Canadian Socialist Party

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are any fellow Canadians interested in creating a socialist party in Canada. One that is revolutionary, but participant in parliamentary elections.

This is important. Though we may be communists and Marxists, creating an alternative to the social democrats is important. And obviously the division between the far left in this country is ridiculous. We should unite.

What say you?

[jake williams]

There are lots of socialist parties in Canada, some obviously bigger, better or more active than others.

How is what you're proposing realistically going to solve problems of division?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Basically by making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation, and focusing not on a particular tendency, but uniting the left.

There aren't "lots of socialist parties" in Canada. There are socialist groups, though no parties. The only registered parties that are far left are the Communist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).

Both of which have no chance, because they use "communist" and are split on stupid issues that shouldn't be an issue with a parliamentary Socialist party. The only concern with a socialist parliamentary party should be opposition to capitalism. Not gaining power. None of that bourgeois party, bs.

[Crux]

Are any fellow Canadians interested in creating a socialist party in Canada. One that is revolutionary, but participant in parliamentary elections.

This is important. Though we may be communists and Marxists, creating an alternative to the social democrats is important. And obviously the division between the far left in this country is ridiculous. We should unite.

What say you?
That particular name is already taken by the impossiblist, but there is an upstart Socialist Party of Ontario (http://www.thegingerproject.org/).

[Die Rote Fahne]

That particular name is already taken by the impossiblist, but there is an upstart Socialist Party of Ontario (http://www.thegingerproject.org/).
They aren't registered federally.

However, i was thinking something along the line of Canadian Worker Party, or Workers' Party of Canada.

[Hivemind]

It'd be an interesting concept to unite the left, both parties and groups, into one entity, and it should definitely be opposed to capitalism as its main front since that's generally the common enemy of the related ideology, isn't it? Many people get lost in minor details and ignore the elephant in the room. Focusing on the anti-capitalism would make it stand a chance if it ever got very far, as opposed to having all of these parties and groups divided and squabbling amongst themselves pointlessly.

[Octavian]

I've been looking for a party to join but the communist party is too authoritarian for my tastes and the only other option really is Fight Back. Canadian Worker's Party rolls off the tongue. Even party like in Europe called "The Left" or "The Canadian Left" might work.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I want this thread to float around for a week. Get people's opinions. This is something think we should do, and this is a great place to start.

A party that isn't overtly communist. That doesn't have a goal of forming government, only of opposition.

would love to get this party created by 2012.

[Sun at Eight]

Do you mean the Communist Party of Canada represents too much of an authoritarian history? It doesn't sound like you have any interest in joining Fightback, but I'm absolutely sure that current daily life in Fightback is more authoritarian than the relatively laidback Communist Party of Canada. Fightback is a traditional democratic centralist cadre organization within the NDP. I wouldn't join either of the groups, but I don't think the Communist Party of Canada expects much from its individual members or requires them to sign onto much. I may be wrong on the Communist Party of Canada. I'm more aware of how Fightback functions.

On the party question, I actually sort of agree with the idea of party now. I'd want to see one with the discipline to run good "propaganda campaigns" it could milk the most out of, along with being a persuasive, loud and social movement connected voice if election actually happened (no "parliamentary cretinism"). From a distance, even though I disagree with them on their assessment of certain countries, the PSL seems to do this well. And from the belly of the beast, I don't think it usually makes a big difference in organizing against imperialist invasions.

However, Canadian Workers' Party sounds way too nationalist, particularly in an imperialist settler country which would also be involved as part of its organizing in the struggles of seasonal agricultural labourers from Central America and the Carribean in southern Ontario and immigrant rights more generally. Although Canadian nationalism is common, including on the left, it's not as though a party would be "more alienating" because it lacked something referencing Canada in its name. Informally, it's the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, or Conservative Party, Liberal Party, NDP.

ETA: I also don't anything will come of discussing this on revleft. Probably the most informative recent example to read up about would be Québec Solidaire, both negatively and positively.

