Moving left

KenS wrote:

RosaL wrote:

Oddly enough, I am probably much closer to my grandparents' politics than the present day ndp is.

Unless your grandparents were Communists, or some type of syndicalist, probably not.

That question depends on whether you want to measure "what is left" by essentially imovable measures of what is being advocated; or you measure where you and your granparents stand/stood in relation to the mainstream of socialist politics. Your politics were pretty mainstream in the left of a couple generations ago- but definitely not today.

This of course overlaps the question of 'what is left' or the unspoken 'what is [legitimately] left'.

With the important difference that saying my politics were more like my granparents isn't exclusivist and imperious. As opposed to saying "me and my grandparents are left", with the clear but usually unspoken implication that the rest of you are not.

You'll have to trust me about my grandparents.  There was a lot of overlap at that time (at least around here) between communists and CCFers. They were socialists rather than social democrats. They weren't marxist socialists - they really didn't have any "theory" (they had only a couple years of formal education) - but they were socialists, of the vehement "down with capitalism" sort. 

"mainstream of socialist politics" where? India? Sweden? Venezuela? Cuba? Place makes a difference, too. 

Any belief or principle or "truth claim" is going to be seen as exclusivist or imperious from a certain perspective. I don't agree with that perspective, for reasons that it would take some time to explicate. I will mention only that saying that someone is exclusivist and imperious is surely (by your own measure) exclusive and imperious. 

I don't really care who gets to call themselves "left". If that label is important to you, as far as I'm concerned, you can have it. But there are important differences and we need terminology that allows us to recognize that, for the sake of clarity in discussion and debate.

KenS wrote:

RosaL wrote:

They were socialists rather than social democrats. They weren't marxist socialists - they really didn't have any "theory" (they had only a couple years of formal education) - but they were socialists, of the vehement "down with capitalism" sort. 

Your first sentence contradicts what you said before. And social democrats then were pretty universaly more instransigently anti-capitalist than we are now.

You're right. That was sloppy. I meant not social democrats in the 2010 sense, rather than the depression Saskatchewan sense. 

KenS wrote:

RosaL wrote:

 I don't really care who gets to call themselves "left". If that label is important to you, as far as I'm concerned, you can have it. But there are important differences and we need terminology that allows us to recognize that, for the sake of clarity in discussion and debate.

The label is not important to me. I just object to the way it is used- albeit not by you. But its worth noting that as to your caring- no one is going to exclude you as being not authentic.

One of the bad faith ironies is that when it comes to the over 55-60 age group, a lot of the people saying today that social democrats have betrayed their legacy, 20-30 years ago were simply dismissing social democrats as unworthy period, or some other form of inherently politicaly disabled class.

Point taken. I know how much I dislike being called a Stalinist, which is another way of calling someone inauthentic or dismissing them. This is just a guess (tell me if I'm getting it wrong) but I wonder if you're talking about respect and I'm worried about clarity and debate. I would certainly agree about the respect thing. Or not dismissing people.

Ken and Rosa-- both of your posts have been interesting and I thank you for them.

I think it is important to consider what we mean by terms such as left-- as these terms imply a relativism that makes such definitions very limited to a context. The motivation is also something that can change and is certainly potentially different for people who may be in the same spot.

I have trouble with the term social democrat in some ways because this comes from two different places in my view. Social is the end and democrat is the means. I think you could have different ends with the same means or method and different means or method with the same ends when it comes to politics.

I hate the word social democrat when it is used to imply some kind of compromise on the social side-- ie: not left enough to be socialist just social democratic. But I am okay when we use the term to mean socialist but committed to democratic means.

Fair enough-- but why the comment that implies the discussion is defective if it does not go there-- not every thread purports to cover everything or even the most important things?

Perspective in a right left sense does not make social change but it is a perspective that can have a lot to do with it.

I agree much of what we have today in terms of social, political and economic structure is so badly defective that we cannot reform them-- they need to be redesigned and replaced. It is the left right perspective that helps us decide what they get replaced with. I dare say there are conservatives who also believe that we need to replace elements of our society-- with an even more right wing version.

