'Socialism' just fine with Ontario NDP leader

101 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2011-06-23 16:29

JeffWells

Quote:

TORONTO - The word "socialism" doesn't scare Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath but don't expect to see it splashed on the side of her campaign vehicles.

"It's a word I've used to describe my value system in the past," Horwath said Thursday. "It's not a word I'm afraid of or that I have a problem with. But when you get really focused on the labels and the detailed words that are kind of internal to a party document, people's eyes glaze over."

...

The word "socialism" is not derogatory, she said.

"I don't think it's an insult at all," she said. "I think it speaks to a value system that says that the wealth that's created in a society should be shared. And people shouldn't be living in dire or desperate poverty."

...

http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011/06/23/18325886.html

Thu, 2011-06-23 17:44

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

"the wealth that's created in a society should be shared"

Not a very accurate or useful explanation of socialism. The capitalist system itself, for example, is predicated on the idea that the workers who create wealth should share it with the owners of capital who do not.

Nor does concern for the desperately poor make one a socialist.

Socialism is not just about sharing, but also about things like empowerment, equality, liberation, mutuality, democratic control, justice, respect, solidarity, compassion, and uncompromising struggle against everything that stands in the way of any of those things.

No one can truly understand what socialism is without also understanding the nature of its antithesis, capitalism.

Thu, 2011-06-23 19:10

Malcolm

Sweet Jaysus. You finally get an NP leader to say that they are fine with the word "socialist" and you bitch that her eight second soundbyte definition lacks vigour?

No pleasing some of you.

Thu, 2011-06-23 19:25

Unionist

Personally, I'd rather they did it than say it.

Thu, 2011-06-23 21:41

JeffWells

I was impressed by Andrea explaining her socialism to Steve Paikin a couple of years ago by referencing "From each according to their ability." But it's true: if a party's socialism is understood more as a sentiment than an economic theory, the word is easily discarded. And perhaps in all honesty should be.

Fri, 2011-06-24 01:44

Aristotleded24

Andrea Horwath for Prime Minister!

Fri, 2011-06-24 03:21

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

M. Spector wrote:

"the wealth that's created in a society should be shared"

Not a very accurate or useful explanation of socialism. The capitalist system itself, for example, is predicated on the idea that the workers who create wealth should share it with the owners of capital who do not.

Nor does concern for the desperately poor make one a socialist.

Socialism is not just about sharing, but also about things like empowerment, equality, liberation, mutuality, democratic control, justice, respect, solidarity, compassion, and uncompromising struggle against everything that stands in the way of any of those things.

No one can truly understand what socialism is without also understanding the nature of its antithesis, capitalism.

Not even a mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I'm sad

Fri, 2011-06-24 10:36

Malcolm

And nary a word about the commanding heights of the economy.

Fri, 2011-06-24 13:51

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Like you lot, Andrea doesn't know socialism from Shinola. It would be more honest if she disassociated herself from the term altogether.

Fri, 2011-06-24 13:59

#10

remind

Seems like Sheldon is visiting this thread. ;)

BTW on another note the formatting bar is gone again at babble.

Fri, 2011-06-24 14:57

#11

Aristotleded24

M. Spector wrote:
Like you lot, Andrea doesn't know socialism from Shinola.

Right. We've forgotten about how you know everything and are superior to all of us and are the arbiter of all things left-wing. We'll be sure to consult you next time.

Fri, 2011-06-24 16:42

#12

knownothing knownothing's picture

At least she is trying. More debate the better I say. Chomsky says socialism is "workers' control over production"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

Fri, 2011-06-24 17:56

#13

genstrike

I think M. Spector does have a point though - in that socialism means a lot more than "share some of the wealth, and make sure people don't live in desperate poverty"

That said, it is an eight second sound bite.

Fri, 2011-06-24 17:56

#14

JeffWells

Yes. Horwath should receive credit for not running from the word, and not permitting the Right to proscribe our political vocabulary.

Also, I have to hope that the better she and the ONDP perform in October, the less craven the federal party may be about the S-word.

Fri, 2011-06-24 19:44

#15

WillC

Fri, 2011-06-24 19:47

#16

youngsocialist

She believes in scary socialism!?!?

Sat, 2011-06-25 03:39

#17

Papal Bull

Quote:
Like you lot, Andrea doesn't know socialism from Shinola.

