I didn't endorse this Parliament. Did you? (3)

okay...So I'm still not sure of some things here...

And I'm not sure what discouraging people from voting specifically has to do with instigating violent rebellion?

Why can't we, for instance, discourage people from buying conservative newspapers and foment violent rebellion simultaneously? 

Because this two pronged attack seems to lack something for the other 3 years and 364 days of rebellious action plan in between federal elections.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

Voting is a sign of endorsement for Parliament and its governance.

On the contrary, low voter turnouts are, according to the right, an endorsement for the neoliberal regime. It's not true, but that's besides the point. 

You're advocating exactly what neoliberalers hope doesn't happen, and that is for ordinary people to become engaged with the politics. Theyve known since Chile under Pinochet and Yeltsin era Russia that neoliberalism is inherently undemocratic. They need large percentages of voters to stay home on election day. The right absolutely needs for you and millions of Canadians who already stay away from the ballot boxes, to continue feeling that change is impossible and that democracy is a lesson in frustration.

But this is a progressive forum for people who believe in progressive change for the better. You will have more difficulty infecting people here with your democratic malaise. The truth is that we do have certain levels of  social democracy that make life worth living here for millions of people. That's not true of some other countries in this same hemisphere where Uncle Sam really does influence things. SOme of those countries really are pregnant with revolution, like Haiti and El Salvador and Honduras. But the US prevents natural reaction to those brutal and corrupt regimes by funding and arming their militaries and training military leaders in the art of repression and torture in order to extinguish hope. Again, though, that's not what we have here in Canada. At least not yet anyway. We can't really hear your beckoning us to give up hope. We can't hear your negativity over the partying and whistling going  on for this unprecedented NDP victory across Canada.

Compared to those countries where hope is all but extinguished by US-backed militaries, Canada is teeming with hope. Human rights thrive here by comparison. Canadians have just sent our well funded bay street stoogeaucracy a message. And it's that not all Canadians support the Reform-Alliance retreads who have seized dictatorial power with just 24.3% of the eligible vote. Neoliberalism will never receive legitimate endorsement by the Canadian electorate no matter how many millions stay home on election day and not matter how many millions of votes are wasted by an absurd electoral system. Canadians are very hopeful today, and it's time for the effective opposition NDP to feed and nurture hope over the next four years. If there is one thing the elite live in fear of, it is a virulent strain of hope infecting the masses.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

Clearly, a strategically placed NDP is neither necessary nor sufficient for progressive policy.
Neither does the NDP have any bearing on the erosion of these gains, you'll be happy to know. The NDP really exploded in the 1980s and again in the 2000s yet strangely has done nothing to curb the advance of neoliberalism despite holding a similar position in the 90s with regard to the Harper conservatives as it did in the 60s when all those big gains were made.

First off the NDP has never been the federal government, and neoliberalism works by way of a top-down regime of falling overall tax revenues collected by Ottawa and generally resulting in dog-eat-dog competition between provinces for leftover scraps. But suggesting that the NDP has been powerless to reverse this trend is equivalent to saying Marxist-Leninist parties have been ineffective in reversing this trend. The only two parties ever to hold power at the federal level and capable of reversing neoliberal policies created at that same level of government have never done so. We might as well wonder why the majority of US states are bankrupt when they have all been following neoliberal philosophy on taxation and spending? NDP provinces are faring well by comparison.

The CCF-NDP have never been in federal government, and yet the list of social gains across Canada attributed to social democrats are few but still significant and medicare being a large one. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are good examples of partial socialism in prairie provinces before and even during the neoliberal era despite reduced transfer payments from Ottawa, privatization of money, NAFTA etc.

It's also absurd for Stephen Harper to suggest that his government winning a "majority" was necessary to stabilize the economy and markets. Since the Harpers were re-elected, the TSX experienced the worst losses of the year, the loonie dropped almost 2 US cents, GDP looks awful and the jobs report is a lesson in Orwellian doublespeak.

