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

Ah, red baiting on babble. nice.

I already stated my position Beltov/ikosmos, but I too find it amusing that you 'revolutionaries' still have to run to higher authorities to defend yourselves, and that you still insist that idetifying you is somehow baiting, especially when you in fact are the one doing it.  Good luck in getting me banned, that too has been tried before when I got too close to what's actually behind the never ending power struggle here.

Let me know if you ever want to argue an issue in an honest, straightfwd manner.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Oh I just like to hold other anti-imperialists to a consistent standards themselves, especially when they try to use it for obviously partisan means.  Communists calling themseves socialists have about as much credibility on world peace, democracy and human rights as neo-liberals calling themselves social democrats do.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that communists are in fact socialists. If I remember correctly, Marx said something to the effect that, after capitalism collapsed due to its inherent contradictions, the capitalist state would be replaced by the proletarian state. This state would create a socialist economy and a classless society. Once this was accomplished, there would be no need for the state, and it would wither away. Remember that?

I in fact am a communist in this sense, as I believe that the ultimate aim should be a classless society as Marx describes it. However, I understand that this will only be accompished in stages. In Marxist theory, socialism, or the socialist mode of production, is a historical phase of economic development that supersedes capitalism. In this phase, the criteria for economic activity is use-value and direct production for use through economic planning. This phase is characterized by the working class effectively controlling the means of production and their livelihood through co-operative enterprises or public ownership (under a re-organized truly democratic state) and self-management.

There are in fact lots of communists out there who use the word socialism. Given that we live in an advanced capitalist society where the ruling elites have made concessions to the workers to prevent them from challenging their supremacy, it is only logical that they would come to the conclusion that this will be a long struggle. You have to get to socialism before you get to communism. So, they are not being disingenuous. And, they are not necessarily members of a particular communist party. They are merely philosophical communists.

And, it should be noted that nobody has fought harder for workers rights and fundamental freedoms than professed communists. That is the reason that we have many of the social programs that we value so highly. I think social democrats are given far too much credit for these things. Would they have been so effective in the absence of the belief among many in the ruling elite that the workers had a broad sense of class consciousness and that capitalism was in fact in real danger of being brought down? Even Conrad Black recognized this. And what are the future possibilities for social democracy given the current absence of this consciousness and the destruction of communist parties and unions, as well as the successful weakening if not complete destruction of a strong debate on socialism within the NDP?

So, quit with the red baiting and address the arguments that are being made about the weaknesses of social democracy. It will be far more productive.

ikosmos wrote:

For the record ...

Erik wrote:

Oh I just like to hold other anti-imperialists to a consistent standards themselves, especially when they try to use it for obviously partisan means. Communists calling themseves socialists have about as much credibility on world peace, democracy and human rights as neo-liberals calling themselves social democrats do.

and then there was this ...

Quote:

Calling someone what they are isn't 'red baiting' Beltov. And you can hardly run to the mods to complain when you purposely diverted this whole thread to call social democrats names for partisan purposes. I'm at least honest about my associations, and am willing to deal with it in a way that others can see and decide for themselves, according to consistent standards, the essential element of both democracy and science.

..............................................

Well, the mods can decide about your red baiting. I`ve come across it many times, it doesn`t really put me off, and I find it somewhat amusing, predictable, and sort of filthy in a dirty sort of way. lol.

You don`t have anything to add about the inappropriate use of that quote from Arundhati Roy by Stephen Lewis , do you?

Yes, those are perfectly fair statements given your and Spector's insistence on calling social democrats war mongering neo-liberals and insisting they are inseparable and therefore never to be trusted.   Its an old rhetorical trick used by the neo-con right.  Social democrats have a long record of service on the left, and in my opinion they have a right to be heard here as well, including the right to defend ourselves from the ceaseless broadsdes from the usual suspects.

Anyhow, I gotta go again now, so I'll leave you the last words here if you want.  I'm sure it'll be as informative as your previous. 

Erik Redburn wrote:

But it's not red baiting new guy, I don't care about the CPC or CPC-ML either way.  Its pointing out the need for consistency if one is to be taken seriously on a subject.  I try t maintain a consistent approach myself, or explain why I think theres a need for compromise.    What set off this latest bout of hysteria is my simple comment that Ghaddafi aint going to recive the necessary sympathy in CAnada to use it politically. THats just a fact, but it was OC implied more than once it meant that *I* didn't care about the situation myself.  That to me is baiting, especially when I have already gone out of my way to explain my own position.

I am willing to withdraw the red baiting comment as I realize that it is perhaps a little inflamatory and does not really express what I am trying to say. It is clear that there is a history of, shall we say, heated exchanges between some people on Babble. It makes it difficult for other people to make contributions to what is a necessary discussion.

I think that I have tried to be consistent as well. My concern with all of this discussion about Jack and his contributions is that there is a danger that the NDP will become an even less democratic party. I speak as a lapsed member (who is still considering renewing his membership) who has become disillusioned with the inexorable drift to the right in pursuit of winning a majority government at the expense of some fundamental principles and policies. I am indeed a socialist in the Marxian sense and feel that the NDP is the only party we have that has at least some connection with the working class and it is necessary to preserve a space within the party for a vigorous discussion about socialism and the limitations of social democracy.

Jack professed to be a socialist but I did not see anything to indicate that is in fact the case. That is why I have let my membership lapse. But, I would like to make it very clear that I have been a committed NDPer in that I have worked hard in numerous federal and provincial campaigns and have held a number of positions on the executive of the Kingston and the Islands riding association. I campaigned for the NDP candidate in the recent federal election even though I was no longer officially a member.

My concern is that this drift towards pragmatism over principle will leave no space for people like me in the NDP. I understand that we need the NDP around to fight to make life a little better for people but I also do not see the possibilities of a social democratic approach. Yes, we have seen many positive concessions in the past, but I am not sure that there is much room for future reform. It seems to me that we will spend the next few years fighting to preserve what we have (and, yes, that includes the Scandinavian countries). While is it nice to aspire to achieve what these latter countries accomplished, I think it is quite naive to think that capital will be prepared to make those types of reforms in North America or elsewhere. As I mentioned in my earlier post, many of those concessions came as a result of the perceived threats from workers who had a higher degree of class consciousness. This does not appear to exist at the present time, and so it is hard to see where the pressure will come from in the future.

Closing for length.