NDP and the military III

221 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

NDPP wrote:

 The soldiers are not 'workers the same as me'. Nor are the police. Neither the bourgeois parliamentary politicians, coke, pepsi or canada dry.

Except that the soldiers are generally not blue chip shareholders in Pepsi, Coke or Raytheon. Most Canadians who I've known join the army do so because the country is typically on its ass economically and regular jobs just aren't available. Call outs for 100 hires down at the mill just aren't happenin' these days. That's a tough situation to be in when they have husbands and wives, families and food to put on the table, put clothes on their backs etc.

You can look down your nose at Canadians in the military, but I'd rather support them in solidarity because I know that revolutions of history generally haven't been successful without garnering some level of support from the middle class, the police, and military types etc. Without a few  of them looking the other way while the people took down the aristocracies in Russia and Cuba, it would have been a tougher slog for the forces of change.

genstrike

Fidel wrote:

genstrike wrote:

Would now be an opportune time to point out that the NDP stood up and voted for the latest NATO blitzkreig (Libya), and if I remember correctly, has pretty much dropped any opposition to NATO in their policies?

Can you point us to an official document that identifies the NDP's support for bombing Libya? If you can not, then all that's left is conjecture and heresay as per usual.

How about Hansard from March 21, 2011, showing that the resolution authorizing the use of the Canadian Forces in Libya passed unanimously - that is, with the support of the NDP?

Also, Hansard from June 14, 2011, reaffirming the motion from March 21, 2011, which passed with the full support of the NDP?

Fidel wrote:
And if you can not point us to anything that says the NDP supports NATO...

How about this:

Quote:
Firmly in control of the party, Layton was able to moderate, simplify and carefully package the NDP message. He simply ditched many controversial policies. During the 2004 election, he single-handedly dismissed the NDP's longstanding support for pulling Canada out of NATO. [3]

Quote:
[3] In fact, although party membership conventions had voted for withdrawal from NATO, the party leadership never campaigned or spoke against NATO, and in the 1990s supported NATO’s assault on Yugoslavia.

genstrike

Slumberjack wrote:

Work today mostly subscribes to the bourgeois model of success, so that instead of the working class representing a separate, antagonistic alter-identity from the bourgeoisie proper, it seems accurate to describe the position of worker as an entry level intern arrangement dedicated toward the promise of true bourgeois status, where such dreams are encouraged and cultivated, and where examples are continuously shown of people having reached the desirable level and beyond by applying themselves toward 'making it,' as illustrated. There is no such thing as a working class anymore, only the bourgeoisie, who ultimately desire to be something beyond even that, and in the North American context at least, a large queue of aspirants whose subjectivized thought and actions continue to dominate everything within our plain of existence.  This domination is facilitated through the occasional exercise a mutated political consciousness, such that it is, which cancels itself out of all effectiveness.  Class struggle, if the term isn't an outright anachronism, is a cadenced, unipolar movement toward the same end.

I really don't think this is accurate; after the big high-profile labour struggles we've seen in the past little while such as at Canada Post, the wildcat strike at Air Canada, and the opposition to Bill 115 in Ontario, I think you're way overstating your case when you say that "there is no such thing as a working class anymore"

Fidel

genstrike wrote:

Fidel wrote:

genstrike wrote:

Would now be an opportune time to point out that the NDP stood up and voted for the latest NATO blitzkreig (Libya), and if I remember correctly, has pretty much dropped any opposition to NATO in their policies?

Can you point us to an official document that identifies the NDP's support for bombing Libya? If you can not, then all that's left is conjecture and heresay as per usual.

How about Hansard from March 21, 2011, showing that the resolution authorizing the use of the Canadian Forces in Libya passed unanimously - that is, with the support of the NDP?

Paul Dewar wrote:

  Mr. Chair, I was with my colleague from the Bloc and others in the briefing this morning by officials. One of the concerns we had was that this would not be an open-ended exercise. We wanted to ensure that we have parliamentary oversight, that we have a debate and that we vote on a motion.

    Another concern is around ground troops. The member will know that one of the concerns we raised was about ensuring this would not be an opening for Canadian ground troops to be sent. We want to ensure that if there is any change in what we agreed to, it will come back to this place, to Parliament. Would he agree with that?

     I also would like to know his party's position on the ground troops and on the kind of oversight there should be in terms of the mission itself.

The NDP was always against sending ground troops for another prolonged military occupation in the style and manner of the previous Libranos government which signed a blank cheque for Uncle Sam in Afghanistan no questions asked and no information provided in return to the NDP.  Canada's Parliament was lied to on a constant basis in the decade of the 2000's. The NDP approving a no-fly zone over Libya was not close to the way in which Parliament and the Canadian people were lied to by the Chretien-Martin and now Harper regimes over everything from what the purpose of mission goal would be in Kandahar to the Harpers covering-up torture in Afghanistan. 

You'll notice that at the time UN reports stated that the Gadaffi government was bombing their own citizens. Whether or not that was true, governments around the world are always obligated to speak out against the possibility of genocide and act accordingly. A no-fly zone means no-flying - no where does what the NDP agreed to state that the no-fly should be interpreted to mean aerial bombing of civilian targets by the NATO luftwaffe.

