The Left is Left Behind

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Philo8

Fidel wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:
I dont buy that. Canadians would not vote for socialist economic policies today in any greater numbers than they did in the 84, 88, and 93 elections.

How can there be socialist policies without a socialist government? Are people voting against socialist politics or  a weak capitalist party?

I think that of the Canadians who do vote, they vote for their interests. According to the last federal election, 22% of registered voters believed that Tories represent their interests. Somewhere less than that are Liberal Party supporters. Support for the old line parties combined is a couple of centimetres deep but a kilometre wide. It used to be a mile wide during the prosperous cold war era when no end could be seen for capitalist economic expansion.

And then there is the NDP with our 2.54 cm wide but kilometre deep support. We would need to spend as much money propagandizing the public as what those other two big money parties spend. We'd need a war chest of comparable amount in order to compete with the autocratic parties. Rules for sports say teams can't pay off the refs, so why should money be allowed in politics? Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always will be.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} h2 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.submitted {mso-style-name:submitted;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

When people realize that the freedom and democracy they believe in is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the US, and Canada perhaps things will change. Meanwhile a slight majority still believe the hoax and continue to vote.

 

Philo8

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Ed Finn wrote:
 

Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.

Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.

I think Ed Finn is depressing. He can not know what a federal NDP government would achieve, because in the same vein that we've never had a Marxist-socialist government, we've never had federal NDP rule either. All these crankyTrotskyites waiting for that perfect revolution which will never happen might as well suggest there is no point in trying to unite workers around the world or even democratize our huge corner of it here in the second largest country in the world. I wish people like Finn would go do something else other than point out the left's weaknesses instead of doing what Marx said to do, which is to revive the spirit of revolutionary change. Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country. If Marxists want to eventually have a chance at being elected to Parliament and have voters voting with their hearts and minds instead of by fear, then vote NDP damnit. You get one day every four years (until recently anyway) to protest and have it count for something. Don't waste that opportunity.

Philo8

Philo8 wrote:

Fidel wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Ed Finn wrote:
 

Last month in this space, I chided the majority of Canadian voters for alternating their support between the right-wing Tories and Liberals, implying that the New Democratic Party would be a better choice. No doubt it would, but the improvement would probably be marginal. Given the NDP's current leaders and their timidly uninspiring centre-left policies, the transformation of Canada into a democratic socialist state would still be a dream.

Good ol' Ed Finn! I always liked his stuff.

I think Ed Finn is depressing. He can not know what a federal NDP government would achieve, because in the same vein that we've never had a Marxist-socialist government, we've never had federal NDP rule either. All these crankyTrotskyites waiting for that perfect revolution which will never happen might as well suggest there is no point in trying to unite workers around the world or even democratize our huge corner of it here in the second largest country in the world. I wish people like Finn would go do something else other than point out the left's weaknesses instead of doing what Marx said to do, which is to revive the spirit of revolutionary change. Gotta start somewhere, and the NDP would represent a breath of fresh air in the halls where real power resides in this country. If Marxists want to eventually have a chance at being elected to Parliament and have voters voting with their hearts and minds instead of by fear, then vote NDP damnit. You get one day every four years (until recently anyway) to protest and have it count for something. Don't waste that opportunity.

Philo8

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

Electing the federal NDP would be no more use than electing Rae in Ontario was. Corporations own and control this country and they would sabotage the country by moving jobs and their money offshore before giving up control. Bob Rae can tell you how that works.

What we need is to look at how we can obtain democracy and public control of the media. The new 21st century socialism appears to be the only hope for the future; perhaps we will have to wait until it sweeps all of South and Central America before the people wake up.

 

Philo8

 

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} h2 {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.submitted {mso-style-name:submitted;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

When people realize that the freedom and democracy they believe in is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the US, and Canada perhaps things will change. Meanwhile a slight majority still believe the hoax and continue to vote.

Electing the federal NDP would be no more use than electing Rae in Ontario was. Corporations own and control this country and they would sabotage the country by moving jobs and their money offshore before giving up control. Bob Rae can tell you how the blackmail works.

