CP's 38th Convention in Toronto May 21-23

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
CP's 38th Convention in Toronto May 21-23

The Communist Party is holding their 38th Convention in Toronto in May. They recently elected a new leader, Liz Rowley, to replace the long-time leader Miguel Figueroa.

The CP usually has a Draft Discussion document, prepared by their Central Commitee, which the membership and clubs go over and make further contributions to through a Discussion Bulletin.

The Draft Main Political Resolution can be found over here. It lays out their strategies and analysis of the International and Canadian situation. The analysis is typically pretty good, although there is an understandable lack of creative development of revolutionary theory. They are a small party.

I'm not sure if the Discussion Bulletin is available online. It sometimes makes for interesting reading.

The People's Voice (their newspaper) will have selections from the Main Resolution over the next few months.

 

I will post a quote or two to give some of the flavour of the discussion.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

CP begins discussion leading up to their 38th Central Convention

Quote:
... a conscious political and organizational effort to invigorate the extra-parliamentary movements, and an ideological struggle to shed illusions about the bourgeois role and character of the capitalist state.

... the Liberal pledge to corporate Canada and the transnationals operating in this country is that reforms will be limited to certain social and democratic issues which have sparked major popular mobilizations. The Trudeau government will not interfere with the drive by big capital for maximum profits, and its neo-Keynesian budget proposals will not reverse the basics of austerity.

...Moving from the defensive to the offensive, by moving working people into the streets in mass independent political actions led by labour and its social allies, struggling for new policies, new government, and a new direction leading to socialism is what we seek. To achieve this requires a bigger, stronger and more influential Communist Party, Young Communist League, and communist press. This is the decisive question.

That's been the decisive question for a long, long time.

The CP advocates a coalition, (People's Coalition) as the political vehicle that could draw in the widest sections of the labour and popular movements into mass struggle.

 

Aussi disponible en français

Appel à la tenue du 38ième Congrès central du Parti communiste du Canada

 

supplemental: The CP's theoretical magazine, The Spark!, has a blog page with some samples over here.

Did I mention that they're a small party? Their smallness reflects rather badly on the Canadian left in general, on the success of decades of unrelenting anti-Communism, of periods of illegality, of the success of the state in crippling their party, etc., etc.

It's actually a little remarkable that they're around at all.


montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

As I feel like going to the United States on occasion, I am sorry I cannot take you up on your invitation.

Unionist

Quote:
Moving from the defensive to the offensive, by moving working people into the streets in mass independent political actions led by labour and its social allies, struggling for new policies, new government, and a new direction leading to socialism is what we seek. To achieve this requires a bigger, stronger and more influential Communist Party, Young Communist League, and communist press. This is the decisive question.

A small group of dedicated, enlightened individuals comes to the conclusion that the "decisive question" in launching a mass movement leading to socialism is to build their own group.

Isn't this 2016?

Perhaps a little more humility, spirit of unity, shedding of sectarianism, learning from history would be in order?

 

 

iyraste1313

First I welcome this thread...where new political ideas will come from to offer creative solutions? I don´t know...but as Magoo once pointed out before. at least we must look to see what´s out there?

Clearly the mainstream parties including the NDP have nothing to offer.

My first criticism regrds the leading role of labour.

First I consider the labour elites of the industrial capital system totally compromised into the system.

Long ago discussions of the dispossessed classes may be more relevant.

I consider this one of Marx´major flaws, not understanding the cooptation principle of the elite labour aristocracy!

Rather we must look at what is our vision, who would benefit from such a vision and work to offer ideas and vision to these sectors!

Unfortuneately the constant beatings on the CP have had the intended effect, neutralizing any radical messages.

Let´s see e.g. if they are prepared to take on the finance capitalists and their ponzi scams, nationalize the moneymaking system, in fact decentralize it, challenge the criminality of the banksters and their media puppets and demand prison!

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
Quote:
Moving from the defensive to the offensive, by moving working people into the streets in mass independent political actions led by labour and its social allies, struggling for new policies, new government, and a new direction leading to socialism is what we seek. To achieve this requires a bigger, stronger and more influential Communist Party, Young Communist League, and communist press. This is the decisive question.

A small group of dedicated, enlightened individuals comes to the conclusion that the "decisive question" in launching a mass movement leading to socialism is to build their own group.

Isn't this 2016?

Perhaps a little more humility, spirit of unity, shedding of sectarianism, learning from history would be in order?

thanks for saying this more nicely than i could unionist.

if i wanted "enlightened" overlords to run things i'd stay with the devils i know.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

montrealer58 wrote:
As I feel like going to the United States on occasion, I am sorry I cannot take you up on your invitation.