The NDP voted for a no-fly zone as a precaution. That was a reasonable response to a possible genocide underway. In the world of international politics there is no such thing as babbler's 20-20 hindsight.  

And the NDP did eventually oppose the aerial bombing of the former Yugoslavia once it became apparent that the U.S.-led bombing campaigns were resulting in massive loss of life and destruction while reports of genocide were not-so apparent to the world.

Yugoslavia was a massive disinformation campaign by the west at a time when reports of genocide by all of the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians involved etc in the conflict were rampant. Accusations of genocide are serious business since WW II, and a significant reason for formation of the U.N. which the NDP still supports and continues to support democratization of the UN and its security council sub-group of nations controlled by a handful few countries. 

Nice try, but the NDP never rubberstamped anything in writing to the effect of an order for blitzkrieg over Libya. At no time did the no-fly agreement mean NATO fliers were given a legal green light to bomb Libya - the fascists chose to do that all on their own in meetings behind closed doors away from democratically elected parliaments including Canada's largest opposition party ever elected to oppose a phony majority government in Ottawa. You assumed we would connect your dots for you, but you had none to begin with.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel wrote:

With the NDP there in Ottawa, the Harpers continue walking on eggshells and governing as if they still have a minority.

 

Fidel

Let's see them do a Mulroney of things. lol!

They still haven't recovered from the Mulroney fiasco all these years later. Not when 76% of voting age Canadians didn't vote for the most well-funded party in the last election. Harper is there merely because the Libranos were terrible crooks and liars over several terms in phony majority power themselves.

The Laurentian consensus still the way in Canada. The Alberta consensus is a myth. 

Say g'bye to the Harpers in 2015.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Anyone who thinks  "With the NDP there in Ottawa, the Harpers continue walking on eggshells and governing as if they still have a minority" is delusional. Harper is governing as if he were a dictator. Jesus, I've seen weird shit on babble, but the suggestion that Harper is walking on eggshells because of the NDP - that is just so fucking ridiculous that words fail me. 

 

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:

Anyone who thinks  "With the NDP there in Ottawa, the Harpers continue walking on eggshells and governing as if they still have a minority" is delusional. Harper is governing as if he were a dictator. Jesus, I've seen weird shit on babble, but the suggestion that Harper is walking on eggshells because of the NDP - that is just so fucking ridiculous that words fail me. 

 

Oh Christ, name one Mulroney style fuckup, just one!

They would certainly love to sell more of Canada for cash under the table without the NDP breathing down their necks.

But there are no airbus scandals, and Harper backed off any and all proposals for big bank mergers and backed away from introducing competition in the way of U.S.-style home mortgages several years ago. Compare that to Mulroney ramming bills through parliament  privatizing what was left of the money supply in Canada. 

Proposing to carry through on the previous Liberal government's agenda to buy the F-35 lemons and tainted beef scandals - those are normal for both the old line parties. Screwups in everyday colonial administrativeship tasks are the way they roll when not crooking and thieving and generally being embroiled in scandals and influence peddling when the effective opposition was actually the fourth party in Ottawa.

If this were the Liberals in opposition, the Tories would be walking all over Canadians right now with backing from Liberals about 98% of the time.

Michael Ignatieff is not there in Ottawa because he was Stephen Harper's "best friend", remember?

Harper has no more bff in Ottawa. Those days are over. The official opposition party no longer votes with the government 75-85% of the time as was the case with Liberal, Tory, same old story in government and "official opposition" roles. That, Boom Boom, was the biggest laugh and terrible irony for decades on end. They were basically two wings of the same big business party propping-up the other in Ottawa for 140 years in a row non-stop without a break for democracy. Liberal-Tory same old story federal governments were considered autocratic in the 1920's or so. 

Fidel

genstrike wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Work today mostly subscribes to the bourgeois model of success, so that instead of the working class representing a separate, antagonistic alter-identity from the bourgeoisie proper, it seems accurate to describe the position of worker as an entry level intern arrangement dedicated toward the promise of true bourgeois status, where such dreams are encouraged and cultivated, and where examples are continuously shown of people having reached the desirable level and beyond by applying themselves toward 'making it,' as illustrated. There is no such thing as a working class anymore, only the bourgeoisie, who ultimately desire to be something beyond even that, and in the North American context at least, a large queue of aspirants whose subjectivized thought and actions continue to dominate everything within our plain of existence.  This domination is facilitated through the occasional exercise a mutated political consciousness, such that it is, which cancels itself out of all effectiveness.  Class struggle, if the term isn't an outright anachronism, is a cadenced, unipolar movement toward the same end.

I really don't think this is accurate; after the big high-profile labour struggles we've seen in the past little while such as at Canada Post, the wildcat strike at Air Canada, and the opposition to Bill 115 in Ontario, I think you're way overstating your case when you say that "there is no such thing as a working class anymore"

As laissez-faire capitalism fails as it has always done in various experiments since 14th century Italy, people simply look for other ways of earning a living. And since the post-war era, the public sector has always been there to prop-up the real economy when the private sector falls on its ass on time every time in clockwork fashion.

