Canadian Federal Elections

[Neo-Democratic Force]

Yeah, so in case you weren't aware, Canadians go to the polls on June 28 to elect a new federal government. I realize this may not seem as important as the Presidential elections in the US, but it is important nonetheless and I urge you to take this opportunity to learn more about Canadian politics. I'm wondering whether most people here are planning on supporting the NDP or one of the fringe parties like the Communists, Marxist-Leninists, or Greens. I'm just hoping to initiate some stimulating political debate with a Canadian flavour.

[Guest1]

You damn New Democrats :P

If I could vote, I would vote NDP, but only cause I believe that this election they have a chance of getting a good percentage but not winning.

So long astheir in the spotlight, which they are this time, they'll be contributing a little bit towards knowledge about the corruption of the system. When people wake up though, they'll start looking for solutions, which they won't find them in the new democratic party and they'll look elsewhere.

That's the only reason I support them right now, even though they would never change anything of substance if they won.

[Cognitioned Kazak]

you could always vote marxist-leninist of course.. I know there are quite a few in the ridings so I hear.

[Guest1]

The marxist leninists would never get the spotlight, so that would be even more of a sham to participate in elections for.

Like I said, the NDP is useful because they keep class issues on the agenda.

Besides, neither of us are Leninists, so we'd be throwing our votes away to a party we not only don't believe in, but oppose. What I've read about the Marxist Leninist party here has not been very encouraging.

They're more Maoist than Marxist-Leninist.

[Salvador Allende]

Maoism in it's basic form IS Marxism-Leninism.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 27 2004, 11:39 PM
Maoism in it's basic form IS Marxism-Leninism.
We're not getting into this argument, but when you call yourself Marxist-Leninist, most Leninists better agree with you.

The Leninists I know here call them maoist extremists in disguise and hate them.

[Salvador Allende]

most Leninists here do not believe half of the things Lenin did or said. Thus, they cannot count as Leninists.

[Comrade Marcel]

Greetings,

I am a candidate for the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada in the riding of Toronto-Danforth. You can see our election website at http://www.mlpc.ca

The main objective of CPC(M-L) and especially for the youth is empowering people. We call it Investing Sovereignty. The way to do this is by engaging people in the process through various means. One of those means is making sure your registered to vote, and going out to cast your ballot. We encourage people to make an educated decision when they actually vote, and not to just vote for who the think is going to win, or some other empty reason. Who people actually vote for on that bases is secondary if they are actually making an informed decision. We believe that the people eventually will come to a realization of who the various parties represent. We also believe that they can come to understand how our current system works by being a part of it, such as becoming volunteer staff at the polls. We especially encourage this for the youth.

Hardial Bains, our party's founder, wrote in his great work Necessity for Change!


understanding requires an act of conscious participation of the individual, an act of finding out. In other words, understanding, or becoming conscious, is an experience.

Being part of the bourgeois elections is an experience. Talking to the various candidates is an experience. Helping a candidate is an experience. Running as a candidate - whether for a party or as an independent - is an especially significant experience. Through all of these mediums you will most definitely become more aware of how the system works --- the good and the bad parts of it.

Communists generally understand that the system is rotten to the core. We also believe that it can not be reformed. We also understand the necessity for fighting for reforms, not for the system, but for the people who must live under the system.

Fighting for electoral reform, for instance; shows the people that you genuinely do care about the democratic rights of the people. Also, it does good for both the people and the party. Small parties are marginalized and this is part of the hypocrisy of bourgeois-democracy. By fighting for changes we also open up the field to other small parties. This is a good thing because it gives the people choice - if the people can actually feel confident in voting for a small party instead of having to feel like they are throwing their vote away - than it is a democratic gain.

Our election platform is one of Democratic Renewal. This should not be confused with the petty-bourgeois conception which basically only includes electoral reform. We, of course, want electoral reform. The right to recall, proportional representation, fair playing field for all of the parties, lower voting age, etc. are all part of electoral reform. Many of these things are written in our election platform.

Elections in a bourgeois system is much like going to McDonalds: combo #1, combo #2, or combo #3? These are the "regular" meals... McBurger, McChicken sandwich, or McNuggets with fries and a drink; this is like your choice of the big parties. Different, yet relatively the same... mostly unsatisfying. You walk out feeling like it was a waist. Or, maybe you can choose from the "lighter menu"... the Greens and what not. The people are reduced to a voting cattle, to be herded in and out every 4-5 years, with no right to recall the 4-5 year dictator.

This is why the parliamentary and electoral part of democratic renewal is only a small part of what it really means. For one thing, decisions shouldn't be made in parliament without the participation of the people. This is not a society of sovereigns. Decisions should be made by the people as their collectives for their collectives (i.e. areas and communities) and those decisions should be executed in parliament, by the representatives who are subordinate to the people they represent and in acting under their directives. We need community councils - or Soviets - to be the places where people actually engage in politics. This is empowerment. This is Sovereignty.

It doesn't just end their either. In a society which is truly democratic, the rights of nations close and afar, big and small; must be respected. This means self determination. In the geographical area of Canada, First Nations and Quebecois sovereignty is essential; and if they choose, complete independence.

In a society which is truly democratic, education, health care, housing, and dignified employment are all rights, not privileges.

The people police their own communities, and justice is handed down by communities, not bourgeois police and bourgeois courts.

The people have the right to negotiate, to strike, to say no to concessions; and in situations where private ownership does not work for the people, the government can and must step in to recover. This is not just something for a group of working people, but for the whole nation. We must insured that our industries flourish, and we have to stop the selling out our resources.

Sandra Smith, our current party leader, said and wrote:

...this freedom can find your relatives dead in the corridors of emergency rooms, in ambulances seeking admission to a hospital which refuses to take them, at home where families are forced to fend for themselves, or in fires in subsidized, substandard houses. Those former students who default on student debts are being criminalized and the rights of the most vulnerable, the welfare recipients, are being tramples underfoot. Civil society is in contempt of its own notion of civil rights when it treats the poor as potential criminals, the unemployed as redundant, the youth as an "attitude problem", women as "fair game", and so on. This is the hiatus which prevails in Canadian society.

To take up these problems as something which is possible to solve - some through revolutionary and some through "reformist" means - is to take up national-building. It is to battle against the nation-wreckers. Reformism is not always anti-revolutionary... reformism should be always thought of as fighting for rights. Reformism becomes an obstacle when mixed with opportunism, that is the deadly poison mix.

There is no need to slander other parties, because the people are smart enough to spot opportunism, corruption, anti-social offensives and nation-wrecking when they see it. Sometimes it is difficult to see, the nation-wrecking bourgeoisie is good at covering up for themselves, their lap-dog politicians, and the system which is inherently flawed. Capitalism's true essence is hidden from the masses through various means of control and monopolization. But as the people are hit and hurt more and more by the nation-wreckers, the truth starts to become transparent. People are uniting together now more than ever and taking up the cause of Nation Building through sovereignty, democratic renewal, and social justice.

Whatever your choice is on June 28th, do not let it be your last action of participation. Find ways to empower yourself and stay engaged. The youth are not apolitical and apathetic; they understand and care! It's the current politicians who are in fact apolitical and apathetic to the youth and their interests.

Who Decides? We Decide!
Annexation No! Sovereignty Yes!
Throw the Liberals Out! Vote Marxist-Leninist!

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Cognitioned [email protected] 28 2004, 03:40 AM
you could always vote marxist-leninist of course.. I know there are quite a few in the ridings so I hear.
We are running 76 candidates.

Check them out. (http://www.cpcml.ca/mlpc/candidates2004.html)

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 04:21 AM
The marxist leninists would never get the spotlight, so that would be even more of a sham to participate in elections for.

Like I said, the NDP is useful because they keep class issues on the agenda.

Besides, neither of us are Leninists, so we'd be throwing our votes away to a party we not only don't believe in, but oppose. What I've read about the Marxist Leninist party here has not been very encouraging.

They're more Maoist than Marxist-Leninist.
Just a couple of comments:

I don't think you should vote for whatever party or candidate has the "spotlight". You would just bowing to the system the way the bourgeois wants you too.

Vote for whatever candidate you think truly can represent you.

Also, do not believe everything you have read about our Party. There are many slanderous roumors and remarks, many that originate from a Mr. Ben Seattle that are not completely true, missinterpretations, and/or outright lies.

Also, CPC(M-L) took the position that Maoism is revisionist Marxism-Leninism in 1976. They did take up a sort of Haxaite position; however, our party has now developed to taking it's own unique and domestic apporach towards the issues at hand.

Ideology, or "taking the party line" is not a giantic issue in M-L. I myself am a Maoist, and there are different views in the party.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+May 28 2004, 04:53 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ May 28 2004, 04:53 AM)
Salvador [email protected] 27 2004, 11:39 PM
Maoism in it's basic form IS Marxism-Leninism.
We're not getting into this argument, but when you call yourself Marxist-Leninist, most Leninists better agree with you.

The Leninists I know here call them maoist extremists in disguise and hate them. [/b]
When you are saying that "most Leninists better agree with you" you are taking the position of majority? Majority is not always correct.

Also, who do you propose that the majority of Leninists are?

[Comrade Marcel]

I would also suggest, that instead of basing your preception of CPC(M-L) on what you have heard, what others have told you, etc. why not take this election as an opportunity to get to know someone from the Party?

Why not offer to help the candidate? Learn through the work we do exactly how we do our work. Witness first hand the principles that our party and it's members practice.

I also encourage you to ask me as many questions as you like if you are curious.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 04:21 AM
Like I said, the NDP is useful because they keep class issues on the agenda.



Actually, if you read any of their literature or writings, or talk to any of them, you will find that for the most part they don't recognize class struggle. Some of them will go as far as to deny that classes exist in Canada (don't even ask them about issues of Quebecois and First Nations Sovereignty, as they do not recognize Canada as a multinational body). They recognize that there is "differences in encome" but that "we all enjoy a certain standard that makes us equal". Any Marxist-Leninist knows this is complete bull.