And we still can't imagine you taking up residence in West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky or Mississippi to prove your point that the absence of a two-pronged effort consisting of the CCF-NDP and civil society groups have made no difference to quality of life for people in those bastions of political conservatism. And I would have fully agreed with you anyway that they have not.

And the big question avoided so far is, what would Canada look like with social democrats in federal government or official opposition over long periods of time? The Nordic countries compare well. [url=http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,en_2649_33933_45043394_1_1_1_1,00.... Distribution and Poverty: Data, Figures, Methods and Concepts[/color] - OECD[/url]

Tobold, you still have not made any connection between "external forces" - and the only ones you have mentioned are the ones I quoted above - and government policy. You claim that  these are the most important drivers, and that the actual choice between who sits in government is irrelevant, Given that it would be nice if you came up with even one example of a causal relationship (though it would take a bit more than that to prove your point). 

Based on the dates you are throwing at me I could also claim that war, imperialist expansion and financial and economic disaster and dysentery are forces for progressive change, and that computer technology is bad for it.

In fact, you have not presented one single example connecting labour action directly with a change in government policy, Do I think it has an effect? Of course, sometimes. But even the Winnipeg General Strike and the On to Ottawa Trek only had an effect when people mobilized at the ballot box. 

And since you have made no connection between those interestingly abridged graphs and your thesis seems to be labour unrest=good government, it begs the question of whether you see a permanent state of dispute, unmet demands, and economic war as a desirable permanent state of affairs. 

Or again, will a whole different set of rules apply when we have the kind of government you want, whatever that is?

As well, job action can have some effect on labour issues, but how do you connect that to the many areas of government policy which have very little or nothing to do with labour issues? did they sit around in Centre Block and play cards to decide? 

And you continue to refer to political parties as static entities, and ignore the change that can be effected by specific people, and pretend that because some progressive policies were enacted before the creation of the CCF that somehow proves something.

I think LaFontaine and Baldwin might be surprised to learn that they weren't progressive. And (as I think I said already) the party calling itself "conservative" is not the same thing that went by that name in 1867, 1959, or even 1985.

You think elections are irrelevant? Fine. But I think we have a fair bit of evidence to the contrary right in front of us now.  I don't have to wait for a strike to determine what is going to happen with the gun registry, corporate taxes, the wheat board, copyright, and a number of other things. And if anything is going to save some other important things like the safe injection site, access to abortion, and marriage equality it's not going to be job action - it will be the courts. 

Also.... I may not like the outcome of this election, but I acknowledge it.  I see ways in which the system could be made more fair, but I don't deny the fact that almost 40 percent of voters cast their ballots for Harper. 

Job action is not going to change that fact, and although there are plenty of ways to effect change beyond the act of voting, nothing is going to change unless you engage at least part of that constituency and address the reasons why they made that choice. If they can't be convinced to change their vote do you think they are going to be any more likely to shut down their workplaces and start injecting epoxy into bank locks because they should save public broadcasting? I sure don't.

Job action is not a root cause of anything. It is one very specific tactic ithat works in certain situations. And it is one aspect of a broader movement which includes many other tactics - including voting.

Quote:

But I'm not here to educate you on economic history, and you refuse to read anything...

Now now; don't let's start talking like George Victor, just because he isn't around.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In fact, you have not presented one single example connecting labour action directly with a change in government policy, Do I think it has an effect? Of course, sometimes. But even the Winnipeg General Strike and the On to Ottawa Trek only had an effect when people mobilized at the ballot box. 

Please give me any citation you can find to back up this absurd contention that those two seminal events meant nothing too the political culture of our country.  I'd like to see a study from one of our political studies departments defending that thesis.  

The Oshawa Sit Down Strike gave us the Rand Formula.  The Rand formula did more for working people than anything the CCF did in the same period. 

