What are your defining Issues

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Bomb Bomb Bomb

Bomb Bomb Iran

Whatever Uncle Sam says, vicious toadies in the Tory and Liberal Parties of Canada are sure to nod up and down in rapid agreement to. I am never in suspense as to what policies those two old line parties will have at any given time - all we have to do is observe Warshington's policy, and then we already know what it is for Ignatief's and Harper's parties the same. 

And unless you vote against those two parties, you are effectively agreeing to the illegal US-led military occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Numerically, religiously, philosophically, first-past-the-postian and grammatically speaking, that's just the way it is.

Unionist wrote:

Please refer me to the election platform that promises, if elected, to instantly restore funding to KAIROS, including past deficits. And they don't even fight imperialism.

Yeah, perhaps I am speculating on that. and no, I don't think there will be an announcement anytime soon. I am guessing though that the position of other parties is a bit more driven by antsiness and percieved public opinion than ideology.

One specific and significant point - the Liberals turned down being part of the invasion of Iraq. 

Since Stephen Harper's standard reason for doing what he is told by the Americans is that it will increase his international reputation, I don't expect him to say no to anything.

Anonymouse wrote:

If either the NDP or Liberals were elected I expect Kairos would see its funding restored. Both seem sincere on this front, and unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals have some respect for advice of the bureaucrats (who supported KAIROS' app).

You may be right. What bothers me, though, is that they are too cowardly to stand up and say it now. That doesn't mean I won't work hard to destroy Harper and his axis of evil. It means that unless we put constant pressure on the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and others, they will do absolutely nothing good.

Unionist wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

If either the NDP or Liberals were elected I expect Kairos would see its funding restored. Both seem sincere on this front, and unlike the Conservatives, the Liberals have some respect for advice of the bureaucrats (who supported KAIROS' app).

You may be right. What bothers me, though, is that they are too cowardly to stand up and say it now. That doesn't mean I won't work hard to destroy Harper and his axis of evil. It means that unless we put constant pressure on the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and others, they will do absolutely nothing good.

 

Absolutely. It's politics, and I admit that it is craven, callous and deceptive. but the fact is I can see why they might want to pick their battles. You don't get elected otherwise and if you don't get elected you don't accomplish anything.

I don't expect to hear much about First Nations and Native issues in this election either, but I think I can guess which parties might revive something like the Kelowna Accord, rather than just offering empty non-apologies.

(edit)

and yes... to a degree cowardly. But compare Iggy getting snubbed for hotdogs (at kelekis diner in WInnipeg) to the leader who won'd even walk in the room until it has been scrubbed and papered with sycophants.

Accept that you can not effect change by voting and instead, find a better way to have your feelings and needs, about your society, met.

trippie wrote:

the apologizing is palpable around here these days.

 

Way don't you all just admit it to yourselves and accept reality... The bourgeois elections just don't work and your party will be ineffective no matter what happens , leading to further compromises and the battles you pick become even more far and few between years are after year.

You have already said you don't believe in checking the power of the Conservatives and that you want them to show themselves for what they really are in the belief that it will somehow hasten some revolution you think will happen. 

So tell me again who is taking a roundabout path and promoting scoundrels as a means of  achieve their goals? Doesn't sound so uncompromising to me. 

In fact it doesn't sound like anything at all. Voting doesn't work so you will have to resort to a better way? In the first place, I think you are wrong. In the second place I'm a bit curious what  you mean - tactically that is  - by a better way. Though if the best you can  come up with here is to not vote, and just let things happen to you then  I'm not actually too concerned.

I can't speak for others, but there is no point in trying to imply that I  don't understand or am selling out. I intend to make the best and most effective decision I can, and it is not a compromise at all. And I don't plan to come over to your position because  I completely disagree with you, That's all there is to it.

So which party should you vote for?

Until we somehow manage to move much closer to some semblance of true democracy, the best voting strategy should be to prevent any one party from getting a majority. With so many 'fringe' parties running candidates, I dont think the Liberals could get a majority this time around. That means that if a Cons candidate is likely to win in your riding, vote for whomever has the best chance of defeating him or her. Other than that, vote for whomever best represents what is most important to you - usually a tough decision anyway.

As for issues, I see only one biggie - staying the course that this country (as well as other 'democracies') has been on pretty much since day one, or finally getting down to doing something about the increasingly urgent problems that threaten to destroy us all.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is writing off the entire process that I think amounts to doing nothing out of an ignorant sense of pride.