Capitalists in America are inadvertently working very hard to create a situation that existed in France for a long time. University graduates in America are aspiring to public service and careers with the government as the so-called lucrative private sector reels from unprecedented corruption and general failure of ideology undermining the real economy. Young people will always covet good jobs associated with decent pay and benefits in government at all levels, the military and so on. Socialism works, and America has been rescued from total chaos before by government spending and hiring. Proof abounds that socialism works. We just need more public spending and less corporate welfare state is all. Conservative nanny states always fail in the end and require propping-up with socialism.

More College Graduates Take Public Service Jobs

Aristotleded24

Fidel wrote:
NDPP wrote:

 The soldiers are not 'workers the same as me'. Nor are the police. Neither the bourgeois parliamentary politicians, coke, pepsi or canada dry.

Except that the soldiers are generally not blue chip shareholders in Pepsi, Coke or Raytheon. Most Canadians who I've known join the army do so because the country is typically on its ass economically and regular jobs just aren't available. Call outs for 100 hires down at the mill just aren't happenin' these days. That's a tough situation to be in when they have husbands and wives, families and food to put on the table, put clothes on their backs etc.

You can look down your nose at Canadians in the military, but I'd rather support them in solidarity because I know that revolutions of history generally haven't been successful without garnering some level of support from the middle class, the police, and military types etc. Without a few  of them looking the other way while the people took down the aristocracies in Russia and Cuba, it would have been a tougher slog for the forces of change.

Additionally, remember that after the soldiers come home they suffer from terrible physical and mental health issues, and the help they need isn't always there. And soldiers also have families, and the family members are also severly impacted, even though the family members have nothing to do with what the soldiers were doing in the first place.

Slumberjack

genstrike wrote:
I really don't think this is accurate...

The ten dollar per hour worker as a political force doesn't exist as far as I'm aware of.  Mostly they can't afford airline travel or the new cars that roll off assembly lines, or to meaningfully participate in political life because bare life is their preoccupation.  When people refer to a working class nowadays they can only mean that bulk of well-fed consumers, who at bottom are nothing more than subjects and defenders of the existing power relationship between the possessors and the dispossessed, and who's gated communities are constantly watched over by the police while they sleep.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

genstrike wrote:
I really don't think this is accurate...

The ten dollar per hour worker as a political force doesn't exist as far as I'm aware of.  Mostly they can't afford airline travel or the new cars that roll off assembly lines, or to meaningfully participate in political life because bare life is their preoccupation.  When people refer to a working class nowadays they can only mean that bulk of well-fed consumers, who at bottom are nothing more than subjects and defenders of the existing power relationship between the possessors and the dispossessed, and who's gated communities are constantly watched over by the police while they sleep.

I am not sure about that. I think economist Dean Baker  describes the establishment's bourgeois political support base and how it operates in his country fairly well. The same is true in Canada with doctors and dentists, TV personalities and weather announcers versus the burgeoning low wage work force here in Canada. The US and Canada are now home to the largest low wage workforces among richest western countries while the middle class and their incomes and job security are attacked constantly by the "job-creating" financial capitalists who are actually the main cuprits in destroying jobs and offshoring jobs and de-industrializing North America over the last 30-35 years.

This is not exactly the same top-down class war being waged today as it was 100 years ago. This is not the same clas war limited in vertical orientation. Today it is a parasitic financial capitalist elite who are really kicking hell out of democratically elected governments in addition to extracting even more of workers' life blood today by comparison. Marx and Lenin never dreamed that financial capitalists would be allowed to overthrow industrial capitalism. They have, and the results are that the foundations of capitalism are far weaker today than even Marx predicted. 

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
 This is not exactly the same top-down class war being waged today as it was 100 years ago. This is not the same clas war limited in vertical orientation. Today it is a parasitic financial capitalist elite who are really kicking hell out of democratically elected governments in addition to extracting even more of workers' life blood today by comparison. Marx and Lenin never dreamed that financial capitalists would be allowed to overthrow industrial capitalism. They have, and the results are that the foundations of capitalism are far weaker today than even Marx predicted. 

I don't know what you're basing this assessment of capitalism's foundations on.  You probably haven't noticed that the only self described social democratic party in the country has been swallowed whole.  And for more bad news, this is why you're most likely trying to figure out just what the hell happened, from somewhere in its lower intestine.  No, it's not exactly the same war.  The middle class owns portions of the means of production via their investment brokers and pension funds.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
I don't know what you're basing this assessment of capitalism's foundations on.

Basing it on the de-industrialization of the western world over the last 30 years. What is happening today is not global expansion of industrial capitalism as Marx predicted and suggested that workers embrace in order that we democratize and own it in the future. What is happening today and esp. since the end of the cold war is proliferation of finance capitalism and the addition of unearned incomes and "free lunch" capitalism. Classical economics of the last 300 years sought to purge economies of extractive rentierism and the free lunch.

