Media: let's bury the party beneath praises of Jack

Layton did what he had to do to win. I recall a Tommy Douglas, visiting the United States and feeling ill at the sight of so called socialists who sat around quoting Marx and waiting for a revolution that would never come. He decided he had to do something other than sitting around. And he in his leadership race for the Sask CCF was won through his charisma over a more left-wing canidate. This is the truth of the matter. That is the choice, waiting as a protest-revolutionary voice for something that will never come, or winning elections and undergoing the slow process of evolving as social democracy was intended to do under thinkers such as  E Bernstein.

The notion that you can stop globalization or even attempt to alter it in a massive way is a bit silly.  You can embrace it and make it turn the wheels through things such as the nordic model. But not understanding that even during the recession, globalization actually increased shows that we must adapt or fall behind. The world is more connected than ever before and these connections will continue no matter what, as unfortunate it is that certain goverments do not create the necessary social-safety nets required for these rapid changes. You can have laissez-faire policies in economics and/or foreign affairs or you can intervene in a proper, pragmatic and cautious manner to create a better future.

But perhaps I agree that Roy shouldn't have been quoted, even if his wife personally recommended it to him because she liked the book. Although the subjects Roy was referring to was the Iraq War, a war with no proof behind it or  UN support, Roy's stance on Naxalites in India could be a controversial choice. I've heard some bad things about those rebels, but I'm not too educated on that subject. Perhaps its just a rumour that they are using child soldiers.

dacckon wrote:

Layton did what he had to do to win. I recall a Tommy Douglas, visiting the United States and feeling ill at the sight of so called socialists who sat around quoting Marx and waiting for a revolution that would never come. He decided he had to do something other than sitting around. And he in his leadership race for the Sask CCF was won through his charisma over a more left-wing canidate. This is the truth of the matter. That is the choice, waiting as a protest-revolutionary voice for something that will never come, or winning elections and undergoing the slow process of evolving as social democracy was intended to do under thinkers such as  E Bernstein.

 

The notion that you can stop globalization or even attempt to alter it in a massive way is a bit silly.  You can embrace it and make it turn the wheels through things such as the nordic model. But not understanding that even during the recession, globalization actually increased shows that we must adapt or fall behind. The world is more connected than ever before and these connections will continue no matter what, as unfortunate it is that certain goverments do not create the necessary social-safety nets required for these rapid changes. You can have laissez-faire policies in economics and/or foreign affairs or you can intervene in a proper, pragmatic and cautious manner to create a better future.

 

But perhaps I agree that Roy shouldn't have been quoted, even if his wife personally recommended it to him because she liked the book. Although the subjects Roy was referring to was the Iraq War, a war with no proof behind it or  UN support, Roy's stance on Naxalites in India could be a controversial choice. I've heard some bad things about those rebels, but I'm not too educated on that subject. Perhaps its just a rumour that they are using child soldiers.

I would quibble with your claim that globalization is here to stay (looking at things like rapidly rising transportation costs and that the EU project is currently going down in flames) but I would agree with your general claim that you have to go out and win over people to your cause. Or as Mike Layton related at the funeral, you can wait forever for perfect conditions, or you can make do with what you have.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... Any revolution or political movement that lacks these positive attributes is dangerous, and there are so many examples of movements borne out of anger and struggle that ended up violently and badly. I would argue that several of the previous struggles, from women's rights to abolition of slavery to racial equality to labour rights to equal rights for gays and lesbians (along with other movements I probably haven't listed) were at their core, rooted in hope, love, and optimism. I would also argue that the Arab Spring phenomenon currently sweeping the globe is, at its core, rooted in hope, love, and optimism as well, and that's why it hasn't denegrated into violent, sectarian struggles we have seen in the past when some marginalized groups fight back.

Fluff it up all you like. This is an echo of the master's voice ... who says that violence by the master is OK but violence resistance is unacceptable. When the times change, and they will, I hope to hell that people like you will get out the way. And if you won't get out of the way, don't be surprised if that anger is directed at you.

