Socialist Thornhill Aliens Do The Darndest Things!

Wilf Day wrote:

 So I have concluded he is exactly what he appears to be, which is really not worth a lot of further discussion.

Safe to say you were not one of the MEMBERS who voted for him as a candidate.  He was elected by someone.  Do you think they didn't know him or had not heard about him after all these years?  

This is not really about Barry it is about an undemocratic top down nomination process.  They could have just said no when he applied but they calculated he would lose.  If the rest of their election strategy is a well thought out then the ONDP is in big trouble.

So far I have not heard any discussion touching on socialism in the NDP from the point of view: what kind of socialism should the NDP strive for and how do we put it into action? I have only heard it from the point of view: should we get socialism out of the NDP? If those who despise Mr. Weisleder really want to stop listening to this unpalatable person, it would seem they need only shift from the second question to the first. Instead, we have chortles like Stockholm's, which actually ask the opposite. Indeed, it seems like Mr. Weisleder is the only reason the NDP mentions the "S"-word at all...

Well Catchfire, one of the most important socialist concepts IMHO is democracy.   Overturning a democratic decision made by the local base membership of the party should only be done in the most extraordinary circumstances ... like a candidate having a criminal conviction for something that is beyond minor.   Or some kind of serious violation of party policy.    It has to be something beyond "I don't like you".

Bizarro

And thanks for that helpful remark. 

Well like Barry Weisleder, I'm not afraid of anyone or their puny thoughts either. But I recognize when speaking my mind becomes detrimental to a worst-past-the-post team effort. So does the LPC and Lesley Hughes now realize it, and whether each and every one of them in that party are all down with bizarro, crazy George dubya's lunatic government conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 or not is anyone's guess. I don't think they've ever had a vote on it and tend to do certain things by backroom decision making themselves and a lot more often than the NDP at either level.

Someone mentioned democratic debate, and I imagine they meant one where people speak freely and openly about matters. So far all I've read in this thread are comments of a bullying, gang-up nature with a lot of accusations daring anyone to provide an opposing POV. You wanted free and open debate - you've got one.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-9.gif[/img]

And you're doing a heckuva job.

Meanwhile we're waiting for the Thornhill aliens to write us a grand socialist plan for Puerto Ontario. And they're taking forever about it as aliens often do.

Ha ha. "I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

ikosmos wrote:

Ha ha. "I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I know he's a socialist. What other experience does he have?  I'm a socialist and have no experience with financing nationalisations at the non-national level.  How does he plan to renationalise things like Nortel now it's been pawned off to the four winds? Where is the plan to finance it all and over what time frame? I'm all for nationalization but in a modern sense. Does Hugo Chavez nationalize foreign-based oil companies, or does he nationalise the oil profits? We can have nationalism and nationalised profits without bankrupting the province six times as badly as Pinocchio McGuinty and crew have already and zip to show for it. What does Barry mean when he says nationalise? Does he want the means of production down to car plants, machines and lathes in public hands regardless of how dated and worn-out the equipment, factories and mills might be? Does Barry want to saddle us with galactic debt with buying a pig in poke? Nationalisation sounds good, but what does he really mean?

And we don't need another Nortel, for example,  run by the people and just as badly as the corporatocracy ran it into the ground.  And we would need money even in good economic times. I can't think of a worse time in recent history for the public to be borrowing money from private banksters. This plan of Barry's had better work at least as good as Hugo Chavez' plan at the national level, or we socialists will never hear the last of it. Really.

Sam Gindin wrote:

Workers surrendered their capacity to do, the capacity for the creative planning and execution of goals...Hierarchical-authoritarian management systems exclude any hint of institutional forms for the running of workplaces in ways that combine efficiency and democracy. It is, for example, possible to imagine workers taking over existing technology and modifying it, but much harder to imagine ...what entirely different forms of collective democratic coordination and management might look like, The democratic collective labourer is a productive force yet to be invented. -- Socialism with sober senses, 1998

And I agree that we must make a stab at it at some point. We learn best by doing, and, yes, by making mistakes as well. 

In my opinion, socialism in one province is not doable. It was doable in the 1950s and 60s in Tommy Douglas' day, but that was then. No one has ever seen an actual plan that would work within the larger reality of today's top-down neoliberal setup in Ottawa. In the end socialists for socialism in one province would loathe their own creation. And it's my guess that they would disredit the party for many years to come in the process. I'm with Barry Weisleder in that I will be voting NDP next month. It's the most democratic and most realistic option there is. There are real people with real needs in Ontario who are counting on us to win an election. That's the job at hand as mundane as it seems.

And worst-past-the-post is still a reality today. It's an obsolete method of voting that tends not to reward high quality candidates like Barry. The larger reality and context of this battle for democracy is that there are hundreds of thousands of children and many ordinary people not living very well in Ontario today. They are counting on the NDP to get elected and help them live better lives in the here and now not in an ideal futuristic Ontario. Because in the long run, none of them have time to wait for socialism in one province. In the long run, we all run out of time waiting for the perfect revolution, that one which will never happen.

Where in the ONDP platform does it say they don't support prop. rep? I can only presume that if the ONDP supported the Citizen Assembly's decision for MMP in 2007 that support still exists.

Allowing a Liberal or Tory Party voter to speak for you on election day is a sure way of guaranteeing the CA's decision, and the law society of Canada's decision for PR will be ignored in the halls of power for many years to come.

Well I'm insulted now as well. Our tolerance for each other's comments is at an end.  I think we should stop replying to one another and let someone else have a turn. Deal or no deal.