What we need is to look at how we can obtain democracy and public control of the media. The new 21st century socialism appears to be the only hope for the future; perhaps we will have to wait until it sweeps all of South and Central America before the people wake up.

The battle for a future with real democracy in the Americas is already underway in South America.

leftypopulist

Frustrated Mess wrote:

The Left, in Canadian history at least, has never sought power. In fact, the established left, trade unions, political parties, have most often sacrificed the radical elements for accomodation with those in power even when such accomodation meant not only sacrificing the radical left's leadership, but the workers and followers as well.

The Candian Left is quite content with the spoils from industrial consumer capitalism and has no real stomach for challenging it other than at the hard margins where the power elite are prepared to tolerate a little give and take for the sake of maintaining the democratic illusion of choice.

The reason why the NDP has never formed federal gov't, and why the same capitalistic earth-smashing dominance is an epidemic in the US as well, is precisely because too many buy into the hyper-cynical false alternative fallacy offered by the frustrated mess.

Which false alternative fallacy is being continually repeated ? The notion that there can only be either a radical systemic overhaul or ZERO change.

That's a blatant, elementary fallacy by FM. There are various *degrees* of change, not just radical systemic upheaval. The extent to which people agree with : "Either pursue my vague ideal of radical upheaval or pursue no change at all", is the extent to which the Canadian (and North American) left is depressed, weak, pessimistic, deflated and unmotivated. We can see that this is the reason there has not been and is no left or progressive force forming federal gov't in Canada or the US.

Even within the current economic system / monetary engine
a 10% income tax rate on the megarich is not the same as a 60% one (in Denmark) or a 90% one (present in the US after WW2).

The French (or Swedish) health care system is not the same as the US system.

The Finnish education system is not the same as the US education system.

The 3% child poverty rate in Denmark isn't the same as the 33% child poverty rate in Michigan.

The way Norway's oil industry is part nationalized, and people share in profits, isn't the same as the American oil industry.

The green technology advancements in Sweden and Germany are not the same as the Alberta or Texas scenarios.

The social safety net in the US is inferior to the Scandinavian social safety net for a reason. Absolutely ZERO leftist empowerment and a total hatred for the welfare state.

Change begets change, and sometimes small, moderate or gradual change *within the imperfect system* is better than no change at all. Why ? Because it significantly alleviates and reduces earth damage and suffering of the poor. The idea that we should not pursue ANY small to moderate to large changes within an imperfect system simply because it is not occuring within an imagined, ideal, radical systemic overhaul is simply *insane*, *wreckless* and *defeatist*.

Also, the whimsical notion that one could somehow be instantly catapulted into a radical change scenario from the political environment of a total Neoliberal/Neoconservative North American monopoly is silly. To expect to go from zero change to absolute, maximum change is extreme theoretical fantasy.

A smarter, more effective and scientific approach would be to empower as much change as is possible *currently*, in *reality*. This simply means a total political boycott of the 2 dinosaurs - the Liberals and Conservatives. An NDP gov't with a Green Party opposition would be a preferable scenario for *starting* to change the policies and negative effects of the Libs and Cons.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Well said leftypopulist. Chomsky is of the opinion that we should play it like a chess game - in small strategic moves: [URL=http://www.zcommunications.org/noam-chomsky-speaks-to-sasha-lilley-about... and the State[/URL]. That's my view as well. This is an old thread eh?

leftypopulist

I like the chess match analogy overall, but sometimes it should be treated (tactically) as checkers : "Hey, lets all boycott the Libs & Cons, and vote NDP & Green." Print T-Shirts, stickers and signs, use sigs & e-mails saying, "The Liberals & Conservatives Suck. Vote NDP".

We've seen the Libs & Cons use the checkers approach and coast to victory for decades. Sometimes a convoluted approach (and rhetoric) discourages the neutral/indecisive voters.

milo204

i agree i think canada needs a version of democracy now or something to that effect, because noone is gonna get involved in democracy in this climate.  education first, revolution second.

the social forums are going to help alot too....