IOW's the ideal capitalism that was sold to the world for the last 300 years and esp. during the cold war era is being rolled back by financier oligarchies, Wall Street(controlling Fed Reserve) and EU-ECB banks while our own central bankers in Canada continue sitting on their hands. What we are witnessing today is the development of neo-feudalism. This is privilege and power not what we workers in the west were told would be the way if we rejected socialism. 

Slumberjack wrote:
The middle class owns portions of the means of production via their investment brokers and pension funds.

We are witnessing centrally-planned destruction of the middle class in North America and Europe. The superrich loathe the middle class and all of the socialist programs created since the post-war era began and that benefit mainly the poor and middle classes. 

The cold war era promise for a large and prosperous middle class based on consumerism was and is now proven to be a terrible lie. The middle class in Canada is under attack, too. Their pension funds are invested in other countries while absentee corporate landlords scoop-up whole sectors of Canadian economy by majority share ownership and control.

And funding of basic R&D in Canada is far below that of actual capitalist countries. Canada was taken over by marauding international capital decades ago. Canada is neither socialist nor capitalist nor driven by any recognizable form of economy other than the colonial-extractive kind. Canada is little more than "America's gas tank" and "corrupt petro state" as Monbiot describes the place. Our corrupt stoogeacracies are pushed into power to make democratically elected governments look bad in the eyes of voters in order that we become jaded with thoughts of democracy - and it is working like charm. That is the Harpers' true purpose as colonial administrators and nothing more.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Basing it on the de-industrialization of the western world over the last 30 years. What is happening today is not global expansion of industrial capitalism as Marx predicted and suggested that workers embrace in order that we democratize and own it in the future. What is happening today and esp. since the end of the cold war is proliferation of finance capitalism and the addition of unearned incomes and "free lunch" capitalism. Classical economics of the last 300 years sought to purge economies of extractive rentierism and the free lunch.

This just means they've industrialized elsewhere.  Finance capitalism, which does its best work in the absence of democratic institutions, still has to base itself on perpetual growth and profit extraction realized from maximizing industrial output at the expense of production costs, into which resource extraction and consumer demand continues to figure prominently.  For the present, the de-industrialized regions will simply have to contend with the simultaneous bottoming out of wages and household debt leveraging, while the flow of what remains of the economy is maintained for as long as possible with the assistance of the police, after which the burgeoning demands of a globalized consumer class will be positioned well enough to out-consume everything that had gone before it.

Quote:
What we are witnessing today is the development of neo-feudalism...We are witnessing centrally-planned destruction of the middle class in North America and Europe. The superrich loathe the middle class and all of the socialist programs created since the post-war era began and that benefit mainly the poor and middle classes.

Of course they loathe an expensive middle class, even though they counted on its support for many generations.  It seems that the North American and European middle class will only recognize that they've been totally done in when all of the promises they've collaborated toward are shovelled into servicing Capitalism's debts, and even then there's no guarantee that their thirst for revenge against what they're incapable of defining wouldn't be conveniently identified as usual in the form of scapegoat communities.  By that time even the relatively well paid security services will have been replaced by low paid mercenaries with work visas.  There's no need to mollify domestic middle class labour anymore for those sectors that can produce anywhere, and increasingly, both private and public labour alike are always one legislation away from being ordered back to work, for the good of the public no less.  And Marx was fairly tight lipped when it came to observing that it ultimately makes little difference who owns the means of control, which is what production processes have always been.  In the North American and European contexts, the state, which is nothing more than a globalized economy run by an oligarchy without borders, is in the advanced stages of reverting back to its absolutist origins, which comes as no surprise for those who who are already well accustomed to its effects, after having ridden it's liberal and welfare state contraptions into the ground.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
This just means they've industrialized elsewhere.  Finance capitalism, which does its best work in the absence of democratic institutions, still has to base itself on perpetual growth and profit extraction realized from maximizing industrial output at the expense of production costs, into which resource extraction and consumer demand continues to figure prominently.

lol! I suppose this was true up to about 1950 or so. Since then the western world has been de-industrializing. Labour's purpose eventually evolved to provide pension fund savings to drive stock market gains for managers who have been financializing industrial companies, and in the process, de-industrializing them. General Motors started its pension fund around the 1950's. Pension funds later became the single largest purchasers of corporate shares and pushing up stocks.. The most significant sellers of stock shares have been management insiders and those selling stock options. Who have they been selling them to?  They've sold the bulk of them to the pension funds. 

Classical economics since Marx, Mill and Ricardo sought to rid economies of unearned, free lunch incomes. Neoliberalism is about de-industrializing economies and forcing them into debt. Along with de-industrialization are born signficantly large infrastructure deficits in our western countries. That means a lot of steel is neither made nor being imported from anywhere else in the world. Canada is still owns a $100B dollar infrastructure deficit, and the USA now resembles the former USSR with its dilapidated and aging infrastructure and increasingly impoverished work force.

