Remembering the Waffle

I was very briefly engaged with the group during the protests against the Viet Nam war in Ottawa in front of the US embassy a couple of times. I was curious about their roots and who their leadership were.

Apparently the arguments and thread are not even worth linking to.

:)

Boy, that would be some "open discussion" you're after.

Unionist wrote:

Actually, now I'm remembering something called LSA (League for Socialist Action) - so I'm totally confused - and maybe the other was YSL?

People's Front of Judaea...

  Do you have the collection?

Gaian wrote:

Contrarianna described the situation very well, Sj, in the thread The Virtues of Nationalism Over Globalization: "Conversly, a non-belicose, nationalist oriented state, that put the welfare and justice of its people before international corporate interests would be the best one could hope for in this age; it would be infinitely better than the only real operation of "internationalism" today.

Judy KNEW what was "good" for Canada. Care to take a shot at it?

I don't know how long ago Judy Rebick made those comments.  Discourse generally maintains faith with people's contemporary analysis, and even to a certain extent with such assessment as the future will allow for.  But it seems to me that we're still talking about 19th century anvils being dragged around.  Because Canadians especially need our green skinned plantains in February?  I think today there needs to be a dialogue first and foremost about sustainability coincided with the transfer of technologies, and much less about physical transfers in bulk.  If not this, what else should we be implicating out of the lineup for discussion.

M. Spector wrote:

Judy puts her finger on the key problem with the Waffle - its bourgeois nationalism:

Judy Rebick wrote:

I never agreed with the idea that the main problem was that Canada was economically subordinate to the United States.  In those days, the Waffle argued that Canada was basically a branch plant of the US and would only be able to be independent though a democratic socialist society.

I never really understood Canada as a subordinate power.  A lesser power, yes, but not really under the thumb of the US.  I understood cultural nationalism that sought to promote and protect Canadian culture so that we were not totally overwhelmed by US culture, but economic nationalism never made sense to me.  In studying to counter their arguments at the time, I learned about Marxism, which made a lot more sense, and argued that nationalism in an advanced capitalist country was reactionary, while it could be progressive in a developing country.

How wrong they were when they wrote in their Manifesto:

Because economic globalism has panned out so well for everyone.  Well...for some.  But it surely must have dawned on us by 2009, or did we miss out entirely on that blip from the earlier part of the decade, otherwise known as the anti-globalization movement?  I think we need an open discussion to see if there's a requirement to continue weighing ourselves down with certain anvils from 19th century, industrial revolution era dogmatism; to see they still need dragging around like drunken buddies.  We might as well hook up with Grandmother Nature from palliative care while we're at it, to get her final thoughts.

Unionist wrote:

If someone says unions are useless right-wing organizations, I may disagree with them; I may think they're too prone to applying labels; I may think they're bowing out of some tough work; but I'll only call them "sectarian" if they go one step further and refuse to join with unions (or any other organizations) in common cause.

Fair enough; that was what I meant too.

M. Spector wrote:

In fact, your example actually supports genstrike's thesis, not yours. The Brazilian Democratic Labour Party, which, like the NDP, is the "official" representative of the increasingly-inappropriately-named Socialist International, is not part of Lula's "vehicle for the left". So who are the sectarians in that scenario?

Lula's success came in spite of Brazil's NDP-counterparts.

Yes, the PDT has been sectarian. In the first round in 2002 Lula was far less sectarian than the PDT, since he had the broader coalition. Even so, Ciro Gomes, whom the PDT supported in the first round, supported Lula in the second round, and joined his cabinet. The PDT remained in sterile sectarian opposition. Even worse was the ex-communist PPS (Popular Socialist Party) which actually supported the conservative candidate in 2006 against Lula. Brazil has strange politics, very personalized and regionalized. This is partly because it is such a large country, with different local alliances in different states, and partly because of its voting system, a pure-open-list system that encourages local "barons" and party-hopping.

My point is that Lula's broad front approach won in 2002 and in 2006.

Obviously nationalism is somewhat of a tainted word.  I'm not convinced that it can be accurately used to describe a lean towards environmental stewardship in matters of trade and economic independence.  It's not as if we have to pull a Copps and start handing out free flags as part of the discussion.

Slumberjack wrote:

Obviously nationalism is somewhat of a tainted word.  I'm not convinced that it can be accurately used to describe a lean towards environmental stewardship in matters of trade and economic independence.  It's not as if we have to pull a Copps and start handing out free flags as part of the discussion.

Sorry...where are you coming from with that? There are so many "nationalisms" eh? Posst on the suggested thread before this one meets the fate of us all, why don't you?

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm getting old, and I've already lost most of my hearing, but did I hear the Alberta premier (Redford) last week call for a national energy plan???

You did indeed, Boom Boom! [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/17/pol-alberta-premier-redfo... and Harper preparing to give away whatever little is left to the oil barons[/url]

Closing for length.