A general point, and I'm only repeating myself here, is that anti-imperialism (for it was the anti-imperialism of Arundhati Roy that was mis-represented by S. Lewis in his otherwise good eulogy for Jack Layton) is well understood outside of the citadels of imperialism. And it is not the same as the sectarian support for this or that model of socialism.

The obtuse determination to misunderstand what is meant by anti-imperialism is remarkable among social democrats. We have: Empires existed in the past, but not anymore. Globalization is inevitable. Resistance is futile. Bombing is a good way to establish democracy. The NATO military alliance can be reformed and we oughtta try anyway. blah blah.

It's all the more repulsive when those who are unwilling to take an anti-imperialist approach want to drape themselves in the respect and courage that such a view deserves.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Layton did what he had to do to win. I recall a Tommy Douglas, visiting the United States and feeling ill at the sight of so called socialists who sat around quoting Marx and waiting for a revolution that would never come. He decided he had to do something other than sitting around. And he in his leadership race for the Sask CCF was won through his charisma over a more left-wing canidate. This is the truth of the matter. That is the choice, waiting as a protest-revolutionary voice for something that will never come, or winning elections and undergoing the slow process of evolving as social democracy was intended to do under thinkers such as  E Bernstein.

 

The notion that you can stop globalization or even attempt to alter it in a massive way is a bit silly.  You can embrace it and make it turn the wheels through things such as the nordic model. But not understanding that even during the recession, globalization actually increased shows that we must adapt or fall behind. The world is more connected than ever before and these connections will continue no matter what, as unfortunate it is that certain goverments do not create the necessary social-safety nets required for these rapid changes. You can have laissez-faire policies in economics and/or foreign affairs or you can intervene in a proper, pragmatic and cautious manner to create a better future.

 

But perhaps I agree that Roy shouldn't have been quoted, even if his wife personally recommended it to him because she liked the book. Although the subjects Roy was referring to was the Iraq War, a war with no proof behind it or  UN support, Roy's stance on Naxalites in India could be a controversial choice. I've heard some bad things about those rebels, but I'm not too educated on that subject. Perhaps its just a rumour that they are using child soldiers.

I would quibble with your claim that globalization is here to stay (looking at things like rapidly rising transportation costs and that the EU project is currently going down in flames) but I would agree with your general claim that you have to go out and win over people to your cause. Or as Mike Layton related at the funeral, you can wait forever for perfect conditions, or you can make do with what you have.

Globalization takes many forms, perhaps not all of them negative (e.g. exchange of information and ideas). It is not quite the same as Imperialism. Of course globalization, like economic activity, may be increasing, but that doesn't mean the increase can continue indefinitely. Adaptation may mean dealing with economic contraction by (in part) encouraging relocalization.

Policywonk wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Layton did what he had to do to win. I recall a Tommy Douglas, visiting the United States and feeling ill at the sight of so called socialists who sat around quoting Marx and waiting for a revolution that would never come. He decided he had to do something other than sitting around. And he in his leadership race for the Sask CCF was won through his charisma over a more left-wing canidate. This is the truth of the matter. That is the choice, waiting as a protest-revolutionary voice for something that will never come, or winning elections and undergoing the slow process of evolving as social democracy was intended to do under thinkers such as  E Bernstein.

 

The notion that you can stop globalization or even attempt to alter it in a massive way is a bit silly.  You can embrace it and make it turn the wheels through things such as the nordic model. But not understanding that even during the recession, globalization actually increased shows that we must adapt or fall behind. The world is more connected than ever before and these connections will continue no matter what, as unfortunate it is that certain goverments do not create the necessary social-safety nets required for these rapid changes. You can have laissez-faire policies in economics and/or foreign affairs or you can intervene in a proper, pragmatic and cautious manner to create a better future.

 

But perhaps I agree that Roy shouldn't have been quoted, even if his wife personally recommended it to him because she liked the book. Although the subjects Roy was referring to was the Iraq War, a war with no proof behind it or  UN support, Roy's stance on Naxalites in India could be a controversial choice. I've heard some bad things about those rebels, but I'm not too educated on that subject. Perhaps its just a rumour that they are using child soldiers.