The few countries experiencing significant economic growth today are BRIC countries where central planning is still in the hands of governments. Those countries, and especially China and India, are actually following Keynesian(Marxian to some degree) monetary policies for highly controlled and regulated capital flows. China's nationalized banks are financing industrial expansion and Chinese investments around the world. As a result the Washington consensus has come competition from Beijing for investing in developing countries to develop natural resource wealth. Meanwhile the U.S. is on an unsustainable military spending adventure that resembles a Seinfeld episode where Cosmo Kramer attempts to find out how far he can test drive a used car on an eighth of a tank of gas.

Slumberjack wrote:
For the present, the de-industrialized regions will simply have to contend with the simultaneous bottoming out of wages and household debt leveraging, while the flow of what remains of the economy is maintained for as long as possible with the assistance of the police, after which the burgeoning demands of a globalized consumer class will be positioned well enough to out-consume everything that had gone before it.

They can continue down this road until someone presents an alternative to neoliberalism/neofeudalism. I think they will lose at the polls eventually. There will be more social unrest here in the west if something doesn't give first. They've been living on foreign credit themselves to finance the closed economy(war capitalism) and draining vital resources from the real economy.

Quote:
 And Marx was fairly tight lipped when it came to observing that it ultimately makes little difference who owns the means of control, which is what production processes have always been.  In the North American and European contexts, the state, which is nothing more than a globalized economy run by an oligarchy without borders, is in the advanced stages of reverting back to its absolutist origins, which comes as no surprise for those who who are already well accustomed to its effects, after having ridden it's liberal and welfare state contraptions into the ground

Marx said that the formula for capitalism, at least in his day, was M-C-M. That is, money invested in labour to produce commodities equals money and profit. Since the 1970s and 80's, M-C-M has become just M-M. Labour and commodities are increasingly missing from the formula. They are not pouring concrete for foundations of new factories. We are not industrializing around the western world. The game is finance capitalism, and they are financing gambling. Gambling is the new capitalism, and it's all done with money and near money and fictitious capital.

The new capitalist business model is now debt equals wealth creation.  And if it sounds Orwellian, it's because it is. Marx never thought that they would be so dumb as to allow financial managers to takeover central planning and powers of resource allocation. In his view, financial capitalism is an appendage of industrial capitalism and neither productive nor necessary to the overall health of capitalism.  Capitalism is much weaker today than Marx predicted. Money does not create wealth - people do.

As a result I believe Marx would not observe in marvel at today's capitalism nearly as much. He would probably say that it's an abberation doomed to fail. Financial managers, in his view, should never be allowed to be central planners or "masters of the universe." Marx predicted that this abberation of laissez-faire could only end in disaster without even stating it, and it's because he didn't consider financial managers and bankers to be very good at managing money let alone entire economies.

Slumberjack

Work today mostly subscribes to the bourgeois model of success, so that instead of the working class representing a separate, antagonistic alter-identity from the bourgeoisie proper, it seems accurate to describe the position of worker as an entry level intern arrangement dedicated toward the promise of true bourgeois status, where such dreams are encouraged and cultivated, and where examples are continuously shown of people having reached the desirable level and beyond by applying themselves toward 'making it,' as illustrated. There is no such thing as a working class anymore, only the bourgeoisie, who ultimately desire to be something beyond even that, and in the North American context at least, a large queue of aspirants whose subjectivized thought and actions continue to dominate everything within our plain of existence.  This domination is facilitated through the occasional exercise of a mutated political consciousness, such that it is, which cancels itself out of all effectiveness.  Class struggle, if the term isn't an outright anachronism, is a cadenced, unipolar movement toward the same end.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
lol! I suppose this was true up to about 1950 or so. Since then the western world has been de-industrializing. Labour's purpose eventually evolved to provide pension fund savings to drive stock market gains for managers who have been financializing industrial companies, and in the process, de-industrializing them. General Motors started its pension fund around the 1950's. Pension funds later became the single largest purchasers of corporate shares and pushing up stocks.. The most significant sellers of stock shares have been management insiders and those selling stock options. Who have they been selling them to?  They've sold the bulk of them to the pension funds. 

From what portal of the universe then do the isles and isles of consumer goods come from, if it isn't from newly built offshore factories and sweatshops?  We do our shopping in warehouses these days in order to better display everything under one roof, and even then they clutter the isles with extra merchandise.  The part about pension funds is as I was saying, that today the average Western middle class worker is also part owner of the means of production both here and largely in other regions of the world through their investments.  A bit of a conflict of interest that wasn't available to the workers of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, one less distraction when came the time to disrupt the production processes.

Quote:
Canada is still owns a $100B dollar infrastructure deficit, and the USA now resembles the former USSR with its dilapidated and aging infrastructure and increasingly impoverished work force.

North America is fast becoming quite similar in many ways to the Capitalist 'shitholes' around the world that have long been lamented about here on the board by you and others...often not without controversy as you may recall.  Many regions in the USA, the coal manufacturing regions for example, have never ceased being shitholes in their own right.  The model deployed just about everywhere else, which consists of selective affluence co-existing alongside great impoverishment, presided over by the police on behalf of the affluent, is already here but is in the process of being more universally rolled out with the assistance of the stoogeocracy.

