quote:

---

Making the NDP even less electable is a bold strategy for change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
I really do wish you luck, but I don't think the change we need will come from the NDP and will therefore focus my effort elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

And we know that's true because Manitoba's NDP is unable to break free of its NAFTA and FTAA shackles clamped on provinces by Liberal and Conservative Party stoogeocrats in Ottawa before them. Meanwhile the stooges have been working diligently on deep integration, SPP and TILMA behind everyone's backs. The answer is not to shackle ourselves even tighter to that basket case of an economy south of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:

Heres where you lose me Fidel. You say these things and the you insert some comment about "semi-capitalism" and "the people's republic of Norway" (Youre words are usually socialist norway) and how their system of State Capitalism and

---

Scandinavian countries plow a third of GDP's back into social programs. If you don't think that's further to the left than this neoliberal setup in the Northern Puerto Rico, then I think you'll find that social democrats in Canada and you are miles apart on most things.

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in by Dr Jeffrey Sachs, a former advocate of neoliberal economic shock therapy

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness.

Someone should tell our two stale old line parties that their second-hand ideology is obsolete

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:
Making the NDP even less electable is a bold strategy for change.

---

Two things:

1. I'm not sure that offering a bold, solid alternative which would benefit working people during an economic crisis when a lot of people are starting to realize how capitalism is screwing things up would make a party less electable.

2. (and this is why I don't see much hope in electoralism) Making the NDP more "electable" by moving to the right, in the tradition of certain provincial wings and Labour/Socialist/Social Democratic Parties around the world, is an even worse strategy for social change. Unfortunately, I think that this is pretty much guaranteed to happen to any party which tries to fill the same political space as the NDP.

Also, question to e of c, maybe to get some discussion going, what exactly are your goals (I would assume some sort of anti-capitalism) and why do you think that parliamentary action through the NDP is the best way to accomplish them?

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:

2. (and this is why I don't see much hope in electoralism) Making the NDP more "electable" by moving to the right, in the tradition of certain provincial wings and Labour/Socialist/Social Democratic Parties around the world, is an even worse strategy for social change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:

wow, tough room I like the pessimism in the NDP, Is Tommy Douglas an unelectable figure? he was further left than any wing of the NDP can claim to be now (save for maybe some of the Youth wings). How about Coldwell? Was this all a dream were we designed as a Tony Blair Apologist Party (Canada's TBAP?) I think not any leftists want to make policy formulations?

---

Neither would have a sniff of a chance to win the NDP nomination, let alone more than 10 seats in the HOC.

quote:

---

wow, tough room I like the pessimism in the NDP, Is Tommy Douglas an unelectable figure? he was further left than any wing of the NDP can claim to be now (save for maybe some of the Youth wings). How about Coldwell? Was this all a dream were we designed as a Tony Blair Apologist Party (Canada's TBAP?) I think not any leftists want to make policy formulations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Nordic countries ruled by social democrats, or in strong opposition, for long stretches at a time are significantly further to the left than Canada's Liberals and Conservatives in federal power since forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:

Are Douglas and Coldwell unelectable in today's political environment? Absolutely.

Neither would have a sniff of a chance to win the NDP nomination, let alone more than 10 seats in the HOC.

I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer a figure like the two of them, I just know what the political landscape is like, right now. We know that 38% of the population wants nothing whatsoever to do with democratic socialism. We also know that the mildly social democratic New Democrats of today couldn't garner 40 seats, in large part due to being seen as too far left. So what, exactly, makes you think that a party even further left than the current incarnation of the NDP would be more electable?

---

You don't make social change by resigning yourself to the current political landscape. You make social change by fighting hard to alter the political landscape. That is what the right did, and that is what the left should do too, instead of capitulating more and more ground to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:

Some of the Nordic countries might be seen as the exception if you are a capitalist who believes in social democracy. But if you are an anti-capitalist, these parties offer nothing for you.