What invitation? Are you afraid to even read about the CP? Please explain.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Unionist wrote:
A small group of dedicated, enlightened individuals comes to the conclusion that the "decisive question" in launching a mass movement leading to socialism is to build their own group.

Isn't this 2016?

Perhaps a little more humility, spirit of unity, shedding of sectarianism, learning from history would be in order?

Perhaps humility all around would be a good thing. In any case, I don't really see this goal as some sort of blovated hubris. They're very small, they want to grow to be more effective, etc. A bigger CP means a bigger left generally. Do I really have to spoon feed anyone on these obvious truths?

I think if they were somewhat larger - say, even one MP as the Greens (the latter benefited from the Supreme Court of Canada case that the CP won, against truly insurmountable odds, for which they gave zero, or grudging at best, thanks to the CP. But that is a footnote of history now), with some staff to develop policy, they might be very useful for the left generally.

Is this really you just saying, "the CP should drop dead." ? While they are quite small, there are plenty that share a lot of their views on this or that policy. And where they are active, they have a record of being pretty effective.

Frankly, any kind of organization on the left of the NDP could well have the effect of pushing the NDP to the left. This is a good thing in my books. Frankly, I have a hard time finding any aspect of their policies that I strongly object to. The biggest criticism is that they're too small ... so that, for example, a vote for them is a wasted vote, and that their "brand" is irrevocably damaged. The remedy for both of those is a larger and growing organization.

People should remember that not all CP's in the world went into decline following the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. [The CP followed Soviet perspectives and had close relations for those who don't know their history.] For example, the SACP went from strength to strength following the destruction of the Apartheid regime(s) in Southern Africa. Their decline is not inevitable - although, as I've noted, their brand is irrevocably damaged.

 

Unionist

ikosmos wrote:

Unionist wrote:
A small group of dedicated, enlightened individuals comes to the conclusion that the "decisive question" in launching a mass movement leading to socialism is to build their own group.

Isn't this 2016?

Perhaps a little more humility, spirit of unity, shedding of sectarianism, learning from history would be in order?

Is this really you just saying, "the CP should drop dead." ?

Not at all. This is really me just saying, "the CP should get a life". As long as they insist that the "decisive question" is to grow their party, their youth league, and their party press (which is what they said in your quote above) - they will fail.

Let them be allies of the mass movements - and let them be known as such, by their words and deeds.

Let them be leaders - but let others say "hey, you are leaders!", rather than proclaiming it about themselves.

They have a lot of work to do. Reaching out to other left organizations, and to mass movements, seems the right way to go. Boasting that they ran 26 candidates in the last federal election tells me that they might possibly be stumbling in the dark.

Let there be light!

 

iyraste1313

just submitted a perspective on Yemen and the mass styarvation ongoing and our Canada´s General Dynamics 15 billion contract to Saudi Arabia......

Who is prepared to challenge the workers organized, with General Dynamics, likewise in the tar sands ad nauseum....maybe I´m wrong, but these are the elites of the elites of the workers and their union...what is needed is a political movement to challenge not just the right of the oligarchs, but their workers, prepared to sell their soul for some big money......

a political movement prepared to challenge with blockades, boycotts whatever it takes!
The Indigenous, victimized by the ecocides will not be fooled until someone is prepared to stand up to say no!

yes it would be great if there was such a movement, already in existence...where is it?

Admittedly this is a major cultural problem! Canadians think that a buck is a buck, life revolves just around this value, nothing else matters, morality, ecology, human suffering...irrelevant!
Yet this is the issue that needs tackling. We have to become responsible for our actions!

Who is going to stand up and say No! 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:
First I welcome this thread...where new political ideas will come from to offer creative solutions? I don´t know...but as Magoo once pointed out before. at least we must look to see what´s out there?

Clearly the mainstream parties including the NDP have nothing to offer.

Thing is, the NDP is the ceiling of political consciousnes for masses of people in this country. That's their ne plus ultra beyond which they have a failure of imagination. The trick is to win people to the idea of an alternative - socialism or some variety of it - from where they are now. These ideological questions are, in my view, critical.

Quote:
My first criticism regrds the leading role of labour.

First I consider the labour elites of the industrial capital system totally compromised into the system.

Long ago discussions of the dispossessed classes may be more relevant.

I consider this one of Marx´major flaws, not understanding the cooptation principle of the elite labour aristocracy!

Rather we must look at what is our vision, who would benefit from such a vision and work to offer ideas and vision to these sectors!