The issues they do put on the table are that of the Labour movements. In some ways it is very good, in others, it helps the Labour Aristocracy flourish. The rank and file, lumpens, and other marginalized parts of society are often ignored by the NDP (and this has to do with their denial of classes in my opinion).

Also, when Bob Rae was in power, some of the attacks on the poor launched by that government were so severe that only a government that called itself left-wing would have been able to get away with it without causing a riot!

Infact, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (http://ocap.ca) was formed during the Rae NDP in Ontario!

[h&s]

Now I'm not Candian, nor do I know one little thing about Canadian politics, but I think that you should vote with the party you agree with the most.
What is the point in saying you won't vote for the Marxists because they'll never get in power?
With that attitude they won't get into power, but if everyone who agreed with them voted for them they would stand a much greater chance.
You should always vote for who you agree with, or you might aswelll not cast a vote.

[Commie Girl]

I grew up in the "rank and file" of the Liberal Party and have been involved in Federal and Provincial Politics all my life. I have worked the polling stations at all levels and have done my share of "campaigning". This election has made me rethink my priorities and unfortunately, I live in Alberta where Ralph Klein rules and no party has a chance except for the Conservatives.

Vote...it really does count. This election is also shaping up to be one of the most interesting in many years.

[Edward Norton]

I realize this may not seem as important as the Presidential elections in the US,

You could look at that statement from a different angle.

The US elections are dominated by the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans. Although Nader is standing, no one including Nader himself thinks that they have a real chance of getting into the White House.

As Kerry is a complete right wing dickhead with policies more or less the smae as Bush's, the US elections are in one way totally unimportant, as NOTHING will change in either US foreign policy or domestic policy and that the US politcal system is designed to prevent 3rd party candidates from ever getting in, with systems like the 'electoral' college and the fact that US elections have always given power to the candidate who can raise the most money for his/her campaign, in other words the person who is endorsed by the US corporate lobby will be the winner.

I am not saying that Canada is a beacon of true democracy and social justice, but at least in Canada, the system is easier for smaller parties to have their voice heard and Canada has two big parties, but also lots of parties on the outside that are still represented within the Canadian parliament. Plus Cnanda's parties are more ideologically diverse with the likes of the NDP, LP and the CA, as opposed to the US where the two big parties stand on the same platform on Iraq, Patroit Act, Gay Marriage, 'War on Terror', public health, social welfare and other issues besides.

For many Americans who want an alternative, it's a case of Nader or staying at home.

[redstar2000]

The main objective of CPC(M-L) and especially for the youth is empowering people. We call it Investing Sovereignty.

How does casting a meaningless vote in a meaningless "election" "empower people"?

And while your choice of "brand name" is a "good one" by bourgeois political standards -- that is, an essentially meaningless platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something -- what is it really in the political "cola wars" but NoName Cola?


The way to do this is by engaging people in the process through various means. One of those means is making sure you're registered to vote, and going out to cast your ballot...We also believe that they can come to understand how our current system works by being a part of it, such as becoming volunteer staff at the polls. We especially encourage this for the youth.

What have you taught them to "understand" other than the mechanics of how bourgeois "elections" are conducted in Canada?

Don't they have "voter handbooks" there that explain all that crap? To anyone that cares.


Understanding requires an act of conscious participation of the individual, an act of finding out. In other words, understanding, or becoming conscious, is an experience.

No it doesn't "require" any such thing; that's absurd.

Personal experience can be a useful teacher. But the lessons are often unclear and occasionally completely misleading.

The real advantage of all human culture is that we can learn from the experiences of others...we don't have to re-invent the wheel over and over again.

What this quotation really means, in this context, is that people must vote in bourgeois elections over and over again until they "finally conclude" that voting is "hopeless" and revolution is the only way forward.

And, "just to make sure" that everyone learns this valuable lesson, the "Marxist"-Leninists of Canada will run candidates..."proving" that even the "best" still can't accomplish anything.


Being part of the bourgeois elections is an experience. Talking to the various candidates is an experience. Helping a candidate is an experience. Running as a candidate - whether for a party or as an independent - is an especially significant experience. Through all of these mediums you will most definitely become more aware of how the system works --- the good and the bad parts of it.

Or you could read a couple of books...or even a daily newspaper.

But what about that "good part" of how the system works?


We [communists] also understand the necessity for fighting for reforms, not for the system, but for the people who must live under the system.

We are "warm-hearted" people who "really care" -- unlike all those bastards who just say that.


Fighting for electoral reform, for instance, shows the people that you genuinely do care about the democratic rights of the people.

Keeping up appearances, eh?

As if "democratic rights" is a meaningful phrase in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!


Our election platform is one of Democratic Renewal.

Another platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something.

How can you "renew" something that never existed?


The people are reduced to a voting cattle, to be herded in and out every 4-5 years, with no right to recall the 4-5 year dictator.

Would it make a difference if you could recall him once a week?

Pay attention: the capitalist class has state power in Canada; they do not and will never put it "up for grabs" in one of their ceremonial "elections"!

To even hint that anything else is possible is lying.


We need community councils - or Soviets - to be the places where people actually engage in politics. This is empowerment. This is Sovereignty.

If that is what you want, then why aren't you fighting for that?

Do you think that if you tell people that, they "won't understand"?

Do you imagine that the people, seeing the spectacle of your group hustling votes like any other party, will take your "vision" of what "we need" seriously?

Why should they? They can see by your deeds what is really important to you...finding a plush seat for your butt in Ottawa.


We must insure that our industries flourish, and we have to stop the selling out [of] our resources.

Which rather strongly implies concessions to private industry and a "price floor" for natural resources.

I'm afraid such attempts to gain a favorable notice from your bourgeoisie are probably in vain...they already have three capitalist parties there, right? Do they really need a fourth?


Civil society is in contempt of its own notion of civil rights when it treats the poor as potential criminals, the unemployed as redundant, the youth as an "attitude problem", women as "fair game", and so on. This is the hiatus which prevails in Canadian society.

This is an unusual use of the word "hiatus" -- she means it, presumably, in the sense of "a missing piece".

It's "polspeak" (politician-speak), of course, where you begin by speaking plain truth and end with a foggy and semi-coherent platitude.


To take up these problems as something which are possible to solve - some through revolutionary and some through "reformist" means - is to take up nation-building. It is to battle against the nation-wreckers.

Communists are, of course, nation-wreckers...and they are even proud of being so.

Whoever these people are, they are not communists.


Reformism is not always anti-revolutionary...

At least not when we want to do it!?


Reformism becomes an obstacle when mixed with opportunism, that is the deadly poison mix.

Reformism is opportunistic!

The reformists say to the capitalists, "give us some concessions and we'll keep people quiet and submissive to the system".

The capitalists respond "Deal!" or "No Deal!"

Is there really anything more "to it" than that?


Sometimes it is difficult to see, the nation-wrecking bourgeoisie is good at covering up for themselves, their lap-dog politicians, and the system which is inherently flawed.

Do you hear those faint strains of O Canada in the background?


People are uniting together now more than ever and taking up the cause of Nation Building through sovereignty, democratic renewal, and social justice.

People are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off.

Seriously, this kind of rhetoric could be excused in a backward country trying to make a modern bourgeois revolution. I'm sure Chavez, for example, says these kinds of things all the time in Venezuela.

For a so-called "communist" party in an advanced capitalist country to indulge in this sort of mindless patriotic babble is utterly reprehensible.

And I seem to recall that Canada has occupation troops stationed in Afghanistan. If my memory is correct, that makes it even worse!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:40 PM

The main objective of CPC(M-L) and especially for the youth is empowering people. We call it Investing Sovereignty.

How does casting a meaningless vote in a meaningless "election" "empower people"?

And while your choice of "brand name" is a "good one" by bourgeois political standards -- that is, an essentially meaningless platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something -- what is it really in the political "cola wars" but NoName Cola?


The way to do this is by engaging people in the process through various means. One of those means is making sure you're registered to vote, and going out to cast your ballot...We also believe that they can come to understand how our current system works by being a part of it, such as becoming volunteer staff at the polls. We especially encourage this for the youth.

What have you taught them to "understand" other than the mechanics of how bourgeois "elections" are conducted in Canada?

Don't they have "voter handbooks" there that explain all that crap? To anyone that cares.


Understanding requires an act of conscious participation of the individual, an act of finding out. In other words, understanding, or becoming conscious, is an experience.

No it doesn't "require" any such thing; that's absurd.

Personal experience can be a useful teacher. But the lessons are often unclear and occasionally completely misleading.

The real advantage of all human culture is that we can learn from the experiences of others...we don't have to re-invent the wheel over and over again.

What this quotation really means, in this context, is that people must vote in bourgeois elections over and over again until they "finally conclude" that voting is "hopeless" and revolution is the only way forward.

And, "just to make sure" that everyone learns this valuable lesson, the "Marxist"-Leninists of Canada will run candidates..."proving" that even the "best" still can't accomplish anything.


Being part of the bourgeois elections is an experience. Talking to the various candidates is an experience. Helping a candidate is an experience. Running as a candidate - whether for a party or as an independent - is an especially significant experience. Through all of these mediums you will most definitely become more aware of how the system works --- the good and the bad parts of it.

Or you could read a couple of books...or even a daily newspaper.

But what about that "good part" of how the system works?


We [communists] also understand the necessity for fighting for reforms, not for the system, but for the people who must live under the system.

We are "warm-hearted" people who "really care" -- unlike all those bastards who just say that.


Fighting for electoral reform, for instance, shows the people that you genuinely do care about the democratic rights of the people.

Keeping up appearances, eh?

As if "democratic rights" is a meaningful phrase in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!


Our election platform is one of Democratic Renewal.

Another platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something.