After I picked up a recent recent book on Marxist philosophy called Marxist-Spectorism: Actually Really Totally Sweetly Existing Socialism (You're Wrong!) I realized I knew nothing about socialism and dissociated from it entirely. It was a good thing. If I had stayed as a left-winger I would have had to put up with huffy people telling me that I didn't know anything about what I believed in! Now that I have disowned myself due to a lack of purity from the progressive movement me and my beer buddies have a grand old time voting conservative once every four years now! MAJORITY 4EVA!!!!

Sat, 2011-06-25 10:09

#18

Uncle John

Most people in North America think that Socialism is Stalinism, where the Government controls everything, people work for free (or next to nothing), and people get basic necessities for free, and there is not a whole hell of a lot of anything else. Workers do not control of the means of production under this system. This perception of Socialism is so prevalent that Zeitgeist is using it. I even had an African Marxist taxi driver tell me that was what socialism was. So I don't know how useful it is, if Socialism is to be interpreted as Totalitarian Rule.

One poster here said that socialism was the antithesis of capitalism, however if you abolish the free market, where is the wealth to redistribute? I would think that in a leftist society you would have small businesses paying taxes and being more or less left alone. It is the banks and big businesses which are the ones which would be put under workers control, or perhaps the banks under government control and the big businesses under workers control.

If it isn't about worker's ownership and control, I don't care what you call it. It is still right wing crap.

Sat, 2011-06-25 13:15

#19

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

This is the model that I would be studying and emulating if I were on the NDP's economic policy team:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Quote:
The MONDRAGON Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote.

Sun, 2011-06-26 00:23

#20

youngsocialist

laine lowe wrote:

This is the model that I would be studying and emulating if I were on the NDP's economic policy team:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Quote:
The MONDRAGON Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote.

Interesting model, but I doubt the NDP would ever dare even bring up the idea of cooperatives.. Regardless, it seems ineffective from the top down.

Sun, 2011-06-26 01:09

#21

notaradical

laine lowe wrote:

This is the model that I would be studying and emulating if I were on the NDP's economic policy team:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Quote:
The MONDRAGON Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2010 it was providing employment for 83,859 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote.

FINALLY! Someone mentions the Mondragon Co-Ops.

The interesting thing about the Mondragon is that they have international subsidiaries. Due to the various political climates in the countries where they've been established, not all of their subsidiaries have adopted the owner-worker model. However, and this is what sets Mondragon apart from just about everyone else, they are taking an extensive look into how to democratize their offshore operations.

In an era where big business rules all and has beaten the common worker down, this corporation needs more media coverage, as naive as that request sounds.

Sun, 2011-06-26 02:00

#22

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I don't understand why you think it is ineffective from the top down, youngsocialist. Can you be more specific?

Hey notaradical, I brought this model up in a progressive US political discussion forum years ago and it was ignored. I find their model intriguing and a definite illustration that industry can be run differently and successfully.

Sun, 2011-06-26 02:54

#23

Boom Boom

I would think co-operatives would greatly appeal to the NDP demographic. I've been in housing co-ops, food co-ops, I do my banking in a credit union, and if I took the time to remember, I've probably been in a few more co-ops as well as the ones I mentioned. I had an NDP membership but I let it fade away.

Sun, 2011-06-26 04:23

#24

Policywonk

Boom Boom wrote:
I would think co-operatives would greatly appeal to the NDP demographic. I've been in housing co-ops, food co-ops, I do my banking in a credit union, and if I took the time to remember, I've probably been in a few more co-ops as well as the ones I mentioned. I had an NDP membership but I let it fade away.

Already part of Party policy and always has been (cooperative groups were among the founders of the CCF). Cooperatives are only one model/vehicle of economic democracy, and Mondragon was long preceded by the Rochdale Pioneers, a group of weavers and other artisans in England, from which the Rochdale Principles (the foundational principles of Cooperativism globally) derive. The Rochdale Pioneers survived various mergers and name changes before they were absorbed by the United Cooperatives in 1991 (which was itself absorbed by the Cooperative Group in 2007).

Sun, 2011-06-26 07:59

#25

N.Beltov

The 21st century socialism of the Chavez Venezuelan government has been described as a triangle consisting of the following 3 points:

1. social ownership of the means of production;

2. social production by workers and communities; and

3. a solidarity society producing for communal needs and purposes.

