The Conservative Majority and the Left - A Few Notes to Begin the Discussion PDF Print E-mail
Written by SL   
Tuesday, 03 May 2011 14:00

1. Now that the Conservatives have won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, we will see just how right-wing they are. This is arguably the most right-wing party elected to federal office since the Tories under RB Bennett were in office (1930-1935), and the context of global slump makes it likely that they will pursue their agenda vigorously.They are fervently ideologically committed to expanding the profits and power of capital (in both its market and state forms) and gutting the public sector through cuts, privatization and the infusion of market forces into public services. They will continue to oppose any meaningful moves to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that drive climate change. They are committed to a racist immigration policy based on increasing the number of people admitted on temporary work visas and decreasing the number accepted as permanent residents, and an aggressive foreign policy for Canadian imperialism in alliance with the US. Their ranks include the most reactionary sexist and heterosexist elements in society, who will press for measures to their liking.

2. The Conservatives won a majority of seats not because they convinced a much larger number of people to support them, but because of how a small increase in support was translated through the peculiarities of the "first-past-the-post" version of capitalist democracy. The Tories won 37.7% of the popular vote in 2008 and 40% in 2011. There hasn't been a major swing to the right in the population, only in the way seats are distributed in the House of Commons.

3. The record-high 31% vote for the NDP (up from 17.5% in 2008) represents a major change in the voting choices among the very large numbers of people who support minor social reforms and defence of existing social programs within the framework of the neoliberal consensus that defines official politics (whose touchstone is "fiscal responsibility" and deficit elimination), above all in Quebec. It means something that so many people voted for the party seen as most on the left. But the NDP ran on its most moderate platform ever, with the goal of replacing the Liberals as the party perceived as the main and 100% respectable alternative to the Tories in administering Canadian capitalism -- not as a party that stands for a social democratic alternative to the business parties. So support for the NDP in 2011 means something different than support for the NDP did in, for example, the 1988 federal election (when the NDP won 20% of the vote, its previous high). Then, faced with pressure from people opposed to the Canada-US free trade deal to campaign only against the deal, NDP leader Ed Broadbent argued the Tories (pro-free trade) were the party of Wall Street and the Liberals (who at the time opposed the deal) were the party of Bay Street. Nothing like that was heard this time. Unfortunately, the NDP vote in 2011 doesn't represent a significant shift to the left in working people's views or any growth of radicalism in society.

4. Aggressive Tory moves to take advantage of their long-sought opportunity to implement their full agenda without restraint will likely meet with dismay and outrage. There may well be a deepening political polarization that creates opportunities to mobilize protest and resistance against Tory attacks. But the serious problems within the working-class movement will make it difficult to channel anger and dismay into militant resistance by the working class (unionized and non-unionized).

5. The NDP leadership is thoroughly imbued with parliamentary cretinism, to use an old socialist term, so we can expect to see NDP MPs criticize what the Conservatives are doing but not do anything to mobilize people in the streets or in their workplaces to try to stop Tory attacks. Major strikes against public sector cuts or large-scale protest will probably be treated by federal NDP leaders the same way their provincial counterparts treated the Days of Action in Ontario (1995-1999) and politicized public sector strikes and the handful of "Days of Defiance" in BC (2002-2005): behind-the-scenes opposition to them happening, with NDP loyalists at the top of the union officialdom engaging in outright sabotage.

6. For everyone who wholeheartedly opposes neoliberalism, the main challenge will be to reach out to people who are repulsed by what the Tories are doing and argue that action is needed now to try to block attacks. It will also be crucial to argue for no cuts (rather than smaller cuts) and against racist and anti-immigrant measures that will have some support among some people who oppose other Tory moves. Waiting til 2015 to vote the Tories out of office is a recipe for demoralization and defeat. We need to start mobilizing resolute opposition in the streets, in workplaces, on campuses -- not rely on the NDP in the House of Commons with their "leave it to us" stance.