[Octavian]

1.Do you mean the Communist Party of Canada represents too much of an authoritarian history? It doesn't sound like you have any interest in joining Fightback, but I'm absolutely sure that current daily life in Fightback is more authoritarian than the relatively laidback Communist Party of Canada. Fightback is a traditional democratic centralist cadre organization within the NDP. I wouldn't join either of the groups, but I don't think the Communist Party of Canada expects much from its individual members or requires them to sign onto much. I may be wrong on the Communist Party of Canada. I'm more aware of how Fightback functions.

2.However, Canadian Workers' Party sounds way too nationalist, particularly in an imperialist settler country which would also be involved as part of its organizing in the struggles of seasonal agricultural labourers from Central America and the Carribean in southern Ontario and immigrant rights more generally. Although Canadian nationalism is common, including on the left, it's not as though a party would be "more alienating" because it lacked something referencing Canada in its name. Informally, it's the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, or Conservative Party, Liberal Party, NDP.

1. I meant the ideology of Marxist-Leninism it'self was more authoritarian and the only internationalist organisation(remotely) is fightback.

2. Well the idea of the Canadian part is to identify that it's form our country. As much as I hate nationalism, no party will get recognition from the general public with out some level of it.

[jake williams]

...There aren't "lots of socialist parties" in Canada. There are socialist groups, though no parties.
I think the point is pedantic in this particular case. The registered parties (and there are more than two at the provincial levels) do many similar things as the non-registered ones. You could say that even the registered parties aren't winning elections, but you're not suggesting any way that might happen either.

Both of which have no chance, because they use "communist"
You remind me of a friend's dad, who suggested that the Communist Party call itself the "Christian Party" because it would be more popular.

and are split on stupid issues that shouldn't be an issue with a parliamentary Socialist party.
Yes and no. I think there are important ideological differences, though absolutely they're exaggerated. I don't like saying this because I really don't have a big hate on for the trots, but most of the trots spend all their time pretending that Stalin is sabotaging the Canadian left from beyond the grave. If they're not willing to get over that, they're not going to be a part of any sort of united movement much less a united party, by their own decision.

I'm not at all against having a large, united socialist (or "communist") party fighting to strengthen the working class and eventually overthrow capitalism, but getting the politics right does matter. You think so too, or you'd be advocating that we all just join the NDP, a party which, I might point out, is still nominally committed to "socialism".

The only concern with a socialist parliamentary party should be opposition to capitalism. Not gaining power. None of that bourgeois party, bs.
I'm not sure what your argument is for this, but I'm afraid to ask.

Basically by making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation, and focusing not on a particular tendency, but uniting the left.
Again, how do you realistically propose that this happen?

The case of Québec solidaire is instructive. Québec solidaire is in effect an electoral coalition of on the one hand parties, including what was left of the Québec NDP and the Communist Party (pre-split, but that's a whole other story), and on the other, mass organizations and individuals; basically all of whom were active parts of a vibrant mass movement which made clear the necessity of broad unity and coordination. It could not have existed, much less come as far as it has, without such a historical and social basis. This doesn't happen because someone decides to start a Socialist Party, and obviously, it absolutely doesn't happen because it's declared on RevLeft.

Québec solidaire also faces all kinds of problems, both political problems inherited from the movement in which it was formed, and from the challenges of its structure, leadership, and so on.

It's not exactly a socialist party, and the right wing is a real danger. That said, it's still the best shot right now at creating an electoral coalition that can fight for a socialist Québec. Trying to bring the sort of "socialist party" you're suggesting to Québec would be idiotic. Trying to bring it into play in English Canada poses a totally different set of challenges. English Canada doesn't have anything like the level of mass organization and mass consciousness that made and makes Québec solidaire possible.


This sort of thing comes up all the time on RevLeft because RevLeft is full of people, almost all very well-intentioned, to who don't understand that politics is always a product both of objective historical conditions, and of really hard work over a long period. When the conditions exist for broad (but of course not total) unity on the left, it tends to come into being, but it doesn't come from anonymous people on the internet, it comes from the active organizations that helped create the conditions for that unity in the first place. If this is something you're interested in, and it's something I think we should all be interested in, you should go do that, not try to invent "parties" that will miraculously solve the deep crises of working class unity and organization.