The IWA and Mine Mill and Smelter Workers strikes in the 50's and 60's gave union working people pensions. Both those unions were decimated in the '60's because they were lead by commies. My father in Ontario and my spouses father in BC fought in those strikes.  I remember the solidarity of a train car full of salmon arriving in Sudbury.  

My father voted conservative because he liked Diefenbaker and hated anything socialist and my wife's father organized for the Communist Party. That is the generation of working people who won the gains in Canada not policy wonks sent to Ottawa.  Both our fathers spent their lives fighting for working class gains in this country and they both had nothing but for distain for social democrats.

History is full of real people who are motivated by many things.  I happen to agree that the existence of a social democratic party has little to do with the progressive policies I inherited.  To do so would be deny both my fathers and my wife's fathers actual lives.

I still vote and will work to send good MP's to Ottawa but not because I think they will actually make major change but to at least speak truth to power.  Speaking truth to power is in itself a good thing.  Sending a Bill Siksay to parliament is worth fighting for, sending Pat Martin or a pointy headed academic not so much.

Slumberjack... 

"We take it as evidentiary fact?"

The royal We. I presume? And I would welcome some real evidence on the issue at hand, rather than the relationship between the popularity of Frank Sinatra and social justice.

And as for who is hiding anything, I said pretty clearly that I recognize there are problems with our electoral system . That is not the same as pretending that 40 percent of voters didn't vote for Harper, even if some of it was media manipulation and fear. 

My point is that for all this nebulous talk about "external forces" the reality is that you will have to deal with the reality of that public support and the reasons behind it no matter what tactic you take. So you ignore the results of this election at your peril.

@ Northern Shoveler

And I should thank you for actually bringing something concrete to the table.

It's not that I think lobbying and popular movements have no direct effect on government, but Tobold hasn't presented anything at all in the way of a concrete argument.

Geez, he could at least made reference to one of the best arguments in his favour -  FDR's statement "I agree with you, I want to do it. Now make me do it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/go-out-and-make-me-do-it_b_28...

On the other hand, do you think they might have gotten the same response from Warren Harding?

And another thing that Huffington Post article points out. The left are not the only ones who know how to organize from the grassroots, and it is foolish to assume that that kind of movement is always in our favour.

@ Slumberjack

Unaccountable? 

You might want to look at some of the election results and rephrase that. I don't like it any more than you do, but a lot of people voted for it. The difference is I recognize that a great number of people support it, and election or no election, you won't change anything until you come to grips with that.

@ N S

I did not call Tobold a right-wing ally, and I don't think I have said anything to question the sincerity of his political beliefs. 

My problem is with him making unsubstantiated claims.

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You might want to look at some of the election results and rephrase that. I don't like it any more than you do, but a lot of people voted for it. The difference is I recognize that a great number of people support it, and election or no election, you won't change anything until you come to grips with that.

Some of us at least seem to have come to grips with it.  I don't see any point in convincing like minded atheists to join with me in taking up with the scriptures just because there doesn't appear to be anything else to do with ones time, and because everyone else appears to be doing that which should otherwise be avoided.

I'm not sure where you live, but if I could avoid people who hold those attitudes by just not showing up at the polls I might consider it too. Unfortunately it is not that easy. Those people are real, and so are their values and beliefs, and there are a lot of them.  Unless you plan on locking yourself in a closet you will have to deal with them, especially if you are working for change in any capacity. 

Uncle John wrote:

I would say the vitriol I see from Trotskyites about the current union movement would do an Alberta Conservative MP proud. I think you could be a lot left of the NDP and not be a Trotskyite.

I agree that one can be to the left of the NDP without being a Trot. Not sure what your point is.

Uncle John wrote:

I would say the vitriol I see from Trotskyites about the current union movement would do an Alberta Conservative MP proud. I think you could be a lot left of the NDP and not be a Trotskyite.

Nice use of Trotskyite as a insult.  That is so cold war warrior of you.  Damn Trotskyites caused McCarthyism used to be a good social democratic line didn't it?