MontyCantsin

the left may be right politically, but it will NEVER be popular...why?...people dont like to do what is right...it's really boring...look back on your life, and i think you will find that all the most interesting times were the result of you doing or being totally gloriously WRONG...psychotic fucktards have more fun, peoples...

trippie

I can tell you the problem of the left in Canada. The people and parties, like the NDP and Union leadership, are sell outs.

 

They precent nothing different. Everyt ime there is some kind of worker revolt, the leaders of the left in Canada, sell the revolt out, by trying to gain concessions from the bourgeoisie.

 

We just witnessed one of the biggest Capitalists convulsions of a life time and were was the NDP , Unions and other left winged organizations?

Were was the alternative to the bank bail outs?

 

Nope, they all just asked for more Government spending and tougher regulations, that was their answer.

 

There you go, that's the problem with the left right there. A bunch of people selling the same capitalist BS and people see it a mile away.

NDPP

I think there's much in what you say..

Philo8

With corporations controlling the government and the media all political parties are impotent to do anything for the people; that was demonstrated when Bob Rae was elected in Ontario years ago. The only real alternative is a new constitution by and for the people, and real democracy: direct democracy, not bogus representative corporate spin. We can learn something by looking at the rise of real democracy in South America.

cruisin_turtle

I don't know if my impression is wrong but at times it seemed to me that some of the poorest Canadians are some of the biggest believers in uncontrolled capitalism.  I've known people living in abject poverty staunchly defending capitalist ideas and they always vote conservative!  I don't get it, but from my experience it's the working and better educated who believe in social justice and caring about others.

remind remind's picture

If the left is left behind then the right is right behind us.....and the dominator trance will  be lifted.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Yes remind!

clandestiny

the lies are such a constant. And; who says it's a lie if vast majority believe it? The 'tea party' movement put up a billboard with 'national socialist, democratic socialist and marxist socialist' over pics of mr hitler, obama and john lennon....mr pig made them remove it (a piglet musta complained)! ..On AM640 Thurs morning,  Susan Cole sat by and heard someone whine that when Alex Baldwin got caught couple years ago telling off his kid in taped ph. call, the 'media' were very quick to forgive, in comparison to how they act regards Mel gibson, who's a reactionary rightwing catholic racist (re: apocalypto) etc, and Cole  didn't even try to counter the fiction that the ms media is liberal- she's with 'Now' magazine, which is supposedly leftwing! IOW, the entire media landscape is hard rightwing, reactionary and there's NOTHING anyone can do about it but try live w/out any news media...

Red Tory Tea Girl

B9sus4 wrote:

The people swim in an ocean of poisoned media. Their thinking is conditioned by it -- which of course is it's exact purpose. Our voices don't reach the masses. Simple. They have been conditioned not to listen to us. I've had this experience recently: rightist-brainwashed workers shrieking at me that I'm a "conspiracy theorist" etc. for telling them the simple truth. They have been conditioned to shun truth as dangerous to them. They submit themselves to the "news"papers and watch TV to get their sports scores and celebrity gossip and with it they imbibe vast quantities of rightwing gibberish coded into the flow of pseudo-information that occupies their minds. That's it's intent. And obviously it works. For example, I was saying to some fairly intelligent fellows that The Simpsons is nothing but rightwing propaganda designed to make them complacent about the class system and cynical about the possibility of change (besides being an obvious shill for GE, Westinghouse, and the other Big Nuke corporations). Well, ha ha, as you might expect, the old man was mocked again (tin foil hat guy) and the whole conversation turned into a retelling of all the fabulous funnies from Homer and the gang. What can we expect at this point? The information ocean is poisoned like our lakes and rivers: pumped full of filth and lies crafted by whores hired by billionaire fascists and banksters. Can we be surprised then that the people sneer at socialism? They do what they've been told to do.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as conventional thinking is reinforced by the media, we do have learned people in positions of power who have abdicated their responsibilities.