[Sun at Eight]

1. I meant the ideology of Marxist-Leninism it'self was more authoritarian and the only internationalist organisation(remotely) is fightback.

2. Well the idea of the Canadian part is to identify that it's form our country. As much as I hate nationalism, no party will get recognition from the general public with out some level of it.

1. I feel, as my original comment indicated, that this assumes a sort of ahistorical authoritarian sin in the Communist Party of Canada. I mean, I think the Communist Party of Canada currently (to put it simplistically) views itself as a more left-wing and anti-imperialist NDP. I don't know if they've changed their line, but I remember their election literature in 2006 said something like "Form a progressive bloc of Communist, NDP and BQ MPs" (maybe the Greens were in that, too, despite being ecocapitalist). I also think that despite the mentions of Marxism-Leninism, any wishy-washy Left Communist, in the sense of even considering a party operating in the electoral arena, would be pretty welcome in the Party based on the members I've seen. Fightback would not tolerate views different from its line for very long, I think. Sorry for the nitpicking derail.

2. I think that it's going to be practically impossible to avoid Canadian nationalism entirely in any realistic mass organizing/activism in the near future, but my point is that "Canadian Workers' Party" sounds nationalist (even quasi-fascist) and no one expects it in the name of a mainstream or far-left party (the NDP doesn't have "Canada" anywhere in their official name, even if they can be very left-nationalist).

[Die Rote Fahne]

There aren't "lots of socialist parties" in Canada. There are socialist groups, though no parties.
I think the point is pedantic in this particular case. The registered parties (and there are more than two at the provincial levels) do many similar things as the non-registered ones. You could say that even the registered parties aren't winning elections, but you're not suggesting any way that might happen either.
First off, please use the quote tool, it makes things easier to read, more so than bolding.

Second, I'm referring solely to the federal level, in which case the only registered socialist/communist parties are the CPC and the CPC-ML.


Both of which have no chance, because they use "communist"
You remind me of a friend's dad, who suggested that the Communist Party call itself the "Christian Party" because it would be more popular.
I don't see how that would be more popular, or how my point is similar to that... However, my point is this: You won't win the workers over by saying "hey, join us communists, Lenin yeah!". However, by associating new terms, or less familiar terms, like workplace democracy, workers government, etc. it creates a much more attractive air.



and are split on stupid issues that shouldn't be an issue with a parliamentary Socialist party.
Yes and no. I think there are important ideological differences, though absolutely they're exaggerated. I don't like saying this because I really don't have a big hate on for the trots, but most of the trots spend all their time pretending that Stalin is sabotaging the Canadian left from beyond the grave. If they're not willing to get over that, they're not going to be a part of any sort of united movement much less a united party, by their own decision.

I'm not at all against having a large, united socialist (or "communist") party fighting to strengthen the working class and eventually overthrow capitalism, but getting the politics right does matter. You think so too, or you'd be advocating that we all just join the NDP, a party which, I might point out, is still nominally committed to "socialism".
Yes, there are important ideological differences. No shit. The point is to avoid tendency identity within the party. We don't need Stalinists promoting socialism in one country, Maoists promoting cultural revolution, or trotskyists promoting permanent revolution. Staying on our common ground is what I am suggesting. Nor do we need "those trots, they shouldn't be. Part of this party anyways" sectarian mentality.

The NDP is far from committed to any form of socialism. Get your head out of the sand.



The only concern with a socialist parliamentary party should be opposition to capitalism. Not gaining power. None of that bourgeois party, bs.
I'm not sure what your argument is for this, but I'm afraid to ask.
Unless you think socialism is achievable via bourgeois parliamentary participation, you know my point.




Basically by making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation, and focusing not on a particular tendency, but uniting the left.
Again, how do you realistically propose that this happen?
Allowing autonomy and preventing tendency based theory and policy from the party.