Unfortuneately the constant beatings on the CP have had the intended effect, neutralizing any radical messages.

The question of social class is certainly at the center of their political views. They also advocate a coalition as a means to move politics forward in Canada, involving the mass movements, etc.

I really think it's a balancing act. They identify the working class, broadly defined, as the irreplaceable social leadership of any likely successful movement for fundamental change. The working class has a leadership - in the trade union bureaucracy. And, as we all know, that leadership has failed to provide the direction that's needed. But I think it would be fundamentally wrong to - on the basis of such poor leadership - to change their theoretical model to some post modern gobble-dee-gook or some such view.

I think their Draft Resolution addresses this question somewhat. Maybe they need to flesh it out even more. I will have a look for a quote or two.

ETA: OK, here's one.

Quote:
These diverse movements have a cross-class character, but are primarily composed of working class and working people in general, Increasingly, they involve young people and others relatively new to mass action. There is a growing tendency to seek broader allies in these struggles, and to draw connections between specific issues and the larger fight against austerity policies and reactionary governments and business interests. The desire for resistance is on the rise, not receding. But at the same time, many of these mobilizations remain localized and spontaneous in character, and lack a clear program of action and articulated alternatives. The greater involvement of Party activists in these movements, and our efforts to help these movements overcome those deficiencies in particular, is the best way for us to contribute to building the overall fightback.

Some good points about going  beyond local and spontaneous actions with a plan of action and articulated alternatives, etc. Unity matters, it makes the left stronger. Perhaps this is the best thing the CP can bring to the left - sans any sectarian residue - this critical importance of unity. 

OK, found a few more.

Quote:
The Communist Party will continue to call for broad unity of the labour and democratic forces to build a mass fightback for such a people’s agenda. The most crucial element of such a strategy is to move the trade union movement from the defensive towards an offensive posture. What is needed is a sovereign, independent and united trade union movement, advancing policies based on class struggle, not class collaboration. Such a shift requires building the left and left-centre forces in the labour movement, oriented on moving away from “outsourcing” labour’s political struggles to the NDP or even the Liberals, in favour of independent labour political action at all levels. The trade union movement cannot win alone – it must become the catalyst to bring together all sections of the working class, by organizing the unorganized and the unemployed, reaching out to indigenous peoples, racialized communities, environ-mentalists, anti-poverty activists, students, women, farmers, the LGBTiQ community, defenders of civil liberties and human rights, and opponents of the TPP, CETA, TIPP and other corporate trade deals – in other words to orient on building a powerful Common Front to fight for the interests of working people in all parts of the country....

The recent period has largely been characterized by a slumbering CLC leadership that takes its lead from the NDP rather than mobilizing workers and its affiliates. Dissatisfaction and rumblings from below fuelled the 2014 election campaign for CLC President launched by Hassan Husseini and the “Take Back the CLC” caucus. Husseini’s campaign challenged the right-wing leadership of incumbent Ken Georgetti, and forced Hassan Yussuff who was eventually elected as President, to commit to independent labour political action and democratization of the CLC in exchange for Husseini’s withdrawal from the race. It was a significant victory for the left and progressive forces in the trade union movement.

So they seem to be paying attention to positive signs in the labour movement - while arguing that the working class leadership needs to reach out to "enlightened" elements in society. I can't really find a lot of fault with that view.  "The trade union movement cannot win alone ..." is pretty clear as well. It's a good point. The whole section on Labour and The Fightback might be worth reading. I think it's noteworthy that, while not being sectarian, they rightly point out the harm that the NDP does in the labour movement. I think that's fair criticism.


Quote:
Let´s see e.g. if they are prepared to take on the finance capitalists and their ponzi scams, nationalize the moneymaking system, in fact decentralize it, challenge the criminality of the banksters and their media puppets and demand prison!

The Canadian CP has a long history, probably due to being under the constant thread of imprisonment of its members, etc., of presenting a bland face to the public. Sensible seems to be the motto. I'm not convinced it helps them all that much.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

(me) Is this really you just saying, "the CP should drop dead." ?

Unionist wrote:
Not at all. This is really me just saying, "the CP should get a life". As long as they insist that the "decisive question" is to grow their party, their youth league, and their party press (which is what they said in your quote above) - they will fail.

Let them be allies of the mass movements - and let them be known as such, by their words and deeds.

Let them be leaders - but let others say "hey, you are leaders!", rather than proclaiming it about themselves.

They have a lot of work to do. Reaching out to other left organizations, and to mass movements, seems the right way to go.

