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

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

lol, Magoo. Such mock incomprehension. You wouldn't accept as evidence anything less than published internal memos ordering Elections Canada to put the Communists out of business.

Moving on.

 

.......................................................................

One of the rabble bloggers has made some comments about how the Canadian left has lots to learn from Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. These political candidates are addressing real concerns and, says David Bush, this shows that the masses are the real force shaping American politics.

David Bush wrote:
Watching the American election is in many ways like watching our future. In Canada, those who want to shift the debate leftwards should think less about dumping Mulcair or changing the NDP and think more about building the movements and local left organizations that can create the conditions for a renewed and militant working class politics. If we fail to do so we are in much worse trouble than a bad election outcome.

Sound familliar? Isn't this what the Canadian CP is talking about?

The Canadian Left Has Plenty to Learn ....

 

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

lol, Magoo. Such mock incomprehension. You wouldn't accept as evidence anything less than published internal memos ordering Elections Canada to put the Communists out of business.

Moving on.

The 50 seat threshold actually had been around since 1972. The Communist Party had over 50 candidates for 5 straight elections, there was no indication they were not going to do so again

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I have long since been assured by communist philosophers in the free world that the question I should ask myself is what produces "The greatest good for the greatest number". The question is whether this is applied with equity, which I will often rail about. I tended to think that capitalism provided for about 80%, and they should be taxed so the other 20% can get their income supplemented and a democratically elected State can do other things it deems necessary.

Central planning of economics is extremely difficult. I hate to sound intellectualist on this, but economics and public policy should depend on evidence-based rules, and solutions should be matters of financial and physical engineering and not ideology. How can I help? is better than Believe This Crap.

iyraste1313

Central planning of economics is extremely difficult.....

agreed!

Likewise market based finance and economics clearly is nothing but a ruse for oligarchic control and destruction...so as I inevitably belabour, there is only one solution...a decentralized federalist system with regional  autonomy, better based on ecology charters, that is bioregional autonomy...I can`t see how people an disagree.....as for its utopian nature, what choice do we have but this...otherwise...disaster looms 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bekayne wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

lol, Magoo. Such mock incomprehension. You wouldn't accept as evidence anything less than published internal memos ordering Elections Canada to put the Communists out of business.

Moving on.

The 50 seat threshold actually had been around since 1972. The Communist Party had over 50 candidates for 5 straight elections, there was no indication they were not going to do so again

lol. The Ottawa regime could have chosen to change the rules. They did not, instead choosing to fight the Reds in a lengthy, protracted and expensive fight all the way to the SCoC. Of course their spitefulness might have been more aimed at the Greens than the Reds, but if you can urinate in the face of two rivals, then, well... two for the price of one is a basic principle of bourgeois consciousness.

Do I really have to spoon feed such simple truths, ffs?

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

bekayne wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

lol, Magoo. Such mock incomprehension. You wouldn't accept as evidence anything less than published internal memos ordering Elections Canada to put the Communists out of business.

Moving on.

The 50 seat threshold actually had been around since 1972. The Communist Party had over 50 candidates for 5 straight elections, there was no indication they were not going to do so again

lol. The Ottawa regime could have chosen to change the rules. They did not, instead choosing to fight the Reds in a lengthy, protracted and expensive fight all the way to the SCoC. Of course their spitefulness might have been more aimed at the Greens than the Reds, but if you can urinate in the face of two rivals, then, well... two for the price of one is a basic principle of bourgeois consciousness.

Do I really have to spoon feed such simple truths, ffs?

They wanted to screw the smaller parties and independent candidates. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And brutally repress the Communist Party of Canada.

bekayne

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And brutally repress the Communist Party of Canada.

While leaving the Marxist-Leninists alone

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's what happened.

In 1972, the government realized that its only reasonable hope of supressing the runaway popularity of State Communism was to institute an arbitrary "cutoff" number of candidates required for official party status.  But they also realized that if they set this cutoff at "whatever the Communists have, plus one" then their ruse might be discovered.