The case of Québec solidaire is instructive. Québec solidaire is in effect an electoral coalition of on the one hand parties, including what was left of the Québec NDP and the Communist Party (pre-split, but that's a whole other story), and on the other, mass organizations and individuals; basically all of whom were active parts of a vibrant mass movement which made clear the necessity of broad unity and coordination. It could not have existed, much less come as far as it has, without such a historical and social basis. This doesn't happen because someone decides to start a Socialist Party, and obviously, it absolutely doesn't happen because it's declared on RevLeft.

Québec solidaire also faces all kinds of problems, both political problems inherited from the movement in which it was formed, and from the challenges of its structure, leadership, and so on.

It's not exactly a socialist party, and the right wing is a real danger. That said, it's still the best shot right now at creating an electoral coalition that can fight for a socialist Québec. Trying to bring the sort of "socialist party" you're suggesting to Québec would be idiotic. Trying to bring it into play in English Canada poses a totally different set of challenges. English Canada doesn't have anything like the level of mass organization and mass consciousness that made and makes Québec solidaire possible.


This sort of thing comes up all the time on RevLeft because RevLeft is full of people, almost all very well-intentioned, to who don't understand that politics is always a product both of objective historical conditions, and of really hard work over a long period. When the conditions exist for broad (but of course not total) unity on the left, it tends to come into being, but it doesn't come from anonymous people on the internet, it comes from the active organizations that helped create the conditions for that unity in the first place. If this is something you're interested in, and it's something I think we should all be interested in, you should go do that, not try to invent "parties" that will miraculously solve the deep crises of working class unity and organization.
Herp derp Quebec. Is all I got from that...

May I remind you that you aren't talking to a child, or someone new to the revolutionary left. I don't expect the party to even grow without organizational backing from groups like Socialist Action, the Socialist Caucus of the NDP, etc etc etc. It could be 10 years before the party even forms.

The point is to start somewhere. Shit doesn't just happen or appear. The revolution isn't just going to start because Karl Marx said so. Action has to be taken, and right now, there is no united, or logical, anti-capitalist party to choose in Canada.

Forgive me for any aggression or poor organization of my response...doing it feom an iphone

[jake williams]

First off, please use the quote tool, it makes things easier to read, more so than bolding.
I find the quote tool a lot less readable, but ok.


I don't see how that would be more popular, or how my point is similar to that... However, my point is this: You won't win the workers over by saying "hey, join us communists, Lenin yeah!". However, by associating new terms, or less familiar terms, like workplace democracy, workers government, etc. it creates a much more attractive air.
The point is that we should be honest and clear. We're advocating what's been called "communism" for 200 years. I agree that bleating about Lenin, obscure Marxist terminology, and so on, is nigh on useless in terms of reaching people. But pretending we're not communists is a combination of dangerous, because giving up language is often a tool of giving up politics, and useless, because if we actually advocate communist politics we'll be red-baited to shit anyway.


Yes, there are important ideological differences. No shit. The point is to avoid tendency identity within the party. We don't need Stalinists promoting socialism in one country, Maoists promoting cultural revolution, or trotskyists promoting permanent revolution. Staying on our common ground is what I am suggesting. Nor do we need "those trots, they shouldn't be. Part of this party anyways" sectarian mentality.
My point was that those who are more or less against unity in principle aren't going to be a part of a project to build unity. This doesn't apply to "trotskyists" per se, but it does apply to many who identify that way in practice, as well as many others.

I also think you're being unrealistic about what you call "tendency identity". Differences of opinion exist about how to achieve communism. This will continue to be the case until it's happened, and for that matter, for sometime after.


The NDP is far from committed to any form of socialism. Get your head out of the sand.
I think you mistook me.


Unless you think socialism is achievable via bourgeois parliamentary participation, you know my point.
I think strategic participation in bourgeois parliamentary politics is a part, one of many, in the struggle for socialism. It seems to me that you're suggesting that it might be achievable, but that we should avoid doing so. The organized revolutionary left should do whatever it can to achieve socialism. It's not a matter of principle that it's not ultimately going to be a simple product of bourgeois parliamentarism, but one of theory. If a socialist party comes to power in a bourgeois parliament and is actually capable of overthrowing capitalism in that context, it should. It's just not at all likely.