I still vividly remember Jack Layton being asked long after he'd become leader to define socialism. He mentioned no programme, no worker ownership, no ultimate public control over the means of production, but instead, he tried to sound like he was auditioning for an open hosting job on polkadot door. He talked about how some Canadians want to have a country that's more caring and sharing.

When we stop flattering ourselves with the idea that our taxes need cutting, or endorse politicians who are equally cowardly...

When we stop running in a feckless fashion to bash criminals, or other 'deviants', to write laws that are draconian just to appear like we're doing something about the issue...

When we adopt some goddess-damn intellectual consistency...

Then it gets a little more difficult for people who pay attention to politics for a living to ignore the ideas and not raise themselves up as well. The media is always a little bit more superficial than the people to whom it caters and the people on whom it reports.

We're the ones who follwed them down.

George Victor

George Victor wrote:

J.Chretien understood power.  At one  point he said (partly to defer responsibility in Liberal fashion) that the twenty somethiing in red suspenders on the floor of the exchange held more power than himself.  That proved to be accurate indeed, a decade and a half later.

But while he was saying that, Chretien had also empowered his erstwhiile minister of finance, and PM-to-be, to cut the $40 billion yearly deficit and head off the charge of Tar Patch-funded masses under the CRAP banner from the west. That was a powerful blow to social services everywhere, and empowered the Harrisites of Ontario to continue the work of downloading destruction from which the province is struggling to recover by retaining some smidgin of power to tax.  But even the masses who would benefit  from that effort in their old age, have joined the happy anti-tax chorus.

Now, where were we in those explanations about the "seat" of power and its underpinnings?  How about the "power of the purse" and the ignorance of the led? 

 

It's been nearly a year since that post, and still not one comment on the political-ECONOMY of the situation today.  That, it seems to me, why  the "left" is left behind.  The rest of the world could not give a fiddler's fart about what the "left" thinks if the "left" has no foggy idea about how the rest of the world is going to feed itself and retire (now) at 70.  Why should the rest of the world give a fiddler's fart about abstractions? 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The link I provided in the first post last August is now out of date. Here is a more recent link.

George Victor

From Ed Finn's The Left is Left Behind:

"Roosevelt in the 1930s, unlike Obama today, also fearlessly cut himself free of the capitalist ideology."

 

Yet we on the left back in the 70s always assumed that Roosefelt's intervention SAVED capitalism. And that is exactly why M'Lord Black said he wrote that (rather compelete) biography on Roosevelt. He would not have done it otherwise. No, Roosevelt only freed capitalism from the dogma of the 19th century and let Keynes in (John Kenneth Galbraith was hired to do that and was named "price control czar" just a couple of years before the U.S.entered the war).

But maybe I've missed Finn's take on the economic imperatives.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Finn deals with what a Marxist might call "false consciousness" and his piece is more about political leadership than political economy. Or were you critiquing the participants in this thread only, and not Finn himself?

George Victor

I've been through Finn's column, again, NB, and I do  see his concern for leadership...and that is the central concern hereaouts.

However, he makes no mention of the central fact of capitalism IN NORTH AMERICA today (and he separates us from South America, viva la revolucion) which is our total and increasing dependency on THE MARKET (may the South Americans never reach this state of dependency). THE WORKER  in North America knows the importance of the market and his corporation as a viable entity on that market.  So if der leader has something to say about that dependency - and one has to chuckle at Finn's "lecture" to workers about their tendency to vote for Libs and Cons and even those poor, out to lunch leaderless New Democrats - the antennae of the individual hoping to remain a part of the workforce and having a meaningful pension,  goes up!  And that's assuming they assiduously scan the news looking for signs of economic health and their bought and paid for newscasters tell it like it is.

What is there, in particular, that a political leader should tell them?   And just as importantly, how would they get the message if their own union is busy lauding the virtues of , say, Rafferty's take on their pension situation?