Interesting-- seems like we have a means and ends difference of opinion here.

You want to call those who would not be revolutionaries if the circumstances changed mock revolutionaries and those who want revolutionary change no matter what the real thing-- if I am properly understanding you.

Since I see change as a means and social justice as an end-- I would say the reverse would apply: those who demand revolutionary change when it is needed are the real thing and those who demand it no matter what to be the mock revolutionaries-- the ones caught up with the idea of struggle but lacking the sophistication to see the purpose for the struggle. These would be the people who love marching and will march for anything. I do not consider these people radical-- even when they are wearing masks and smashing things-- they are play actors performing a role in the current structure. The real authentic revolutionaries have a goal and their desire for revolution is directly related to how that goal compares with a current reality. Those who want to tear down are the posers unless their political philosophy is nihilism or anarchy. I would still believe that such a political philosophy, in so far as you call it that, is without purpose.

So perhaps I am one of the mock revolutionaries-- one who would embrace a structure or establishment where it supports social justice and want to tear it down only if and only so far as it does not lead to social justice. I would coopt existing structures to make them work for the people where possible rather than destroy them.

Presently, I might look revolutionary because presently I think most structures serve a classicist system favouring wealth over collective interest but I am not committed to revolution beyond the social justice goals I hold. So does that make me a mock revolutionary?

I think you're missing the point, Sean. Who pretends to be an NDPer? Other than a few trolls on babble?

OTOH, advocates of fundamental change, since before the time of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, have had to deal with this phenomenon.

There are people who are socialist by way of purpose and those who think it is cool to be one-- those who want to look good in a Che Guevara shirt.

N.Beltov wrote:

Cool has been conquered by the "Mad Men" long ago. It is now cool to wear the same shoes as Michael Jordan, or shave with the same gel as Tiger Woods and Roger Federer, and so on. Advertising and marketing has conquered many souls and left them spiritually empty consumers.

But cool is not the exclusive domain of the corporate. South of the border we watched how change was cool -- and even cooler if you never got to sayign what exactly would be different after the change.

Those who wear black from head to toe and smash things for any cause that will invite it-- they too are being cool -- cool for their subculture but for cool's sake not for any meaningful purpose. These are the mock revolutionaries-- some will ask for rich Daddy to pick them up after the protest-- perhaps telling him that they were out shopping with friends.

I believe the real revolutionaries are those who ultimately are asking for somethign possible and can be satisfied when they get it -- no longer look for change. These people are distinct from those who are happy where they are just as much as they are distinct from those who can never be happy regardless of what changes because they are fixed in the paradigm of wanting change. Both are equally useless from my point of view.

N.Beltov wrote:

Some of those who wear black from head to toe work for the police.

And ironcially, they are indistinguishable from some of the ones who don't work for the police -- both playing their sad games-- the entertainment role-- both willing to take us nowhere.

Both get in the way of poeple who have a purpose-- who actually want something to be different

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Wow.

All indignant.

All hot to trot on such an important topic- to tell people their discussion of right and left wasn't real enough.

Reduced to an empty sarcastic one liner without a single real response to what was said.

Sad, from a person who came out guns ablazing about "mock revolutionaries."

Then spoke about those who work for the other side.

Irony.

It is no wonder that young activists who can't afford a yearly vacation in Cuba are not attracted to the NDP.  I see more revolutionary posers in Che tee shirts at NDP functions than anywhere else.  So sit in your fancy office in Ottawa and pontificate about how your view of the left is the only responsible view of the world and keep trying to convince the liberals to join you since you pose no threat to the status quo.

I found your above post to be both arrogant and demeaning.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

demeaning how? of whom?

This started as a reaction to this sarcastic comment:

"Let me know when "you all" get around to the issue of fundamental social change. That may not be the dividing line between "left" and "right" but it is a very important line anyway. It's the line between those who are content with reforming our current society and those who say that that isn't enough."