Its a sense of nausea actually.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I just never knew that NATO air strikes where part of the anti-imperialist toolkit. 

It's amazing what you'll find by rummaging around in that bag of tricks.  In the Afghanistan context for example, it has been put forth by one particular party that support to NGOs for aid and reconstruction, under the auspices of a western backed, militarily installed puppet regime, perhaps with some sort of blue helmet arrangement for effect, constitutes a non-imperialist alternative approach to the problem.

This is how it works... this is how change occurs.... revolution

Until then nothing will change because all class relationships remain.  I said the class relationships remain.

I never said voting is bad. I repeatedly said BOURGEOIS ELECTIONS don't work. They don't work for the working class, they are set up to maintain the class relationships, it keeps them intact.

You can vote for the NPD but they will never, as their historical record has proven, change the class relationships that capitalism creates.

And besides, voting to have someone else represent you is giving up your rights. You are voting for SOMEONE ELSE to represent you.. That means you will not be representing yourself, SOMEONE ELSE will be doing it. Under a bourgeosi party parliament means that SOMEONE ELSE will then follow the party line.

So what happens is that this representative will go to the bourgeois parliament and try to make the bourgeois parliament work. So since your are a working class person your needs will not be met, because you are not a capitalist. So what you then do is try to pressure your party of choice and your representative of choice. At all times you are constantly compromising. It never ends.

You must always compromise because the bourgeois parliament is trying as hard as it can to make it's economic theory of Capitalism work. It is an impossible task because Capitalism does not work, as history has proven over and over again. So what happens it that everyone in parliament becomes reactionary.

It's a negative loop that everyone is stuck in.

So all you people know this, but all I read is endless bad reasons why they should participate. It's delusional. You are diluting yourself.

You now what I might vote for? I person that has great understanding of the working class history and untold understanding of Socialism. That is running not because they think that they can join the parliament fray to execute change, but because they understand that change comes from revolution and that they want to be ready to help the working class take over.

Were the platform is uncompromising, not living in delusion thinking that a tweak here and a tweak there will make the world a better place.

@6079

You twisting yourself into a pretzel with your logic, trying to justify your reasoning to vote. You can vote all you want, but history is against you. After all these years when has voting for a bourgeosi political party in a bourgeois election brought the end of Capitalism?

You tell me when and where? That's hard reality.

The idea is not to give up on democracy, the idea is to consciously give up on a bourgeois democracy. You are still holding hope that it can be saved. That the working class can use it for it's own benefit. How can maintaining a Capitalist system with it's class relationship of exploiting surplus value be used by the every people that it exploits? For their benefit? .

There is no historical proof that this idea can work.

So if you pull that option out, you must then replace it with something else. Another idea. And the best place to look is how has change been effected in history? And it always comes from revolution. When the working class exercises its power and forces itself to be actualized.

Take Egypt for example. The working class was able to use it's power to bring down the government. The only problem is that there are no Socialists ready to take power. The working class had not spent the time developing a government in waiting. A new economic theory and how it could be implemented.

So even though the working class of Egypt knew it needed change it only called for the head of government to pay the price and the bourgeoisie were able to enact a counter revolution by installing a military lead government. And also by working with reformist.

You know why I keep coming back here to rabble.ca?

It's to remind you guys and gals. To remind you of what you are suppose to be doing. It's to remind you that when everything looks like hell, and you are about to give in, that there is someone out there watching your back.

It is not easy watching the world around you crumble into the shits. After all we as humans have learnt, and to see reactionary, fascist forces in your society, rise up and regain control.

It FN sucks.

Don't give up. Don't accept a world of illusion. Prepare yourself, it's the only way out.

trippie wrote:

You want to vote so much? Create a shadow government in waiting and vote for its representatives. Have it intervene in the bourgeosi election.

This is a good idea.  Assuming that a web-based network could be set up to support/model this shadow government, how do you see decisions being made?

I have thought about this idea quite a bit and the difficult thing is how to authenticate people--that is, how to determine who has a voice.  I'm not talking about excluding people--I'm talking about the way people can vote multiple times in an internet poll.  That's one thing that the official elections can do really well.  Since the elections office has access to a registry of voters, it's very easy for them to make lists of who can vote.