How can you "renew" something that never existed?


The people are reduced to a voting cattle, to be herded in and out every 4-5 years, with no right to recall the 4-5 year dictator.

Would it make a difference if you could recall him once a week?

Pay attention: the capitalist class has state power in Canada; they do not and will never put it "up for grabs" in one of their ceremonial "elections"!

To even hint that anything else is possible is lying.


We need community councils - or Soviets - to be the places where people actually engage in politics. This is empowerment. This is Sovereignty.

If that is what you want, then why aren't you fighting for that?

Do you think that if you tell people that, they "won't understand"?

Do you imagine that the people, seeing the spectacle of your group hustling votes like any other party, will take your "vision" of what "we need" seriously?

Why should they? They can see by your deeds what is really important to you...finding a plush seat for your butt in Ottawa.


We must insure that our industries flourish, and we have to stop the selling out [of] our resources.

Which rather strongly implies concessions to private industry and a "price floor" for natural resources.

I'm afraid such attempts to gain a favorable notice from your bourgeoisie are probably in vain...they already have three capitalist parties there, right? Do they really need a fourth?


Civil society is in contempt of its own notion of civil rights when it treats the poor as potential criminals, the unemployed as redundant, the youth as an "attitude problem", women as "fair game", and so on. This is the hiatus which prevails in Canadian society.

This is an unusual use of the word "hiatus" -- she means it, presumably, in the sense of "a missing piece".

It's "polspeak" (politician-speak), of course, where you begin by speaking plain truth and end with a foggy and semi-coherent platitude.


To take up these problems as something which are possible to solve - some through revolutionary and some through "reformist" means - is to take up nation-building. It is to battle against the nation-wreckers.

Communists are, of course, nation-wreckers...and they are even proud of being so.

Whoever these people are, they are not communists.


Reformism is not always anti-revolutionary...

At least not when we want to do it!?


Reformism becomes an obstacle when mixed with opportunism, that is the deadly poison mix.

Reformism is opportunistic!

The reformists say to the capitalists, "give us some concessions and we'll keep people quiet and submissive to the system".

The capitalists respond "Deal!" or "No Deal!"

Is there really anything more "to it" than that?


Sometimes it is difficult to see, the nation-wrecking bourgeoisie is good at covering up for themselves, their lap-dog politicians, and the system which is inherently flawed.

Do you hear those faint strains of O Canada in the background?


People are uniting together now more than ever and taking up the cause of Nation Building through sovereignty, democratic renewal, and social justice.

People are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off.

Seriously, this kind of rhetoric could be excused in a backward country trying to make a modern bourgeois revolution. I'm sure Chavez, for example, says these kinds of things all the time in Venezuela.

For a so-called "communist" party in an advanced capitalist country to indulge in this sort of mindless patriotic babble is utterly reprehensible.

And I seem to recall that Canada has occupation troops stationed in Afghanistan. If my memory is correct, that makes it even worse!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
what about you? what are you doing? i love how people like you talk about 'revolution' all day long. tell me my friend, when is this revolution, and when are you starting it?

at least this guy is doing something other than spewing about a clash of us vs. them that is never coming.

[Guest1]

I stand by my point that no real change will ever come from the electoral system, so voting for a Communist party is useless.

I will still tell people to vote for the NDP, no offence.

The reality is, while the NDP have no chance of forming federal government, they keep class issues on the agenda. Even if they don't do it intentionally, their election promises of "making the rich pay" will help mold the debate across Canada.

Whether their promises are truthful or not, it matters not to me, elections are pointless.

What does matter is that as people's frustration with the system grows, the NDP's calls that "another way is possible" will call them to start looking for solutions. As I said, no social democratic parties, nor any electoral party for that matter will provide them.

We should stop wasting our effort trying to build a party from the ground up, and organize workers instead. Join up with unions and influence the issues of discussion so that we are there when people realize there are no solutions in elections. Bring class consciousness isntead of a false sense of hope in a system you know will never change anything.

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 05:56 PM
I stand by my point that no real change will ever come from the electoral system, so voting for a Communist party is useless.

I will still tell people to vote for the NDP, no offence.

The reality is, while the NDP have no chance of forming federal government, they keep class issues on the agenda. Even if they don't do it intentionally, their election promises of "making the rich pay" will help mold the debate across Canada.

Whether their promises are truthful or not, it matters not to me, elections are pointless.

What does matter is that as people's frustration with the system grows, the NDP's calls that "another way is possible" will call them to start looking for solutions. As I said, no social democratic parties, nor any electoral party for that matter will provide them.

We should stop wasting our effort trying to build a party from the ground up, and organize workers instead. Join up with unions and influence the issues of discussion so that we are there when people realize there are no solutions in elections. Bring class consciousness isntead of a false sense of hope in a system you know will never change anything.
the problem with rallying up unions is, in my personal experience, and i have quite a bit with union work, is the people that work in the unions where i live are dumb as bricks. and because of that, they are quite happy to be making $22 an hour for the rest of their life. and not only are they happy making it, they are too dumb and indifferent to want to rally with a revolution anyway.

[redstar2000]

What about you? What are you doing? I love how people like you talk about 'revolution' all day long. Tell me my friend, when is this revolution, and when are you starting it?

At least this guy is doing something other than spewing about a clash of us vs. them that is never coming.

What am I doing? Telling people the truth...even when they're "dumb as bricks" like yourself.

Perfectly happy to play at bourgeois politics and think they're "really doing something".

I can only attempt to persuade people to "do the right thing"; I can't make them do it.

But I can sure tell them when they choose the wrong thing that it is the wrong thing.

Even if they don't "love" to hear it.

That's what I'm doing.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:50 PM

What about you? What are you doing? I love how people like you talk about 'revolution' all day long. Tell me my friend, when is this revolution, and when are you starting it?

At least this guy is doing something other than spewing about a clash of us vs. them that is never coming.

What am I doing? Telling people the truth...even when they're "dumb as bricks" like yourself.

Perfectly happy to play at bourgeois politics and think they're "really doing something".

I can only attempt to persuade people to "do the right thing"; I can't make them do it.

But I can sure tell them when they choose the wrong thing that it is the wrong thing.

Even if they don't "love" to hear it.

That's what I'm doing.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
why the hell are you quoting everything? who are you quoting? shutup moron.

so you gonna answer any of my questions? oh sorry i will put it so you understand. are "you" going to "answer" any of my questions

[Rasta Sapian]

I think that all of us, lefties out around the canadain countryside should vote NDP the party is truely left, and would stengthen our nation, especially in terms of social programs and overall nationalism.

If we all actually got of our socialist, capitalist, anarchist asses and choose one party with an actual chance of pulling the country further left progressively socialist
then we should vote: NDP

peace yall

p.s. i hate politics

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:47 PM
the problem with rallying up unions is, in my personal experience, and i have quite a bit with union work, is the people that work in the unions where i live are dumb as bricks. and because of that, they are quite happy to be making $22 an hour for the rest of their life. and not only are they happy making it, they are too dumb and indifferent to want to rally with a revolution anyway.
That's cause they've given up on their own unions. The leaders have all been bought out quite clearly and do everything they can to sabotage every gain the movement makes. They don't want to see any real conflict that could lead to real change, they're happy with little gains.

In my experiences here with workers, they're pissed off at their unions. North of here, workers collectivized a factory that was going to be shut down. They fought pretty hard to do it. In the end, the union sold them out, shut it down to "avoid conflict with the authorities".

That's why we have to get out there and be involved in the unions, so when the shit hits the fan and they wanna take things into their own hands, independant of the leadership, they have that choice.

It's up to them to take action, but if they don't even know about the alternative, how are they supposed to take it?

[Hasta Siempre Comandante]

Redstar, I'd respect what you're saying if you were doing something besides talking. Talk is cheap man- don't sit there and criticize someone who is at least doing something positive. You think votes are meaningless and elections are meaningless- so what are you doing to change anything? Have you taken up arms and joined the revolution? I don't think so- so don't be ignorant.

Personally, I'll be voting NDP. The party has a good chance of winning many seats, especially where I live, in Toronto, where it's support is very strong. Homelessness has risen year after year in Toronto, especially in my community. The Communist party (M-L) is definitely growing and spreading, however, this election is very tight and it's important that the Liberal Party doesn't form a majority government again.

[redstar2000]

Why the hell are you quoting everything? Who are you quoting? Shutup moron.

A brilliant response. I told you what I was doing -- telling people the truth even when they don't want to hear it -- and the message obviously passed through your empty skull without encountering any brain whatsoever.

"Shutup moron"? This is a message board, not your crappy barroom.

If you don't like what I have to say, refute it! Show why I am "wrong". Offer a rational argument with some evidence.

Otherwise, "shutup, moron!"


Redstar, I'd respect what you're saying if you were doing something besides talking. Talk is cheap man--don't sit there and criticize someone who is at least doing something positive. You think votes are meaningless and elections are meaningless--so what are you doing to change anything? Have you taken up arms and joined the revolution? I don't think so--so don't be ignorant.

As I understand your argument, you think it's better to do something stupid than it is to do "nothing".

Because that's what dicking around with bourgeois elections really is...stupid!

It's not "doing something positive", it's totally wasting your time and energy.

It's also lying to people...that anything worth a damn will ever result from the bourgeois electoral charade.

In effect, the ruling class is playing you for a sucker!

You want to do something "positive", try this...

Demonstrate Against Fake Elections! (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24823)

Although this proposal was written in an American context, it is equally applicable to any advanced capitalist country.

The realistic options at the present time are (1) cheerleading bourgeois "democracy" in one way or another; or (2) Advocating or engaging in real resistance to bourgeois hegemony...in whatever forms that resistance may presently take (anti-war, anti-globalization, wildcat strikes, etc.).