This covers all the bases: public versus private ownership, producing not just widgits but people in new social circumstances, and identifying the end result of production and tying it back to common needs and purposes. It contrasts with a "barracks" socialism or the state capitalist characteristics of the former SU. Michael Lebowitz covers all of this well in English in The Socialist Alternative.

This is one way to characterize socialism and it has the great advantage that, while Venezuela is hardly a "socialist" country, it describes the whole thing as an ongoing process - which can be successful or not - and fills in some of the important "blanks". There are others, of course.

Sun, 2011-06-26 13:57

#26

Machjo

M. Spector wrote:

"the wealth that's created in a society should be shared"

Not a very accurate or useful explanation of socialism. The capitalist system itself, for example, is predicated on the idea that the workers who create wealth should share it with the owners of capital who do not.

Nor does concern for the desperately poor make one a socialist.

Socialism is not just about sharing, but also about things like empowerment, equality, liberation, mutuality, democratic control, justice, respect, solidarity, compassion, and uncompromising struggle against everything that stands in the way of any of those things.

No one can truly understand what socialism is without also understanding the nature of its antithesis, capitalism.

Would it not also include eliminating the unjust separate school system? Ironically enough, while the NDP remained audibly mute on and the Liberals actively defensive of the issue last election, the PCs and the Greens were the most voal about changing it.

I'd rather support a capitalist for social justice than a socialist who just brandishes words about.

Sun, 2011-06-26 14:42

#27

Doug

M. Spector wrote:

Like you lot, Andrea doesn't know socialism from Shinola. It would be more honest if she disassociated herself from the term altogether.

I guess if it doesn't make normal people run screaming it's not good enough.

Sun, 2011-06-26 14:52

#28

Doug

youngsocialist wrote:

Interesting model, but I doubt the NDP would ever dare even bring up the idea of cooperatives.. Regardless, it seems ineffective from the top down.

It ought to and also about social entrepreneurship more generally. That said, government can't just will these things into being. The NDP can win office and implement all the supportive policies it cares to but someone outside of government has to organize these things and make them run.

Sun, 2011-06-26 18:05

#29

Policywonk

Doug wrote:

youngsocialist wrote:

Interesting model, but I doubt the NDP would ever dare even bring up the idea of cooperatives.. Regardless, it seems ineffective from the top down.

It ought to and also about social entrepreneurship more generally. That said, government can't just will these things into being. The NDP can win office and implement all the supportive policies it cares to but someone outside of government has to organize these things and make them run.

And they do: http://www.coopscanada.coop/en/about_co-operative/Co-op-Facts-and-Figures

Most of Canada's cooperatives and credit unions are quite small, although Vancity is larger than some banks.

Then there is the non-profit sector, which still probably employs more people than the retail sector. Of course there is a considerable difference between small local not-for-profit societies and a non-profit on a national scale.

Sun, 2011-06-26 19:54

#30

Life, the unive...

Co-ops are alive and well and growing. As a member of two farm product co-ops I find New Democrats are often involved in many ways. You might be able to criticize the NDP for lots of things, but support for co-ops is not a realistic criticism.

Sun, 2011-06-26 23:28

#31

Freedom 55

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Co-ops are alive and well and growing.

I really hope you're right. Unfortunately, in my community their reputation has been tarnished by a couple of businesses that have operated under the pretense of being worker's co-ops in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors and attract the patronage of the lefties and liberals, while - in actual practice - being even more exploitative than many businesses with more conventional employer-employee structures.

Fri, 2011-07-01 00:14

#32

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41m67y4%2BSAL._SL210_.jpg[/img]

[url=http://astore.amazon.com/climaandcapit-20/detail/184467679X]The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism[/url]

Fri, 2011-07-01 12:53

#33

Ward

shhh...The beer store [ontario]...........co-operative

[sorry was a co-op]

Thu, 2011-07-14 02:17

#34

Doug

She's just all over the place!