The issue is that the NDP cannot tolerate democratic processes when it conflicts with executive priorities; the executives of the Party that is. I guess it could apply to corporate executives too.

Michelle wrote:

The NDP is also going to have to get with the program when it comes to online discussion, blogging, and opinion.  Social media as we know it has been around for over a decade now.  There is no way that people, especially younger people, are going to be able to track back for the last decade and divulge every post they ever made online. 

If that's the bar now, then everyone's a liar.

That's the plan. As the NDP amply demonstrated when it implemented welfare "reform" in BC, bureaucrats have limitless power and the people are cowed when rules exist that are designed to guarantee that everyone is breaking them at all times. It is foolish to think the NDP's rules are unintentional. They are, in my view, crafted to hand bureaucrats in the office the power to disqualify any candidate at any time without need to explain themselves.

Quote:

Finding people who have never posted any strong opinions or anything critical of anything, or anything that can be twisted by the National Post into something bad is going to get harder and harder, as more people engage in discussions online.  It's not just a marginal activity anymore - everyone does it, and they do it all day and night.

Do we want to have only people who have known since they were 12 that they were going to grow up and be a politician and grew up ensuring they never made any comment online that could be a "gaffe" a decade later?  Or do we want real people, with real opinions, real insights, and real humanity to run?

The election of Rob Ford amply demonstrates the willingness of voters to pay a high price for flawed, authentic figures in public life. One of the reasons the right consistently beats us is because of their willingness to run risks we are too afraid to run, like running real, flawed, complex people instead of people doing department store manequin impressions on the hustings.

[quote=Fidel]

In my opinion, socialism in one province is not doable.

Why is that? NAFTA? How far could a Socialist Party of Saskatchewan take it if it got elected under the current setup?

2dawall wrote:

The issue is that the NDP cannot tolerate democratic processes when it conflicts with executive priorities; the executives of the Party that is. I guess it could apply to corporate executives too.

It's all about being first past some arbitrary post. We must all march to the beat of worst past the post in this Northern Puerto Rico,  unfortunately.

The post needs a chainsaw taken to it.

Ken Burch wrote:

Agreed that FPTP needs to go.  But Fidel, are you actually saying that, until it does, an NDP leadership is generally going to be JUSTIFIED in doing things like this?

Under a WorstPastThePost electoral system, yes. By the obsolete system's rules, written, unwritten or otherwise, any party is justified in hand-picking candidates with the best chances of winning by a phony majority by any means necessary, whether the ideal candidate is a white male with impressive credentials lazy as hell or not, or whether that candidate is a person of colour and male, or perhaps the candidate is simply a well known radio or TV personality in a community and happens to be a good baby kisser. No one here talks abot the electoral dynamics of the 19th century electoral system invented before electricity, but the worst-past effect does play a large role in things like this. Oh for sure. But let's be clear on this - we are at least talking about progressive change for the better while the two old line parties are still looking somewhat mostly white and mostly male percentage wise. It's a start, Ken. We have our large conservative minority ruling the roost up here(down for you), too. It will take some time for them to fade off into the sunset and make way for a younger generation of voters, and they, too, will have high expectations no doubt.  And the young people aren't liking the fruits of a more prosperous cold war era before them as much as their parents and grandparents. Perhaps it will be a good thing.

M, we see you're totally off of 'the Arctic is Screwed' thread and focusing on our deeply flawed electoral system while pushing for pro rep for Tories and corporate polluters in Manitoba. Good for you.

So now you're comparing the tremendously successful, progressive, popular leader of the party to...

Phillis Schlafly

On election day!

WOW

That's so dumb I dont have to respond.

1977 wow I guess no one can ever change their party.  So what Liberal is the presumed front runner in the federal leadership race?  

Yup 35 years ago Barry did poorly in that race but still managed to get a higher percentage of the vote than the NDP in PEI did earlier this week.  

It seems some in the party want the NDP to build a big tent that excludes anyone to the left of a social democrat but with an open invitation to anyone to the right.  Sounds to me like the party that Rae tried to build.  How did that go the last time in Ontario?  Didn't you get one term of government before you got sent to the third party wilderness. 

I live in BC but I heard there was an election on in Ontario.  I am surprised that on E-Day anyone with deep commitments to the NDP would have the time to diss their opponents in the party instead of pulling the vote.

howeird beale wrote:

So now you're comparing the tremendously successful, progressive, popular leader of the party to...

Phillis Schlafly

No. One of two things is going on here: either your reading comprehension is really really bad or you are being deliberately dishonest so as to avoid admitting that your argument doesn't make sense. And the longer this alleged conversation goes on, the less I care which.

You argued that because Andrea Horwath is a woman, everything she does is infallibly feminist and cannot be questioned by any non-female. I asked if this applied to all women including individuals like Phyllis Schaffly. You then claimed that I compared Horwath to Schaffly. Nice try but anybody with basic fouth grade reading comprehension or better can see that I did no such thing.

I also note that you have refused to answer any question I have asked you in our exchanges, instead choosing to offer a series of accusatory misrepresentations of my words. I see no point in continuing to correspond with you. You appear to lack both the wit and the honesty (likely both) to have the most rudimentary political discussion.

Ken Burch wrote:

Spector, what do those little squiggles you've put under your name mean, if you don't mind someone asking?  I just Googled them and got nothing.  Is that someone's signature, or what?

It's a secret message in Georgian.

No, it wouldn't - even if you could pronounce it.

Howeird, just to clarify, I'm not a "rhetoric scholar," nor am I a "vanguardist" nor an opponent of dancing.