The second option is the real communist option.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Nickademus]

I read an interesting article about the federal election today. Every federal election 5 parties take part in the debate, even if they aren't official parties. This year only 4 parties are taking part, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and the Block Quebecois. Well the Green Party is PISSED that they weren't even asked to participate and are actually considering sueing. HMMM Interesting.

I believe voting is important. It is one of the few ways we get to really voice our opinions. and i think people should vote for a party they believe in and agree with. 4 years ago so many people voted Liberal because they were simply afraid of the Conservative leader getting in. So what happened to the NDP and important political party? They lost lots and lots of votes, and I believe they lost official party status. Vote for who you believe in. And I agree that we need the NDP there. They keep social issues alive and keep Canada from becoming a 2-party system. If we continue to vote for parties that we agree with, then sooner or later politicans are going to have to realize that there are a lot of opinions out there that need to be listened to. When we only vote between conservative and liberal we are suggesting that these are the only options people like .... make it known that you don't like EITHER party. that's just my opinion.

Speaking of the NDP, Jack Layton, party leader, made a comment the other day that the deaths of homeless people can be attributed to Martin's cutbacks to affordable housing initiatives. Apparently people were actually offended by this statement because it 'simplifies' the problem of homelessness. I think its just one more contributory factor and I'm sure Jack Layton is fully aware of that. Also Martin took that as a personal attack to Martin's personality. What world is he on.

Anyway i'm not exactly who i'm going to vote for yet...... leaning towards NDP though. I really do like Jack Layton.

[STI]

Actually, if you read any of their literature or writings, or talk to any of them, you will find that for the most part they don't recognize class struggle

Nonsense. I've worked with many an NDPer, and yes, they do, in fact recognize class struggle. Their literature, I admit, is a bit too "wussy social democrat" for my liking, but that's the leadership bureaucracy, not the people actually doing stuff. Also, there's a socialist caucus, a radical youth caucas, and the New Politics Initiative.

Also, from what I've heard, the Greens in Canada are very rightist economically. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

[Zanzibar]

I would stress voting for the CPC or CPC-ML. If not I would say vote NDP. I certainly wouldn't vote for the green party though. There is alot of talk going around the NDP, but I have yet to see their platform. A detailed platform. Also the whole "personality cult'" they seem to be building around Layton is a bit odd to say the least.

Here is a solid platform (http://election2004.communist-party.ca/platform.htm)
[ http://election2004.communist-party.ca ]



__________________________________________________ _____
On the Green party:

Ok, I sent that bit aaron wrote to some green party freinds of mine(I have alot). Apparently it went through a few people before someone responded. Anyway, here is the response:



From: [email protected], [email protected],Green
Party of Canada <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: GPC Platform
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 19:39:40 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Ryan,

We appreciate you taking the time to send us that perspective of our Platform. It is always a learning opportunity to hear how others see us. If you believe in the "class struggle" then your friend&#39;s responses are correct. From my perspective, whether one is a capitalist or a worker -we all breath the same air, all drink the same water, all eat the same types of food - and if the air, water is polluted, if the food is all GM - we all die from the same diseases. To us Greens, the days of left/right are over - it is now grey and green ... grey is leading us to destruction - green to sustainability.

Great having a discussion with you. I suggest that you contact your candidate in your area (you can go to http://www.greenparty.ca, put in your postal code and find your candidate) and see where he/she stands on the issues. In addition, I suggest you do the same with the NDP. There also might be a Marxist candidate and/or a Communist Party of Canada running in your riding.

Green regards,

Bruce
Green Party of Canada
Communications Committee

________________________________

All of which pretty much solidfies what aaron said:

The Greens, to their credit, have on their website, a 64-page comprehensive platform. Mind you... most of those pages are taken up with pictures graphics, and bullets lacking in content, but at least they lay out what they plan to do, on top of what they believe in.

It&#39;s what they plan to do that&#39;s so troubling. The more you read into the platform, the more apparent it becomes that the Greens are really just a right-wing backed ploy to swamp the NDP.

They&#39;re pushing this bullshit "can&#39;t-we-all-get-along" line that the "left-right" debate is pointless once we&#39;re all breathing bottled air. They&#39;re dead wrong, and they know they&#39;re dead wrong. The truth is, it&#39;s right wing policies, private sector profit seeking that&#39;s leading to all this environmental degradation. It&#39;s the right wing that has traditionally pitted environmentalists against workers to weaken and distract both groups. It&#39;s the very things the Green Party claims to be fighting for that workers and socialist politicos have been fighting for for years. It is the embodiment of the left wing.

The only reason the Greens are trying to deny the left-right spectrum, is because they&#39;re a bunch of capitalist entrepreneurs, trying to cash in on the environmental guilt market, who have no interest in workers gaining any rights in the process. The greatest trick Satan ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn&#39;t exist. And it this is so... then the greatest hoax the right wing ever pulled, was convincing workers that there&#39;s no such thing as a right-left split. It&#39;s a denial of the class struggle, and the only reason anyone would ever deny it, is to fool people into thinking they don&#39;t fit into it.

Look closer at the Green&#39;s platform, and you see evidence of this. It&#39;s classically vague, like any right wing platform would be. Partially because national leader, Jim Harris is an ex-Conservative I suppose. So let me decipher some of the right-speak for you.

On page five, the Greens aim to "avoid disputes between labour and management."

How they hell do they plan to do this? If you live in a capitalist country, capitalists invariably do what they can to make as much profit as possible at the expense of the workers. "Disputes" are simply attempts by workers to stand up for their rights, and reclaim some of the wealth they have produced. The only way to "Avoid disputes" is to take away the ability of the workers to stand up for themselves...In other words... bust unions.

On page ten. the Greens plan to "Create tax incentives for businesses to implement on site child-care, and flexible schedules." Why not just make it illegal not to have these things in place? Why whittle away at the nation&#39;s ability to provide universal child care by giving yet another tax break to a corporation?

They then say they plan to "Produce incentives for companies to reduce stress in the workplace and promote emotional health." What&#39;s with all these "incentives?" I haven&#39;t heard that word used in the same sentence as "tax" since I read the last pro-private sector cult statement by the Fraser Institute.

The rest of their platform is padded with fluffy prose about healthy families, a bright future, and how lucky we all are to be Canadians. If we wanted to read a story... we&#39;d pick up a copy of Saturday Night.

Let&#39;s get back to platforms without the fluff. Let&#39;s get back to knowing what the hell we&#39;re voting for. Let&#39;s get back to a time when parties were up front about what they plan to accomplish in office, and people weren&#39;t forced to vote for who had the whitest teeth.

[Zanzibar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:35 AM
Also, there&#39;s a socialist caucus, a radical youth caucas, and the New Politics Initiative.

Also, from what I&#39;ve heard, the Greens in Canada are very rightist economically. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, of course.
Ugh, "socialist caucus, a radical youth caucas," fucking trotskiets.

Anyway, you are correct about the green party, it&#39;s complete fucking grabage - and no where near left wing&#33; Vote Communist, ML, maybe NDP, but do not vote Green&#33;

[Comrade Marcel]

How does casting a meaningless vote in a meaningless "election" "empower people"?

Redstar: You know very well that I didn&#39;t write anywhere in my post that the only way for people to empower themselves is via the elections. Knowledge is power. Taking part in the process, learning the ins and outs of it; and getting engaged as an activist who wants to make change, is a first step.

If you have any experience working in communities, you know just how alienated people are. Especially the youth. One of the avenues that they do view as their means of participation is the elections.


And while your choice of "brand name" is a "good one" by bourgeois political standards -- that is, an essentially meaningless platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something -- what is it really in the political "cola wars" but NoName Cola?

We don&#39;t intend to gain state power via the elections. The elections are a venue for community participation. It builds relations between the party and the masses. It is a means of organizing.


What have you taught them to "understand" other than the mechanics of how bourgeois "elections" are conducted in Canada?

There are many different things to learn. It&#39;s much like anything, you can never describe or understand it fully until you have experienced it yourself. Anything other than that is a second hand account or an assumptuion (this doesn&#39;t mean it is an incorrect one). It&#39;s dialectical materialism.


Don&#39;t they have "voter handbooks" there that explain all that crap? To anyone that cares.

This gives me the impression that you are not in common with the people in Canada, Quebec and the First Nations; the majority of whom do care. They may not always show it, but they do. They are interested in what goes on and how things work, and the way to find out the flaws of the system is to exprience and examine all aspects of it, i.e. the various contradications (more dialectics).


No it doesn&#39;t "require" any such thing; that&#39;s absurd.

"Understanding" DOES NOT "require" finding out? :rolleyes:

I respect you Redstar, but you are just being a jackass now. Go back and re-read what Comrade Bains wrote.


Personal experience can be a useful teacher. But the lessons are often unclear and occasionally completely misleading.

The real advantage of all human culture is that we can learn from the experiences of others...we don&#39;t have to re-invent the wheel over and over again.

Are you trying to say that the expriences of others are always more reliable than our own? That is a complete contradiction (i.e. if we can&#39;t be sure our own expriences are clear, thdn how can someone be sure that anyone&#39;s is clear?)


What this quotation really means, in this context, is that people must vote in bourgeois elections over and over again until they "finally conclude" that voting is "hopeless" and revolution is the only way forward.

That&#39;s not what Bains was writing about in his work Necessity for Change&#33; You should find out more information before you make such a comment.

What Bains wrote was the need for people to become councious participants in change. The way to do that is to first know and understand what needs to be changed... by understanding society, and so on, etc.... again dialectics, in this case largely through empricism.


And, "just to make sure" that everyone learns this valuable lesson, the "Marxist"-Leninists of Canada will run candidates..."proving" that even the "best" still can&#39;t accomplish anything.

Our party is one that has a membership of regular people, people just like you and me. We are not "the very best", the working class is the very best.

The bourgeois society we live in (capitalism) does not reflect the needs of the people; this of course includes the eletion process.


Or you could read a couple of books...or even a daily newspaper.