OH, ffs. They're a political party. If they don't aim at "leadership" then what the hell are they doing in the political arena? I mean, I don't read anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong please!)  where they say, "We have some God-given right to govern", or something like that. But if they don't aim for leadership then they ... could just call themselves the NDP and be done with it. LOL!!!!!!!!!

[OK, that's me criticizing the NDP. Heh. ]

Quote:
Boasting that they ran 26 candidates in the last federal election tells me that they might possibly be stumbling in the dark.

I don't get this criticism. Elections are the time when Canadians think about politics. The rest of the time, most Canadians ... Well, I hardly need to explain this point. Why shouldn't the CP participate when there is public money available for a tiny political organization? Not running candidates would be shooting themselves in the foot.

And if they win even one seat, watch out.

Summary:

To re-iterate: they have some goals they want to achieve and, to that end, their view is that a bigger organization would help. Those goals are a more successful fightback, a bringing together of all the forces needed to move the yardsticks forward, etc.

C'mon, this isn't rocket science.

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

I think if they were somewhat larger - say, even one MP as the Greens (the latter benefited from the Supreme Court of Canada case that the CP won, against truly insurmountable odds, for which they gave zero, or grudging at best, thanks to the CP. But that is a footnote of history now), with some staff to develop policy, they might be very useful for the left generally.

https://this.org/2010/04/05/communist-party-canada-miguel-figueroa/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figueroa_v_Canada_(AG)

http://communist-party.ca/the-figueroa-v-a-g-of-canada-case

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

A person with known connections to a 'communist' or 'anarchist' organization can be barred from entry into the United States. 

The Communist Party has very bad bad karma. They lied to progressive people consistently in the post-war period, lying that the Russian economy was the second in the world when Japan had passed them before 1960.

This is not to say that some kind of Left Party would be unpopular. But we need it to work with the 2010s and not the 1970s. And they need to stop lying about how great Russian communism was for anyone but party people. 

We can not be communist and be significantly further left than the crap they are trying to shove down our throats now.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
on the success of decades of unrelenting anti-Communism, of periods of illegality, of the success of the state in crippling their party, etc., etc.

The government has also been anti-marijuana for decades, marijuana is still illegal, and the state expends millions of dollars per year "crippling" marijuana.

Just saying.  If something is really popular then it's really popular.  Nobody's ever going to say "after all that government persecution, marijuana can't ever hope to catch back up!!!"

Anyway, here's my thinking.  The CPC doesn't need to "grow".  What they need is a SPLIT.  Canadians want an authentic party... a PURE party.  A party undiluted by quislings and revisionists and agents provocateurs.  It's high time for some old-fashioned naming, shaming and blaming.  And out of the fires of that, the shining path shall glow.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I'm a political junkie who smokes pot but frankly comparing the attraction of a drug to the attraction to an ideology is one of your more absurd posts.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If you're telling me that marijuana is NOT addictive, but some ideologies are, I get that.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i don't think this can be talked about without including the movements, which are the agents of change. they are not looking for a party. at least not at this time. they are not looking for parlimentary leadership. they already have a plan or more acurate many plans..and those are radical. movements are very aware of parlimentary leadership that robs them of power and change. what they need is support. financial and otherwise. imho

eta: what the cp is offering is the same old. it needs to do better than this.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If you're telling me that marijuana is NOT addictive, but some ideologies are, I get that.

I know pot is not addictive since I smoke it every day.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

kropotkin and magoo, just stop it, because you're killing me.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

montrealer58 wrote:
A person with known connections to a 'communist' or 'anarchist' organization can be barred from entry into the United States.

Anyone can be barred from the USA. Nobel Prize winners, future Prime Ministers (Trudeau), award-winning writers (Farley Mowat), etc. , etc. . I'd rather treat being barred from the USA as a badge of honour.

Of course, if cross-border shopping trumps human rights, then maybe you have a point. But then your opinion on an organization that aims for fundamental change is not really relevant except to other keen shoppers like yourself. Cheers.

Quote:
The Communist Party has very bad bad karma. They lied to progressive people consistently in the post-war period, lying that the Russian economy was the second in the world when Japan had passed them before 1960.

Show me a political party that doesn't lie, or support policies that are, later on, seen to be bad or very bad, and habitually, and remains unpunished. The right to recall is an exception rather than a rule in politics.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Just saying.  If something is really popular then it's really popular.  Nobody's ever going to say "after all that government persecution, marijuana can't ever hope to catch back up!!!"