---

You're either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead babblers. Bullshit and misleading comments are generally not encouraged here at rabble/babble

Inequality in OECD countries

quote:

---

Also it is worth noting that some of the main parties in these countries have embraced some aspects of neoliberalism in the 1990s, although not as bad as the NDP, never mind others like the Labour Parties of the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

---

The NDP is a party of social democrats, not a labour party in NZ or Australia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
You're either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead babblers. Bullshit and misleading comments are generally not encouraged here at rabble/babble

---

Social democracy is simply capitalism mixed with some public ownership and social programs. Capitalism with some socialist window dressing. I am not misinformed about that. Would you care to dispute that, or would you rather just call it bullshit without explaining why you think it is bullshit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The NDP is a party of social democrats, not a labour party in NZ or Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
Social democracy is simply capitalism mixed with some public ownership and social programs. Capitalism with some socialist window dressing.

---

Okay, "capitalism with socialist window dressing", "mixed market economies post laissez-faire", and "capitalist appeasement of the workers since the dirty 30's." Pure laissez-faire capitalism was rejected in North America by democratic choice in the 1930's. And the new liberal capitalism since the 1980's isn't doing so well either.

There are significant differences between mixed market economies here in Canada after 28 years of neoliberal policies, and the results in those Nordic countries spending far more of national income on social democracy - everything from well -funded socialized medicine and freely accessable post-secondary education to lower infant mortality rates and more competitive modernizing economies.

quote:

---

The NDP occupies the same space in the political system that those parties do (including their relationship with the CLC), although the NDP hasn't been able to make a breakthrough yet like various Labour parties (except in some of the provincial wings where they did follow in the footsteps of those parties).

---

I think Australia is about the only other English speaking country with similar power decentralized to territorial governments. And even when conservative-Liberals were in power federally there, all Ozzie territorial governments were labour.

quote:

---

such as perhaps Olof?

---

did you mean Olaf?

quote:

---

i sing of Olaf glad and big
--E. E. Cummings

i sing of Olaf glad and big
whose warmest heart recoiled at war:
a conscientious object-or

his wellbelovéd colonel(trig
westpointer most succinctly bred)
took erring Olaf soon in hand;
but--though an host of overjoyed
noncoms(first knocking on the head
him)do through icy waters roll
that helplessness which others stroke
with brushes recently employed
anent this muddy toiletbowl,
while kindred intellects evoke
allegiance per blunt instruments--
Olaf(being to all intents
a corpse and wanting any rag
upon what God unto him gave)
responds,without getting annoyed
"I will not kiss your fucking flag"

straightway the silver bird looked grave
(departing hurriedly to shave)

but--though all kinds of officers
(a yearning nation's blueeyed pride)
their passive prey did kick and curse
until for wear their clarion
voices and boots were much the worse,
and egged the firstclassprivates on
his rectum wickedly to tease
by means of skilfully applied
bayonets roasted hot with heat--
Olaf(upon what were once knees)
does almost ceaselessly repeat
"there is some shit I will not eat"

our president,being of which
assertions duly notified
threw the yellowsonofabitch
into a dungeon,where he died

Christ(of His mercy infinite)
i pray to see;and Olaf,too

preponderatingly because
unless statistics lie he was
more brave than me:more blond than you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
Is Fidel your real name Fidel? If it isn't but was rather chosen in homage to Fidel Castro I'm left wondering why you didn't go with a name more reflective of the ideology you love to promote, such as perhaps Olof?

---

Olof was too trusting of Murder Inc. and the vicious empire.

quote:

---

Its hard to imagine the real Fidel trying to talk a room of revolutionary leftists into electoral social democracy, thats all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
why do you think that parliamentary action through the NDP is the best way to accomplish them?

---

quote:

---

"The NDP is a party of social democrats, not a labour party in NZ or Australia."