But, then, maybe I missed Finn's take on the role of unions in this political enterprise today.  With only a couple of exceptions, they've been less than revolutionary...of course, in keeping with their membership's concern for a roof over the head, a full belly, and a couple of weeks off with the family.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

George Victor wrote:
What is there, in particular, that a political leader should tell them?

Finn wrote:
It is because most voters still don't see socialism as a preferable alternative, either politically or economically. And that is a failing of the socialist parties and governments, not of socialism itself.

Perhaps Finn's conclusions don't suit you and that's why they're not so clear?

George Victor

The worker demands some mention of market competition, some sign that "the left" understands the economics on which their livelihood has come to depend. Finn's conclusions make no mention of this...far as I can make out.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Finn demands some mention of a human-centred economy, some sign that the political leaders that call themselves "socialists", of one sort or another, understand that market idolatry is leading humanity to death, mass extinction, and worse. Your remarks seem to continue this unquestioned market idolatry ... as far as I can make out. 

Have a nice day.

George Victor

Please, NB, I see the market as our doom. It demands limitless growth on a finite planet. But we do not fight that by ignoring its centrality. I can write letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail making fun of some middle class assumptions, and some of those letters are published. And my letters to the local press ALWAYS  ask how  we address concerns for social welfare by voting for lower taxes.

And may I say that I very much respect your position and the concern for humanity on which it is based.  If we can find some way to market it to the average masses, we might yet see a future for the grandkids. And that is my only concern at this moment. 

clandestiny

the problem is we always get mislaid by boss god (or whoever, runs this universe) and exert our energy defeating each other...instead, i think perhaps POSTERING is the answer. Putting up anti fascist/harper/foxnews/war/cbc/cia/kkk etc posters everywhere, anywhere, to get as many taxpayers to lift their noses up from down and look. It'z not as if mister pig has just found his formulae. Dickens wrote the 'tale of 2 cities' long ago and Charles is a working class hero today BUT! But Mr dickens: despite the infamy of the 'reign of terror' and nobility of mister pig, only 2500 people were actually killed in the French Revolution while the leftwing ran the show! Carlyle and the dood who wrote "scarlet pimpernel' and you kinda overlook the fact the Revolution was PROVOKED by sheer viciousness and greed on part of the haves, who told us to 'eat kake'. See tex murphy. And the same story pervades EVERY SINGLE facet of the pig's version of history, including the recent g20 bullcrap. No wonder ordinary joes believe 'greed is only good' (it's all they'rre ever told!) Here's some more grist for the mill: During the 'Paris Commune' in 1870, 250 persons were killed by the Commune...when the 'royalists' retook Paris, they murdered an estimated 40 thousand (i kid you not) including 10 year old schoolchildren lined up and shot ..the Commune inspired the Russian revolutionaries- which MIGHT EXPLAIN some of the utter ruthlessness shown by Gensec Stalin /Trotsky etc! Also, the 'iron curtain' dividing up germany/europe against Stalin's wishes and foisted upon humanity after ww2 was a child of the allied leadership (who actually were sympathetic to fascism, and have never admitted they enabled hitler, see 'prescott bush' and duke o windsor etc!) and the child support for the bastard 'cold war' that resulted was forcilbly paid by the USSR! The innocent USSR which wanted to share in Marshal Plan rebuilding of europe but instead were FORCED by nuke power west (see hiroshima, aug7th1945) to occupy east europe! Joe Stalin was a HERO! Yet his name is now synonomous with brutal dictatorship, and ignorant cruelty! Maybe too many charles dicken's type books got snake oiled and not enough books based upon truth!

Why is truth so hard to recognise?

