Why I rejoined the NDP

Northern Shoveler in his <strong>FIRST</strong> post about the Roy quote wrote:

I found his appropriation of Roy's words, when he has never shared her vision, rather typical of a smooth politician.  Much like Harper singing Imagine.  

6079 in response to my FIRST comment about Roy wrote:

Is it just me or is this thing about the quote starting to seem a bit ham-handed and belaboured? 

Go bother someone else.  For me to belabour something I would have had to state it more than once. Like I said above your opinions are not the only ones allowed on babble.  You did not state your opinions but attacked my opinion on ridiculous grounds.  Typical of your posts I will admit but somedays it is just toooo tiresome.

Why not, just for a change, try arguing with anyone that presents a right wing viewpoint?  Give it a try you might find it as satisfying as your persistent attacks on anyone with ideas further to the left of a third way social democrat.  

Really try it you might like it even if it goes against your grain.

Opps DP

Stargazer wrote:

Yes 6079, it certainly is. Hey why not just attempt to get people to not vote NDP, then not vote at all because the NDP isn't "pure enough" for them. Because the alternatives - not voting, voting Con, voting Liberal, are just soooo much better

Sorry you see it that way. I've highlighted the part of the quote from Lewis that I find offensive.  Jack Layton's politics which is what this is about were not Roy's politics.  It was not his fucking mantra and the proof is in his support of D2P.  Read the whole Roy speech and then tell me you honestly believe that Jack Layton shared Roy's views on politic activism, let alone thought of her words as a mantra.

Lewis wrote:

My wife Michele reminded me of a perfect quote from the celebrated Indian novelist, activist and feminist Arundhati Roy. Jack doubtless knew it. He might have seen it as a mantra. "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I can hear her breathing."

Read Roy's speech and try to digest her message.  Think about what she says about Empire.  Open your mind to the depth of her ideas.  If this was Jack's mantra then why have we never heard him reference her in any election campaign.  Why did he not speak about anti-imperialism in the last election?  That is Roy's message not some Hallmark poetry about building a better world.

On this board any one who speaks forthrightly about globalization and anti-imperialism is most often savagely attacked by the social democrats. It seems obscene for some of the same people to then want to also appropriate the leading voice of the movement and stand by the claim that it was Jack's mantra.  

All hail the NDP, they will save the day.  [my attempt to try to fit in with the dominate ethos]

Hi Stargazer, it's good to see you again.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Read Roy's speech and try to digest her message.  Think about what she says about Empire.  Open your mind to the depth of her ideas.  If this was Jack's mantra then why have we never heard him reference her in any election campaign.  Why did he not speak about anti-imperialism in the last election?  That is Roy's message not some Hallmark poetry about building a better world.

On this board any one who speaks forthrightly about globalization and anti-imperialism is most often savagely attacked by the social democrats. It seems obscene for some of the same people to then want to also appropriate the leading voice of the movement and stand by the claim that it was Jack's mantra.  

 

All hail the NDP, they will save the day.  [my attempt to try to fit in with the dominate ethos]

Nah, I never believed the NDp would 'save the day'.  I don't believe social democrats like Roy can either.  I left that kind of hopefullness behind me when I was a kid.  I've said all along that Jack Layton wasn't perfect, but the only ones who try to silence me here are those who keep quoting Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.  I get the occasional chalenge from overly partisan NDPers but I can handle them too.   When it comes to the largest left-of-centere electoral configuration in NOrth America, I think the best strategy is try to do something positive to change it, like suppoprting left-of-other candidates when it counts.   Dropping out just isn't an option anymore.

I've probably read more Roy than you have.  Do you think she wouldn't support the most left of party with a chance of winning, within the mostly middleclass North American context?

Lets get this back on topic here.  You and "ikosmos" can support anyone you want to (or not) but going after some newbie who happens to support others is hardly fair, given the contaxt of your own arguments.   I just find repeateding the same points endlessly rather boring; I don't even like repeating myself after a certain point.   

Welcome to Babble Shartel.  Don't let the divisions here intimidate you, post whatever you like.  Sure you'll get plenty of reaction here if it has sanything to do with the much hated/loved NDP.    :)    

Gotta run now myself, the real world beckons.

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

In my humble opinion at this point in history in Canada an argument about the preference of social democracy or democratic socialism contributes to the central struggles against neoliberalism and 21st century capitalism about as much as arguing whether a lead hand is part of the working class or how many revolutionaries can dance on the head of a pin.