7. To fight the Tories, we need a left that sees collective action in struggle as essential and doesn't reduce politics to elections. That left -- the radical left -- is currently at a historic low point in the Canadian state. If there is a new wave of protest, it may create new opportunities for the growth of the radical left (this isn't guaranteed, as the experience of anti-cuts protests in Ontario and BC show). To take advantage of such opportunities, radicals will need to find ways to overcome our fragmentation, marginalization and political divisions.

< Prev   Next >
 

Comments  

 
#18 SV 2011-05-09 14:23
Wow TG. I guess I struck a nerve. Apologies. Did not want to come across as sectarian, especially as I hold most, if not all, small political sects in disdain these days. Well next time I will try and advance the political debate in a more civil and learned way. I stand by my points but I regret triggering you. Cheers.
Quote
 
 
#17 stu 2011-05-09 09:46
I have been saying two things to alternative groups for the past 30 years: one, collaborate timing of same message over all channels and two, be prepared to SHUT IT DOWN. Many years ago the Winnipeg Arts community were facing dramatic cuts. At a meeting of leaders of all large arts and cultural institutions/ groups I strongly suggested to shut every down for one week, then two, etc. Once the rich folks couldn't have their martinis at ballet/ symphony/theatre, gallery, etc. *they* would convince the govt. to fund the Arts. Not one person joined with me in the call. Two days later I shut down the art gallery I was managing for one week in protest of the province wide funding cuts. No other group, large or small, followed our well publicized action. The cuts happened, corporations filled the gap to integrate deeper into our lives, and the administrators kept their jobs. The attacks are still going on today. If a person is not willing to SHUT IT DOWN they should not hold office. Timid people make poor leaders.
Quote
 
 
#16 admin 2011-05-08 14:37
Received from NR:

"despite your calling me a "movementist" since I'm in two political organizations)."

No personal offence intended, if that's what you're implying. Many of those presenting "movementist" arguments against the NPA were/are also in other political organizations or systematically align themselves with those organizations at election time.

It's not such an unusual position. Many far-Left groups in the West long ago adopted a de facto "entryist" position in relation to the parties of Social Democracy or, in fewer cases, Stalinism -- even in
those cases where they continued to operate in part or whole as independent organizations. Their strategic orientation was to push and/or outflank the leaderships of these mass parties toward more
radical positions while winning over as many of their members as possible to their organizations. The way they hoped to achieve this was primarily through mass movements. This was focused primarily on
workplace struggles in the postwar period, but then incorporated all the "new" movements that emerged in the post-68 period.

In fact, most of the far-Left groupings one can think of today have never really updated this strategy -- including the French LCR (in practice, at least, though it had been pointing in this direction
since the early 1990s)...until the initiative leading to the creation
of the NPA in 2009.

After three decades of neoliberalism, something fundamental has changed in the relationship between the masses, the "traditional parties" of the Left and the state. We can no longer de facto cede the
question of party-political leadership to the "traditional mass parties" of the Left. It's a point we have to make again and again, and more importantly put into tangible practice at every possible
opportunity.

And nor can we pretend that we can somehow do an end run around the institutional ground rules of capitalist democracy
(parties/elections/parliament) in countries with entrenched parliamentary traditions.

That leaves us on a pretty narrow stretch of strategic terrain: neither "parliamentary cretinism" nor anti-parliamentary fantasy.

Yes, France and Canada are different, but the strategic terrain and debates from the angle of the radical Left are not so wildly
different. For example, the NPA has about 6500 members, not 65,000 or 650,000, which would indeed be the sign of a qualitatively different context. There's just as much reason to be despondent and pessimistic
in France as there is in Canada! (Have you seen noticed who is in power over there? Or that the extreme right-wing FN is on the
ascendant? Or that the current head of the IMF has a good chance of being the official presidential candidate of the mainstream Left in 2012?!)