A lot of people don&#39;t read books. Have you ever worked in a factory? The people are so busy with maintaining a endurable existence, and they are alienated (not stupid) so much that they usually don&#39;t have time or interest. Revolutionary politics, especially the way you are presenting them are surreal to the working class.

Maybe there is one, two, or three of the workers that can be spotted as readers, even then it is most unlikely that they will be concious of political affairs, let alone take up a socialist/working class agenda.

Those who are political; engaged in reading, read stuff like the right-wing Toronto Sun. They tend to have very cynical views, They distrust all who are involved in politics. They would look at you no differently, and trat you no differently than a Jahova witness that knocked on their door at 9:30 AM on a Sunday morning. you ahve to gain the trust, interest, and respect of the masses before you can expec them to read your paper; let alone pick up a gun and die for you.

Obviously the way you invision organizing is not working, or maybe it&#39;s just that we haven&#39;t been blessed with your abilities to organize the masses and spring revolution yet? :unsure:


But what about that "good part" of how the system works?

There are some good things about the Canadian state, though not many; and most are superficial. It&#39;s not all black and white.


We are "warm-hearted" people who "really care" -- unlike all those bastards who just say that.

All movements gain influence, recruit, and build by effecting change. I challenge you to show me one significant movement that has built anything by doing nothing.


Keeping up appearances, eh?

As if "democratic rights" is a meaningful phrase in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie&#33;

I&#39;m not sure what you are trying to convey here. We are not a bourgeois party.


Another platitude that sounds as if it might actually mean something.

How can you "renew" something that never existed?

This shows you are ignorant to history. Certainly people&#39;s rights and "democracies" have progressed over time to various degrees. Bourgeois-Democracy is infact a very new form of democracy, and much more fair to the people than fuedalism. You can&#39;t say that the Roman repulbic was as democratic as a modern Eurpopean Republic for example Historical Materialism.


Would it make a difference if you could recall him once a week?

It gives people empowerment. This is just one of the aspects of sovereignty, as I said already.


Pay attention: the capitalist class has state power in Canada; they do not and will never put it "up for grabs" in one of their ceremonial "elections"&#33;

To even hint that anything else is possible is lying.[/b

We don&#39;t lie and make promises to people. We put demands on the table and we clearly state that we are a revolutionary party. The elections are a small part of the work we do. Everyone in our party takes part in organizing all the time. You can&#39;t even join the party unless you already do this.


If that is what you [b]want, then why aren&#39;t you fighting for that?

It&#39;s part of our demand for democratic renewal.


Do you think that if you tell people that, they "won&#39;t understand"?

What gave you that idea? If we weren&#39;t telling people, we would not even be debating this.


Do you imagine that the people, seeing the spectacle of your group hustling votes like any other party, will take your "vision" of what "we need" seriously?

I don&#39;t know Redstar, how many people take YOU seriously? Maybe you should come down here and show us all how it&#39;s supposed to be done.. :rolleyes:


Why should they? They can see by your deeds what is really important to you...finding a plush seat for your butt in Ottawa.

That&#39;s a crock of shit. If that is what we wanted, we wouldn&#39;t run 76 candidates, we would run 25 and put the other &#036;50,000+ into our leader&#39;s campaign.

When in fact, Our leader is not even running&#33;

Learn about people before you slander them. I actually have no interest what-so-ever in parliament. However, I think there should be absolutely no reason why a person like you or me should not be able to be in parliament.

For me the elections is a way for me to further my work. It opens the door for me to introduce Marxism-Leninism to people, not just for the buidling of our party, but for the building of the several other organizations I am invlived with, the building of a movement.


Which rather strongly implies concessions to private industry and a "price floor" for natural resources.

Absolutely not. What we are saying is that people should be put before profit, and if private industry does not step in, the government should; in order to save our industries.


I&#39;m afraid such attempts to gain a favorable notice from your bourgeoisie are probably in vain...they already have three capitalist parties there, right? Do they really need a fourth?

Your ultra-leftism is defeatist and isoloationism. You should read about the mass line.


This is an unusual use of the word "hiatus" -- she means it, presumably, in the sense of "a missing piece".

It&#39;s "polspeak" (politician-speak), of course, where you begin by speaking plain truth and end with a foggy and semi-coherent platitude.

Yo uinterpret this as someone trying to be "devious" by using a word you consider "polspeak"? This is nothing more than you scoring points, and not actually debating seriously.


Communists are, of course, nation-wreckers...and they are even proud of being so.

Communists would never harm the masses. We are not nation-wreckers, We are nation builders; we are internationalists.

At the same time we bourgeois-state smashers; border smashers.


Whoever these people are, they are not communists.

Well, who is the authority on who the Communists are? Ultra-Leftist imitation Marxists like yourself?


At least not when we want to do it&#33;?

Why do you think reforms are an obstacle to revolution?


Reformism is opportunistic&#33;

The reformists say to the capitalists, "give us some concessions and we&#39;ll keep people quiet and submissive to the system".

The capitalists respond "Deal&#33;" or "No Deal&#33;"

Is there really anything more "to it" than that?

Yes. There is a lot more than that.

We don&#39;t keep people quite. To suggest we have the ability to do something like that, is to suggest we are some sort of vangaurd. The NDP -- the petty-bourgeoisie and the labour-aristocracy -- have that ability to some degree.

But when we, and other organizations such as OCAP, fight for the rights of the people it is not out of oppertunism, but out of necessity.

If you are suggesting that all of these battles are oppotunistic, then what are you suggesting is the correct approach? Perhaps we should all just "demonstrate" as you suggested before? This reminds me of the I.S. who seem to think if they can get enough people in the streets they will have a revolution. There was 1 million in London against the war... for what? No revolution....

Or maybe we should all just sit back and constantly criticise and agitate other leftists, likr your standard Trot (or someone like you)&#33; OR an even better idea: lets all vote for the most reactionary party possible to create horrid conditions for the masses in order to create consciousness&#33; Smells more like bacon than revolution if you ask me&#33;


Do you hear those faint strains of O Canada in the background?

We don&#39;t have the Canadian flag in any of our symbols. I don&#39;t stand for the anthem. The first thing I listen to every monring is the Internationale, followed by the Soviet Anthem. I have portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Che in my living room. Stalin portrait and a Mao bust on my desk. I never go outside without a pin of Lenin, or Mao.

I wear red armbands, red laces, red suspenders.

If you want to get into a pissing match of who is the most communist, I will win. ;)


People are rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off.

Seriously, this kind of rhetoric could be excused in a backward country trying to make a modern bourgeois revolution. I&#39;m sure Chavez, for example, says these kinds of things all the time in Venezuela.

This to me sounds more like national-chuavinism than anything I have said.


For a so-called "communist" party in an advanced capitalist country to indulge in this sort of mindless patriotic babble is utterly reprehensible.

In your ultra-leftist view, we should all be walking around cursing dogmas and acting sectarian likr the Sparts (or on the internet).

What were the slogans of the Bolshevik&#39;s? "Revolution Now and Kill the Czar"?

No, the slogans were "Land, Peace and Bread"

Those are the types of slogans you use to build support in the early stages of revolution.


And I seem to recall that Canada has occupation troops stationed in Afghanistan. If my memory is correct, that makes it even worse&#33;

That makes no sense. Young Left, The CPC(M-L), CPC, and others were among some of the people who demonstrated and called for Canada to stay out of Afghanistan. We still call for an end to all occupations. Our party leader Sandra Smith has written great articles on Palestine and the hypocracy of the Canadian state. We have launched petitions and actions against bill Graham, the Foreign Affairs Minister.

What party supports Imperialism, supported the war on Afghanistan and sending in Canadian troops; and was silent about the whole thing to only jump on the oppertunistic anti-war bandwagon to prop up it&#39;s new leader?

THE NDP&#33;

[Rasta Sapian]

I looked into this new green party, at first it appears quite positive and beneficial to the environment, however when looking further into the economic agenda, it seems like they plan to cut taxes, the party is founded is also founded in one of canada&#39;s more conservative provinces, Alberta, My friend in Calgary ran for the green party last election and lost, at the time I was a just out of University where I had been an active member of the young liberals of canada, we had much in common, however the NDP appears to be looking out for all of Canadians, and is less concerned about being more fiscally responsible <_<

Releases

News Articles

Newsletters

Mailing List

Photo Album

Media Release
For Immediate Release

Green Party Tax Shifting Revenue Neutral

(Calgary, Wednesday, 26 May 2004) – Canadians want a sound energy policy and not empty campaign rhetoric, said Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris today.

Despite the reluctance of the old-line parties to put forward real and sustainable solutions, the Green Party is proposing a policy of revenue neutral tax shifting to wean Canadians off fossil fuels and towards alternative fuel-efficient vehicles and mass transit. This policy would cut personal income taxes and provide GST rebates for fuel efficiency while levying a comparable revenue tax on gas guzzlers, polluting industries or activities that contribute to global pollution. An Oracle Research poll commissioned by the Ontario Green Party in September 2003 showed that 75.1 per cent of respondents supported the party&#39;s policy on tax shifting.

At the pumps, the Green Party proposes to remove the GST on fuel-efficient cars that exceed a certain miles-per-gallon ratio, while owners of vehicles that perform below that ratio would still pay the GST in addition to an excessive fuel and pollution tax. Overall energy taxes would not increase under the Green Party and in some cases would actually decrease.

"In a country the size of Canada, mass transit systems, as well as alternative energy sources such as biodiesel and hydrogen power must be implemented," said Harris. "We have to respect the finite nature of fossil fuel. Alberta&#39;s oil reserves will run dry and if the demand for gasoline continues unabated, the laws of scarcity will drive fuel prices beyond the reach of most Canadians – taxes or not. The time to act is now." In 2003 alone, China&#39;s oil imports increased 36 per cent. Consumption is also up in the U.S., the world&#39;s largest energy consumer.