Quote:
The few countries experiencing significant economic growth today are BRIC countries where central planning is still in the hands of governments. Those countries, and especially China and India, are actually following Keynesian(Marxian to some degree) monetary policies for highly controlled and regulated capital flows.

In Russia they stage impromptu performances in mockery of the establishment.  In China the workers take over factories to demand better conditions.  In Brazil they shoot police by the hundreds on the streets of their capital city.  It seems as if people are fed up with both Brand 'A' vs. Brand 'B' political economies which result in the same thing, life centered around work and production.

Quote:
They can continue down this road until someone presents an alternative to neoliberalism/neofeudalism. I think they will lose at the polls eventually. There will be more social unrest here in the west if something doesn't give first. They've been living on foreign credit themselves to finance the closed economy(war capitalism) and draining vital resources from the real economy.

I think large scale social unrest is inevitable, here and elsewhere, when they reach the point where either profit driven de-industrialization or automated industrialization renders large swaths of the global workforce superfluous.  Instead of de-industrialization as you say, instead we should be thinking in terms of demobilization of the strictly non-essential elements of the workforce.  The formerly well paid, formerly industrialized western worker will be the last ones to hit the bricks in revolt you can be sure of that.  And then they'll come with their political party of choice offering to make everything better.  It'll likely be a repeat of the French Revolution, where the Bourgeoisie became the new ruling class.

Quote:
As a result I believe Marx would not observe in marvel at today's capitalism nearly as much. He would probably say that it's an abberation doomed to fail.

No doubt.  But he was light or completely absent as to the specifics of how the 'categorical imperative to overturn all the conditions in which man is a humiliated, enslaved, abandoned, and contemptible being' was to be accomplished, especially in light of the fact that the 'superperceptible yet perceptible thing,' which in his own time and ours is constituted in commodity and work relations that also serves as that 'universal category of total social being.'  With Marx the universal category of social being (work) is retained.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
From what portal of the universe then do the isles and isles of consumer goods come from, if it isn't from newly built offshore factories and sweatshops?

The goods are coming from light industry production zones in communist China, Malaysia, Brazil, India etc where central governments are controlling money creation, central banking, regulating capital flows and maintaining large percentage state-ownership in key industries considered vital to their economies. And the best part is that capitalists know they are working with the CPC in Beijing to undermine capitalist economies here in the west. It's a kind of reverse economic warfare Confucian style.

But that's half way around the world. I thought we were talking about neoliberalization and de-industrialization of the western world since the 1970s or so correct me if wrong ?

Slumberjack wrote:
The part about pension funds is as I was saying, that today the average Western middle class worker is also part owner of the means of production both here and largely in other regions of the world through their investments.  A bit of a conflict of interest that wasn't available to the workers of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, one less distraction when came the time to disrupt the production processes.

How large is this middle class youre talking about? From what I've read what's left of the middle class in Europe and America are indebted to the hilt and relying on more credit to get by. Personal savings rates in North America are nil next to non-existent for very many people and their families carrying debt ball and chains for everything from post-secondary education to mortgages and car loans.

Meanwhile in communist China personal savings rates have been averaging 40-50%. They are buying homes and cars with cash on the barrelhead. Now there is a middle class - they now have more middle class workers than America has total people.

Quote:
In Russia they stage impromptu performances in mockery of the establishment.  In China the workers take over factories to demand better conditions.  In Brazil they shoot police by the hundreds on the streets of their capital city.  It seems as if people are fed up with both Brand 'A' vs. Brand 'B' political economies which result in the same thing, life centered around work and production.

But at least the owners of the means are mostly Russian, Chinese and Brazilian nationals.

Here in Canada if newly unemployed Electromotive Diesel workers in London want to protest against the owners, they would have to get on a bus and drive down to the newly-created right to work state of Indiana. Our absentee corporate landlords are just that, mostly absent from the country entirely. 

Sure they protest in China. There are 60, 000 or so protests a year. And that's in a country where economic growth rates over the last 30 years have been double and triple and even quadruple the average of all capitalist countries combined where laissez-faire is the rule. In fact, laissez-faire capitalism only ever produced half those growth rates at the best of times and typically only when spending wildly on war capitalism.

Good comments.

Todrick of Chat...

Conservatives mismanaging Army, hurting Petawawa

http://www.ndp.ca/news/conservatives-mismanaging-army-hurting-petawawa

New Democrats slammed the Conservatives for mismanaging the Canadian Army
after reports of strained resources at the Canadian Forces base in Petawawa
were being made worse by unsupported expansion of the base.

"This is part of a larger problem with Army funding. The Army is told
to lay off 1,000 civilian staff while they are being given new responsibilities
across the country,” said NDP National Defence critic, Jack Harris. “The base
in Petawawa already suffered job losses last June and now the Conservatives are
asking them, once again, to do more with less. This is not going to work.”

The expansion project involves new infrastructure for the Helicopter fleet
Chinook, which will be established at the base. The base will also be
developing new facilities for the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. Faced
with huge cutbacks and a hiring freeze declared by the Conservatives, the army
is incapable of dealing with this expansion.