The NDP occupies the same space in the political system that those parties do

---

Don't know enough about NZ to comment.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

If they ever resorted to murdering NDP'ers for getting too close to power, then it would be a terrible day for them indeed. The old Iran-Contra crooks are still in play, but I think they realize now what martyring leftists does for their long game. It's nowhere.

---

So in the context of the comment to which you are replying are you meaning to suggest that Fidel Castro would have been an electoral social democrat instead of a revolutionary communist, if only he and his supporters were not dealt with so harshly by the Cuban establishment and the empire?

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:

No it doesn't. The Labour party in Australia is also the de facto liberal party (as opposed to the Liberals, who are the de facto conservatives). It occupies the same space as the Democrats in the US really.

Don't know enough about NZ to comment.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

---

I would argue that they do and have historically occupied pretty much the same space. The Labour Parties of Australia, NZ and the UK and the CCF both had origins in the labour and socialist movements and some radical parliamentarians. The biggest difference is that the NDP hasn't been able to overtake the Liberals and displace them as the UK Labour Party has. However, various provincial wings have been able to do that and have went down the same road as these Labour Parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:

Who is claiming that the participation of a social democratic (or left if you will) party in the electoral process is supposed to be the "best" way to accomplish goals? It's just one vehicle. Nobody in the NDP claims that parliamentary action is the be-all and end-all, just one necessary course of action among many.

---

Well, I would disagree that it is a necessary course of action and argue that it is a dead-end road. There are many examples of workers organizing and being rather successful outside of a social-democratic party, such as the Spanish, Hungarian, Russian, and Cuban Revolutions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Scandinavian countries plow a third of GDP's back into social programs. If you don't think that's further to the left than this neoliberal setup in the Northern Puerto Rico, then I think you'll find that social democrats in Canada and you are miles apart on most things.

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in by Dr Jeffrey Sachs, a former advocate of neoliberal economic shock therapy

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness.

Someone should tell our two stale old line parties that their second-hand ideology is obsolete

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Denmark has 50% tax on their earnings. IS that what you want for Canada?

I understand many on left don't work and would never work as they would then have little time to protest with OCAP and any other special interest/ urban terror group.

For the people that do in fact have a job. They are having a tough time making ends meet now as it is and you're proposing a jump of 30% addition taxes coming off their paycheques?

quote:

---

I understand many on left don't work and would never work as they would then have little time to protest with OCAP and any other special interest/ urban terror group.

---

You ban first and then notify. Whereas I notify and then ban.

So I was the first to say he was banned on here, but went to lock this creep's account, it was already locked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:

I understand many on left don't work and would never work as they would then have little time to protest with OCAP and any other special interest/ urban terror group.

---

But in this discussion he says:

quote:

---

Many on the right view OCAP as an urban terror group. Does that make it so?

Of course not.

---

It's rare to see someone contradict themselves so completely in so short a time.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:
Denmark has 50% tax on their earnings. IS that what you want for Canada?

---

Olof [Palme] was too trusting of Murder Inc. and the vicious empire.

Sorry all for my silence alas I was tied up delivering my baby girl (7 lbs 12 oz's )

I hope to accomplish with this, is the same thing as what I hope to accomplish in my labour organizations and my former trade union (alas I am no longer organized ) I hope to bring my point of view and the best possible solutions to our problems as I understand them (I use what I would call a Marxist method of analysis and would place myself on the socialist left of the spectrum) I am not asking the membership to unabashedly become socialists (as their forefathers and foremothers were) and support my point of view I am trying to discuss with all those who would be left of the NDP caucus (I find the membership is more left wing then caucus) to put forth ideas (policy) for the upcoming conventions as one front in which to fight our bosses and their parties. Workplace organization and agitation is another front that I would encourage but ultimately the working class must capture politcal power in order of socialism to be established, historically the NDP is considered the vehicle of the politcal working class hence this is where I focus my efforts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USSocialDemocrat:
Posted by Fidel:

Olof [Palme] was too trusting of Murder Inc. and the vicious empire.