 

RockyRacoon

Well the truth is we can only get to a socialist society thru violent revolution so that idea has been held up as repugnant but I have a feeling that things are going to turn around and that the people are going to start to get much more militant AFTER HARPER has his way with the country and people feel the full impact of his policies on the their lives and the country.  Revolutions just don't happen spontaneously, it takes years to educate people and it also has to have the right social conditions for it to occur.  A revolutionary situation comes up.  This can heppen in a time of prosperity when the government does something particularly abhorent or during times of diminishing returns like now.  My only problem with this is that once Harper completes his privitization program it is all so much harder to undo it.  We need to get the labour movement to start up the days of action once again and then in the end leave our misleaders in the dust and go for it.  We must end with cresendo in Ottawa and show them that the parliament belongs to the people.  We need a general strike and we need to transition into socialism, set up committees to keep the people eating during the strike and make sure it is protracted and makes gains.  Soon people will not have much to gain under the capitalist system as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top...I do have faith in Canadians and think they will go for it and do the right thing in the long run.  But we can't alienate the public in the meantime by trying to force the issue.  There are enough educated Marxists in this country to help us transition to socialism and consciousness can change the minute one gets a billy club over the head at a peaceful demonstration.  Those roots back to the CCF are deep in this country and so is trade union militancy.  Everyday brings us one day closer to the revolution folks...crisis is inevitable under capitalism and with it the opportunity for socialist "transformation" ya all know what I am talking about.

Cheers,

RR

RockyRacoon

Trotsky and Lenin were not at all like Stalin, those bourgeoisie   who wanted to further the aims of the revolution were allowed to those who did not were exilled and those who attempted a counter revolution were fought against and shot much like a civil war.  In fact teh October revolution ushered in the greatest democracy the world had ever seen.  Homosexualisty was legalized ( reversed by STalin) divorce wes free and easy, women got the vote and a host of other democratic reforms that we are still fighting for today.  Trying to bring an agrarian society through and industrial revolution and into socialism was a monumental task.  it would have worked without regenerating into Stalinism and socialism in one country if the social democrates in Germany didnt stick with their own bourgeoisie and vote to keep the war going.  IF one of those advanced capitalist countries would have shunned national chauvinistic tendencies and united with their comrades in Russia socialist progress would have taken  place on a whole different plane.  This is not to say socialized property forms didn't prove themselves to be superior to capitalist ones,  but socialism in one country ( an oxcymoron) capitalist encirclement deformed the workers state and gave rise to the need for a bureaucracy and that allowed a capitalist counter revolution to take p lace rather than full blown international socialism.  Trotsky gives the best explaination for this and people can only stay in a revolutionary mind frame for so long...Normalacy has to take the place of fatigue sooner or later or losses start to replace gains--and all the other capitlaist countries were against them actively encircled them and they still pulled it off and gave us an alternative for oh so many years and the working class in Canada always said we could go over to the soviets if you don';t give us this or that and we got it too.  The fall of the soviet union was a defeat for the worling class world wide and you all know how the capitalists have taken advantage of the situation and gone out and shot themselves in the foot once again...keep on pushing straight ahead!

RockyRacoon

Stalin's forces collectivization was a complete failure and totally undemocratic.  Stalin was certainly no hero of the revolution. 

RR

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stalin also helped cause the famines of the early 1930's by swapping a large portion of the Soviet wheat crop for weaponry from other countries.  If only he'd accepted the fact that full dinner plates provide far better national security than ANY number of tanks or guns.

Or if he'd even remembered the first line of the Internationale.

George Victor

I would hope that this thread does not degenerate to the level of supporting an assassin of so many good people. Just finished reading how Stalin murdered Trotsky and all of his children, one by one, wherever they were, at home or in a hospital bed.  What's to defend? Get a life, Rocky.

RockyRacoon

Socialized property that is what is left to protect and I never defended Stalin the gravedigger of revolutions if you actually read my post.

RockyRacoon

RockyRacoon wrote:

Stalin's forces collectivization was a complete failure and totally undemocratic.  Stalin was certainly no hero of the revolution. 