So, shrewdly, they set that cutoff at LESS than the Communist Party typically fielded, and for the next 18 years, the Communist Party of Canada enjoyed official party status -- all the while, completely unaware that they'd been outsmarted.  It was only when one man -- a "vanguard" if you will -- saw through the smoke and mirrors and exposed the truth on behalf of all of us.

Parliament walked it back -- saving face through the assumption that the judiciary forced their hand -- but only time will tell whether that was simply the government undoing an undemocratic mistake, or whether they're "playing the long game" and there's more suffering in store for the CPC in another 18 years.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bekayne wrote:
They wanted to screw the smaller parties and independent candidates.

Well, yeah, that's probably it in a nutshell. The last time the Reds had an MP he was framed as a spy and deported to Poland.

The Kellock–Taschereau Commission makes interesting reading and the scholarship on it since it came out has shown it to be a kind of kangaroo court. Furthermore, the existence of PROFUNC shows that the Canadian state was ready to round up "the usual suspects" and put them in concentration camps prior to orderly execution. And that's just what we know about.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

This doesn't relate to the CP directly, but I found a really good blog that does an excellent job of distinguishing reformist (and often neo liberal) ideas versus revolutionary ideas. And why the latter are so important.

Quote:
Canadian social democrats severely underestimate the importance of ideology, and the intellectual capacity of the masses to understand political ideas. This is not something the radical left should be emulating. Working-class and oppressed peoples are more open to discuss stuff like capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, patriarchy than you think, when these ideas are applied to concrete social realities they live in.

People gravitate towards organizations that are unafraid to name the names and willing to do what it takes to win, not groups that endlessly pump out policy papers filled with graphs and numbers. This is also why the Tea Party was so popular. They may have had their facts wrong and their ideas were undoubtedly racist, but they still knew what they were up against and what they were for.

There is nothing unhealthy about being revolutionary.

Brilliant, really.

 

iyraste1313

 Working-class and oppressed peoples are more open to discuss stuff like capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, patriarchy than you think, when these ideas are applied to concrete social realities they live in.....

exactly! This is who I choose to work with, people who´s heads are not in the sands, looking, totally open to solutions of a radical nature, who have zero respect for political correctness and the political types that pander to ¨ respectful¨solutions.....thanks for this!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Working-class and oppressed peoples are more open to discuss stuff like capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, patriarchy than you think, when these ideas are applied to concrete social realities they live in

I can't even tell you how much I'd love to see a YouTube video of some crusty curmudgeon sitting in a Tim Horton's and railing about patriarchy.

"Why should some woman have to make my sandwich?", says crusty curmudgeon, "when I have two hands and can make my own damn sandwich?!?! -- THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WORLD TODAY!!!".

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...I'm not sure that really qualifies as some kind of anti-Communist persecution, though.

But it was the Communist Party that fought the law, as the article says, over thirteen years. They spent a lot of time and trouble to strengthen democracy when others did nothing. The article says the Green Party 'joined' the fight. I'm not sure when they did, but without the Communist Party initiating the battle, the law would most likely still stand.

And did the RCMP engage in illegal activities to cause trouble for the Communist Party. Most definitely, over and over again. One of the ways was simply to persecute individual communists, showing by example what one could expect if one became publlicly involved with the Communist Party. The song I posted above notes a number of specific cases.

Illegal wiretaps, agents provocateurs, joining groups and employing disruptive techniques like false press releases, anonymous phony stories about members of the group, especially the leadership. Barn-burning, break-ins, bombings, theft of documents, all these and more were standard practice for the RCMP. To say nothing of the red-baiting that was a normal part of the news media, politicians, religious figures, and by the way, which still goes on, even here in the threads of Rabble.    

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

The RCMP

Over our hills and our valleys they roam

Seeking out communists rigth here at home

A Saskatchewan spinster who was teaching grade three,

Was flung into jail by the RCMP

Nice! Thanks for sharing. Here's another:

Quote:
when I was just a little thing I used to love parades
with banners, bands and red balloons and maybe lemonade
when I came home one mayday my neighbours father said
them marchers is all commies tell me kid are you a red?
well, I didnt know just what he meant my hair back then was brown
our house was plain red brick like most others in the town
so I went and asked my mamma why our neighbour called me red
my mummy took me on her knee and this is what she said

CHORUS:
well you aint done nothin if you aint been called a red
if youve marched or agitated, youre bound to hear it said
so you might as well ignore it, or love the word instead
cause you aint been doin nothin if you aint been called a red

Ain't Done Nothing if You Ain't Been Called a Red

 

 

Rev Pesky

A few of the RCMP actions against lefties, courtesy of the Brothers-In-Law, a bluegrass style group from the 60s.

