates... So maybe you should retake history... I guess? whatever...

If you're referring to Marx's use of the term, which apparently you did, 1798 would be about a half a century too soon.

Marco C

The term bourgeoisie is much older then Marx, first being used about the 11th century, in fact during the revolution... you know what, never mind, I feel stupid for even bothing to argue the point.

 

Let just continue to try and test and enforce ideological purity because that really helps the left or any social movment for that mater.

quizzical

hehehe .....

NDPP

The NDP is certainly neither of those.

Pages