Would you agree or disagree with the following statements:

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Would you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1)"The NDP needs to remain clearly to the left of the Liberal Party on all or at least most issues in order to have any reason to exist".

2)"The NDP needs to make a commitment NOW not to move to the right on ANY other issues, including foreign policy. Period.  Full stop".

3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".

Aristotleded24

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) Yes

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I definitely agree with #3.

As I am no longer a member, I can't make any demands on the NDP. But if #1 and #2 did happen, I might renew my membership. I will continue to financially support individual NDP candidates that I admire come election time.

(Actually, I might still be a member of the Manitoba NDP - I guess I'll find out soon enough with the upcoming provincial elections.)

al-Qa'bong

I'll agree if necessary, but not necessarily disagree.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

1. I wouldn't frame number one the way you've framed it, but yes.

2. I have no desire to move to the right.  But that doesn't mean policy shouldn't be renewed or revised - which is what statements like this often mean.

3. It's demagogic to refer to thoughtful critics from the left from the left as "communists."  Those critics deserve to be treated with respect.  Not all critics on the left of the party are thoughtful, but it is inaccurate to refer to them as "communists," and in those cases actually shows too much respect since it implies ideological coherence.

6079_Smith_W

1) and 2) If the party is connected to its principles rather than political machinations it doesn't need to put up firewalls like that. If it doesn't have a moral centre then all the committments and barriers won't hold it back from going down a wrong path. 

So while I agree with the sentiment, I don't see the question or the solution in the sense of making a committment to not go in a certain direction or to define one's self as being "not like" another party. If political direction is not positive or self-directed then it is lost.

(edit) 

Small example - look at the firearms debate last fall and ask if the NDP were to the right or the left of the LIberals, and you will see it is not always something that is easy to determine.

3) More importantly, it is inaccurate, as I am sure any anarchist (among others) would point out.

dacckon dacckon's picture

1. lol, how many ndp threads need to be created in order to complain about the ndp. Its obvious that they are a centre-left party and will try to remain as such.

 

2. Foreign affairs is not left vs right, its pacifism vs interventionism.

 

3. Barry was part of the red circle. He is still waffling in the party.

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
As I am no longer a member, I can't make any demands on the NDP. But if #1 and #2 did happen, I might renew my membership. I will continue to financially support individual NDP candidates that I admire come election time.

This is a huge advantage of revoking the per-vote subsidy, now that the NDP has said it will ask its supporters to shoulder more of the financial costs. People should certainly use the upcoming fundraising pitches to voice their opinions about party policy.

laine lowe wrote:
Actually, I might still be a member of the Manitoba NDP - I guess I'll find out soon enough with the upcoming provincial elections.

Then you're still a member, as the federal party's membership is derived from the provincial.

Doug

Ken Burch wrote:

1)"The NDP needs to remain clearly to the left of the Liberal Party on all or at least most issues in order to have any reason to exist".

Yes, but fortunately, that's a very big space. It also doesn't pay to be too far left of the Liberals.

 

Quote:
2)"The NDP needs to make a commitment NOW not to move to the right on ANY other issues, including foreign policy. Period.  Full stop".

I generally agree with that but I think it would get much more difficult talking about specifics. There's a variety of ways of being left some of which (say left-libertarian approaches) might be seen as more right-wing from some perspectives even if they're coming out of solidly progressive principles.

Quote:

3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".

I suppose there are people that could rightfully apply to but it's usually wrong and not useful.

 

Fidel

Ken Burch wrote:

1)"The NDP needs to remain clearly to the left of the Liberal Party on all or at least most issues in order to have any reason to exist".

The NDP has always been clearly to the left of the right wing Liberal Party. 

If the NDP were to support HALF of the right wing maneuvering our stooges in federal government have supported over the last 50 years, the NDP would STILL be to the NET LEFT of the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party is a redundant conservative party and why they are now relegated to third party status where they belong. 

Ken Burch wrote:
2)"The NDP needs to make a commitment NOW not to move to the right on ANY other issues, including foreign policy. Period.  Full stop".

That's exactly what the right is hoping the NDP will do. The right and their establishment media are shitting bricks right now because they thought this thing with Libya would surely bounce the NDP down in the polls after they made political hay with it in the establishment newz media.

Well that's just too bad. Because NOW all that vicious toadying by the ReformaHarpers was for nothing. They WON'T be able to propagandize hell out of it for political gain and strengthening their 24% stoogeaucracy toward anything resembling real legtimacy. The NDP will try very hard not to allow the right and their newz media jackals to dictate the political agenda. 

Yes it's just too god damned bad for the poor reformatories. Because now they will have to try and look good on economic, environmental and social issues - their REAL strengths as we all know!! 

 

Ken Burch wrote:
3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".
 

Some of us are assuming no such thing. And the NDP does support ALL democratic voices being heard from and expressed in the halls of power by virtue of the NDP's support for electoral reform away from this electoral fraud machine we have now. And true Marxists usually attack the right at every turn not the NDP.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".

 

Huh. You seem to be asking for a little respect here, for yourself perhaps, and for those currently to the left of the NDP.

 

Would you be willing to extend the same respect to those just a bit to the right of you? Because I see terms like "mushy middle" or "Blairist" or other derisive terms tossed around without this same kind of concern for accuracy.

 

It reminds me of how "diversity of tactics" REALLY means "don't criticize me for smashing a window, but I'll still laugh at you marching impotently around in circles". Are you prepared to give the same respect you're asking for?

absentia

Quote:
1)"The NDP needs to remain clearly to the left of the Liberal Party on all or at least most issues in order to have any reason to exist".

Yes, completely agree. Moving leftward is acceptable.

 

Quote:
2)"The NDP needs to make a commitment NOW not to move to the right on ANY other issues, including foreign policy. Period.  Full stop".

 

Agree on rightward movement. Not sure what the 'correct' progressive stand is on every foreign relationship, situation and issue.  Not sure what foreign policies - there must surely be more than one! - the NDP currently holds, or what latent attitudes exist inside the party that might, from time to time, influence policy and how those elements will react to changes in the world's power structure.

 

Quote:
3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".

 

Don't know what this means, exactly. What's wrong with communists and why should they not criticize? I would prefer not to refer to anyone by a label they themselves have not chosen, but sometimes their speech behaviour forces me to identify people with an ideology they outwardly reject. Of course, not everyone left of the present NDP front-line is a communist, and some might resent the term.

 

Sven Sven's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

3)"It's demagogic and unjust to use the word "communist" to refer to people who critique the NDP leadership from the left".

Yes.

But, that's about as likely to happen as many on the Left refraining from calling anyone to the right of Obama (and perhaps even to Obama himself) as being "Nazis".