The RCMP

Over our hills and our valleys they roam

Seeking out communists right here at home

A Saskatchewan spinster who was teaching grade three,

Was flung into jail by the RCMP

I'm old enough to remember most of the incidents recorded in the song.

 

 

Rev Pesky

Another excellent tune! Do you by chance remember Malvina Reynolds. Many great songs, including The Rand Hymn:

The Rand Corporation's the boon of the world

They think all day long for a fee

They sit and play games about going up in flames

For counters they use you and me, honey bee,

For counters they use you and me.

For the younger folks, the Rand Corporation was the first right-wing 'think-tank'.

Seems to me back in the day the left had a sense of humour, which is sadly lacking today. And now that I think of it, people like Tommy Douglas used humour a lot. Not such a bad idea. The left has never had the resources of the right, but that weapon of laughter was a great equalizer.

Perhaps it's time to think of using it again.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:
For the younger folks, the Rand Corporation was the first right-wing 'think-tank'.

OK, I'm old but I'm not THAT old. Heh.

Quote:
Seems to me back in the day the left had a sense of humour, which is sadly lacking today. And now that I think of it, people like Tommy Douglas used humour a lot. Not such a bad idea. The left has never had the resources of the right, but that weapon of laughter was a great equalizer.

Perhaps it's time to think of using it again.

Humour requires that we don't take ourselves too seriously. We're pretty serious on the left. I mean, the issues are big. The right has plenty of narcissistic people, indifferent to everything except the pleasure of the moment, who are even willing to laugh at death (or certainly the death of others as amusement) so maybe humour comes to them more easily.

But I think you're correct about this. We conflate taking issues seriously with taking ourselves seriously. At least I know I do sometimes. And then our Joie de vivre goes out the window, sans pleasure, sans light-heartedness, sans many good things...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
To say nothing of the red-baiting that was a normal part of the news media, politicians, religious figures, and by the way, which still goes on, even here in the threads of Rabble.

Here? In the threads of babble???

I get that several generations ago if you were "red-baited" by someone then like an unmarried woman living with her cat in Salem Massachussets, that could be all the evidence required for you to lose your job or your reputation or your family or your liberty or all of the above.

But dude, it's 2016 now.  Canada has two Communist parties, and Canadians are free to vote for them without fear of any knock in the night.  Frankly, nobody really gives a rat's ass anymore.  Like drinking alcohol, being gay or co-habiting, it's totally and completely legal.  Huzzah, right??

Communists aren't being persecuted, either in general society or here at babble.  They're being ridiculed.  HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Rev Pesky

Magoo, why do you think the NDP removed 'socialsim' from there lexicon? Why did they trash bin their founding document? Even in the latest election the prevailing sentiment was that the NDP should try to appear as 'right' as possible without just going over to the Conservatives. And all that distance between the original party and the latest incarnation was because of what? Because people made fun of them? Well, I will say this...it an interesting hypothesis. 

Just yesterday on the editorial pages of the National Post the Liberals (of all people!) were accused of engaging in class warfare. Comments on this thread about 'Murderous Bolsheviks' I don't think were meant in fun. Well, maybe they were. I didn't see a smiley emoticon attached, but maybe I just missed the joke. 

Rev Pesky

Here is a joke, just so we can compare...

It is post WW2 in East Germany. A lady works in a textile plant, and of course all workers were expected to join the Party, and go to the meetings. Now, those meetings could be long and boring, and one day, the lady just couldn't face the prospect, and went home to sleep instead.

The next day, the shop steward came around and said to her in his disciplinary voice, "Why weren't you at the last meeting?