I would quibble with your claim that globalization is here to stay (looking at things like rapidly rising transportation costs and that the EU project is currently going down in flames) but I would agree with your general claim that you have to go out and win over people to your cause. Or as Mike Layton related at the funeral, you can wait forever for perfect conditions, or you can make do with what you have.

Globalization takes many forms, perhaps not all of them negative (e.g. exchange of information and ideas). It is not quite the same as Imperialism. Of course globalization, like economic activity, may be increasing, but that doesn't mean the increase can continue indefinitely. Adaptation may mean dealing with economic contraction by (in part) encouraging relocalization.

I would actually argue that we have been living in a globalized world since the 1860s with the invention of the telegraph, it's just that we have expanded on that basic infrastructure ever since. You go to some islands in the South Pacific where the sweatshops are, people will tell you that globalization is nothing new, it's been that way for a few centuries.

So I guess I had better get out of the way or I'll be in danger of being complained to death with awkward metaphors.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

melikesocialism wrote:

There is one line in this article that sums up what needs to happen now: "Workers and young people in search of a world free of oppression and war must learn to speak the language of socialism and the class struggle." This is what has been lacking in the NDP for a long time, well before Jack took over as leader. But he did nothing to provide this space in the party and in fact, probably hastened its demise. By all means, celebrate Jack for his accomplishments as a caring person living in a harsh economic system, but it will be very difficult to make a strong argument that he made the NDP a strong bulwark against the rapacious forces of capitalism.

Then it kind of begs the question of what the "working class" are waiting for, and how it is that Jack was so powerful that he could apparently prevent them from doing anything. If they are going to clash, perhaps they should just clash and be done with it rather than blaming it on the presumed failings and actions of others.

The working class isn't waiting for anything. It doesn't exist as a conscious entity. That is the point that the writer was trying to make in the line that I quoted. It is only when those who are in the working class, which is most of us, are conscious of their position and their historical role as the agent for bringing about the end of capitalism, that this process will take place. And they will not reach this point of consciousness if they don't learn to speak the language of socialism and class struggle.

There has to be a space for this discussion, and that space is getting smaller all the time. As limited as it was, the NDP was one of those spaces. Over the years, party functionaries and leaders have done everything they could to reduce that space within the party, through attacks on communists and expulsion of the Waffle. It did not begin with Jack, but he did nothing to slow it down. In fact, I would argue that it has increased, as evidenced by the attempt at the last federal convention to make fundamental changes in the preamble to the constitution. 

Just after he was elected party leader in 2003, Jack was interviewed by Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch, and he was asked if he was still a socialist, to which he replied:"Socialist? I'm proud to call myself a socialist." Gindin then asked the following question: "One of the things socialism tried to do is to create worker intellectuals who didn’t just say I like the NDP because of its housing policy or some other policy, but because they actually understood the world. It was about democratizing knowledge and creating a cadre of leaders from below. They weren’t just participating. They were participating in a very different way. In a way that would really sustain them. So that when you lost a battle, you could put it in context. So the question is where does that kind of socialist get created in the NDP now." Jack replied that he didn't truthfully know but he gave no indication that he was opposed to creating those types of socialists.

During his time as the leader, the party did nothing to create the types of socialists that Sam Gindin was talking about. We have  plenty of people who like the party for its policies, and those who think that this is good enough, because it means we may just become the government in the near future. But what type of government will we have. Without a conscious effort to become a party of the type of socialists that Gindin referred to, there will be no reason for an NDP government to be in any essential way different from that of the Liberals or Conservatives.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Layton did what he had to do to win. I recall a Tommy Douglas, visiting the United States and feeling ill at the sight of so called socialists who sat around quoting Marx and waiting for a revolution that would never come. He decided he had to do something other than sitting around. And he in his leadership race for the Sask CCF was won through his charisma over a more left-wing canidate. This is the truth of the matter. That is the choice, waiting as a protest-revolutionary voice for something that will never come, or winning elections and undergoing the slow process of evolving as social democracy was intended to do under thinkers such as  E Bernstein.