I'm sorry you see it that way, but I think that these are serious discussions to be had in these times.

Look at social democracy around the world.  It can't cope with the neoliberal era and is crumbling.  Social democratic parties around the world have succumbed to neoliberalism and turned into Blairite monstrosities.  These are parties which are incapable of struggling against neoliberalism and capitalism, and have instead worked to implement neoliberalism wherever they govern.

I live in a province governed by the NDP.  I already had to take a wage freeze thanks to their response to the economic crisis.  If the crisis deepens instead of recovers, the NDP (if re-elected) is going to be under a lot of pressure to implement austerity measures to take it out on the working class.

This is something which is clearly relevant to my daily life, and to struggles against neoliberalism in my neck of the woods.  Just folding up the tent and retreating into the NDP is not an option if I want to effectively resist the sure to be upcoming austerity measures.

And, lets not ignore the fact that without a vision for a better world, parties like the NDP are rudderless, constantly drifrting rightward, under the sway of neoliberal currents.

genstrike wrote:

Look at social democracy around the world.  It can't cope with the neoliberal era and is crumbling.  Social democratic parties around the world have succumbed to neoliberalism and turned into Blairite monstrosities.  These are parties which are incapable of struggling against neoliberalism and capitalism, and have instead worked to implement neoliberalism wherever they govern.

Even in Britain, the Labour Party is taking steps away from its recent Blairite path, as did the NDP in BC by electing Dix (who proposed higher corporate tax rates) as its leader. The Blairite star is falling, and will likely impact the NDP sections that are still currently under control of the Blairites. (Okay, maybe Selinger will be re-elected in Manitoba, but that has just as much to do with the PCs ineffective campaigning as anything else.)

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

In my humble opinion at this point in history in Canada an argument about the preference of social democracy or democratic socialism contributes to the central struggles against neoliberalism and 21st century capitalism about as much as arguing whether a lead hand is part of the working class or how many revolutionaries can dance on the head of a pin.

There are real differences in the party regarding policy, and thats why I think democratic socialists and social democrats should BOTH start talking again, meaning listening as well.  Until there's some serviceable understanding among members, some sense of common direction, however they're to be achieved, these differences will keep directing attention away from what should be our common enemy.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Anti-imperialism is either part of a party's ethos or it isn't.  

This is not and never has been so. Even a cursory reading of the disagreements between Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg is enough to make clear that there have always been many shades of grey in the debates among progressives/socialists/proletarian internationalists on these matters and one person's anti-imperialism has been another's infantile disorder since these theories were coined.

Jack Layton did not revoke policy.  He didn't have that authority. Like every leader of every party I can think of, he assigned his own priorities to the parliamentary agenda. If it is anyone's position that party leaders are obliged to do exactly what party policy stipulates and to do nothing else until policy is realized, I respectfully submit that there are no parties of any stripe, anywhere that work that way for the simple reason that reality intrudes on the idealized prescriptions of policies in infinitely various and unpredictable ways.

The membership has the right to vote on the leader's performance on a regular basis, just as they have the authority to pass policy. If Jack Layton's decision to put his own ideas on how to deal with NATO into play offended the membership they had the tools to give the leader a lousy performance review. They didn't.

I think that the fact that the NATO policy exists is a manifestation of the reality that anti-imperialism is part of the NDP ethos. An ethos, however, is not a prescription or an agenda for action. It is the moral foundation for beliefs about how the world should look somewhere down the road. The business of getting to that point is inevitably messy.

I belong to and support (in the broadest sense) the NDP for a bunch of reasons, none of which depend on me supporting every particular about its policies, elected members or leadership. For what it's worth, I have serious problems with the dismissive attitude toward the membership of the functionairies running the NDP at the moment. I also have very serious questions about the actions of that group around the current leadership situation. Yes, Brian, that includes you on all counts. Regardless, these are normal disputes in a large-tent organization with a mandate to seek support from a diverse and changeable electorate.

I also belong to and support a variety of other organizations and informal groupings because I understand that activism within a parliamentary political party is not ever going to be enough by itself to move the social consenus on issues of substance (such as Canadian participation in international bodies). It is generally through the processes of civil society that pressure for change is brought to bear on political parties, not the other way around.