Let's not import models and analyses from other countries. But let's also not pretend that Canada (or France for that matter) is such a unique and special case. Neither is.
Quote
 
 
#15 IV 2011-05-07 17:55
I don't think anyone is proposing a broader, anticapitalist organization - I mean, one with more capacity than the currently existing leftist groupscules - would be a quick fix and easy solution. The issue is that it needs to be proposed and discussed seriously as one potential route past the current juncture. There is nothing to suggest it will succeed, just like there is no evidence the existing activist groups will be the kernel of broader social movements. One thing is missing from this discussion: the failure of the left to incorporate radicalizing folks in the past. It's not like there has never been periods of broader movements. There have actually been a few blips of radicalism over the past decade - the anti-glob and anti-war movements, the large mobilization in Ontario and BC during the Harris/Campbell years - and there is nothing left from this. If there were upturn in struggle right now, there would also no way to incorporate people into sustainable organizations. There is no way to reach out to people who are angry at the austerity measures, so we almost assume people support them, or need tutelage in activism and movements. But there is a lot of evidence in Canada that activist groups are characterized by "churn" and have been incapable building membership-based organizations. A few important activists persist; and this becomes the model of success. Why would it be different in the next 5-10 years?

I think what people are objecting to in this thread is the dismissal and failure to even engage with these questions. I don't think anyone is in denial that this would be super difficult, maybe impossible. But it should be on the table for discussion.
Quote
 
 
#14 TG 2011-05-07 14:19
I lied, but really the last post: "You have to develop radical-Left political organization and strategy AND build the movements." Of course (despite your calling me a "movementist" since I'm in two political organizations). I haven't said otherwise. But what I'm pointing to is the very considerable difference between the France you describe and the political terrain in Canada. It's simply not enough to say we need to build that political organization. With what forces? Are you satisfied with a regrouping of the existing tiny far left? Do you think something more is necessary? Possible? Simply calling for its formation elides the real challenges we face in such a project. It doesn't mean we ignore the importance of political organization, but we put it into greater perspective.
Quote
 
 
#13 NR 2011-05-07 04:36
Simplistic? Idealistic? SL made a reference to the NPA, and I think it misrepresented what actually happened in France.

I can add to my earlier points. In 2005-2007, there was a serious and messy political fight within the wide arc of political, trade-union and social-movement forces to the left of Social Democracy in France. What really created the specific dynamic leading to the founding of the NPA was actually, of all things, the successful (on the scale of the radical Left) 2007 presidential election campaign. This was then followed by the decision by the political organization behind that campaign (the LCR) to translate that electoral success into the launching of a new party by dissolving itself and initiating a wide-open constituent process that lasted about 18 months.

During that debate in 2005-2007, all sorts of arguments were presented against creating a radical-Left organization of a new type. One important set of arguments could be described as "movementist", which is essentially what SL and TG appear to have espoused themselves. "The important thing is to build the movements, not political organization." That's a legitimate and widespread position, of course, but the net effect (intentional in some cases, unintentional in others) would be to cede political leadership to Social Democracy or at least to the organizations who gravitate around it and join its governments.

This actually has a concrete effect on the potential for struggles to emerge and, when they do, to develop to their fullest potential. Those drawn to the NPA project strongly disagreed with such an approach. You have to develop radical-Left political organization and strategy AND build the movements. There isn't space to argue why here, but I think the relationship between the two is greater now than at any other time in the lives of people active on the Left today.

Of course, as any new radical-Left organization in today's world would be, the NPA is mired in all sorts of problems (the most recent one stemming from the perfectly understandable and even honourable announcement by its most popular figure that he will not be a presidential candidate again in 2012). And the NPA isn't some kind of turnkey model for us here in Canada, where the situation is indeed quite different.