 

The notion that you can stop globalization or even attempt to alter it in a massive way is a bit silly.  You can embrace it and make it turn the wheels through things such as the nordic model. But not understanding that even during the recession, globalization actually increased shows that we must adapt or fall behind. The world is more connected than ever before and these connections will continue no matter what, as unfortunate it is that certain goverments do not create the necessary social-safety nets required for these rapid changes. You can have laissez-faire policies in economics and/or foreign affairs or you can intervene in a proper, pragmatic and cautious manner to create a better future.

 

But perhaps I agree that Roy shouldn't have been quoted, even if his wife personally recommended it to him because she liked the book. Although the subjects Roy was referring to was the Iraq War, a war with no proof behind it or  UN support, Roy's stance on Naxalites in India could be a controversial choice. I've heard some bad things about those rebels, but I'm not too educated on that subject. Perhaps its just a rumour that they are using child soldiers.

I would quibble with your claim that globalization is here to stay (looking at things like rapidly rising transportation costs and that the EU project is currently going down in flames) but I would agree with your general claim that you have to go out and win over people to your cause. Or as Mike Layton related at the funeral, you can wait forever for perfect conditions, or you can make do with what you have.

Globalization takes many forms, perhaps not all of them negative (e.g. exchange of information and ideas). It is not quite the same as Imperialism. Of course globalization, like economic activity, may be increasing, but that doesn't mean the increase can continue indefinitely. Adaptation may mean dealing with economic contraction by (in part) encouraging relocalization.

I would actually argue that we have been living in a globalized world since the 1860s with the invention of the telegraph, it's just that we have expanded on that basic infrastructure ever since. You go to some islands in the South Pacific where the sweatshops are, people will tell you that globalization is nothing new, it's been that way for a few centuries.

Elements of archaic globalization existed in the Hellenistic Age, and perhaps before that. Archaic globalization was followed by proto-globalization, with so-called modern globalization developing in the 19th century.

melikesocialism wrote:

I'd say that the writer of this article got it pretty well right. While I think it is fair to say that Jack did act in a very caring and compassionate manner at times and did accomplish some valuable things in Toronto, which puts him many levels above other self-serving politicians like Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and, of course, Stephen Harper, as the leader of the NDP he did indeed serve the interests of capital. He was a social democrat and that's what social democrats do, no matter how strenuously they may claim otherwise.

I don't think that's quite accurate. The NDP budget in 2005 cancelled corporate tax cuts in order to invest in housing, transit, child care, and the environment. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary configurations that followed eliminated any influence the NDP could have had on the federal budget, so those investments did not have any significant long-term impact.

You were making a general point about violence or at least it appeared that way to me. So my point was general as well.

ikosmos wrote:

It's quiet here and I'm thinking that my small, but important, point has no serious rebuttal. I encourage those who usually find themselves on the left IN the NDP - or left OF the NDP altogether -  to look at my claims here about the necessity for clarity on anti-imperialism, what this actually means, how it is not the same as the policies of the NDP (under Layton or under someone else) , and see if they don't agree with the general thrust of what I've written here. Anti-imperialism - what Roy has identified as resistance to Empire - is a step up from mainstram social democracy and is furthermore not identical to advocacy of some sort of socialist alternative. Anyway, any critique is welcome.

Imperialism has changed over time. Lower classes who lived in those times had no vote. They had no right to protest. There was no such thing as women's rights. And basically money chased power for centuries at a time. Today it's the reverse.

After imperialism came feudalism, then colonialism, and then industrial capitalism. Today it's called capitalism and even predatory capitalism and corporatism. But in Marx' day, industrial capitalism was the way. Marx did not predict that bankers and financiers would overthrow industrial capitalism. He thought industrialists would never be so complacent as to let a parasitic banking system take over. Marx said that parasitic bankers and financiers would undermine capitalism, and it has. The old theory of capitalism worked by the formula MCM - money invested in commodities and labour produces profit. As of about 30 - 35 years ago, it's just M-M, or today's system of financial engineering and chaos as jobs are offshored and crippling various nations' abilities to pay their bills.