From the posts above relating to the union movement including my own I see nothing that says anyone in this thread even reads Trotsky let alone is debating from his historical framework.  Personally I have never read his writings so if anything I said reminds you off his writings I would be interested in you telling me what exactly the points of agreement are.  

I am of course presuming that if you can use the term in this context you have actually read his works and are familiar with their content.  Frankly I suspect you would be one a a very small handful of posters who has read him. 

If you haven't read him then I guess you would be merely blowing smoke out your ass.

Freedom 55 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't have to wait for a strike to determine what is going to happen with the gun registry, corporate taxes, the wheat board, copyright, and a number of other things. And if anything is going to save some other important things like the safe injection site, access to abortion, and marriage equality it's not going to be job action - it will be the courts. 

 

In these threads, those of us who have been critical of voting have been accused of being defeatist and encouraging apathy; but saying that these matters will be settled by the nine people on the supreme court strikes me as greatly more defeatist and demobilizing.

 

It is not defeatist at all. But it is a fact that the fate those three things have been primarily settled in court (in some cases with the support of governments which saw the wisdom of not fighting the rulings).

And while I respect the will of populist movements generally, including most job actions, you'll excuse me if I have just a bit more respect for the rule of law. After all, I can think of a couple of times when populist uprisings have not turned out to be so progressive. 

And ultimately I don't think it is a healthy state of affairs for a country to be run by who can mass the greatest force in the streets, any more than I think the results of elections are the absolute and final word.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

There are clear choices in terms of personality and platforms, but neither of these matter to policy outcomes.

Really? 

Corporate tax rates?

Gun registry? 

wheat board? 

Funding for women's groups?

Mega-prisons?

Support for public broadcasting? 

Maybe a Liberal-NDP coalition wouldhave been hauled into the backroom by the cabal which runs everything and forced to enact the same policies as the Harperites are poised to do, but I doubt it.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Tobold #85

Yes, and that Liberal majority closed the work camps and enacted reforms. Just because the CCF did not do it does not make it less valid, and I think I have said already that even though parties change with the times, there are usually, at any given time, some clear choices between parties and between candidates. 

I don't understand how you can say electing a few left MP's caused the majority Liberals to close the work camps.  Your perspective on the history is frankly hard to follow.  Do you think it was the social democrats who organized the On To Ottawa Trek?  Do you not think having to take thousands of unemployed off of trains at gun point might have been the more effective message to the elite?  

You appear to see the Regina Manifesto as the thing that frightened the brutal capitalists from the Depression Era.  I very strongly disagree.  It was the men from the camps who frightened the hell out of them.  The same men who then formed the Mackenzie Papineau Brigade.  They scared the shit out of the elite not Tommy. They got the camps closed by engaging in civil disobedience not by voting in an election. Not to mention that most of the people on the On to Ottawa Trek were barred from voting.  They were considered transiseents and that is how thye ended up in relief camps.  I am pretty sure that most provinces had the same 3 month residency in a riding qulification.  No votes for transients ergo no votes for the unemployed.  

Part of my view of the depression is having read this book a few times.  I recommend it to anyone who wants to try and understand Canadian working class history from the Depression years.  Waste Heritage by Irene Baird. 

Quote:

Baird effectively captured their angry voices as well as their wretched accommodations and the political tension of the times. The novel's documentary quality is enhanced by her detailed depiction of the protestors who occupied the Vancouver Post Office during the Sit-Down of the Single Unemployed in the summer of 1938 . The narrative follows their trek to Victoria by focusing on two transient men, the astute Matt Striker and his dependent friend, Eddy . Plot development is minimal; emphasis is placed on the depiction of realistic characters and on giving the reader an ironic awareness of the futility of their protest. Written before the Depression was ended by the outbreak of the Second World War, the book implicitly predicts no other solution to the problems it depicts.

http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/8280/Waste-Heritage.html