RR

 

Does this sound like a defence of Stalinism?  Starvation and famine are included under the rubric forced collectivization to which I could also add cannabilism Still Stalin crimes pale in comparison to those committed during the primative accumulation of capital and if you want to go into the inter imperialist and imperialist wars such as Korea Vietnam, Iraq Afghanistan and all the right wing dictatorships we have supported from the Phillipeans to Chili to Argentina Panama....noone says capitalism doesn;t work as a result of these crimes against humanity but those committed in the name of Marx get overplayed the world over by any idiot with a pencil electronic or otherwise.

RR

NDPP

While "the left is left behind"...

Siddiqui: Harper's Ottawa Becomes Republican La-La Land

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/845013--siddiqu...

"When you have finished laughing at Stockwell Day for building jails for criminals he cannot find - think of the failed American regime of crime and punishment.

To his estimated $9 Billion expenditure there, add the $1 Billion bill for security at the G20 summit and the $16 Billion purchase of F-35s in an untendered contract.

Stack such expenditures against Stephen Harper's commitment to halve the $54 Billion debt in five years, and wonder what he plans to slash and burn to get there...

We can see where the Prime Minister is going. How he's getting there we can see from his ideological, authoritarian, secretive, even demagogic methodology.."

 

RockyRacoon

Well how about privatized municipal water supplies for a start?  That is what he was doing in Europe last week.  Atomic Energy of Canada is going going almost gone like Canada Post along with it.  This idiot instead of locking up the safe to keep the crooks out is opening the vault and leaving the back door open.  This will be a fait accompli no matter who we put in next time around and don't forget about the sub prime crisis that he has gotten us into through the CMHC.  You can read about that here to.

RR

RockyRacoon

That fact that socialized production managed to accomplish what it did in spite of Stalin...that is what is so incredible and why we have to do it here.  All of the wealth that we have created is astronomical, Christ Oprah Whinfrey makes 279 million a year.  Our productive capacity is almost beyond human comprehension.  Scarcity is a myth-We just need to Turn things around things need to revolve. 

RR

RockyRacoon

Oh and the Paris Commune inspired Marx to look to the working class as the objective social force that could bring socialism into being just like capitalism brought the working class into being.  The Bolsheviks got it from him.

RR

KenS

N.Beltov wrote:

An interesting piece on the CCPA site by senior editor Ed Finn. In it, Finn address the following: If the left is right, politically, why isn't it more popular? A good catalyst for discussion, even if many NDPers will, no doubt, feel under attack.

But that's only fair. It's the NDP, as the largest organized force on the left,  that has been such an utter failure to address alternatives to neo-liberal orthodoxy and failed to abandon that repulsive prejudice and allergy to socialist ideas.

The link doesnt work.

And whats the link or ref for what Jacob just posted?

BTW: why would Dippers feel under attack? How do you feel attacked by someone going at you with a stick pin?

And why would it would be failure to "address" alternatives? The rest of the left has no responsibility- or just a pro forma formalistic acceptance of responsibility- for the failure of alternatives to have any traction?

Jacob Richter

I gave two links at the end, did I not?

KenS

They looked like refs at the bottom of text- ie, for looking further. And there are two links to two differenet authors, but what looks to be one block of text.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

George, don't tell other babblers to "get a life." Geez. Do I really need to remind you of that?

clandestiny

I think we betray our own when we allow the demonization of Stalin to go on ...you know/i know that our rightwing ruling class lies-indeed it's via lies that the rightwing 'privilege of the few' trumps leftwing 'needs of the many' over generations. And lying is easy. Lookat WW2. Does it make sense that USSR- knowing it was ultimate enemy not only of hitler but of churchill, eton, nicholson, george 6, dulles brothers, william bullitt, je hoover, the bush/walker families etc, and virtually entire news mass media of the day (see Spanish Civil War)- does it make sense that Stalin made a non aggression pact with hitler  in '39, who then betrayed him in 1941, nearly destroying USSR, does it make sense that Stalin had anything BUT the revolution and its success, in mind (referring, of course to the ally's Nazi sympathies-re duke/windsor)? By sheer might, the USSR saved itself (ok,  allies lendlease supplies helped) but  by time DDay in june'44 the Red Army already enroute to Atlantic ocean, already in Germany! The Soviets took Berlin in april 45, only 10 months AFTER D-Day, and by time allies met Red Army, Berlin was 300 miles inside East Germany. It defies sense that Stalin gave allies 2/3rds of Berlin and the richer 1/2 of Germany unless he hoped for a PROSPEROUS UNTITED GERMANY to pay the reparations he promised at Yalta. And remember, the BERLIN WALL only put up in 1961!  Sixteen years after the war. East/West Germany date from 1970 ; until then Germany was divied up into 'zones'

