Anyone remember the League of Young Socialists from about the same time period as the Waffle?
Remembering the Waffle
I remember the acronym "LSY". Must have been League of Socialist Youth. Don't remember anything about them though.
ETA: Could be wrong about that. Oh well.
Why are you trying to remember that, BB?
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.
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...
Apparently the arguments and thread are not even worth linking to.
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.
But that is not the direction of the modern corporatized state. Don't hold your breath."
I agree with you that "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..." Or did you think the arguments by John Ralston Saul in the other thread's link not worth bothering with? Judy KNEW what was "good" for Canada. Care to take a shot at it?
In that other thread - the National News forum - not here on memory lane?
:)
Boy, that would be some "open discussion" you're after.
But what are we discussing?
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?
A peek at John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism: and the Rebirth of Nationalism in the March, 2004 issue of Harper's Magazine would not be a bad place to start, perhaps. It convinced me - along with the idea of peak oil, etc. - that this must happen.
The Collapse of Globalism: and ... - John Ralston Saul : Other Writings
www.johnralstonsaul.com/eng/articles_detail.php?id=6〈=eng
- Block all www.johnralstonsaul.com results
ARTICLES BY JRS. The Collapse of Globalism: and the Rebirth of Nationalism Harper's Magazine March 2004. Grand economic theories rarely last more than a ...
There you go (I hope) I was trying to preserve the integrity of this thread .
You did just say "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..." ?
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.
Ok I see it now G. Thank you. I'll take some time with it.
Judy puts her finger on the key problem with the Waffle - its bourgeois nationalism:
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.
dp
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.
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.
Ok I see it now G. Thank you. I'll take some time with it.
Great. Be looking to see you in The Virtues of Nationalism Over Globalization !
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.
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???
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?
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?
I will, because I do want to get around to discussing Saul's article. In the meantime, you should really ask yourself a few honest questions about this fixation on authorship, and why it is so important to know who wrote what? Where do thoughts and extrapolations come from? What makes one train of thought more valid than another? etc. Competitive nationalism of the kind that informed the 19th and 20th centuries was what I was referring to. For a progressive discussion to do with comparing globalization to some alternative alter ego, using the word Nationalism with its historic connotations left dangling should be seen as a straw man.
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]
Shes sniffing around for a nice convevial 'strategy' of lets all be nice and support each others export strategies.
You know like:
"Quebec you have your hydro projects, we have our oil sands...."
Which is just a little ptina rubbed onto the normal "bug off everybody."
[With the hand covering the mouth from view while thanking the federal government for running interference.]
Closing for length.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3