"Oh," she said, "If I had known it was the last meeting..."

 

Well, ok, just one more.

Stalin is giving a talk to the party faithful. At some point in his speech one of the assembled crowd sneezed. Stalin quit speaking, looked up, and said with his harsh tones, "Who sneezed?"

Everyone was crapping their drawers, and staring down at the floor. No one said a word.

"Lavrentiy," said Stalin, "Take the last row of members out and have them shot."  Beria jumped to this task. After he had come back inside, Stalin once again addressed the meeting.

"Who sneezed?" he asked. Again there was no reply, and again Stalin spoke to Beria.

"Lavrentiy, take the penultimate row out and have them shot." Again Beria ushered out the condemned, while the remaining members listened to the shots fired.

When Beria returned, once again Stalin addressed the group.

"Who sneezed?"

By this time a person in the third to last row knew what was coming, and decided to offer himself up as a sacrifice.

"I did, Comrade Stalin," he said, standing up.

"Gesundheit," said Stalin, and went on with his speech.

At that, one of the members turned to another and said, "You see, it's like I said. Tough, but fair."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Magoo, why do you think the NDP removed 'socialsim' from there lexicon?

Because they felt it no longer resonated with their supporters?  Didn't the membership actually vote on that?

Quote:
And all that distance between the original party and the latest incarnation was because of what? Because people made fun of them?

Or because they felt that the original NDP platform no longer resonated with voters?

You can believe that they were wrong to think this, or even stupid to think this -- that's perfectly valid -- but that's not the same as some sort of witch hunt.

The best thing that could ever happen to Communism in Canada right now would be to be declared illegal -- they'd suddenly enjoy all the "cred" of street racing and "tagging" and selling weed and any other thing that "the Man" systemically frowns upon.

But it's OK to be a communist.  It's OK to support communist parties.  It's OK to announce your candidacy for a communist party.  The downside of this is that now communism can no longer count on support because they're the "dangerous outlaws".  They'll need to get to work winning hearts and minds.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Magoo, why do you think the NDP removed 'socialsim' from there lexicon?

Because they felt it no longer resonated with their supporters?  Didn't the membership actually vote on that?

But it surely wasn't because someone was making fun of them. And given the wild success of that the last election, resonating with voters is maybe not a good argument.

Here's an interesting article from February of 2015, speaking to the 'liberalization' of the NDP.

NDP Can Still Succeed

Quote:
...A lot of people want to believe the NDP can actually make a difference.

Regrettably the party and its leader Tom Mulcair aren't making it easy -- which is why fewer people support the NDP now than they did three years ago or even last year.

The fact is, NDP percentage of popular vote in federal elections has only gone over 20% twice since 1962. One of those was the 2011 election when the Liberals had a very un-charismatic leader, and the NDP had Jack Layton, who was charismatic. Other than that the NDP got 20.4% back in 1988 when Ed Broadbent was leader. In the other 16 elections their popular support never broke the 20% barrier.

So your argument about 'resonating with the voters' is more wishful thinking than analysis.

 

 

Rev Pesky

I'll just add to the above by saying the 2011 election result was not only because of the collapsing Liberal vote, but also because of the collapsing Bloc Quebecois vote, which for the first time went to the NDP. That changed in the 2015 election, where that NDP vote then went mostly to the LIberals.

So the NDP vote in Quebec went from 42.9% in 2011 to 25.4% in 2015. Is that what one calls 'resonating with the voters'?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Honestly, Rev, if the NDP ran on the Regina Manifesto, they would be lucky to get 10% of the vote, and might win one or two seats where their candidate is very popular locally. This is not 1933. I agree with you that there is an appetite for a modern New Dealer, which is what Sanders is, but not for a party that advocates the end of capitalism explicitly.

Now, if we had PR, then a party running on an explicitly anti-capitalist program would get my vote, and probably elect a couple dozen MPs. I would really like that. But to imagine that such policies could ever succeed in FPTP is contrary to all the evidence.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

I pose the Regina Manifesto because it was a very clear statement of principles. What are the clearly stated principles of the NDP today?