"While the Liberals and Conservatives promise to cut the GST on gas sales as they pander to the electorate, the Green Party advocates an energy vision that places the emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency."

"Today, people pay nearly &#036;4.00 for a litre of coffee at Starbucks and the day may not be so far away when we pay the same for gas regardless of government tax policies," added Harris.

The Green Party&#39;s vision emphasises sustainability and stewardship. Harris insists that the time is right to invest in alternative energy sources and increase public transit. And rather than removing the GST on all fuel purchases, which does little to encourage conservation, the Green Party believes that sound energy management begins by encouraging Canadians to adopt ecologically sustainable practices.

- 30 -

For more information:
David Kay
613.263.1923

[h&s]

How does casting a meaningless vote in a meaningless "election" "empower people"?

Why are you trying to dissuade people from voting for who they want?
If everyone takes that attitude no left wing party will ever get in. If the communists split their vote nothing will happen, but if they all vote communist the communists still won&#39;t get in, but they will grow stronger.
This will lead them to afford to produce more election stuff, and over time more and more people will vote for them.
Compromising hardly ever gets you anywhere.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 29 2004, 05:20 AM
Compromising hardly ever gets you anywhere.
Which is exactly what redstar has been saying.

Elections will not lead to change. So there is no point in voting in general. If you want to vote, that&#39;s fine, but you don&#39;t vote to get change. So, if you admit change won&#39;t happen through elections, the only real use for elections is as a survey of sorts, to let yourself be counted and be in the spotlight.

Which is useless if you&#39;re voting for a party that won&#39;t win a single seat. So vote for a party you know will change nothing, but will get seats and keep your issues in the spotlight.

Vote NDP and don&#39;t waste your time trying to organize a fringe party, or even organizaing with the NDP really.

Just make sure you&#39;re organizing for the real things so when people see the NDP means nothing, and neither do the elections, you&#39;re there to capitalize on the anger.

I&#39;m not personally attacking the candidate from the CPC-ML here. I&#39;m just saying, if they don&#39;t take the elections seriously, why bother building a party from scratch simply for "experience"?

Why not just vote NDP every 4 years to stand up and be counted, and ignore the elections beyond that? It should just be a way to show the left is still on the scene. Nothing more.

Besides, they&#39;re a split from the CPC already, so don&#39;t talk to us about splitting the left vote.

[DaCuBaN]

Why not just vote NDP every 4 years to stand up and be counted, and ignore the elections beyond that? It should just be a way to show the left is still on the scene. Nothing more

I understand, and to an extent accept this argument. However, the UK is in a very different ball park as we have no real socialist party to vote for. I have a feeling that the same thing will happen over in Canada, as the general US attitude towards politics (It&#39;s not black and white? more than two parties? BRAIN OVERHEATING) overwhlems the rest of the world

So I say don&#39;t vote for the big guys. Mess up the &#39;majority&#39; that they so seek in parliament by filling the government with independants and looneys

I think that way, it might actually enact some change worth of note.

[STI]

Originally posted by Zanzibar+May 29 2004, 03:59 AM--> (Zanzibar &#064; May 29 2004, 03:59 AM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 03:35 AM
Also, there&#39;s a socialist caucus, a radical youth caucas, and the New Politics Initiative.

Also, from what I&#39;ve heard, the Greens in Canada are very rightist economically. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, of course.
Ugh, "socialist caucus, a radical youth caucas," fucking trotskiets.

Anyway, you are correct about the green party, it&#39;s complete fucking grabage - and no where near left wing&#33; Vote Communist, ML, maybe NDP, but do not vote Green&#33; [/b]
I&#39;m glad we see eye-to-eye on the the issue of the Greens


But that&#39;s where it ends. The Radical Youth Caucus is hardly trotskyist. I&#39;m in the process of finding their site (if they even have one). The same can be said for the socialist caucus. Their site doesn&#39;t seem to be working right now either.

There are trots in the NDP, but it&#39;s not like they&#39;re the ones in control of the SC or anything.

I agree with you about the "Jack Layton Personality Cult", by the way.

[redstar2000]

If you have any experience working in communities, you know just how alienated people are. Especially the youth. One of the avenues that they do view as their means of participation is the elections.

This is not very clear, but you seem to be suggesting that kids "want" to participate in electoral politics and your group is "giving them the chance" to do so.

That sounds quite implausible to me, but suppose it were actually true.

What message are you sending?

"Hey kids, electoral politics is fun and it really works&#33;"

Or "Hey kids, electoral politics is really fun...even though it doesn&#39;t actually work&#33;"

Does this make any rational sense?


The elections are a venue for community participation. It builds relations between the party and the masses. It is a means of organizing.

Yes, those things will happen. But the "venue" and "means" you have chosen produces, if successful, a very particular "relation".

It is a relationship characterized by activity of the "party" and passivity of the "masses".

The "party" is very "busy"; the "masses" hear the message and respond by voting.

What you are really doing, whether you realize it or not, is telling people that the road to significant change is one of "finding and supporting the right leaders".

It is, again whether you realize it or not, the old seductive message of all class societies...the search for "the good king".

In my view and that of Marx as well, it is only when the class itself shakes off that search for the mythological "good king" and takes initiative and power into its own collective hands that anything worthwhile takes place. Such historical evidence that we have, fragmentary though it is, supports that view&#33;


They are interested in what goes on and how things work, and the way to find out the flaws of the system is to experience and examine all aspects of it, i.e. the various contradictions (more dialectics).

In other words, they are unable to read and comprehend even a simple leaflet on the subject.

Well, perhaps a leaflet wouldn&#39;t be sufficient...there are mysterious "contradictions" in bourgeois electoral politics. In place of my straightforward (you would say "mechanical") condemnation of bourgeois "elections" as a total fraud, you would seemingly substitute a more "sophisticated" dialectical analysis.

Meaning that sometimes, in some ways, they&#39;re not a fraud?

Another astounding assertion.


Are you trying to say that the experiences of others are always more reliable than our own? That is a complete contradiction (i.e. if we can&#39;t be sure our own experiences are clear, then how can someone be sure that anyone&#39;s is clear?)

Obviously we each weigh in our own minds both our own experiences and the experiences of others.

But there are far more "others" with far vaster experiences than what one person can learn in a single lifetime from personal experience.

If 100 people leap from a cliff and 99 of them die while only one survives, are you really inclined to put the matter to "a personal test"?

The preponderance of historical experience shows what happens when you leap from cliffs.

It also shows what happens when you dick around with bourgeois electoral politics...and the results ain&#39;t pretty.

After the experience of German Social Democracy 1891-1914 (which I read about), I don&#39;t need to "do it myself".

However, if this is too "ancient" for you to want to deal with, consider what has happened with the modern German Green Party over the last three decades or so.

They were going to be "different" and "better"...and they are now a bunch of corrupt bastards just like all the rest.

If your strategy actually worked -- if you did elect a bunch of MPs -- guess what would happen to you?

Since I am capable of learning from history, I don&#39;t have to guess; I know&#33;


What Bains wrote was the need for people to become conscious participants in change. The way to do that is to first know and understand what needs to be changed...by understanding society, and so on, etc....again dialectics, in this case largely through empiricism.

You are simply repeating what I said using different words (with the obligatory nod to "dialectics").

You are arguing that unless people personally participate in electoral politics that they will never learn that it is a fraud.

Or, people can&#39;t learn "except" through personal experience.

Thus, even though you know that bourgeois elections are a fraud, you will encourage the masses to personally participate in them so that they will learn from personal experience that, yes, bourgeois elections are indeed a fraud.

The only way you can do this, of course, is to lie&#33; You must pretend that bourgeois elections "are not a fraud" in order to get the masses to participate in them.

Is it necessary for me to remind you that any strategy based on lying to the masses, even when it&#39;s "for their own good", is highly probable to end in catastrophe for you...when the lie is exposed?


Revolutionary politics, especially the way you are presenting them are surreal to the working class.

We live in a period of reaction...historically, periods of reaction alternate with periods of revolutionary ferment and even insurrection.

In periods of reaction, communist ideas do indeed seem "surreal" to the vast majority of the working class; although, even then, there are always incidents of class struggle and proto-resistance to the ruling class.

The task of communists in the present era is to search out and speak to those "pockets of resistance"...to them, communist ideas may not seem so "surreal" or at least less "surreal".

What we need now are not seats in parliament or candidates for office; we need more real communists. And they will most likely be found only where there is already resistance of some kind going on...some struggle where people are already learning the limits of bourgeois "democracy" first-hand.

Paradoxically, the people who are doing the best job of this are anarchists. Their active participation in the anti-globalization and anti-war movements in North America and Europe has both radicalized those movements (including a small but growing number of workers) and radicalized themselves in the direction of proletarian revolution.

Objectively, it&#39;s "not all that much" at this point. But it&#39;s there and it&#39;s clearly growing.

Whether these movements can grow to the point where they spark a general resistance and an end to the present period of reaction is still problematical.

But they&#39;ve already achieved far more in terms of reaching the masses than all the forms of "left" parliamentary cretinism have managed in the last three decades&#33;

There are grounds for hope.


Those who are political...tend to have very cynical views. They distrust all who are involved in politics.

With good reason, wouldn&#39;t you say?


You have to gain the trust, interest, and respect of the masses before you can expect them to read your paper; let alone pick up a gun and die for you.

I&#39;ll settle for interest...the rest is not only of no consequence but is actually harmful.

I don&#39;t wish for anyone to "trust me", much less "die for me". I would much prefer that people learn to trust themselves...and to not even consider putting their lives at risk unless they were determined to liberate themselves from wage-slavery.

If someone were to "trust me" (or you) enough to die for me, what would stop me from becoming a despot?

Good intentions?


There are some good things about the Canadian state, though not many; and most are superficial. It&#39;s not all black and white.