Ontario Liberals - Andrea Horwath is the new Mike Harris

Sat, 2011-07-23 19:50

#35

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exGPwpeMBv0]Horwath says one thing in public, another thing in "NDP backrooms"[/url]

Sat, 2011-07-23 20:55

#36

dacckon

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exGPwpeMBv0]Horwath says one thing in public, another thing in "NDP backrooms"[/url]

LOL I HEARD THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO5-hM6xKt

LOL

Like Horwath, I personally use both social democrat/democratic socialist because for me it makes no difference. But in public I prefer social democrat, as idiots like the person who made that video will imply that I'm some sort of lenin/trotsky/stalin-esque revoulutionary.

Sat, 2011-07-23 20:56

#37

Life, the unive...

When was the last time you saw the governing party attack the 3rd place party so viciously and so obsessively. Oh yeah when that governing party was on the point of crashing and burning. Liberal polling must be far more bleak than anyone has suspected to this point. I know the Liberals are done in rural Ontario, but it must be getting awful for the Liberals in urban and suburban Ontario too.

Sat, 2011-07-23 22:24

#38

Aristotleded24

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
When was the last time you saw the governing party attack the 3rd place party so viciously and so obsessively.

To that sentence, you could have added, "to the point of ignoring the main opposition party."

Sat, 2011-07-23 23:16

#39

dacckon

I do see what the liberals are trying to do. They are trying to discourage NDP voters from going to the polls by claiming they have gone right and then trying to claim them as against the enviroment in order for voters to split them with the greens. Perhaps it was a mistake not to release their full platform, I'm sure the attack ads will roll in before Horwath's announcements.

Sat, 2011-07-23 23:47

#40

Aristotleded24

dacckon wrote:
I do see what the liberals are trying to do. They are trying to discourage NDP voters from going to the polls by claiming they have gone right and then trying to claim them as against the enviroment in order for voters to split them with the greens. Perhaps it was a mistake not to release their full platform, I'm sure the attack ads will roll in before Horwath's announcements.

Every time the CCF/NDP looks like it's about to take off, some groups collaborate with the Liberals to attack the CCF/NDP from the left. In the 1940s when the CCF was rising high, the Communists and Liberals co-operated to attack the NDP under the Liberal Labour Party banner. The Liberals tried to turn the 1988 election into a free trade referendum, and when Mulroney was elected many on the left blamed the NDP for the Liberal failure. And just last decade, we had folks like Jim Stanford, Jim Laxer, and Buzz Hargrove, who have consistently claimed that the NDP is not far enough left, attack the NDP because the Liberals lost elections. The co-operation between the Liberals and the Greens (in particular the stand-down agreement between Dion and May in 2008) adds a contemporary environmental twist to this dynamic, that in addition to being not far enough to the left, the NDP is also weak on the environment. I remembered this history, and suddenly the recent formation of the "Socialist" Party of Ontario made sense to me, considering how badly the Ontario Liberals are about to collapse.

Sun, 2011-07-24 22:57

#41

dacckon

The liberals simply fear that the NDP will take their place as a dominant party. But this was not done through a move to the centre historically, nor was it done by moving to the left. It was done by saying that a more progressive society is possible and by rallying voters through focusing on issues.

Horwath is smart by not proposing something new but simply what has been done by progressive goverments in other provinces.

Regarding the waffle, its no big deal. There has always been a waffle in the NDP, but alas they pay their membership fees eh? They've tried to turn the party further left since the dawn of time, and not through debate backed up with proven examples of their policies put through agressive tactics.I don't think they've ever heard of something that was a failed approach to gaining votes. Old theories about building a better and more egalitarian world should be revised and based on what has been done and what has proven to be sucessful in places like Scandinavia. A better world will be built but some simply have to realize it won't happen tomorrow or the day after.

Tue, 2011-07-26 19:00

#42

thanks

how difficult is it to include in your version of socialism a simple statement that 'we do not accept the human rights abuses done in the name of socialism' ?

Its a very important clarification to many Ontarians, Canadians, and others around the world.

Tue, 2011-07-26 19:54

#43

6079_Smith_W

thanks wrote:

how difficult is it to include in your version of socialism a simple statement that 'we do not accept the human rights abuses done in the name of socialism' ?

Its a very important clarification to many Ontarians, Canadians, and others around the world.

Though to be thorough about it, we should probably also have a simple statement that we do not accept the human rights abuses done in the name of all unions, soviets, and republics, eh?

I have no problem with that, though frankly I think the human rights abuses done in the name of my house, my food and water, my toys and my coffee are something I can have a bit more affect on.