Well, I hope you don't expect me to defend the current NDP's devotion to principle, because I agree with you on that point. However, the principles needed now are more modest than the Regina Manifesto. Something similar to Bernie Sanders' platform, which is all built on reducing economic inequality and reducing the influence of wealth in elections (although that problem is much less dire in Canada than the U.S).

Rev Pesky wrote:

There was a time when the NDP was thought of as 'the conscience of parliament'. That didn't get them a lot of votes, but it did get them respect from the electorate. People didn't necessarily vote for them, but they wanted them in Parliament.

Well, if people won't vote for them, how the hell are they going to end up in Parliament? Statistical flukes and the occasional very popular local candidate, I guess. I consider this a far from optimum approach.

Rev Pesky wrote:

In 2004, Tommy Douglas topped the voting in the "Greatest Canadian" poll. Do you think Thomas Mulcair has a chance to achieve the same?

No, not a chance. However, if he had been elected PM last October, I think he would have become reasonably well liked.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But it surely wasn't because someone was making fun of them. And given the wild success of that the last election, resonating with voters is maybe not a good argument.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.  I'm only suggesting that the NDP dropped the word "socialism" because it didn't resonate with supporters any more.  Are you saying "well, their current platform didn't either!"?

If so, very well, but it's not logical to say "If 'A' failed, and then 'B' failed, we should go back to 'A'".

And again, wasn't this voted on??  Or did Tom just grab a big Sharpie and start redacting?

Quote:
So your argument about 'resonating with the voters' is more wishful thinking than analysis.

Again, it's not clear what you mean.

Are you saying that if they dropped "socialism" and didn't enjoy greater success afterward then clearly they should walk it back?  I think that little logical fallacy even has its own fun Latin term:  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Quote:
Is that what one calls 'resonating with the voters'?

I can't help but wonder if perhaps there may have been any other factors.  I think you're trying to solve one equation with ten unknowns.

Rev Pesky

Except it's not necessarily about winning seats, it's about influencing policy. The CCF never achieved more than 16% of the popular vote in federal elections, but we got Medicare just the same.

The electorate is funny in some ways. They want to know where a party stands, and they are very sensitive to waffling. One of the serious problems the NDP have now is simply that the electorate doesn't believe them, and who could blame them? The NDP have abandoned so many principles over the years there isn't much but a few shreds of cloth left to cover their embarrassment.

I pose the Regina Manifesto because it was a very clear statement of principles. What are the clearly stated principles of the NDP today?

There was a time when the NDP was thought of as 'the conscience of parliament'. That didn't get them a lot of votes, but it did get them respect from the electorate. People didn't necessarily vote for them, but they wanted them in Parliament.

In 2004, Tommy Douglas topped the voting in the "Greatest Canadian" poll. Do you think Thomas Mulcair has a chance to achieve the same?

 

 

Rev Pesky

Michael Moriarty wrote:
Well, I hope you don't expect me to defend the current NDP's devotion to principle, because I agree with you on that point. However, the principles needed now are more modest than the Regina Manifesto. Something similar to Bernie Sanders' platform, which is all built on reducing economic inequality and reducing the influence of wealth in elections (although that problem is much less dire in Canada than the U.S).

More modest is one way of putting it...

 

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.  I'm only suggesting that the NDP dropped the word "socialism" because it didn't resonate with supporters any more.  Are you saying "well, their current platform didn't either!"?

If so, very well, but it's not logical to say "If 'A' failed, and then 'B' failed, we should go back to 'A'".

There is a difference between principles and strategy. "A" and "B" are not the same thing. "A" was the set of principles the party was founded on. "B" was the strategy of abandoning those principles in order to achieve electoral success (in fact, in terms of this thread, "B" was a strategy to avoid 'red-baiting').

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...And again, wasn't this voted on??  Or did Tom just grab a big Sharpie and start redacting?