Good looking flag? Really "cool" parliament building? CBC News? :lol:


All movements gain influence, recruit, and build by effecting change. I challenge you to show me one significant movement that has built anything by doing nothing.

By "change" here, I presume you mean reforms enacted prior to the revolution.

If so, then all of revolutionary history testifies against you.

Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks nor the anarchists of pre-revolutionary Russia enacted any reforms; nor did Mao&#39;s party; nor did Tito&#39;s party; nor did Castro&#39;s 26th of July Movement; etc., etc., etc.

Aside from the Bolsheviks themselves, has there been any successful revolutionary party in history that even bothered with whatever electoral ceremonies happened to be in place at the time?

And the Bolshevik experience is very instructive...for those with eyes to see. The leader of their delegation to the Duma was an agent of the Czarist secret police&#33;

The choice is always the same, and it&#39;s not the clichéd "reform vs. revolution" (because only the masses can decide if revolution is to be made). For real communists, it&#39;s reform vs. resistance&#33;

Those who resist the capitalist hegemony, even in "small" ways, even in "non-political" ways, are, knowingly or not, laying the foundations of proletarian revolution.

Where else should real communists be, if not with them?


democracy is in fact a very new form of democracy, and much more fair to the people than feudalism.

Yes, it was a "progressive improvement" over feudalism.

So what?

The transition from feudalism to capitalism is "ancient history" for us. It&#39;s not as if we found ourselves defending bourgeois "democracy" against "the party of the aristocrats". Their day is gone forever.

What is on the agenda now (speaking in terms of our epoch) is the transition from bourgeois "democracy" to real proletarian democracy...where the masses themselves have decision-making power. The bourgeois state-apparatus and its electoral ceremonies are nothing but an obstacle to this transition and, in fact, must be utterly demolished and its personnel dispersed.

Those were the words of wisdom of both Marx and Bakunin in 1871.

They were both right&#33;


The elections are a small part of the work we do.

The smaller, the better.


I don&#39;t know Redstar, how many people take YOU seriously?

Very few. :(


For me the elections are a way for me to further my work. It opens the door for me to introduce Marxism-Leninism to people, not just for the building of our party, but for the building of the several other organizations I am involved with, the building of a movement.

That&#39;s what everybody says who takes this approach.

For all I know, the German Social Democrats were saying it back in 1900&#33;

Perhaps it originates in an unconscious assumption: that bourgeois electoral politics are "real" and all the stuff that lefties do is only "semi-real" at best.

After all, if the bourgeois media gives you more coverage if you play at electoral politics, then somehow you are "more real" in your own eyes...and even the eyes of people you talk to.

But it&#39;s still a sucker&#39;s game. If you actually started to succeed (won seats), then you&#39;d become corrupt. If you never won any seats, then the media and the people would lose interest after a while.


Your ultra-leftism is defeatist and isolationist. You should read about the mass line.

Funny you should bring that up; I have just been reading about it. According to Mao, it works like this:

1. The party cadre go to the masses and inquires at to the masses&#39; experiences, needs, and desires.

2. The party leadership then meets and "sums up" what they&#39;ve gathered from the masses into a "line". This line then becomes official government policy -- laws and regulations are enacted to enforce it and penalties are created for those who violate it.

3. After the new line has been enforced for a period of time (determined by the party leadership), the party cadre then return to the masses and inquire once more: "how are things going?".

A party without state power can only punish its own members, of course, for violating the line.

A party with state power can punish the masses or a portion thereof.

Mao&#39;s party did that...most notably in the great famine of the early 1960s.


We are not nation-wreckers, we are nation builders; we are internationalists. At the same time we bourgeois-state smashers; border smashers.


The appeal of "dialectics". You can say two completely opposite things at the same time...and sincerely believe that you are speaking the truth.

The mind boggles&#33; :blink:


Well, who is the authority on who the Communists are? Ultra-Leftist imitation Marxists like yourself?

Yep. We are self-appointed "truth in advertising" consultants to the entire left.

It&#39;s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. :P


Why do you think reforms are an obstacle to revolution?

Short answer:

1. They consume time and energy better devoted to more productive tasks.

2. They send a false message to the masses...that capitalism is "fixable".

3. They corrupt those that pursue them.

Communists should leave reforms to the real reformists. We have different priorities and our energies should go exclusively to those priorities.


But when we, and other organizations such as OCAP, fight for the rights of the people, it is not out of opportunism but out of necessity.

"Rights" are a bourgeois fiction; the masses have no "rights" in capitalist societies.

What they do occasionally win, as a result of mass struggle, are temporary concessions...grants from the bourgeoisie that the bourgeoisie reserves the (real) right to withdraw.

The "right" (concession) of workers to form trade unions and go on strike, for example, is something that has been granted and withdrawn and re-granted on a number of occasions in the history of western capitalism.

To the extent that masses of people struggle for reforms in a vigorous and largely self-directed fashion, I think communists should energetically participate...and raise even more radical perspectives within those movements.

But typically that&#39;s not the case, as you know. Most reformist organizations are run by professional bureaucracies with little or no input from the masses at all...except a vote now and then.

It is far better (more communist) to instigate a wildcat strike than to be elected head bureaucrat of your local.


Or maybe we should all just sit back and constantly criticise and agitate other leftists, like your standard Trot (or someone like you)&#33;

Another flying armchair at Redstar2000&#33; He gracefully sidesteps as it crashes into the wall&#33; :lol:


OR an even better idea: let&#39;s all vote for the most reactionary party possible to create horrid conditions for the masses in order to create consciousness&#33;

You still miss the point. Whether you vote or not and whoever you vote for will make no difference. The capitalist class will create "horrid conditions for the masses" all by itself.

And consciousness will grow.

Voting one way or another gives you the illusion that you are "doing something".

But you&#39;re not.


The first thing I listen to every morning is the Internationale, followed by the Soviet Anthem. I have portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Che in my living room. Stalin portrait and a Mao bust on my desk. I never go outside without a pin of Lenin, or Mao.

I wear red armbands, red laces, red suspenders.

If you want to get into a pissing match of who is the most communist, I will win.

Gee, I don&#39;t have any of that stuff.

Yes, you win&#33; :P


In your ultra-leftist view, we should all be walking around cursing dogmas and acting sectarian like the Sparts (or on the internet).

That&#39;s an evasion...and I think you know that.

Let&#39;s review what you wrote...


People are uniting together now more than ever and taking up the cause of Nation Building through sovereignty, democratic renewal, and social justice.

And my response...


For a so-called "communist" party in an advanced capitalist country to indulge in this sort of mindless patriotic babble is utterly [b]reprehensible.

Given what you have written and assuming it&#39;s part of your "mass line", why is it "sectarian" of me to call it what it is -- mindless patriotic babble?


Those are the types of slogans you use to build support in the early stages of revolution.

Indeed you do...in the early stages of a bourgeois revolution.

"Land&#33; Peace&#33; Bread&#33;" was a call by the Bolsheviks to carry the bourgeois revolution through to the end.

Do you wish to suggest that Canada has not yet completed its bourgeois revolution?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Rasta Sapian]

Do you all remember the USSR after the turn of the last century, The Bolshivick Party lead by yours truely Lenin, sucessfully defeated the liberal majority in power.

This was the start of something great for Russia, the start of true socialism&#33;

Change is possible&#33; :o

let us unite the left&#33; and vote for the New Democratic Party, the members of parliment will be our leaders that will open the door for true socialism in Canada&#33;

peace yall

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 30 2004, 12:33 AM
Do you all remember the USSR after the turn of the last century, The Bolshivick Party lead by yours truely Lenin, sucessfully defeated the liberal majority in power.

This was the start of something great for Russia, the start of true socialism&#33;

Change is possible&#33; :o

let us unite the left&#33; and vote for the New Democratic Party, the members of parliment will be our leaders that will open the door for true socialism in Canada&#33;

peace yall
Thank you Rasta for bringing that up&#33; AND voting can create change (good or bad) .. that&#39;s how Hitler came to power.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2004, 04:45 AM

How does casting a meaningless vote in a meaningless "election" "empower people"?

You know very well that I didn&#39;t write anywhere in my post that the only way for people to empower themselves is via the elections. Knowledge is power. Taking part in the process, learning the ins and outs of it; and getting engaged as an activist who wants to make change, is a first step.

If you have any experience working in communities, you know just how alienated people are. Especially the youth. One of the avenues that they do view as their means of participation is the elections.
I&#39;m not going to try and pretend that I know anything more than you about revolution, or boregois election.

Knowledge is indeed power.

I&#39;ll agree that elections at least put some political energy in the air, but getting envolved with a candidate is only gonna show people how futile it is.

In taking a political science course awhile ago, they brought someone from the Liberal Youth in, to supposedly give us a chat about electoral politics and how to get envolved with the LP. The most interesting and telling aspect of his speech, was that he didn&#39;t know a damn thing about politics. His entire speech consisted of informing us about a Liberal fund-raiser. This man&#39;s entire reason for getting envolved with the Liberals (as he put it) was "yeah.. lots of fame and fortune". That was seriously what he said. It was actually somewhat of an epiphany for me, to realize just how immortal, fictional, and mickey-mouse these people really are.

What I&#39;m trying to say is that the issues don&#39;t matter, it&#39;s all how you present yourself. We socialists are people who want to change things, they are mickey-mouse, 100% fictional. We cannot possibly beat them, they are immortal, they have millions in campaign money to make sure of it.

During this election I hope to learn of some resistance to the disneyworld we are controlled by, not to find a way into it.

[Neo-Democratic Force]

In response to Comrade Marcel: "don&#39;t even ask [the NDP] about issues of Quebecois and First Nations Sovereignty, as they do not recognize Canada as a multinational body"
This is a completely false accusation, just read the party platform.