Basically, I'm asking you--if there were a people powered shadow government that operated on some form of voting, how would you both make it easy and inviting for new people to jump on board and start voting, while still making sure that people weren't setting up multiple accounts?  I would think this legitimacy would be a requirement, but it is as yet a very difficult problem to solve.

ETA: Apologies for the thread drift.

i'll try to get back and read the intervening comments.

here's my defining concern:

with Harper we're on a fast track to destruction of people and planet.

Ignatieff slows that track somewhat.

Layton slows it more.

Hope might say that slowing a fast track to destruction provides a chance that destruction can be turned around, reversed, and begin to lead to....

anyway,

There was a lot of good stuff in the Liberal platform- eg. support for the Canada Health Act, however there wasn't a word about 'trade' deals like CETA.  The Ontario Health Coalition has said that as long as there is commitment to the Act, and the Transfers, then privatizations in healthcare can be reversed.  So that is hopeful. And maybe citizens can still make CETA unpalatable for all parties.

My dilemma is that based on the last several elections, it is the Liberals in our riding who have the best chance over the Conservative incumbent.  I'd prefer to vote for the NDP or Greens, actually the NDP candidate here because the local Green candidate hasn't shown much concern about privatization.

Vote-splitting is an issue here.  The Liberal platform didn't include a commitment to proportional representation.  That needs to be pushed, maybe they and others will include it still?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The fact is there are occasions when Canadian govenrments have said no, even conservative ones. You might notice that we are not in Iraq, we do not have nuclear missiles on our soil, we have diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Indeed. Just on international relations issues, at the height of the Cold War, John Diefenbaker's government:

1. Led the way in blocking apartheid South Africa's readmission to the Commonwealth.

2. Defied Washington and established diplomatic relations with Cuba.

3. Defied Washington and negotiated trade with China (wheat sales), at a time when China was not even yet "allowed" to take its rightful seat in the U.N., which had been usurped by Washington's lackeys in Taipei.

4. Publicly blasted Washington for not even phoning the Minister of Defence when NORAD put Canadian troops on standby status during the Cuban missile crisis.

5. Defied Washington's demands to arm Canadian Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads. This courageous stand was followed soon (January 1963) by U.S. blackmail, leading to resignation of some cabinet ministers. The NDP and Social Credit promptly withdrew their support from Dief's minority government, leading to its defeat in a non-confidence motion, and the subsequent election of Pearson, who campaigned on a platform in favour of "honouring our defence commitments".

Had I been of age, I might well have voted for Diefenbaker. That would have been the closest I ever came to voting for either a Conservative or a Liberal. But that list of 5 up there would definitely count in my list of "defining issues".

ETA: Let me add #6, which will no doubt be unpopular with some of the patriots:

6. Cancelled the Avro Arrow program. The Avro was developed for the purpose of intercepting Soviet bombers coming over the Arctic. This move by Dief (I don't care or know what his true motives were), along with his stand on no nukes in Canada, helped keep Canada a little bit removed from the arms race, instead of making out like bandits as merchants of death.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But to reject the process outright without looking - every time -  and pretend that it will have any effect is nonsense. 

This is a faith based argument, which really isn't an argument at all.  What is nonsense however is the exhortation to continue immersing ourselves in a process that hasn't welcomed structural changes for over a century, where the cheerless results are largely known in advance, and one that will never change from its current configuration.  Everything within it conspires against the sort of tangible progressive adjustments that would stand any chance at all of dilluting the chokehold of corporatism, whose representatives will not voluntarily relinquish their role as the primary decision makers within the process.  But keep checking back anyway because miracles are bound to happen that you certainly wouldn't want to miss.

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But to reject the process outright without looking - every time -  and pretend that it will have any effect is nonsense. 

This is a faith based argument, which really isn't an argument at all.  

Excuse me? 

I call bullshit. I am not the one passing judgment before the nomination deadline has even passed. How can you claim to make an informed decision when you don't even yet know who might be running and what they might stand for. 

Speaking of faith-based decisions...

@ Northern Shoveler

No, not a godwinism, since I think trippie was talking about it in a positive sense (as indeed it could be). There just aren't that many historical examples, and Hitler managed to do it very effectively where others did not. I'm not trying to scare anyone away from the tactic by pointing it out.

I think Charlie Angus has been stick-handling the copyright issue. 