Herp derp Quebec. Is all I got from that...
You're not making the case that you have any idea what doing politics in Canada actually entails.


May I remind you that you aren't talking to a child, or someone new to the revolutionary left.
I don't think you're a child, but you still don't sound like you have a realistic view of Canadian politics, or revolutionary left politics.


I don't expect the party to even grow without organizational backing from groups like Socialist Action, the Socialist Caucus of the NDP, etc etc etc. It could be 10 years before the party even forms.
I agree.


The point is to start somewhere. Shit doesn't just happen or appear. The revolution isn't just going to start because Karl Marx said so. Action has to be taken, and right now, there is no united, or logical, anti-capitalist party to choose in Canada.
I agree with this too, which is why I don't honestly see any value in what you're proposing. We're not anywhere near the point where such an organization could get off the ground in English Canada. The most important work in getting to the point where we could do that has nothing to do with starting an organization and calling it the Socialist Party, but instead takes diverse forms within political parties, mass organizations, and the working class more generally. We should all go do that work.

[genstrike]

1. I meant the ideology of Marxist-Leninism it'self was more authoritarian and the only internationalist organisation(remotely) is fightback.

What? How the heck is Fightback, a group which opposes the BDS movement, the "only internationalist organization (remotely)" in Canada? You're telling me that out of all of the 57 varieties of Trot, Maoist, Stalinist, and anarchist groups out there, the only one which fulfills your criteria as being "internationalist" is freaking Fightback?


2. Well the idea of the Canadian part is to identify that it's form our country. As much as I hate nationalism, no party will get recognition from the general public with out some level of it.

How very internationalist of you...

[genstrike]

Basically by making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation, and focusing not on a particular tendency, but uniting the left.

There aren't "lots of socialist parties" in Canada. There are socialist groups, though no parties. The only registered parties that are far left are the Communist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).

Both of which have no chance, because they use "communist" and are split on stupid issues that shouldn't be an issue with a parliamentary Socialist party. The only concern with a socialist parliamentary party should be opposition to capitalism. Not gaining power. None of that bourgeois party, bs.

So, I see your definition of "party" is "whatever is sanctioned by Elections Canada and runs in bourgeois elections"

Secondly, rather than being a project of left unity, agreement, and democratic decision making, you seem to have already defined the strategy, tactics and direction of the new party. First, you have chosen "running in bourgeois elections" as a strategy. Well, we've already got some serious disagreement with your basis of unity (which seems to be "party called the Canadian Workers Party, which will run in bourgeois elections, and not be overtly communist") - many people on the radical left oppose running in bourgeois elections, and some people prefer entryism into the NDP (and you just can't do entryism into the NDP at the same time as running against them). You might brush them off as minor details, but they are important strategic and tactical considerations, which you seem to have arbitrarily ruled on.

Finally, it seems as though someone makes a post like this on revleft every couple weeks, as if somehow "hey, left unity = good" is an original thought. Well, ok, unity is good, but what is our basis for unity?

Secondly, most of the time people who post this have the following strategy in mind:
1. Merge all existing radical left groups
2. ???????????????
3. Revolution!

Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Even if we were to somehow manage to unite all the radical left currents in Canada (which is impossible and would only result in an incredibly fractitious group - although it would probably produce some rather hilarious internal bulletins), we'd still be a marginal political force. Better to work towards building social movements and workers resistance, and build a base for radicalism in our communities. Organization will come organically out of working class struggle, and when there is a serious revolution, it will sweep all the paper-selling sects aside

[genstrike]

1. I feel, as my original comment indicated, that this assumes a sort of ahistorical authoritarian sin in the Communist Party of Canada. I mean, I think the Communist Party of Canada currently (to put it simplistically) views itself as a more left-wing and anti-imperialist NDP. I don't know if they've changed their line, but I remember their election literature in 2006 said something like "Form a progressive bloc of Communist, NDP and BQ MPs" (maybe the Greens were in that, too, despite being ecocapitalist). I also think that despite the mentions of Marxism-Leninism, any wishy-washy Left Communist, in the sense of even considering a party operating in the electoral arena, would be pretty welcome in the Party based on the members I've seen. Fightback would not tolerate views different from its line for very long, I think. Sorry for the nitpicking derail.