But they have taken over. Supranational corporations are more powerful today than the state or any previous capitalist entity in the traditional sense. The relationships between workers and the owners of the means has changed drastically over just the last three decades. Marx is still relevant but not in the same way Marx thought he would be. Marx said let industrial capitalism globalize and develop into every part of the world. Because at some point all of that will belong to the workers. Materialism and capitalism, from what I can fathom, must either give way to the will of people and populism or transform itself into something that does not consume itself the way it normally does. Wars will eventually be fought by robots and remote control drones as they are being waged and most one-sidedly so today as we post notes to one another. Over 43 countries have robotic military equipment and-or aerial drones. This will either end in total destruction or culminate in tech advancements which could eliminate problems with scarce energy and other resources. Scientists say the next 100 years will be the most important in human history and likely determine our fate as a viable species. Like the sci-fi movie says, at the precipe we will either change our ways or perish. But this is highly speculative.

There are true populists and reactionary "anti-imperialists" in the democratic capitalist third world who are unafraid of mobilizing the working class toward revolution. But in those countries the imperialists bared their fangs long ago under a number of brutal US-backed right wing dictatorships themselves unafraid to haul out the military and shoot protesters in the streets if necessary. We don't see much of that reported in our corporate sponsored newz papers here though. What we have here is called fascism or even neofascism and all the trappings of "democracy". Marx didn't mention fascism, but it arose in opposition to another movement born of the same French revolution, socialism. Fascism began as a mix of nationalism and socialism, but then shifted to the far right politically by the 1920s. It's fake democracy, we know, but millions of us on the left and right are not willing to call it imperialism here in the richest countries. We are privileged not to have to suffer under naked imperialism in its true form. They didn't have medicare, UI-Ei-O or pensions in Cuba, for instance, leading up to the revolution. We are not as poor as Venezuelans were before Hugo Chavez and who still are to a large degree. in other words, Canadians are not ready to pick up pitch forks and rifles to storm Parliament Hill. We're not there yet, and the bastards are still not brave enough to create those kinds of conditons here that existed in pre-1959 Cuba or pre-Chavez, pre-MMP elections in Venezuela, a country where CIA spooks look a lot like Mormons, tourists, righties posing as lefty critics of the Chavez government etc and are hard to miss.

Fascists work in more subtle ways than imperialists of old. We have to be just as clever. Jack Layton was clever in a good way imo. Jack Layton spoke truth to power but in ways that neofascists and the colonial administrativeship  found difficult to counter, and millions loved him for it.

Dan Gardner, in the Ottawa Citizen, wrote:

Last week's tears and testimonials have given rise to a new conventional wisdom. "The response to Jack Layton's death suggests Canadians are looking for a political leader who transcends the grubby world of politics as usual," as John Ivison put it in the National Post.

That would be lovely if it were true. But recent history provides little reason to think it is....

Stephen Harper has been in politics his entire adult life, whether as a politician, a political aide, or a political activist. And while he may once have been described as an idealist - or an ideologue, if you prefer - that is in the distant past. Even his supporters would agree that since assuming the leadership of the Conservative party he has been ruthlessly pragmatic: He does what he must to win.

Some find that admirable. Others are reminded of Sean Connery's advice in The Untouchables. "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

Remember "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" That's politics the Chicago way. Harper has been doing it ever since, insinuating that a Liberal MP's family member was involved with terrorists, calling the coalition a "coup," lying about the Constitution, stonewalling the House of Commons. It's not a coincidence that the first government in British parliamentary history to be found in contempt of Parliament was Stephen Harper's.

And don't forget the attack ads. Viciously personal, sustained, and launched in the relative civility between election campaigns, they marked a new low in Canadian politics. They were also devastatingly effective.

Stephen Harper has won three elections in a row, each with a larger share of the popular vote than the last, and each against politicians who wouldn't, or couldn't, do politics the Chicago way.

[b]So please forgive me if I roll my eyes when I am told that the genuine shock and sadness we saw last week is proof that Canadians yearn for a politician who takes the high road.[/b] That is a hypothesis unsupported by evidence.

I suspect a simpler explanation is closer to the truth.

Jack Layton was energetic and engaged. He was fully alive. Even his opponents had to grant that. We saw him bounce back from surgery and cancer treatment to fight a historic election campaign. It was inspiring. His opponents had to grant that, too.

Then he died. It was as sudden as if he'd been shot - and just when he had become the leader of the official opposition, the reward for a very long struggle.