In fact it was the party bureaucracy who wielded the sharpie in this last election by, for instance, refusing to allow long-time party member Paul Manly to run for a riding nomination on Vancouver island. What was his offence? Standing by party principles. Party principles that had been voted on, but were considered too 'controversial' to be allowed during an election.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Are you saying that if they dropped "socialism" and didn't enjoy greater success afterward then clearly they should walk it back?  I think that little logical fallacy even has its own fun Latin term:  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

If they did such to ensure electoral succss, then didn't achieve that 'success' (by their own definition), that isn't a logical fallacy, it's an idiocy. Maybe you'd better go back and have another look at your Reader's Digest "Treasury of Logical Fallacies for the Uninformed'.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...I can't help but wonder if perhaps there may have been any other factors.  I think you're trying to solve one equation with ten unknowns.

Pardon me, it is you who are saying the NDP should solve their equation with one strategy, that is, 'abandon principle'. That is a classic example of a single strategy that is designed to solve a complex problem.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In fact it was the party bureaucracy who wielded the sharpie in this last election by, for instance, refusing to allow long-time party member Paul Manly to run for a riding nomination on Vancouver island. What was his offence? Standing by party principles. Party principles that had been voted on, but were considered too 'controversial' to be allowed during an election.

Great.  But I was asking about the removal of the word "Socialism".  Wasn't that what we were talking about?

Quote:
If they did such to ensure electoral succss, then didn't achieve that 'success' (by their own definition), that isn't a logical fallacy, it's an idiocy. Maybe you'd better go back and have another look at your Reader's Digest "Treasury of Logical Fallacies for the Uninformed'.

The logical fallacy in that case would be the assumption that because they fared poorly AFTER removing the word "Socialism" then they fared poorly BECAUSE they removed the word "Socialism".

That's the same sort of cognitive process that gives rise to superstitions.  "My team was doing great as long as I didn't shave, but once I shaved, we lost!".

Quote:
Pardon me, it is you who are saying the NDP should solve their equation with one strategy, that is, 'abandon principle'.

I'm not telling the NDP what they should or shouldn't do.  I'm a voter, but not a member.  I also didn't lose my mind when they removed the word "Socialism", because I don't really think that implies that all principle has to go with it.

 

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Magoo, why do you think the NDP removed 'socialsim' from there lexicon?

Because they felt it no longer resonated with their supporters?  Didn't the membership actually vote on that?

Quote:
And all that distance between the original party and the latest incarnation was because of what? Because people made fun of them?

Or because they felt that the original NDP platform no longer resonated with voters?...

These were your answers to my questions. Please re-read them.

The point I was making was that reason the NDP abandoned principle because of red-baiting. That is demonstrably true. But leaving that for the moment, here's what Muclair said about erasing 'socialsim' from the NDP dictionalry:

Quote:
"That's the way to connect and reach out beyond our traditional base. A lot of Canadians share our vision and our goals in the NDP. We've just got to make sure that by modernizing, by using the language that resonates with a wider public in Canada, that we'll be able to do what we have to do, which is to defeat Stephen Harper."

Well, the wording change did resonate with the voters, just not in the way they were hoping.

Here's form Wikipedia re: the Regina Manifesto

Quote:
The Regina Manifesto remained the CCF's official programme until 1956 when, in the face of the strong anti-communist sentiment of the Cold War, it was replaced by the more moderate Winnipeg Declaration which substituted Keynesian economics for socialist remedies.

In other words, in response to red-baiting, the CCF watered down their founding principles.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, the wording change did resonate with the voters, just not in the way they were hoping.

Something didn't resonate with them.  Maybe even more than one thing.

But what makes you think the wording change had ANYTHING to do with it?  Have there been polls, for example, that show that if the NDP had retained that one word, people would have voted for them?  But without it they had little choice but to gravitate to the Liberals, who are still proudly, officially and visibly Socialist?

I get that when the NDP voted to remove that word it was like Occupy Wall Street courting corporate donations or something, but I still think you're seeing some sort of causal relationship that doesn't really exist.

swallow swallow's picture

And even the Winnipeg Declaration would be considered unacceptable to today's NDP. Take this passage: 

Quote:

Capitalism Basically Immoral

Economic expansion accompanied by widespread suffering and injustice is not desirable social progress. A society motivated by the drive for private gain and special privilege is basically immoral.