CPC is almost completely soc-dem. It seems as though with the collapse of the USSR, they've been just drifting without a rudder, and are hoping to snag some of the "pissed off with the NDP" market. That, and newbies to the left googling "canada communist party" to find somewhere to fit in. They've lost pretty much all relevance, and the only thing they really have going for them is the name, and the Moscow gold. Although I do find the PV to be not terrible, and a refreshing change from the academic left.

With their goofy "progressive bloc of Communist, Bloc, and NDP MPs" (which, despite being utterly divorced from reality, is pretty much the only way they can accomplish their goal of supporting the NDP while at the same time running against them) as I like to say, "sometimes, the popular front stretches a long way"

[Die Rote Fahne]

Meh, I quit. I was not sober when I posted this.

Still think it's a good idea but too much negativity from people. One of the reasons it won't work.

Ahem, to be clear, the purpose was to participate in elections, so yes, party as defined by elections Canada.

Oh fucking well. Back to doing nothing.

[Hivemind]

Meh, I quit. I was not sober when I posted this.

Still think it's a good idea but too much negativity from people. One of the reasons it won't work.

Ahem, to be clear, the purpose was to participate in elections, so yes, party as defined by elections Canada.

Oh fucking well. Back to doing nothing.

No, man, don't give up so easily. If you're really serious about this, a good plan of attack would be to contact members/secretaries/leaders of previously stated parties/organizations and gauge their interest in joining/forming a huge leftist coalition. Granted, it would be like cold calling and most won't give you the time of day, but if you somehow convince one party/organization that has more "weight" than you, then they can help spread the word and convince other parties/organizations more effectively.

That's my two cents at least.

[genstrike]

I never suggested doing nothing. I just pointed out some of the obvious flaws with the whole "lets add up all the little left sects to make a super-sect" idea.

I don't think negativity is the problem here. There are going to be fundamental tactical and strategic disagreements with running in bourgeois elections.

I think the problem is that first, reducing left unity to a merger of the sects we have now is problematic, second, there's not a real base for it in English Canada at the momement, and third, it's already got a basis of unity which a lot of people on the left would have problems with.

I think our job on the left today is not to glom all these leftist groups together into one super-sect which will be the next Bolshevik party, but to work towards building up social movements and making it so that there is a bit of a base for anti-capitalist ideas in our workplaces, schools and communities.

[North Star]

I'm interested in building some kind of Draperian "political centre" in Canada that advocates on behalf of socialism across the workers' movement. Ideally one day I'd like a mass party but there are a lot of things that would have to happen first.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They aren't registered federally.

However, i was thinking something along the line of Canadian Worker Party, or Workers' Party of Canada.

Try Workforce and Pensioners Party to modernize language and appeal? :confused:


Basically by making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation, and focusing not on a particular tendency, but uniting the left.

Would this mean that DeLeon would be a party icon?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Try Workforce and Pensioners Party to modernize language and appeal? :confused:



Would this mean that DeLeon would be a party icon?
I actually like that name. haha :D

And no. We would, although De Leon was great and all, keep any tendency, including the historical figures, outside of the party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The reason I'm asking is because "making it a party that is focused solely on socialism, opposing capitalist legislation" was the crux of DeLeon's parliamentary approach. There's no talk, supposedly, of structural, radical, pro-labour reforms (PM me if you're interested in the details).

[Salyut]

That particular name is already taken by the impossiblist, but there is an upstart Socialist Party of Ontario (http://www.thegingerproject.org/).

Now this is interesting. "The Ginger Project" really reminds me of the Cecil-Ross folks who split from the CPC in '91 (Ginger was the name of their journal). Is there any formal link between the SPO and the old C-R Society?