We were reminded that even for the gifted and the vital, life can be unjust and far too brief. We were reminded that our existence is unavoidably tragic. We were reminded we are mortal.

Too bad he wrote the part about "Canadians yearn for a politician who takes the high road. That is a hypothesis unsupported by evidence" before the Harris-Decima poll came out showing the NDP tied with the Conservatives for first place.

It's a useful discussion when a popular social democratic leader such as the late Jack Layton can be shown to be wanting in many important ways. But it's nothing personal. Social democracy - by its failure to elaborate a genuine alternative to neo-liberal atrocities, by its unwillingness to confront empire in a sustained and serious manner, by its determination to put distance between itself and its (watered down but still genuine) socialist history and past, by its role of "corraling opposition behind a section of the political establishment and thereby neutering it", by the appropriation of anti-imperialist rhetoric when it is nowhere near anti-imperialist (and never will be) for the purposes of honouring its late leader, by a million different ways - is what's wanting and not good enough.

Anti-imperialism. Socialism. That is the way forward. There is no other way. Thatcher was right ... but in an upside-down, Hegelian sort of way. Her idea must be turned on its head to reveal the rational core inside.

Well, yea. I liked Jack Layton as much as any member of the NDP did. But that's not the point. The catalyst was when I went ahead and read Stephen Lewis's outstanding eulogy ... and then went ahead and read A Roy's statement from 2003 when I was bothered by the quote for some reason.

Anyway, peace to the memory of Jack Layton.

It's interesting that when some NDP supporters cannot refute strong arguments against their party's approach ... from others on the left ... they have recourse to the "yea, well, no one's listening to you anyway so fuck off" argument. This is a confession of failure. It's not really all that different from the conservative argument of "we have more guns and the police" so STFU.

Address the arguments. Right is right no matter if it is the view of a single person. You would think that people who claim to be on "the left" would recognize this.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wow... the National Post is still hammering away on the funeral:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/worshipping+idols/5336973...

<snip>

I think every second editorial has been about Layton since his death. 

Yes, I have rarely read a less charitable, more unChristian piece of writing from a professing member of the clergy than that National Post piece; the only explanation has to be the Post's desire to attract notoriety with more vituperation. This is a typical Conservative tactic and one that is evidently also employed by Conservative Christians.  

As for De Souza, I suppose he doesn't consider Rev. Brent Hawkes to be a Christian or a member of the Christian left because he wasn't bible-thumping his way through his reflection at Jack's funeral (hardly appropriate given the attendance of  people of a variety of faiths, no faith and residential school survivors, as well as the national audience). 

Personally, I thought Hawkes' speech contained true Christian ideals of forgiveness, love and comfort even if they were understated (or more accurately, thoughtfully and sensitively expressed).   I doubt very much, though, that De Souza would recognize any people who might belong to the Christian left as Christian according to his definition anyway (which says more about his Christianity than theirs). Plenty of "Christians" called Tommy a godless communist back in the day.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

And yet, with sincerity and honesty, Hawkes said, "hi Stephen, how is Laureen doing?"

Yes, it was a lovely moment.

I loved the moment where Hawkes said "Hi Prime Minister, how's Laureen doing?" on a number of levels. First, it demonstrated the humanity that Jack Layton was trying to teach others by example. Secondly, the Prime Minister should be graciously thanked for exercising his discretion to hold that state funeral, and this was a lovely gesture to him and Laureen from Hawkes on everyone's behalf.

Third of all, it completed the process of normalizing gay marriage in our society. The spiritual leader probably most responsible for moving the issue of equal marriage forward in our country greeted, and was greeted by, the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, the one-time opponent of and leader of the major political party opposed to legally recognizing the right of gays and lesbians to be married in our country.

Game over on that issue forever, now. And Jack would have been thinking at least in part about that when he conceived of the funeral arrangements. Brilliantly handled all-round.

ikosmos wrote:

It's interesting that when some NDP supporters cannot refute strong arguments against their party's approach ... from others on the left ... they have recourse to the "yea, well, no one's listening to you anyway so fuck off" argument. This is a confession of failure.