Lurking on Babble I am reminded sometimes of a conversation I had with a CPC(M-L) member more years ago than I care to contemplate. After too many beers we were carping at each other in what I am sure we both thought was learned and enlightened language about the way forward.  At one point I made some statement about something being the point of something or other and he slammed the table and shouted, "The point is the Revolution!"

I remember him being slightly taken aback when I responded with equal vehemence," Oh for fuck's sake. The point is social justice. Revolution is just one possible tool, and a damned messy one if it comes to it." Or words to that effect. We were students, after all, and rhetoric about revolution and social justice aside, the point was really to drink until we fell down, so my recolllection of the exchange is a little foggy.

Political parties are tools. Some exist for purely utilitarian purposes, permitting access to the levers of political power. I see the Liberal Party that way. I don't believe that the NDP's ethos, to use NS's term, is of that sort. Some have dismissed the NDP as being a party of protest, but I think that is a trivialization. I believe that those who founded and have since led the NDP saw and see it as a tool for societal change. I am aware that there are those, including some with whom I have collaborated collegially and fruitfully on important projects who dismiss this belief as naive and misguided. Oh well.

I think that the charge that people like Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis were/are imperialist agents, or just unconcerned with imperialism is silly. They made decisions about specific issues in specific political contexts, some of which has been hard to reconcile with the policies (and perhaps the ethos as well, at times) of their party. Some I can live with, some I find mystifying, some piss me off. They're hardly unique, even when compared to some iconic Marxists. Vladimir Lenin advised the German Communist Party to suck it up and be quiet about the Treaty of Versailles, for what are pretty easy to characterize as purely pragmatic reasons.That's life in the real world.

Edited for grammar: changed "doesn't" to "didn't".

Better red than dead! ( :) )

Maybe we should start new threads attacking the Cons and Libs and, you know, focus on the enemies of progressive politics for a change.

Actually NS, I think people should have the freedom to choose any party or philosophy they want to try and  make the world a better place. I don't think anyone is insisting everyone become New Democrats.

But I do object to the pile on which seems to be happening against those who, for whatever reason, feel a vote for the NDP, or active engagement in the party, is the best option. 

Making that decision does not automatically mean that someone supports bombing Libya, the Keystone pipeline,  uranium mining in our province, or our current membership in NATO.

And frankly, I am a bit annoyed, because many of these  alternative arguments - from those who oppose voting and parliamentary democracy outright, to bookschooled communists and socialists  who insist Stalin just got it wrong because he got wrapped up in the capitalists' game of chicken, to those who think it can be solved with spraypaint and bricks - are arguing from positions which defy scrutiny because they distance themselves from anyone who has ever actually used their philosophies in the exercise of power.

I have no problem working with anarchists, communists, socialists, or even (on occasion) self-described capitalists on issues of mutual concern. 

But if someone dumps on me for my decisions and values, that person might expect a response.

Am I wrong? Perhaps, but I don't think if someone started a thread about being a committed anarchist or communist it would get quite the same response.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

No problem I can get with the team spirit here at babble.

Rah rah NDP.  The only hope to save the world is voting NDP.  And for the NDP to win we must all be pragmatic and not expect them to push too hard against the status quo since most voters comfort zone is within that status quo.  

Is that good enough.  Do I pass the babble purity test yet?  

This is so much fun to be with the in crowd.  I should have joined the Liberals two decades ago instead of stupidly railing against the status quo and working my ass off on stupid socialists campaigns.  I would now be in the enviable position of being wooed by the NDP for my support.  But no I was dumb enough to support Svend and Bill and Libby out here on the left coast. 

I can see the NDP has moved on to that electoral paradise in the middle of the political spectrum so I guess I'll just have to park my ideals at the door and accept any compromise necessary to woo those good liberal voters who gave us Chretien and Martin as progressive PM's.  Hell I should have voted for them as well. How stupid I was to believe that socialists who speak like socialists should be part of the political discourse in Canada.

I am going to rejoin the NDP so I can get on a winning team for a change. All hail the new ruling elite.  

Pat Martin for leader.  And will someone please stop Libby from talking she only hurts the parties changes of attracting that all important liberal vote.  

Rah rah NDP rah rah NDP rah NDP

I get the distinct impression that you are more interested in proving yourself right and picking fights than anything else. You are not the only person who was worked to implement socialist ideals. Your characterization of people working within the NDP (many of whom have expressed simliar concerns over the direction of the NDP as you do) as being mindless cheerleaders is frankly insulting. I don't know what you are trying to prove, but you are not making many friends with those kind of posts. Isn't this a left-wing discussion board? Shouldn't we all be in agreement on the same generalities, in spite of specific differences we have? Then why are you so vitriolic towards anyone who disagrees with you?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Your characterization of people working within the NDP (many of whom have expressed simliar concerns over the direction of the NDP as you do) as being mindless cheerleaders is frankly insulting. 