[North Star]

Now this is interesting. "The Ginger Project" really reminds me of the Cecil-Ross folks who split from the CPC in '91 (Ginger was the name of their journal). Is there any formal link between the SPO and the old C-R Society?

No the SPO is an offshoot of disaffected ONDP members. It's good and all that they are calling for socialism and whatnot, but I know some of the people involved and they are horrible people. Yes they rail on about the ONDP bureaucracy and have some correct points but I know of several members that have intentionally sabotaged things on NDP campaigns. One member is a unapologetic Zionist who is your typical lefty until Israel is mentioned then all rational debate goes out the window. They're really cry babies and have no chance in hell of building a new movement. This isn't about a renewal of socialism that the NDP can't provide, it's about bruised egos. Stay away. If you want to see a new socialist party in Canada you should start one yourself, it would have a better chance than this mess will.

[Sun at Eight]

One member is a unapologetic Zionist who is your typical lefty until Israel is mentioned then all rational debate goes out the window.

Not that being anti-Zionist will protect one from being a reactionary in all other matters, but Zionism really is a "gateway drug" to full-on reaction for people who still have romantic fantasies about "labour Zionism". Fortunately (so to speak), Israel's behaviour has become so inexcusable that this is slowly going away. Not to get too personal, but what's the general age of this person? Some people take it on young, but they're either Jewish or eccentric in other opinions.

[North Star]

Not that being anti-Zionist will protect one from being a reactionary in all other matters, but Zionism really is a "gateway drug" to full-on reaction for people who still have romantic fantasies about "labour Zionism". Fortunately (so to speak), Israel's behaviour has become so inexcusable that this is slowly going away. Not to get too personal, but what's the general age of this person? Some people take it on young, but they're either Jewish or eccentric in other opinions.

Old enough to have been raised at a time when a Romantic version of Zionism was prevalent and when Israel received no criticism at all in the mainstream.
I should also add that the leaders of the SPO are old school social democrats and democratic socialists. They are anti-communists. I know the Canadian CWI section has linked up with the SPO. They'll take the support now but I can assure you if any Trot or Marxist entryist organization became too powerful in the SPO you can expect the same bureaucratic methods the SPO leadership used to criticize the NDP over.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are they "democratic socialists" (parliamentary cretinism) or more like Participatory Socialists? To what extent are they "anti-communist"? [Any "Trot entryist organization" I can understand, given the spotty entryist history, but I'm questioning you re. their approach to other Marxist tendencies.]

[North Star]

DNZ, I don't know their approach to Marxist tendencies in general. They support "moventism" to the extent that the same people in the New Politics Initiative of the NDP did. So they want to reach out to the grass roots but believe socialism will ultimately be legislated. They are anti-communist in as far as they stress the "democratic" element of socialism. Michael Laxer, James Laxer's son is one of their leaders. Laxer Sr. has attacked Leninism on many occasions and Laxer jr. seems to share is father's opinions on everything else. I do know of other members that are pretty anti-communist and Canadian nationalist.

[Tomhet]

Yeah I guess I'd join but how could these even be set up?

[Die Rote Fahne]

http://www.elections.ca/pol/pol/EC20225.pdf

Registry forms.

[North Star]

Looking at those Elections Canada forms I was surprised to see that a corporation can act as a chief agent to a political party. I'm sure someday that will happen.

[JoeySteel]

The Socialist Party of Ontario has also attracted some young anti-communists who became disillusioned with the NDP after some local association(s) (unsurprisingly) did not elect some of these newcomers, outsiders, not following NDP line, into the bureaucracy. Some of them have been involved in self-identified Marxist groups on campuses but tended to use the groups to promote anti-communism, social democratic romanticism (of Canadian history especially), and "democratic socialism." From what I can tell they must have hooked up with some like-minded, rejected eclectic characters to come up with this vanity vehicle. In their first pre-amble I recall that they made note that they advocate a "society founded on principles" which is enough for me :lol: I can't wait to start eating principles.