So I tried to draw out and follow what N.Beltov was getting at. I thought that was demeaning-- suggesting that we were not about social change for a comment in a thread about left and right. I write here a lot regarding specific change.

So when someone comes in suggesting that the real thing is change then follows that up with this

"It's well known, for example, that many people sound "revolutionary" when the situation calls for it, but who abandon such rhetoric when the situation changes. Let's call them "mock revolutionaries" or something like that. Maybe their views will change with circumstances or maybe they won't. Here's the thing; the part of the left who are convinced of the necessity of fundamental change have to deal with something especially difficult in the battle of ideas. I mean "fakes" or people who pretend to hold views more radical than their own. And this simple fact explains a great deal."

Look at the implication here-- that you are a fake if you do not call endlessly for change-- even if we never articulate what the change is for? Sounds like an Obama line to demand change but never quite get around to what that is-- but do it calling people fake or mock revolutionaries.

And then you call me demeaning or arrogant-- with nothing of substance to say about the topic in apparent defence of a person who came in calling others fake-- just because they did not demand "fundamental change" I have spent my life fighting for real things. Fundamental change is how you get there not the place you are going.

Oh and screw you on the comfortable office in Ottawa comment-- Yeah I live here and also I worked on this stuff earning poverty level income for decades. I never could afford to live without living in shared accomodation. And you think you aren't arrogant, demeaning and being a bit of a jerk going after me personally on this.

I do work in an office now. I have had a good job for a couple years now. But my life's work never brought me to comfort. I can roll my tongue around my mouth and feel the holes for the teeth pulled that I could not afford to fix all those years I could not afford dentistry. Kropotkin you are a hypocrite.

double posted (what's wrong with this system?)

Sean you should not call people hypocrites. If you don't like my words speak to them and leave the personal attacks out. It is a small point but one that has been posted about on numerous threads lately. There really is a difference between saying your words are hypocritical and you are a hypocrite.

Michelle wrote:

Hey folks, we're all on the same side here, aren't we?  I mean generally, perhaps not on the details.

Perhaps the argument between Sean and N.Beltov is an illustration of the way people in the left end of the political spectrum clash with each other.  It's too bad, really.  I see both sides.  I see N.Beltov's point about how the analysis could go further.  I see Sean's point about how the left shoots itself in the foot when it demands too much purity.

But then the assumptions about each other start and the insults follow.  Why do that?

I did not mean to imply or inspire that interpretation at all. I am not arguing anything about purity. I have spent a lot of energy trying to get individual real things done to help real people to be impressed with arguments that sound like change for the sake of change. Indeed, I think you have the arguments ironically reveresed. I was looking for substance when we talk of change-- that those arguments need to go further. I also think we need to be pure to our objective-- and that might mean stop being revolutionary on principle and perhaps plan on standing down when/if we get there. Too bad that I can see my point more in your description of Beltov's than in what you said I was getting at.

I have felt that the whole point is the details-- it is not the notion of struggle that inspires me. Revolution, literally when it runs its course takes you in circles. You need to be going somewhere and be pure and true to that. Not pure to the concept of going in circles.

That is a fair, if not passionate discussion. But to have someone come in and pretty much accuse me of being an elitist and then follow that by saying I should not get personal is incredible. In a sense everythign is personal. My reasons for being a socialist and for fighting for these things all my life are very, very deeply personal. And so to is my reaction to being called an elitist by someone who does not know me, who has never broken bread with me.

Social democrats and everyone need to push for a economic system that provides jobs. There is nothing worse for an economy and for people than high unemployment. Without jobs people cannot participate in the economy and they become a burden on  the tax base, through no fault of their own. Job creation must always be priority   and preferably not government jobs.

 Productive wealth creating companies that invest and create employment opportunities are what we need. Government's role is to provide a competent regulatory framework that discourages monopolies and promotes fair business practises thus allowing good businesses to thrive, make money, hire people and pay tax.

Michelle wrote:

Hey folks, we're all on the same side here, aren't we?  I mean generally, perhaps not on the details.

