Polling Thread : Volume 4 Part 14

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kloch

I would add a few points there, Cue.

 

I think the right-wing drift began much sooner than under McLaughlin.  I think it was a tendency that goes back to the days of David Lewis, when the notion of party loyalty and fear of Communists was used to transform the CCF from a somewhat nebulous movement into a more rigidly controlled organizational structure.  What we've seen over the years, I think, is the end result of that: a party that has virtually no ideology but demands total loyalty to whatever the group consensus is at a particular moment.  I don't think Lewis or any of the other back room people intended this to be the case.  Merely that their actions set forth a chain reaction of events that created the climate of culture in the NDP that we see today.

McLaughlin herself was the victim of a number of forces that were working against her as well not the least of which was the rise of the Reform Party.  Reform's success, at least in Ontario, was partly the effect of the erosion of the working class base in Ontario and the failure of the parliamentary left to provide an adequate response to the restructuring of the economy that began in the early 90s.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

If you think that the NDP moving somewhat to the centre started after Broadbent - you are giving far, far too much credit to Audrey Mclaughlin. Some would argue that just about the only election in history where the CCF/NDP had a truly socialist platform was 1935! (when it got 7% of the vote)

True. That is why I said: "The abandonment of Social Democratic ideas began in ernest after Broadbent, when the feeling was that the party might feasibly be able to soak votes away from the Liberals and become a viable alternative, and really have a shot at power."

What was removed prior to that were "socialist" ideas.

Not that you have enough background in political theory to identify either.

ETA: A good point about the Reform party Kloch.

George Victor

All "The Left" does is rant on about the need for radical positions with lamentations and comparisons with past behaviour, while completely ignoring the manner in which their own pension funds have co-opted the possibility of radical anything within the confines of a market economy.  History is such a static entity for some on the left. The imperatives of political economy have, for them, not changed since Douglas's time. Appearance of the Chicago School for them had nothing to do with Conservatives gaining control of  the workplace. Finance capital taking control of that market and destroying it is all about finding greater profit for those pension funds and saving generally.  But don't ever suggest ways in which New Democrats could better position the party in this climate. Just talk about personalities.

The major public criticism of the NDP comes from folks concerned about giving control of their future welfare to immature ideologues who spend their days arguing about the "hardness" of their position without ever being able to describe that position in socio-economic terms, or the possibility of its defence. 

But continue the taunt. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Crap. I outlined a pretty clear view of base principles, up thread, including specific examples of how they would be applied in current political affairs.

BA's repsonse was that he didn't get it.

remind remind's picture

continued over here

Kloch

Posted in New Thread.

adma

Cueball wrote:

adma wrote:

Veering hard left may not reduce the NDP to perpetual Communist/M-L levels--however, it *could* reduce it to perpetual Audrey McLaughlin levels.

In which case, maybe we should heed the case of the one-mighty French Communists, which have spent the past generation mired deeper and deeper in an Audrey McLaughlin-esque muck...

So, "hard left" is what to you: Audrey McLaughlin? Ed Broadbent? Tommy Douglas was a Communist? What?

I find it amusing that the repeated assertion is that somehow Audrey McLaughlin's short reign as leader of your party, and her poor performance is immediatly equated with the political positions of the party.

Actually, I wasn't making any such equation in invoking her level of support.  Rather, I was invoking her level of support, in and of itself--whether she was "hard left" or not is immaterial...

Cueball Cueball's picture

What a pathetic dodge.

adma

What's pathetic?  I wasn't dodging; I was just clarifying.  Nothing to do with ideology; just that when it comes to how-low-can-you-go benchmarks for the federal NDP, 1993 stands out like a sore thumb.  Yes, there were other reasons for that swoon that have nothing at all to do with hard-leftitude--but I'm emphasizing that if, in 2010, you *do* choose hard left in a NDP-sold-out-from-the day-it-was-created spirit, that's where you'll be sharewise, seatwise, etc.  If even that.  And frankly, if you're prone to accusing me of a "pathetic dodge", you'd be lucky to reach Jim Harris/Elizabeth May Green levels of support...

KenS

test

West Coast Greeny

adma wrote:

What's pathetic?  I wasn't dodging; I was just clarifying.  Nothing to do with ideology; just that when it comes to how-low-can-you-go benchmarks for the federal NDP, 1993 stands out like a sore thumb.  Yes, there were other reasons for that swoon that have nothing at all to do with hard-leftitude--but I'm emphasizing that if, in 2010, you *do* choose hard left in a NDP-sold-out-from-the day-it-was-created spirit, that's where you'll be sharewise, seatwise, etc.  If even that.  And frankly, if you're prone to accusing me of a "pathetic dodge", you'd be lucky to reach Jim Harris/Elizabeth May Green levels of support...

Hey!

Pages