Anti-Communism is practically universal, knee-jerk, often brainless, and has been reinforced for decades. Any dissenter can still, to this day, be denounced as a Communist and the sting of the accusation wins over many people. Give your head a shake. To pretend otherwise is ... disingenious.

Quote:
Anyway, here's my thinking.  The CPC doesn't need to "grow".  What they need is a SPLIT.  Canadians want an authentic party... a PURE party.  A party undiluted by quislings and revisionists and agents provocateurs.  It's high time for some old-fashioned naming, shaming and blaming.  And out of the fires of that, the shining path shall glow.

Christ. Magoo, the Maoist? Who'd of thunk it? (PS, there is another CP in Canada, called CPC (ML) or something like that, and they still run candidates. )

PS. If some genuine Communist wishes to contribute, please feel free. I'm pretty sure you won't get banned. But there's only one way to find out, right?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The CP party will never be a factor because it has a brand name problem and Marxism is a ideology that is rooted in a centrist approach to governing.

However to complain that they are trying to get in front of the parade when it comes to movement politics is a bit harsh. Unlike the NDP I doubt if they would ban their elected MP's from participating in mass movements. Frankly the NDP's response to the student movement in Quebec seems (from the other side of the country) to be a factor that may have cost them seats. They showed they had neither the principals or guts when it came to standing with the people who were fighting austerity. I can not imagine either Svend or Bill not marching in solidarity.

The CP will not be electing any MP's anytime in the foreseeable future so we will never know how their MP's would act.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Anti-Communism is practically universal, knee-jerk, often brainless, and has been reinforced for decades.

Then conversely, sometimes quite rational.

Funny that the CP (and probably the misguided CPC-ML as well) can cheerfully accept the assertion that they're failing because Communism was illegal when our grandfathers were wearing short pants, but they can't even consider the idea that maybe they're failing because their dogmas don't really resonate with the electorate. 

Quote:
Any dissenter can still, to this day, be denounced as a Communist and the sting of the accusation wins over many people.

"The sting"?  Communism is perfectly legal, and has been for a long time.  What, specifically, is this "sting"?  The "sting" of being outed as maybe a bit wooly-headed?  The "sting" of some others saying "hey comrade, it's 2016 now"?

Quote:
I'm pretty sure you won't get banned.

Nor arrested, blacklisted, fired, evicted, or even "stung".  Don't let the fear of absolutely no repercussions stop you, if you believe.

Well, OK, I and some others might laugh at you.  You'll need to decide for yourself whether your beliefs are worth that.

ygtbk

ikosmos wrote:

PS. If some genuine Communist wishes to contribute, please feel free. I'm pretty sure you won't get banned. But there's only one way to find out, right?

If you're not part of the vanguard, you're one of the proles, right, comrade?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
"The sting"?  Communism is perfectly legal, and has been for a long time.  What, specifically, is this "sting"?  The "sting" of being outed as maybe a bit wooly-headed?  The "sting" of some others saying "hey comrade, it's 2016 now"?

Communist Parties are illegal in all sorts of countries around the world. The barbarous regime in Ukraine has banned the Communists and murdered some of their members. This country is completely supported by the Parliamentary Parties in Canada: Liberal, Conservative and NDP. While activists are murdered, these parties cheer the Ukrainian leaders who visit Canada and preside over the brutal repression.

There are plenty of others where the CP is banned.

Banned Communist Parties

Give your fucking head a shake and quit treating life and death matters as if they are a joke. The only joke is morons who trivialize the difficulties that others face, never having had to face such obstacles themselves, while laughing uproarously and gloating as political activists are murdered.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Communist Parties are illegal in all sorts of countries around the world.

I only live in Canada.  What about Canada?

Quote:
Give your fucking head a shake and quit treating life and death matters as if they are a joke.

Consider it shook!

But what about Canada?  I'm pretty sure we're talking about the Communist Party of CANADA, aren't we?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

yes, and the Canadian CP has been banned plenty of times. Do your homework. When Tim Buck was imprisoned ~ 1930, the prison guards opened fire and very nearly killed him. I don't think any other political leaders of the other parties faced such adversity.

All this is irrelevant to the upcoming Convention or the issue for discussion. Do you have anything to contribute in that regard?

ygtbk

ikosmos wrote:

Give your fucking head a shake and quit treating life and death matters as if they are a joke. The only joke is morons who trivialize the difficulties that others face, never having had to face such obstacles themselves, while laughing uproarously and gloating as political activists are murdered.

Totally agree. Since, of course, the Communist parties of the 20th century have completely clean and bloodless hands.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Nice non sequtur, ygtbk.