“The squadron and the regiment are not part of the army. But the
Conservatives are making the Canadian Forces pay for these facilities and
provide civilian staff at Petawawa,” said Harris. “The Conservative government
must provide them with more resources for these new facilities. It’s a matter
of common sense.”

 

Hmmm nice progressive stance for the NDP.

NDPP

NDP = No Difference Party. It's a matter of common sense...

Todrick of Chat...

http://www.ndp.ca/news/new-democrats-condemn-conservatives-move-to-cut-soldiers-danger-pay

New Democrat Defence critic Jack Harris today slammed Conservative plans to cut danger pay for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan and the Middle East. In the face of public outcry, the Prime Minister’s Office has now indicated that it’s reviewing the decision.

“Canadian soldiers are serving in a dangerous mission, regardless of what this Minister thinks,” said Harris. “We ask our soldiers to put their lives on the line to serve Canada in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. This is yet another example of the Conservatives’ failure to support our Canadian Forces members.”

http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-official-opposition-leader-tom-mulcair-96th-anniversary-battle-vimy-ridge

The Canadian soldiers’ tremendous bravery, sound strategic planning and powerful artillery support are widely credited with the success of this mission. It is a point of pride for all Canadians that our soldiers serving today are still recognised as embodying those fine qualities.

As we remember the sacrifices made by Canadian Armed Forces members currently striving to bring stability and peace to troubled regions, we also turn our thoughts to their families and loved ones whose unwavering support help them to do this honourable duty.

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/Montreal2013/Mtl2013_Resolutions_EN.pdf

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/Montreal2013/Mtl2013_PolicyBook_E.pdf

Must have been a busy week, deciding how to become the best pro-military party in Canada.

 

Todrick of Chat...

http://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-official-opposition-defence-critic-jack-harris-canadian-forces-day

Every year, on the first Sunday in June, we celebrate Canadian Forces Day to express our deep appreciation for the men and women who serve our country in times of war and peace.  We salute every man and woman who has served in Canada’s military and honour our fallen heroes.

 Thousands of Canadians leave their families, friends and loved ones every year and embark on missions around the world, to protect the defenceless and uphold human rights.  It is our duty to ensure that we serve those who return from battle, at times broken in mind and spirit, just as they served Canada.

 New Democrats are proud of our strong record of supporting soldiers who are currently serving and veterans. We encourage all Canadians to take a moment to show appreciation for the members of our military today.

Very impressive statement by the NDP. Mr Harper could not have said it better. Three major poltical parties, one team and one vision.

 

Slumberjack

I was at the circus.

Todrick of Chat...

 I am sure most the NDP members were at military functions this weekend. I hope you had a good time at the circus.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Military police investigated how CTV(Bob Fife) obtained Natynczyk information

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=939789&playlistId=1.1309808&binId=1.8...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know, I served 20 plus years in the Service. Not all of us are A*****s! I'm just saying.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quote:

embark on missions around the world, to protect the defenceless and uphold human rights.

Arthur you are an honourable person but frankly I will never believe that your role as a member of our military was to protect the defenceless and uphold human rights. That is just blatant imperialist propaganda.

Paladin1

Well Arthur if you were wondering why you didn't get a card from Kropotkin now you know :)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Oath either comment about the issues or don't comment at all. I find your comment a mealy mouthed insult.

Sean in Ottawa

I do think that many who serve in the armed forces do feel like Arthur and can relate to what the NDP statement said.

However, I also think that this feeling is not an accurate reflection of what the armed forces do.

I am not convinced that what Arthur is saying and what others are saying here is as much of a contradiction as it might appear.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do think that many who serve in the armed forces do feel like Arthur and can relate to what the NDP statement said.

Comox, a riding I know a lot about, has a military base and every election the NDP gets hammered by the military vote. The mail in forces ballot is especially devastating. Catherine Bell might still be in parliament if there was no base in that riding.  I suspect that across the country that military personnel vote substantially less for the NDP than for the Conservatives.  Arthur is more of an anomaly than a representative sample of the political opinions of our military personnel.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K about 15 - 20% of those in the Service vote NDP. However, aside from a few guys who were open about it like me (and I spent a lot of time explaining "I wasn't a Communist"), you wouldn't have known it. Even my wife never let on how she voted (a very radical Socialist like me) untill we had gone out for a while. You do run into them though. That's my exeprience.

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe more of a small minority than an anomaly.

But we need to admit what the Military is used for and that is a problem the NDP is backing away from.

Geoff

Canadian Forces Day?  Did they cancel Remembrance Day?  I'm all for recognizing the contributions of those who have served, but why the duplication? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I agree with Arthur's guess at the numbers of military voters the NDP attracts and I think he agreed that his open support of the NDP was an anomaly in the Forces.

The NDP's support for all NATO military aggressions and for crippling sanctions against sovereign nations is the real problem and one of the key reasons I no longer support them as I have in the past.  If they had some nuance it would not be so bad but in fact the statement above reeks of Ready Aye Ready.