But SL mentioned the NPA, not me!
Quote
 
 
#12 IV 2011-05-07 03:18
The problem is the (radical) left is oriented towards activist particularisms and not towards electoral politics. The radical left doesn't need to be corrected or instructed against "reducing politics to elections." The stick has been bend too far in the other direction. For decades, electoral politics has been sidelined in activist debates. This basically ensures support for the NDP, replete with the scripted, guilty disclaimers and hand-wringing. Socialists, the 'autonomous social movement' activists, even most anarchists - they line up to vote NDP, although they would not want to discuss independent electoral strategies. Why? The results are in: this is a dead-end strategy. I increasingly see this as an obscurantist form of NDP-entrism, which doesn't require engaging with the much broader strata of working class folks in the NDP. At least Fightback and others who adopt an openly entrist position do this. It may be that there is no alternative to this impasse, but the question of building an independent political organization is so important if the intention is to snap out of the current inertia. Its absence is the elephant in the room.
Quote
 
 
#11 TG 2011-05-07 02:04
At the risk of encouraging more sectarian rants from SV, it's interesting that SV has nothing to say in response to the limits of creating (hothouse) political organization absent the re-birth of larger struggles. Only space to attack others for things we haven't done: stand aside and wait, hoping something will be done. That's a purposeful misrepresentation of people who're involved in various mvts and the Workers Assembly. And it does nothing to advance debate. I guess I could wait for a less sectarian rant coming from you, but these days that really is Waiting for Godot. I expect we'll see the formation of a new political organization before that happens. My last contribution on this.
Quote
 
 
#10 SV 2011-05-07 00:18
I am sorry TG. You claim that NR's position is simplistic but it actually contains some critical thinking about the situation we are currently in and what we can do to create change. The only thing i am hearing from the NSG is the same warmed over mantra that leads to a "lets watch and wait" for the "movements" position. It becomes a paraody of itself, another socialist recently called it the Waiting For Godot syndrome. Of course the upside of this is that you never have to put you self out there and try to build something, so you will never fail, so you can always be right and have an unblemished political track record allowing you to comment on all the other problems of the left comfortable in your pure little group. There is another side to this as well. As a segment of the socialist left has been afraid unwilling or unable to make political arguments around strategy within the activist circles (because it might scare some mythical movement)there has been a defacto tailing of radical liberals. In fact political direction is being taken from them, as there seems to be some confusion about what these radical liberals actually represent (thinking they are the seeds of a movement).As one comrade put it to me many years ago, we are like moths to the flame of those that appear on the surface radical because deep down we know how ineffectual we both are and at least this is a good show with company.
Quote
 
 
#9 TG 2011-05-06 21:50
I think your view is overly-simplistic, NR. You say that the relation between mvts and political alternatives (you seem to be implying organizations or parties, though for a lot of radicals today political alternative doesn't equal parties -- something worth considering as we consider our challenges) is relational or dialectical. A credible political alternative is necessary to sustain mobilization. Agreed. But your argument about building a political alternative in Canada today is as thin as what you claim SL is doing regarding mvts: "shout, fight, resist". Do you think the most rational argument for political organization is enough to build a real organization? If we shout it loud enough it'll form? This is the Field of Dreams strategy: build it and (hopefully) they'll come. That's extremely simplistic and you know very well that's not what happened in France with the NPA: that the other side of the relational or dialectical equation that mvts need credible political alternatives, is that those political alternatives are built out of mvts. That is, it's relational or dialectical. You can't simply force a new radical political organization into existence by proclaiming its need; by writing up the best consitution; refining a structure; or by merely regrouping the small and fragmented existing left. It needs to new energy to be nourished. It needs to bring new activists into its fold. This is extremely difficult in a period in which struggle -- and new people becoming more engaged through political work -- is at an historically low ebb. I expect this to change, and I think where possible radicals should be working together, and should keep open the prospects for establishing new political alternatives/organizations; but your formulation strikes me as idealistic.
Quote
 

Add comment


Refresh