I see that the CP will be posting their discussion bulletins as they come out. Actually, the first report IS the first Bulletin. So my bad.

ygtbk

So for anyone trying to actually understand the meaning of non sequitur, (spelling corrected), you might want to ignore ikosmos.

Because life and death matters would involve death. And the number of Soviet citizens killed by the Soviet government would slightly exceed the number of Communists killed by the Canadian government, if slightly means an order of 10^6, or so. So my bad. 

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..i don't think this can be talked about without including the movements, which are the agents of change. they are not looking for a party. at least not at this time. they are not looking for parlimentary leadership. they already have a plan or more acurate many plans..and those are radical. movements are very aware of parlimentary leadership that robs them of power and change. what they need is support. financial and otherwise. imho  

eta: what the cp is offering is the same old. it needs to do better than this.

As is often the case, epaulo's post is worth repeating.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Oh look, spelling flames. Because freedom.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Unionist wrote:
epaulo13 wrote:

..i don't think this can be talked about without including the movements, which are the agents of change. they are not looking for a party. at least not at this time. they are not looking for parlimentary leadership. they already have a plan or more acurate many plans..and those are radical. movements are very aware of parlimentary leadership that robs them of power and change. what they need is support. financial and otherwise. imho  

eta: what the cp is offering is the same old. it needs to do better than this.

As is often the case, epaulo's post is worth repeating.

OK, I'm trying to make sense of the critique. The mass movements have their "own" goals - which, apparently, are secret, since they aren't being divulged here - so they don't need to be "led" by anyone. Ever. Have I got it right so far?

That's some dialogue.

Let's take an example, shall we? What sort of "goals" does the women's movement have for society? Where is the program? What allies will help the women's movement to achieve their stated goals?

The truth is, if you don't know where you're going, then any road will lead you there. I guess it works. 

So this microscopic party, barely able to run a couple of dozen of candidates, are a repressive and authoritarian danger. Because they have some idea of where they want society to go - and the sorts of allies on the way - am I getting it right, so far?

Christ, you guys are brainwashed. The CP message is one of unity in struggle. I don't see their rough sketch as being anything more than that. Some steps towards a better social arrangement, the building of unity in the course of the struggle, blah blah.

I mean, at least Magoo was blatant and open; he called for "disunity", purges, and all the rest of it, directly. And I don't think he was even being serious. 

Anyway, have at it. What I am reading here is the use of the past to silence the future. Does the left in every country slit its own throat in this way, or do they have help?

It's simply not good enough to reject all proposals; you have to provide an alternative. Let's hear it.

 

quizzical

key words "where they want society to go"

reall? really??????

ya no.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I don't understand. You have no vision of a better society, nothing you are willing to share? Why are you here?

quizzical

why are you here?

i don't happen to think communism is a better society, let alone visionary, thanks anyway.

and i don't believe communism equates to socialism, thanks anyway.

Unionist

ikosmos wrote:

Unionist wrote:
epaulo13 wrote:

..i don't think this can be talked about without including the movements, which are the agents of change. they are not looking for a party. at least not at this time. they are not looking for parlimentary leadership. they already have a plan or more acurate many plans..and those are radical. movements are very aware of parlimentary leadership that robs them of power and change. what they need is support. financial and otherwise. imho  

eta: what the cp is offering is the same old. it needs to do better than this.

As is often the case, epaulo's post is worth repeating.

OK, I'm trying to make sense of the critique. The mass movements have their "own" goals - which, apparently, are secret, since they aren't being divulged here - so they don't need to be "led" by anyone. Ever. Have I got it right so far?

No, you haven't got it right. You're just clearly upset that some of us dare to critique the Communist Party. And no, I'm not talking about those who equate communism with nazism. Deal with our critiques, please.

And for you to ask what the goals of the mass movements are - that's rather odd. You mention the women's movement. Have you ever heard of equality? And you think the women's movement needs to be "led" by some quasi-religious cult that fancies itself so utterly correct, so utterly destined to drag society kicking and screaming to socialism, that it can actually present the growth of its own cult as the "DECISIVE QUESTION"??

I would have had more respect and curiosity about their program if they had said something about the need to strengthen ALL progressive and left organizations, movements, tendencies (not just their own CORRECT group), and to reach out with concrete measures to unite in action.

But no. We are correct. History (i.e. God) has chosen us. So sad that history hasn't yet opened the reluctant, sleepy eyes of the workers, women, indigenous peoples, youth, activists in all spheres of society. When will they ever learn?