What confounds socialists like myself is this beauty contest where social democrats are deemed too ugly to participate. They who are with finely preened feathers, pristine beaks and all singing in harmony inside the chicken coop are above joining a united front on the left in the tradition of 1930s Spain. We can't reproduce that effort, because then we might have to actually defend democracy out there in the streets if big money interests try to reverse the outcome. What dirty, dirty work that would be. And they are much too pretty to rough it down in the jungles of Central  America where real revolutionary heroes are in tough against actual imperialists. Shit or get out of the water closet and give someone else a turn, you beautiful people. Because your perfect revolution will be a long time coming.

That was no "mistake". Social democrats have been supporting imperialist wars since 1914. It's part of the package.

And you create a false dichotomy by suggesting the alternative to supporting imperialist intervention in Libya is "rallying behind" Qaddafi. It's just another way of saying "yea, well, no one's listening to you anyway so fuck off".  

Gee if only the NDP had voted against the Tories and Liberals, like the NDP usually does 90% of the time. Moammar Gadaffi would still be in power, and the Warshington-based IMF would still be heaping praise on Gadaffi for pursuing his "ambitious reform agenda", just like they did with their former ideologically aligned friend Slobodan Milosevic. The treacherous bastards could have been reasoned with for the sake of maintaining political integrity if only for the sake of avoiding the anti-NDP rhetoric. Because, and you know, our system in Canada is very democratic, and it's the NDP falling short of that mark. Far better that we endure the vicious toadies in federal power rather than jump ship for any unknown quantity that comes along, like those ugly social democrats.

And screw those guys in Central America. They've spit on the memory of Marx by falling so short. Latinos should aspire to more than just universal health care and education for their children who currently have no future as cane cutters and mowing the grass of sprawling ranches owned by the rich with just machetes in their pathetic little hands, their child labour is that cheap nowadays. What low life underachievers they turned out to be. 

Fidel wrote:

Yes, and look where it got Tommy and the NDP then and all.

How little you understand the importance of being on the right side of important issues, even if you don't win!

That courageous position on the War Measures Act is one that has been recognized by the Canadian left as a high water mark in the history of the NDP. It's one of the things historians mention when reviewing the career highlights of T.C. Douglas.

Just as the vote to bomb Libya will go down in the annals of the Canadian left as a shameful low point for the party. You can't do shit like that and not expect adverse political consequences.

M. Spector wrote:

That was no "mistake". Social democrats have been supporting imperialist wars since 1914. It's part of the package.

And you create a false dichotomy by suggesting the alternative to supporting imperialist intervention in Libya is "rallying behind" Qaddafi. It's just another way of saying "yea, well, no one's listening to you anyway so fuck off".  

Stil holding a grudge for WW1 Spector?   Ypu must be older than I thought, or perhaps just unable to look beyond the easy labels people like to apply to themselves and others.  If ypu insist, it's probably better to blame the anarchists for that particular conflagration, but maybe give em some credit too for helping bring down the old aristocratic order.  I should also credit the Marxist-Leninists and Maoists support for communist imperialism in an unbroken line, from the invasion of Poland in the twenties, to the refusal to back out of Eastern Europe after WW2, to the invasion of Tibet, Korea, Hungary and Czechoslovakia post-war, to less direct interventions in Greece, Ethipia, Angola, CAR and various Latin American states, to the most recent violance committed against 'Chechnya' and "'Georgia' and Croatian, Slonenian, Albanian and Bosnian civilians.  I'm sure mother Russia was supplying the Serbs with arms and $upport, in their particular 'pan-Slavic' tradition.  Sorry but Imperialism isn't an American invention, but 'social democrats' do at least have some pacifist traditions as well and have often rejected imperialist ventures like Vietnam and Iraq in the past. What can I say?  We're complicated -if that is we are indeed a we.

But no, that's no false dichotomy or binary, that's more a Marxist habit.  I was simply pointing out that a guy like Ghaddafi being overthrown isn't going to rally a lot of suport here or lead to the immenant arrest of our parliament.  As I've had to repeat too many times already I didn't support the NDP's position on Libya when it counted, and I'm not that impressed by them backing away from it later.  But OC that's never enough here.