The CCF reaffirms its belief that our society must have a moral purpose and must build a new relationship among men--a relationship based on mutual respect and on equality of opportunity. In such a society everyone will have a sense of worth and belonging, and will be enabled to develop his capacities to the full.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Some follow-up notes:

1. Elizabeth Rowley is the new CP leader. She replaced the outgoing leader, Miguel Figueroa.

Her Keynote Address at the Convention can be found over here.

2. The CP also has a page with a variety of documents, resolutions, and the like. That's over here.

(Many are also in French. Good on the CP for managing that on their microscopic budget.)

3. The final main political resolution documents will be available in late July or early August.

4. The MSM did not cover the convention, to the surprise of no one.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Some quotes from Rowley ...

Quote:
The last three months have confirmed our estimation that imperialism is on a very dangerous course to re-divide the world as spoils among the main imperialist centres, particularly the US and Europe; to become ever more aggressive and reactionary at home and abroad in domestic and foreign policies, and to eliminate governments, states, peoples, and struggles that stand in their way. In every respect, imperialism – objectively – is in its over-ripe and dying stage, vicious in its end of life convulsions, deadly in its default to fascism.

"... to eliminate governments, states, [even whole] peoples, and struggles that stand in their way." 

 

Just think about that for a minute.

6079_Smith_W

Someone using over-the-top rhetoric as marketing? Didn't take a minute at all. Just a few seconds.

swallow swallow's picture

Congratulations to Liz Rowley, she has bene waiting to take first chair for a long time now! 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I missed my chance to hear her speak as she was on a Canadian tour before the Convention. But the CP has a history of keeping their leaders for a long time (maybe has something to do with the damage that being CP leader does to your resume - lol) so I will get another chance, I'm sure.

iyraste1313

While I congratulate Liz Rowley`s above quotes, the clarity will be in the detail, not just empty rhetoric but a plan of action, strategic action...and clearly the solutions lie outside the political arena, totally corrupted by corrupt media and finances...

and while I may respect the CP`s attempts through the unions? I question this as valid strategy!
Who more than thew elites of the elit unions are promoting industrial capitalists megaprojects...this clearly is not the way.....

we must be delving into building alternative Green economics and the elimination of the finance capitalist class...

The Greens of course long ago compromised themselves out of the picture!
Where o where will the movement come from...hopefully the CP may offer some new visions! 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:
... and while I may respect the CP`s attempts through the unions? I question this as valid strategy!

Who more than thew elites of the elit unions are promoting industrial capitalists megaprojects...this clearly is not the way.....

we must be delving into building alternative Green economics and the elimination of the finance capitalist class...

You mentioned it yourself in terms of the Greens compromising themselves. But I understand the CP approach; they remain loyal to the central importance, in their view, of the working class, and however compromised, bought off, pork-chop-ified the wc leadership is, they won't give up on them.

swallow swallow's picture

The CP has something to offer, but a left green party? They ain't it. People would laugh if they attempted that approach, it just isn't them. Actually exisitng communism has been pretty non-green historically, almost as devoted to production as capitalism. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

If you read JB Foster's innumerable works over the last number of years, then you would be aware that concepts like a metabolic relationship between human beings and their environment is imbedded in the earliest, and latest, of the original Marxist conceptions (of Marx) and that, therefore, environmentalism goes with socialism like salt and pepper go together. Furthermore, despite the cruelties of Stalinism, some of the most important founding environmentalists of the 20th century were Soviet agronomists, academicians, etc., People like Vavilov and others. See "Late Soviet Ecology and the Planetary Crisis"

Foster notes:

Quote:
In the twenty-first century a recognition of the positive achievements of Soviet ecology is obviously crucial if we are to create the Great Transition now called for by environmentalists worldwide.

Late Soviet ecology, moreover, left a legacy of economic planning (and, at the end, signs of an emergent ecological planning) that, for all of its weaknesses and false turns, represented in many ways a massive human achievement from which we need to learn today if we are to find a way to regulate the human metabolism with nature and to surmount the present global ecological crisis. It began a process of ecological transition that, if carried out fully, could have had immeasurable positive effects....