Quote:

It's simply not good enough to reject all proposals; you have to provide an alternative. Let's hear it.

Humility, unity, banning of sectarian spirit. That's step one.

Say three times a day: "I am not the greatest. My ideas are not the only ones. My central committee is not infallible. Before I can lead, I must learn to follow."

Step two: Listen to your allies, learn from them, march with them.

Step three: Re-evaluate your "platform", your "correct line", and soberly assess how well it matches up with the reality of the movement.

iyraste1313

I don't understand. You have no vision of a better society, nothing you are willing to share? Why are you here?...

....The idea that issues movements somehow will morph into some revolutionary movement is totally nuts!

Of course for a movement to take hold it must have vision, an exhaustive but adaptive evolving idea of how society can be organized and of course how to achieve that.

What is desperately needed in canada is the initiative to begin exploring that!
Whether for exhaustion from continual harassment or whatever, the CP has shunned such vision...what do they stand for other than a little to the left? more reformist than the NDP/Liberal charades...

Humility? I think Canadians are born with saturated in self defensive estimeless humility.....as I once embarassingly laid out the provocative image from Brave New World...the scene with the babies on the electric grid, playing with the flowers and books...til....

The saturation of conformism and political correctness amongst the Canadian left demands empowerment, for which a collective process is crucial...

NO! We need to build a socialist ecological bioregional autonomy movement from a foundation...where will the people come from to do this?

Bearing in mind that the collapsing system of Canada demands it!

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Quote:
But no. We are correct. History (i.e. God) has chosen us. So sad that history hasn't yet opened the reluctant, sleepy eyes of the workers, women, indigenous peoples, youth, activists in all spheres of society. When will they ever learn?

[url=http://manyhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/denoms.jpg]Mutatis Mutandis...[/url]

quizzical

lol VoD good cartoon

NDPP

 Given the sordid history of sellouts, failures, complicity and treacherous collaboration by Canadian progressives identified largely with the NDP, I wish the CP nothing but success in their deliberations. Years ago, as a much younger man, I had the opportunity to work with an old carpenter and longtime CP member who helped open my eyes to the key role played by the sucking, stinging, parasitic, faux-left saboteurs of any authentic resistance in Canada. Nothing much has changed. It should and must...

 

quizzical

"largely within the NDP" lol

Unionist

NDPP wrote:

... I wish the CP nothing but success in their deliberations.

So do I. But I hope I'm within my rights to wish them humility, unity, and reaching out to others who may not share their gospel. And by the way, that hope applies to all the other left organizations that think that they are the "one". We are the one.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The idea that issues movements somehow will morph into some revolutionary movement is totally nuts!

..this to me is a good place to begin. first off revolution is not the goal. not in the traditional sense where you have uprisings and install a left government that rules on behalf of the people. this avenue is dead. change will not come this way whether by way of the ndp, green, cp or any other party. capital is much to powerful to allow any government to threaten it's agenda. we have seen what happened to greece and venezuela and it's not just a matter of getting the right people into government but one of power within global structures that governments are forced to work in.

..so how then do we proceed. after years of struggle the idea of controlling the commons arose via square occupations. participatory democracy or direct democracy. if parliaments can't or won't make decisions on our behalf then we make those decisions ourselves and then find ways to force governments to implement those decisions. and in canada, under the banner of climate justice, movements are uniting. why because in order to save the planet's ecology most if not all issues that concern individual movements must be addressed. they don't need the cp or any other party to "bring them together", they are already doing it themselves. to not see this is a major denial. to have a goal of keeping global warming at or under 2c for all intents and purposes is revolutionary. to not see this is also denial.

..system change doesn't just mean that we free ourselves from the yolk of capital but that we make decisions in a different way and at a community level. so this is where i see the work being needed. to build alternative decision making structures within the current political and economic system. and here i believe are the building blocks for a different world.

quizzical

like what you said epaulo

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

It is the case that when the bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the first thing they did was to establish the Cheka, and liquidate all the anarchists and other rival leftists. That would have been the end of me, had I been around then. I could never support a party that believes itself a "vanguard" because I would expect them also to become murderous psychopaths if they ever achieved power.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..txs quizzical. txs unionist

Rev Pesky

Michael Moriarity wrote:

It is the case that when the bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the first thing they did was to establish the Cheka, and liquidate all the anarchists and other rival leftists. That would have been the end of me, had I been around then. I could never support a party that believes itself a "vanguard" because I would expect them also to become murderous psychopaths if they ever achieved power.