And I think there are a few days left in the campaign. Like I said, it's good to wait for parties to actually release their platforms before you make up your mind

And there's this:

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/512298 

(old article, but I hope you get the point)

And on Iraq, Bush asked us. Chretien said no. Whatever other connections you can make based on our military relationship doesn't change the fact that we would be in far deeper, and have a lot more dead people coming home if it had been Harper's decision.

Since I have always voted NDP (except the one election I could not because there was no candidate and then I refused the ballot) I am prone to get complaints such as Unionist's saying that I could be the enemy for voting automatically. But it is not as simple as that.

I have no permanent commitment to the NDP-- they have to earn my vote in each election and I consider my limited options every time. I am open to more alternatives but find few.

I do want to vote for a party that has a national infrastructure, critics, leader, conventions or some kind of accountability.

I will never vote Conservative. They represent as near to opposite everything I believe in.

I will never vote Liberal. I have personal history to explain this and they practice the same policies as the Conservatives too often.

That leaves only Greens and NDP at the Federal level.

Every time I compare the two I prefer the NDP although I cannot say that with a great leader and program that I would never vote Green. If the NDP were not on the ballot in my riding I would vote Green.

This does not mean I am comfortable with every position of the party. And no doubt there are some positions the party has that I have not made my mind up on.

I vote for the best of my choices -- not an impossible ideal.

The NDP also stands for the things I care about. Sometimes it is hypocritical or does not deliver but the party by description is the closest to what I want. It is in fact the only party overtly putting a priority on social justice and fairness. The Greens place the environment first and the NDP places the environment second but both parties stand for a protected environment  (although that does not mean every policy gets it right).

I feel there is no point making arguments that the NDP is not good enough unless they are either accompanied by an argument that another party is better or that they are all the same (which I do not believe).

This of course applied to me as I live in a riding where the candidate does not have a shot. I also do not agree with the idea that it is wrong to vote for a party rather than a candidate. If you live in a riding where a candidate you could support could win then that is a factor. In one where the winner is either a forgone conclusion or a race between two parties you do not support there is no point looking too long at the individual candidate.

Issue: Global Warming

Indicator: Carbon Offets

   If I were to judge the various party's committment to environmental protection, specifically global warming emissions, by the amount of CO2 produced by each party's campaign, I would be voting GREEN.

  The NDP is no better than the Libs, but the Cons are not even purchasing carbon offsets at all this time around.

Quote: "The CBC found the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals had similar results, with all three leaders well over 120 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in the first 10 days of the campaign.

The Bloc and the Greens were both under five tonnes."

But it seems only one party isn't bothering to do anything about cleaning up their mess:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/04/cv-elec...

Unfortunately, a four year Harper majority will have a dreadful impact first and foremost upon those who have barely survived his minority regime.  Everyone else will certainly get a taste of what it means when the neo-liberal talks about 'productivity,' but it won't be anywhere near the steady diet of abuse, neglect, and belt tightening that people endure every waking day, which these assholes revel in when dishing it out.  When we talk about waiting for the Jane and John Q. middle class public to have their fill of a majority Harper regime down the road, we have to consider that there are certain forms of collateral damage that will never be repaired no matter who comes along next selling their version of change.  Which is why it is so important to believe that something offers the prospect of real change before placing ones faith in it.  Otherwise it amounts to a cruel exercise in futility operating as a tag team with the already predominant cruelties.

@ post 76, 6079_smith

You keep saying that the working class is not ready, you asume that the working class in Canada is seperate from the rest of the world. That is your flaw. The Canadian economy is not seperated, it is intertwined.

It's a very simple concept , my ideas they are. The Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and the Greens may have some differences on approach, on policy, but the underlying conditions are dictated to them by the Capitalst environment we live in. It is the environment that will decide if prisons will be or not be built. It wil not be decided by your vote and a few extra seats from the NDP.

The NDP have been using a Social Democrat philosophy for years. Other groups around the world have been doing the same thing. Yet, even though there have been many in roads around the globe, this philosophy has not been able to change the Capitalist system one bit.

The only philosophy that has even come close to bringing the working class to power has been the ideas from the bolsheviks. But even their ideas were no match for the world bourgeois, as they used every means possible to maintain power.

So the NDP has little, if any, possiblity of changing the tune here in Canada.

If you want to stop the, Capitalist turn towards fascism and it's prisons., you need to figure out how to crush it world wide. It's your only hope, cause those prisons are gonna be built in Canada by the reactionary people that have become affraid of others by the Capitalist environment,sooner or later.