I agree Michelle and would like to apologize for having made disparaging comments about Sean, who by the way I agree with most of the time.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Kropotkin-- thank you for that. May I withdraw the "h" word against you now as well? I think things may get heated in part because we do very much care about the same things and we can get caught up in a frame of mind. It is also important to recognize that mostly we know little about each other here-- except perhaps that we are interested and spend the time on some important things. Sometimes we do spend this time hoping to introduce a thought or contribute to one that might be heard somewhere-- and sometimes out of frustration at how powerless we are in the face of more compelling notions like greed. Yes, Michelle, I do think the three of us seem to be on the same side and even in agreement most of the time.

Interestingly, the post by N.Beltov indicates a desire for the same real things I wish for and I agree with that last post entirely.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have trouble with the term social democrat in some ways because this comes from two different places in my view. Social is the end and democrat is the means. I think you could have different ends with the same means or method and different means or method with the same ends when it comes to politics.

Historical origins might help here.

The term originally was a distinction drawn by socialists who eschewed acieving state power through revolution- who held that all goals could be met through the means of the bourgoise state... despite the fact that the deck was stacked.

While that is interesting in its own right... events have blurred the lines of that distinction.

The part that I would say is timeless is the self desciption of a different kind of socialist,  not a lesser or diluted form of socialism. Which unless I hear a convincing explanation otherwise is the way Beltov and many others view social democracy.

The words social democrat came after the concept. While you are trying to look at the words' meanings serperately and mixed together. I see no reaon to be wedded to the historical roots. But it just makes more sense to me as an explanation- albeit far from perfect- than what you were trying to express.

Bottom line: "social democrat" boils down to socialist who insists on electoral politics as the means to power. What exactly it means now being thrown into doubt because that narrow description now applies to the vast majority of socialists [certainly in the "developed world", but arguably globaly even if not at the same degree and pace] .

That said: intersting as this might be, its only about what the 'social democrat' label is [and 'socialist']. The spirit of the thread is more general, encompasing, and has to be accepted as living within a huge dose of ambiguity and vagueness.

Having seen my share of partisan shit on the left, I would concur that the left parties are often no better than those on the right when it comes to how they treat each other. They seem to be by their very nature cliquish, territorial and full of tensions which is probably partly a result of their big tent character which is partly a product of the first past the post system where policy is hashed out at conventions prior to elections. Parties are coalitions. It's just that no one really wants to admit it. 

Having said that, I love it when babblers kiss and make up. It may even make a positive impression on the new guy . 

kathleen wrote:

A generation were radicalized by WW1 and the depression. I don't see how or why anybody would argue with RosaL about her grandparents' leftist politics.

It might look like that, but I think RosaL understood that the disagreement lies in comparison to the grandparents politics... which is really about whether the context of the very different politics of the times has to be taken into account.

Revolutionary situations can come along and due to a failure of leadership, among other causes, not lead to fundamental change. Some have said, for example, that 1968 in France was such a situation. I'm of the view that 1983 in BC was very close to such a situation and, due to a failure of leadership, didn't develop further.

Fidel, you might be right about the 1930's, but then there we should also mention the divisions on the left between social democrats and communists as a key factor preventing fundamental change. Another factor was the system's general response to the crisis of the 1930's; I mean fascism which was meant to save capitalism. In the circumstances, the political and military defeat of fascism rightly took precedence over the struggle for socialism.

That's a very Leninist type of thesis you're defending. "The weakest link" and all that. But there's no inherent reason why such struggles should be limited to the federal level, in this country, when working people were the specific target in a particular province in 1983. The workers of Winnipeg in 1919 had a General Strike and they didn't stop to consider that it wouldn't "lead to socialism" and, therefore, was a waste of time. It's never a waste of time to fight the boss because resistance is never completely futile.

Fidel, how about the idea that "the left" is in competition with "the right" for power to mould our social structure?  Competition for people's minds NOW.  "Movement", left or right, has to keep that "in mind".