Actually my poor attempt at humour was directed at 6079.  He has stated himself he has never been all that active in the party and he insists that we must all now cheer for the NDP or just not talk about disagreements.  An outsider telling me I can't make negative comments about a party I have worked for in numerous elections over decades.  If not on babble where can one discuss the shortcomings of the NDP from a left wing perspective?  I presume that because the party has drifted far enough to the centre or centre right that 60798 now feels comfortable with it.  

I also post not so funny posts sometimes because of the NDP posse that harasses anyone on this board with left wings views that are not supported by the NDP.  Go lecture Stockholm and Fidel et al for me, please.

@ NS #87

I feel so special knowing this is all about me. My guess is you read this comment from another thread:

"Thing is - I'm not even a staunch supporter of the NDP, nor do I think one has to be to support them in the things which they are doing right."

Which was kind of my way of saying I am not an executive member or staffer (or a cheerleader), and that if I saw another party as a better choice I would go for it. Beyond that, I didn't specify what my involvement has been since I didn't really think my membership status and work history was important. 

And while I don't think my new status as an "outsider" has any bearing on my actual point at #83 - which could apply equally to anyone supporting any political party or philosophy - I suppose it could just as easily be a compliment as a put-down, eh?

Boom Boom wrote:

I have no problem with keeping the NDP's feet to the fire  but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Good I guess that means NEXT election you will vote for them.  

The party is gaining members and supporters all the time but some of us are not as enthusiastic as the new converts. The NDP is the only left wing electoral game in town.  That is why I have supported it all these years.  If it becomes a left liberal party as it seems to be drifting towards it will have a better chance of forming government but little chance of making anything except cosmetic changes to our economy and it will have no room for an independent foreign policy.  

So I'm supporting Pat Martin because electoral success is the holy grail of electoral politics and a good liberal minded leader would attract a lot of those liberal votes that are so crucial to the NDP making the next step into power.  

While this fun babble/discussion is going on about the Orange Boys,  have you seen the Green Party's email today raising the alarm and urging opposition to the Herpes gang's crime-bill-on-steroids?

While the NDP and the Liberals are wringing their hands and pointing fingers and figuring out where and how to stab one another in the back, Elizabeth May is first out of the gate to rally people against a bill that could end up bludgeoning citizens for suspicion of  ecoterrorism or suspicion of thinking  about undermining corporate profits, etc.

The May-bashers can take time out of their sectarian sparring about the NDP and blush today, and perhaps refrain from future bashing.

If the NDP has sent out a equally strongly worded communiqué, I stand corrected.

If the Quebec MPs prove to be far more progressive than the likes of Pat Martin, we're in for some interesting times indeed.

melikesocialism wrote:

KenS wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Layton unilaterally revoked the party policy on NATO around the same time as Roy's oft quoted speech was given.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I thought the NDP changed its policy around NATO sometime in the 1980s?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You thought wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529

The NATO policywas not revoked by Jack Layon at all- let alone 'unilaterally revoked' by him. It was done on the floor in Convention, and Jack had nothing to do with it, even indirectly.... at the 2003 Convention, when Jack was totally pre-occupied with becoming Leader.

If you bothered to read the article that NS highlighted, you would see that Jack had pretty much declared that the policy was being ignored by the party leadership. He arbitrarily decided that what was required was a transformation of the alliance, which was not mentioned at all in the policy. It unequivocally opposed  Canadian membership in NATO. While the policy was not formally revoked until the last convention prior to the recent one in Vancouver. it was pretty clear that Jack had decided to ignore it.

I did 'bother' to read the article.

So let me see now. An old article from a media hack- people who can never be bothered to get right what is going on in the NDP- that, and the various interpretataions you make all make of it is more relevant talking about the facts of what happened.

That article NS posted is not a support for his totally erroneous statements about what Jack allegedly did.

He arbirarily and unilaterally did nothing. The old NATO policy was ditched on the Convention floor in 2003 [not recently], after being reviewed by the Internaltional Relations Committee... of which Svend Robinson was then a member. Jack had absolutely nothing to do with it.