What?! Explain this, please...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
QUOTE] Also, question to e of c, maybe to get some discussion going, what exactly are your goals (I would assume some sort of anti-capitalism) and why do you think that parliamentary action through the NDP is the best way to accomplish them?

---

Sorry all for my silence alas I was tied up delivering my baby girl (7 lbs 12 oz's )

I hope to accomplish with this, is the same thing as what I hope to accomplish in my labour organizations and my former trade union (alas I am no longer organized ) I hope to bring my point of view and the best possible solutions to our problems as I understand them (I use what I would call a Marxist method of analysis and would place myself on the socialist left of the spectrum) I am not asking the membership to unabashedly become socialists (as their forefathers and foremothers were) and support my point of view I am trying to discuss with all those who would be left of the NDP caucus (I find the membership is more left wing then caucus) to put forth ideas (policy) for the upcoming conventions as one front in which to fight our bosses and their parties. Workplace organization and agitation is another front that I would encourage but ultimately the working class must capture politcal power in order of socialism to be established, historically the NDP is considered the vehicle of the politcal working class hence this is where I focus my efforts.

I think the NDP could break with the old line by adopting socialist policies such as nationalization of the commanding hights of the economy, perhaps we could start with the Banking industry as it is a popular postion now, we could start with the slogan "vote NDP, we'll nationalize less than Gordan Brown and George Bush put together!" (to answer another question NOT the small moma and papa shops, why would one worry about this not even the Bolshiviks did this?).[/QUOTE]

First, congrats on the baby girl!

I think we agree on most things, except for strategy, electoralism and our view of the NDP and its role.

I guess the big thing is that my idea for a revolution is to build alternate power structures from the ground up which can fight for people's rights before the revolution and prefigure a new society (like the CNT in the Spanish Revolution) rather than to try to take control of the existing political power structures. I see political parties as more of a dead end road, sucking on a lot of effort from activists and making them less able to be critical of the government when their party is in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:

You don't make social change by resigning yourself to the current political landscape. You make social change by fighting hard to alter the political landscape. That is what the right did, and that is what the left should do too, instead of capitulating more and more ground to them.

---

I'm all in favour of learning the strategic and tactical organizational lessons of the right. But let's learn the real ones.

The right did NOT change the political discourse by nominating candidates outside of the mainstream. Well, they nominated Goldwater and learned that that is a stupid strategy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
There are many examples of workers organizing and being rather successful outside of a social-democratic party, such as the Spanish, Hungarian, Russian, and Cuban Revolutions.

---

Oh by the way, workers in all of the above countries are, and have long been, far worse off than in places like Sweden. Or Canada.

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:

In other words, you don't believe in electoral democracy. Well thanks for being up front about it.

Oh by the way, workers in all of the above countries are, and have long been, far worse off than in places like Sweden. Or Canada.

---

No, I don't believe that we will make the changes we need through a bourgeois capitalist democracy and think we need some sort of revolution to break with the old order and bring in the new. That is something that I am always up front about.

That is not to say that I don't believe in democracy. Whatever future society we make would have to be participatory and radically democratic, and such democracy would have to also be present in the sphere of production, which is something that social democratic parties will never give.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
No, I don't believe that we will make the changes we need through a bourgeois capitalist democracy and think we need some sort of revolution to break with the old order and bring in the new. That is something that I am always up front about.

---

Seconded. However, you should have said "parliamentarism" as opposed to "democracy."

quote:

---

That is not to say that I don't believe in democracy. Whatever future society we make would have to be participatory and radically democratic

---

And probably demarchic, as well (as much direct voting as possible for legislation, but random sortition for administrators and remaining representatives).

SOME of the seeds of this participatory democracy MAY be laid in the current system, however (if only for having unstable "dual power").

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
Seconded. However, you should have said "parliamentarism" as opposed to "democracy."

---