You can't remove the context in which the Bolsheviks came to power. Russia was at the tail end of a killing spree the like of which had never been seen before (WW1). At the same time, there was a civil war going on (in Russia), with one side being supported by the countries of Europe and North America. Strange as it may seem, the Bolsheviks were pretty mild compared to the Czar and the powers of Europe that engulfed the continent in a slaughter that killed somewhere between 15 and 20 million people.

The chaos and confusion was overwhelming. There's a couple of good descriptions of the events, "Ten Days That Shook the World" by John Reed, and "The History of the Russian Revolution" by Leon Trotsky. To give an idea of what the context was in North America, read the Wikipedia article about John Reed.

John Reed

Quote:
...Reed's trunk of notes and materials on the revolution—which included Russian handbills, newspapers, and speeches—were seized by custom officials, who interrogated him for four hours over his activities in Russia during the previous eight months. Michael Gold, an eyewitness to Reed's arrival to Manhattan, recalls how "a swarm of Department of Justice men stripped him, went over every inch of his clothes and baggage, and put him through the usual inquisition. Reed had been sick with ptomaine on the boat. The inquisition had also been painful." Back home during mid-summer 1918, Reed, worried that "his vivid impressions on the revolution would fade," fought hard to regain his papers from the possession of the government, who refused to return them.

He did eventually get his papers back, but it took several months. In any case, it indicates the fear of the USA ruling classes.

And after all, let us not forget that the Communist Party, with all it's faults, is still the only party to sucessfully challenge capital.

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:
...system change doesn't just mean that we free ourselves from the yolk of capital but that we make decisions in a different way and at a community level. so this is where i see the work being needed. to build alternative decision making structures within the current political and economic system. and here i believe are the building blocks for a different world.

Interestingly enough, that is precisely what the soviets were, local organizations that took over local administrations. But of course they couldn't achieve many things because they needed an overall authority. It was the Bolsheviks who turned the local soviets into a government.

It a bit disingenuous to think that capital will accept 'alternative decision making bodies' without putting up a fight. After all, they allow local control to some extent now (city and municipal governments), but that control has pretty strict limits. Vancouver, f'rinstance, has control over local concerns, but the Port of Vancouver, which exists wholly within the boundaries of the various cities of the lower mainland is ruled by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (Port Metro Vancouver). All the major ports in Canada are governed by similar port authorities, and they are all under the authority of Transport Canada.

So you can have your local 'authority' but the minute that authority challenges the greater authority (federal government), your local authority is brushed aside. The question then becomes, how to make the local authority stronger than the federal authority. That is when the trouble starts, because the federal authority will never agree to cede their decision making power, and in the end, you will be forced to unite the 'local' authorites in some overall plan. 

What happened in Russia was the local soviets sent delegates to larger soviets, and so on. What all have to understand is that there can be no such thing as a parallel power. The government of this country would see that as clearly as the Czar saw it.

That's when the fun starts...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

The idea that issues movements somehow will morph into some revolutionary movement is totally nuts!

..this to me is a good place to begin. first off revolution is not the goal. not in the traditional sense where you have uprisings and install a left government that rules on behalf of the people. this avenue is dead. change will not come this way whether by way of the ndp, green, cp or any other party. capital is much to powerful to allow any government to threaten it's agenda. we have seen what happened to greece and venezuela and it's not just a matter of getting the right people into government but one of power within global structures that governments are forced to work in.

..so how then do we proceed. after years of struggle the idea of controlling the commons arose via square occupations. participatory democracy or direct democracy. if parliaments can't or won't make decisions on our behalf then we make those decisions ourselves and then find ways to force governments to implement those decisions. and in canada, under the banner of climate justice, movements are uniting. why because in order to save the planet's ecology most if not all issues that concern individual movements must be addressed. they don't need the cp or any other party to "bring them together", they are already doing it themselves. to not see this is a major denial. to have a goal of keeping global warming at or under 2c for all intents and purposes is revolutionary. to not see this is also denial.

..system change doesn't just mean that we free ourselves from the yolk of capital but that we make decisions in a different way and at a community level. so this is where i see the work being needed. to build alternative decision making structures within the current political and economic system. and here i believe are the building blocks for a different world.

I don't agree entirely but I want to applaud that someone has posed some of these questions.

One quick comment. I think Venezuela is a successful example, not a negative one. They managed to move things forward, closer to revolution (what Andre Gorz and others called revolutionary reforms, etc.) , and they had an enormous influence over the wider world. FYI, even Fred Engels in his own lifetime pretty well said a barricade style revolution was passe. Both sides learn from every conflict. Or they should. 

Pages