As for the crimes committed years ago by people who belonged to a group with a certain word in its name (same word those national socialists used too) I agree they were tragic. On the other hand I attach a bit more importance to the things that actually sustain my lifestyle, and about which I can do something, than I do to saying mea culpa about philosophies which have the barest thread connecting them, if that.

I think someone mentioned the CPC MLs. WHo knows... maybe they'll bite.

Fri, 2011-07-29 17:10

#44

thanks

everyone is able to clarify, in word and action, opposition to human rights abuses.

groups associated with a party using the name of a well-known abuser have a responsibility to speak out, to clarify distinctions or to stop association.

any who choose to allow themselves to be associated with Leninists, or Marxists, either in sponsorship or membership lists, or in joint causes, have a responsibility to clarify publicly they do not accept Lenin's human rights abuses or Marx's reported acceptance of hostage shooting. Similarly, members of any group have a responsibility to speak out against human rights abuses.

The groups which sponsor rabble, and all babblers, are in association with some who promote Leninism, therefore everyone at babble/rabble has a responsibility to help educate Leninists and eachother.

Silence regarding Lenin's crimes leads to reaction; those who see attempts to sweep historic crimes under the rug move in the opposite direction.

In Canada the divide has become more pronounced and it's unnecessary- destructive to a progressive shift.

The left needs to be very clear about specific policy, and specific rejection of human rights abuses- past, present or future- of any of its associations.

Fri, 2011-07-29 17:45

#45

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

thanks, your ignorance about Lenin and Marxism is encyclopedic.

There are plenty of other places on the internet where displaying one's hatred and ignorance are welcomed.

Kindly find them, and stop polluting this place with your anticommunist rants.

Thanks.

Fri, 2011-07-29 18:07

#46

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I doubt if he says the same thing about the Conservative or Liberal brands. Given that they were in power throughout the brutal British Empire the parties with those names should ensure everyone understands that they are not going to engage in ethnic cleansing, genoicide and other crimes against humanity.

Fri, 2011-07-29 19:18

#47

thanks

If 'communism' means community, people caring for eachother and the Earth without the abuses of capital and without human rights abuses, then dialogue could be possible.

I do know enough about Lenin and Marx to know Lenin and Trotsky headed years of human rights abuses conducted by the Soviet secret police, and Marx condoned the shooting of sixty hostages by the Paris Commune. I've written notes at babble in previous threads, also critiquing Stalin, and the human rights abuses of others in other parties.

If babblers were truthful, dialogue could be possible.

I've left babble, and other forums, previously, because in several years i havent' seen any leftists here clarify the serious disconnect, nor in other circles, except for Jack Layton once when he was named as a 'socialist' and he smiled and said 'progressive'. It was a help. More is needed.

Fri, 2011-07-29 22:48

#48

dacckon

The best solution is to avoid mudslinging which appears often here, theres another way to question an ideology. If communists wish to tell me about the governing communist party in Cyprus and its accomplishments, then fill me in. The anarchists/libertarian socialists here should tell me about the sandistas's economic accomplishments, or those of anarchist catalonia. Show me the unbiased economic and social data, then I will consider your perspective.

Fri, 2011-07-29 23:44

#49

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

We lose people like Remind and get right wing assholes coming out our yin yangs.

Thanks where is your reply to the Conservative and Liberal atrocities? Why this fixation on one ideology when the other ideology has an even bloodier history. The Indian occupation by Britain killed way more people than any communist regime. You want dialogue then answer for our Conservative and Liberal parties that bear the names of that murderous, genocidal, racist regime.

Fri, 2011-07-29 23:45

#50

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Sat, 2011-07-30 09:35

#51

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

thanks wrote:

Similarly those who call themselves Conservatives, Liberals, anarchists, or whatever other ideology, can simply say, 'we do not accept human rights abuses done in the name of...'.

Please feel free to go to MSM web sites and demand that Rae and Harper denounce British imperialism before they can speak with any legitimacy. We got your message here so maybe its time to go after the worst human rights abusers not the second rate leftist ones.

Given that the ideology they represent is currently murdering people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Palestine etc etc I would think they should be the focus of your concerns. Why go after the historic abusers when you have current abuse on an unprecedented scale.

Pages

Topic locked