The answer to our present problems requires some sort of convergence with the notion of the planned regulation of the environment in accordance with human needs: the primary message of late Soviet ecology.

Maybe you should better familiarize yourself with the history of the global movement whose views you purport to represent.

Having said that, I don't see any evidence, other than growth among young people generally, of strong efforts to grow the CP among environmental activists.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Unite the left. Merge the CPC with the CPC-ML.

Unionist

ikosmos, on June 20, wrote:

Some follow-up notes:

1. Elizabeth Rowley is the new CP leader. She replaced the outgoing leader, Miguel Figueroa.

Some clarification please?

In the OP (March 6), you reported: "They recently elected a new leader, Liz Rowley, to replace the long-time leader Miguel Figueroa."

The CP website says she was elected at a meeting of the Central Committee on the Jan. 30-31 weekend.

Was that an interim appointment when Figueroa stepped down? Was there a fresh election at the convention? Were there any other candidates?

Just trying to determine why you're mentioning this again in June.

iyraste1313

The answer to our present problems requires some sort of convergence with the notion of the planned regulation of the environment in accordance with human needs: the primary message of late Soviet ecology.......

......The historical pattern of Soviet Communism surely has been increasing centralization and bureaucratization, concepts fundamentally at odds with ecology and human needs...

one of the intriguing concepts developing after the collapse of the Soviet system surely has been decentralization and autonomy, although I confess not having much awareness of how far it has developed.....

so this is another major hurdle for the CP to consider, if they ever are serious about ecology (something by the way that the Greens and their ilk and the environmental activists have rejected as priority focusing on purely technologic ones!).

But I do applaud at least their focus on economic and ecologic planning as opposed to market mechanisms, again something the Greens and environmentalists despite their rhetoric for system change do not seem to oppose!

So I would suggest at least the CP has a bit more going for them regarding the developing of a serious option....but the hurdles are there, and I maintain my belief that a new movement based on decentralization, autonomy populist democracy and planning is essential...

where it will spring from I do not yet know, in Canada, but definitely not from the elites of the industrial working class!

6079_Smith_W

montrealer58 wrote:

Unite the left. Merge the CPC with the CPC-ML.

Why not? I'm sure Enver Hoxha won't mind.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Unionist wrote:
Some clarification please?

In the OP (March 6), you reported: "They recently elected a new leader, Liz Rowley, to replace the long-time leader Miguel Figueroa."

The CP website says she was elected at a meeting of the Central Committee on the Jan. 30-31 weekend.

Was that an interim appointment when Figueroa stepped down? Was there a fresh election at the convention? Were there any other candidates?

Just trying to determine why you're mentioning this again in June.

Good question. Like Yogi, the CP is not your average political bear.

The Convention elected a new CC so Liz Rowley had to get elected like the rest of the Candidates. Not that she wouldn't but the CC is viewed as the decision-making body between conventions and not "the leader". However, I think Canadian electoral/political law requires a direct election of a leader of a political party. So they go through the motions [I did not check this!] but have their own idea of leadership that does not correspond to the [bourgeois] notion of single leadership. If the CP ever again elects members to public office they will have a much easier time [than the current parties in Parliament, etc.] of boxing the ears of MPs who decide they're going to determine policy. I think you know that much of regular politics is a game which covers up the fact that conventions and other exercise of the membership [of political parties] are effectively window dressing for uncontrolled, personally ambitious, elected officials.

There is at least one  example in Canadian CP history in which a leader was NOT elected to the CC so that they became "guests" at their own convention. Very annoying if you're trying to get on the speaker's list. lol.

supplement: the lack of control by the membership of the policy of political leaders, together with the lack of immediate consequences for making unfulfilled promises to get elected makes our political system a somewhat fake democracy, IMHO. The right to recall, exercised effectively, would be a good start to improve such things.

 

Unionist

Thanks, ikosmos, I think I understood - with a new CC elected at convention, had she (hypothetically) not been re-named to the CC, she would have lost the leader's position. So she was named leader again, once the CC was elected.

The fact remains (I think) that she has been party leader since the end of January.

ETA: Someone should really suggest that they advise Elections Canada of the change.

 

Pages