6079_Smith_W

Geoff wrote:

Canadian Forces Day?  Did they cancel Remembrance Day?  I'm all for recognizing the contributions of those who have served, but why the duplication? 

I see the difference. The latter is in honour of people who signed up to fight for something, or were otherwise involved in war (merchant marine and civilians, for example).

This proposed new thing is in honour of the institution, and everything that goes along with it, like the government's foreign policy.

Not something I'd be willing to lay a wreath for. Near as I can see that institution was at least partly responsible for getting a lot of those people killed.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Oath either comment about the issues or don't comment at all. I find your comment a mealy mouthed insult.

 

That's okay I find your generalization of all serving soldiers, past and present, as imperialist bla bla bla etc.  to be embarassing and juvenile.

 

I thought the NDPs statement was well worded, respectful and grounded.

Paladin1

Geoff wrote:

Canadian Forces Day?  Did they cancel Remembrance Day?  I'm all for recognizing the contributions of those who have served, but why the duplication? 

 

Rememberence day is technically a day of remembrance for members of the armed forces who were killed during World War I.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

OathofStone wrote:

That's okay I find your generalization of all serving soldiers, past and present, as imperialist bla bla bla etc.  to be embarassing and juvenile.

Quote:

rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

There are lots of sites on the internet that support your viewpoint. But somehow you think that at one of the few places that is designed to be anti-imperialist you can insult people for being anti-imperialist.

6079_Smith_W

OathofStone wrote:

Rememberence day is technically a day of remembrance for members of the armed forces who were killed during World War I.

If you say so. You can go interrupt the ceremony this year and tell all the WWII, Korean, and more recent vets that they should find their own party.

 

Todrick of Chat...

Folks, lets stay focused. We should be talking about how the NDP supports the military and how they are another imperialist party in Canada.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess we don't need Remembrance Day anymore since none of the people who served in that war are still alive. The last Nov 11 celebration should have been in 2010.  Maybe we can start a campaign to get rid of that anachronistic celebration. 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

OathofStone wrote:

Rememberence day is technically a day of remembrance for members of the armed forces who were killed during World War I.

If you say so. You can go interrupt the ceremony this year and tell all the WWII, Korean, and more recent vets that they should find their own party.

 

Rememberence day specifically started in rememberence of the soldiers killed in WW1. It's grown over time to encompass not only soldiers killed in various wars and conflicts but civilian casualties as well. 

My comment is made in the context of the differences between rememberence day and Armed Forces Day/Canadian Forces day or whatever it's called.  I'm not saying encompassing all wounded and deceased on rememberence day is bad, just that the latter is in my opinion a different gesture.

Slumberjack

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:
So SJ, you support the army as long as it is your army? I also beleive the Red Army has raped its way across Germany in 44 and 45. Those also committed war crimes in Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s.

We had an earlier conversation, you might have been around, where it was established that the police were unionized workers who deserved solidarity by that account.  It was therefore put into effect that the word 'pig' was not to appear in thread titles, so as to not to display such an insult on the Rabble homepage.  The military are not unionized; however, the benefit rates and levels of subjectivity are comparable and aligned with their civilian public sector counterparts.  And so in taking things into consideration, for me it becomes a little bewildering to know what to support and what not to support.

I believe it was somewhere in 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer, where a brief desciption was provided of the widespread complaints of rape from the civilian population to military authorities, across the breadth of the American area of operations as it expanded.   Otherwise there's been very little said about it.  We're not in need of a history lesson to know what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan today.

Quote:
What did you do on your taxes?

I really wanted to shit on them.

Todrick of Chat...

SJ, I remember the police "pig" issue. I don't think I was a member on the forums at the time however I was reading the threads on the subject.

I like the idea of shitting on the taxes. 

6079_Smith_W

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Folks, lets stay focused. We should be talking about how the NDP supports the military and how they are another imperialist party in Canada.  

Technically it would be HOW that military is used that would make it imperialist or not. I'm not opposed in principle to an armed forces.

And Oath:

Practically speaking, that's the point I was making too. Remembrance Day is in rememberance of the people. Armed Forces Day would be something else entirely. I should probably have put a smiley after my last comment, because it wasn't meant as a dig.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Remembrance Day is in rememberance of the people. Armed Forces Day would be something else entirely.

It's all pretty much rolled into one isn't it?  One's a celebration with troops and veterans in attendance, and the other a much more somber event, also featuring troops and veterans.

6079_Smith_W

An @ SJ

The other side of that is people who wind up joining the army because they get swindled into it, or see no other viable option. Or those who join with an honest desire to do something good (and there are some of those). There is a difference between the soldier and the army just as there is a difference between different kinds of armies and how they are used.

(edit)

SJ

I'm sure they want to sell it that way. But if they called it "Bomber Harris Day" I think some people might get the distinction.

Seriously though, that isn't true and never has been; there are plenty of veterans who are bitterly opposed to the arms race and militarism and understand the difference between the soldier and the military establishment.

 

 

Slumberjack

Most sensible people understand that.  You can't really blame the insensible on an individual rambiling about universal soldiers either, because of the gravity of what police and military institutions are implicated in.

Pages