And the nuking of Japanese cities in Aug 45 only makes sense in terms of terrifying USSR into hard (see Paris Commune!) ruthless realpolitics postwar! MAYBE USSR hoped for share rebuilding of europe- the USA was so incredibly powerful, its industry vastly larger the Soviets Union- doesn't the so called 'cold war' and 'iron curtain' look kinda suspicious? Stalin had lost 20 million people (more people died in Leningrad seige then combines losses of US and Britain!)

Ithink we're being snookered on Joe Stalin....I think the tragedy is almost beyond belief, the terrible thing our rulers did to poor old Soviet Union. And clearly they never stop schemeing against us (see JFK, 911, October surprise, G20 meeting etc)!

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

I think we betray our own when we allow the demonization of Stalin to go on ...you know/i know that our rightwing ruling class lies-indeed it's via lies that the rightwing 'privilege of the few' trumps leftwing 'needs of the many' over generations. And lying is easy. Lookat WW2. Does it make sense that USSR- knowing it was ultimate enemy not only of hitler but of churchill, eton, nicholson, george 6, dulles brothers, william bullitt, je hoover, the bush/walker families etc, and virtually entire news mass media of the day (see Spanish Civil War)-

You can say this with a straight face?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Stalin did an enormous amount of harm to socialism: from the virtual coup in the late 1920's, the purges, show trials, decimation of the old Bolsheviks, disastrous collectivisation approaches, Russification of non-Russian speaking areas, wiping out the officer corps on the eve of WW2, cult of personality, terrible harm to the development of science in Russia, famine, etc., etc., etc..

21st century socialists should, of course, make use of past negative experience as much as positive experience. Maybe clandestiny check out some of the english language media from Russia, such as Russia Today, eg, for the differing views in that country about the legacy and meaning of the role of Stalin in Russian history. Other sources exist as well.

Read some of what, eg, Chavez in Venezuela writes about this subject. And maybe have a look over here ...

1. The Socialist Alternative - Real Human Development by Michael Lebowitz

and/or

2. JB Foster Forward to special issue on 21st cnetury socialism

 

That's how you overcome the terrible legacy of Stalin. By getting it right.

RockyRacoon

What the difference between telling someone to get a life or to fuck off ?  is there any?

RosaL

It strikes me that the refusal of certain "lefties" to allow any discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in predominantly muslim countries parallels the refusal of Stalin-era communists to allow any public discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in socialist countries. If you're going to defend the former, I don't see how you can criticize the latter.

RockyRacoon

You mean explain Stalinization, something like this? but socialism in one country ( an oxcymoron) capitalist encirclement deformed the workers state and gave rise to the need for a bureaucracy and that allowed a capitalist counter revolution to take p lace rather than full blown international socialism.  Trotsky gives the best explaination for this and people can only stay in a revolutionary mind frame for so long..

al-Qa'bong

RosaL wrote:

It strikes me that the refusal of certain "lefties" to allow any discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in predominantly muslim countries parallels the refusal of Stalin-era communists to allow any public discussion or criticism of human rights violations or atrocities in socialist countries. If you're going to defend the former, I don't see how you can criticize the latter.

Most of these Muslim countries are dictatorships as well, so I'm not sure if the impetus behind the oppression within them is because they're Muslim or that they're totalitarian.  My guess is the latter.

Pages

Topic locked