In response to Edward Norton: You&#39;re absolutely right. It&#39;s just that the presidential elections get so much play in the media and the u.s. is a more "powerful" nation than canada. I was simply being modest.
I&#39;d also like to point out that the Liberals and Conservatives are just about as different as the Democrats and Republicans, especially since Paul Martin took over and the PC-CA merger.

In response to Comrade Marcel (again, and thanks for taking this opportunity to shamelessly promote the cpc-ml):

you said:
"The first thing I listen to every monring is the Internationale, followed by the Soviet Anthem. I have portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Che in my living room. Stalin portrait and a Mao bust on my desk. I never go outside without a pin of Lenin, or Mao.

I wear red armbands, red laces, red suspenders.

If you want to get into a pissing match of who is the most communist, I will win."

What do any of these things have to do with being a communist?


I think, realistically speaking, the best scenario in this election is a Liberal-NDP coalition government, the stronger the NDP contingent, the better. Whether you like it or not, these elections will determine who will be in parliament, and they will make decisions that will affect you, so you&#39;re better off having a seat at the bargaining table than being an armchair activist.

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:32 PM

If you have any experience working in communities, you know just how alienated people are. Especially the youth. One of the avenues that they do view as their means of participation is the elections.

This is not very clear, but you seem to be suggesting that kids "want" to participate in electoral politics and your group is "giving them the chance" to do so.

That sounds quite implausible to me, but suppose it were actually true.

What message are you sending?

"Hey kids, electoral politics is fun and it really works&#33;"

Or "Hey kids, electoral politics is really fun...even though it doesn&#39;t actually work&#33;"

Does this make any rational sense?


The elections are a venue for community participation. It builds relations between the party and the masses. It is a means of organizing.

Yes, those things will happen. But the "venue" and "means" you have chosen produces, if successful, a very particular "relation".

It is a relationship characterized by activity of the "party" and passivity of the "masses".

The "party" is very "busy"; the "masses" hear the message and respond by voting.

What you are really doing, whether you realize it or not, is telling people that the road to significant change is one of "finding and supporting the right leaders".

It is, again whether you realize it or not, the old seductive message of all class societies...the search for "the good king".

In my view and that of Marx as well, it is only when the class itself shakes off that search for the mythological "good king" and takes initiative and power into its own collective hands that anything worthwhile takes place. Such historical evidence that we have, fragmentary though it is, supports that view&#33;


They are interested in what goes on and how things work, and the way to find out the flaws of the system is to experience and examine all aspects of it, i.e. the various contradictions (more dialectics).

In other words, they are unable to read and comprehend even a simple leaflet on the subject.

Well, perhaps a leaflet wouldn&#39;t be sufficient...there are mysterious "contradictions" in bourgeois electoral politics. In place of my straightforward (you would say "mechanical") condemnation of bourgeois "elections" as a total fraud, you would seemingly substitute a more "sophisticated" dialectical analysis.

Meaning that sometimes, in some ways, they&#39;re not a fraud?

Another astounding assertion.


Are you trying to say that the experiences of others are always more reliable than our own? That is a complete contradiction (i.e. if we can&#39;t be sure our own experiences are clear, then how can someone be sure that anyone&#39;s is clear?)

Obviously we each weigh in our own minds both our own experiences and the experiences of others.

But there are far more "others" with far vaster experiences than what one person can learn in a single lifetime from personal experience.

If 100 people leap from a cliff and 99 of them die while only one survives, are you really inclined to put the matter to "a personal test"?

The preponderance of historical experience shows what happens when you leap from cliffs.

It also shows what happens when you dick around with bourgeois electoral politics...and the results ain&#39;t pretty.

After the experience of German Social Democracy 1891-1914 (which I read about), I don&#39;t need to "do it myself".

However, if this is too "ancient" for you to want to deal with, consider what has happened with the modern German Green Party over the last three decades or so.

They were going to be "different" and "better"...and they are now a bunch of corrupt bastards just like all the rest.

If your strategy actually worked -- if you did elect a bunch of MPs -- guess what would happen to you?

Since I am capable of learning from history, I don&#39;t have to guess; I know&#33;


What Bains wrote was the need for people to become conscious participants in change. The way to do that is to first know and understand what needs to be changed...by understanding society, and so on, etc....again dialectics, in this case largely through empiricism.

You are simply repeating what I said using different words (with the obligatory nod to "dialectics").

You are arguing that unless people personally participate in electoral politics that they will never learn that it is a fraud.

Or, people can&#39;t learn "except" through personal experience.

Thus, even though you know that bourgeois elections are a fraud, you will encourage the masses to personally participate in them so that they will learn from personal experience that, yes, bourgeois elections are indeed a fraud.

The only way you can do this, of course, is to lie&#33; You must pretend that bourgeois elections "are not a fraud" in order to get the masses to participate in them.

Is it necessary for me to remind you that any strategy based on lying to the masses, even when it&#39;s "for their own good", is highly probable to end in catastrophe for you...when the lie is exposed?


Revolutionary politics, especially the way you are presenting them are surreal to the working class.

We live in a period of reaction...historically, periods of reaction alternate with periods of revolutionary ferment and even insurrection.

In periods of reaction, communist ideas do indeed seem "surreal" to the vast majority of the working class; although, even then, there are always incidents of class struggle and proto-resistance to the ruling class.

The task of communists in the present era is to search out and speak to those "pockets of resistance"...to them, communist ideas may not seem so "surreal" or at least less "surreal".

What we need now are not seats in parliament or candidates for office; we need more real communists. And they will most likely be found only where there is already resistance of some kind going on...some struggle where people are already learning the limits of bourgeois "democracy" first-hand.

Paradoxically, the people who are doing the best job of this are anarchists. Their active participation in the anti-globalization and anti-war movements in North America and Europe has both radicalized those movements (including a small but growing number of workers) and radicalized themselves in the direction of proletarian revolution.

Objectively, it&#39;s "not all that much" at this point. But it&#39;s there and it&#39;s clearly growing.

Whether these movements can grow to the point where they spark a general resistance and an end to the present period of reaction is still problematical.

But they&#39;ve already achieved far more in terms of reaching the masses than all the forms of "left" parliamentary cretinism have managed in the last three decades&#33;

There are grounds for hope.


Those who are political...tend to have very cynical views. They distrust all who are involved in politics.

With good reason, wouldn&#39;t you say?


You have to gain the trust, interest, and respect of the masses before you can expect them to read your paper; let alone pick up a gun and die for you.

I&#39;ll settle for interest...the rest is not only of no consequence but is actually harmful.

I don&#39;t wish for anyone to "trust me", much less "die for me". I would much prefer that people learn to trust themselves...and to not even consider putting their lives at risk unless they were determined to liberate themselves from wage-slavery.

If someone were to "trust me" (or you) enough to die for me, what would stop me from becoming a despot?

Good intentions?


There are some good things about the Canadian state, though not many; and most are superficial. It&#39;s not all black and white.

Good looking flag? Really "cool" parliament building? CBC News? :lol:


All movements gain influence, recruit, and build by effecting change. I challenge you to show me one significant movement that has built anything by doing nothing.

By "change" here, I presume you mean reforms enacted prior to the revolution.

If so, then all of revolutionary history testifies against you.

Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks nor the anarchists of pre-revolutionary Russia enacted any reforms; nor did Mao&#39;s party; nor did Tito&#39;s party; nor did Castro&#39;s 26th of July Movement; etc., etc., etc.

Aside from the Bolsheviks themselves, has there been any successful revolutionary party in history that even bothered with whatever electoral ceremonies happened to be in place at the time?

And the Bolshevik experience is very instructive...for those with eyes to see. The leader of their delegation to the Duma was an agent of the Czarist secret police&#33;

The choice is always the same, and it&#39;s not the clichéd "reform vs. revolution" (because only the masses can decide if revolution is to be made). For real communists, it&#39;s reform vs. resistance&#33;

Those who resist the capitalist hegemony, even in "small" ways, even in "non-political" ways, are, knowingly or not, laying the foundations of proletarian revolution.

Where else should real communists be, if not with them?


democracy is in fact a very new form of democracy, and much more fair to the people than feudalism.

Yes, it was a "progressive improvement" over feudalism.

So what?

The transition from feudalism to capitalism is "ancient history" for us. It&#39;s not as if we found ourselves defending bourgeois "democracy" against "the party of the aristocrats". Their day is gone forever.

What is on the agenda now (speaking in terms of our epoch) is the transition from bourgeois "democracy" to real proletarian democracy...where the masses themselves have decision-making power. The bourgeois state-apparatus and its electoral ceremonies are nothing but an obstacle to this transition and, in fact, must be utterly demolished and its personnel dispersed.

Those were the words of wisdom of both Marx and Bakunin in 1871.

They were both right&#33;


The elections are a small part of the work we do.

The smaller, the better.


I don&#39;t know Redstar, how many people take YOU seriously?

Very few. :(


For me the elections are a way for me to further my work. It opens the door for me to introduce Marxism-Leninism to people, not just for the building of our party, but for the building of the several other organizations I am involved with, the building of a movement.

That&#39;s what everybody says who takes this approach.

For all I know, the German Social Democrats were saying it back in 1900&#33;

Perhaps it originates in an unconscious assumption: that bourgeois electoral politics are "real" and all the stuff that lefties do is only "semi-real" at best.

After all, if the bourgeois media gives you more coverage if you play at electoral politics, then somehow you are "more real" in your own eyes...and even the eyes of people you talk to.

But it&#39;s still a sucker&#39;s game. If you actually started to succeed (won seats), then you&#39;d become corrupt. If you never won any seats, then the media and the people would lose interest after a while.


Your ultra-leftism is defeatist and isolationist. You should read about the mass line.

Funny you should bring that up; I have just been reading about it. According to Mao, it works like this:

1. The party cadre go to the masses and inquires at to the masses&#39; experiences, needs, and desires.

2. The party leadership then meets and "sums up" what they&#39;ve gathered from the masses into a "line". This line then becomes official government policy -- laws and regulations are enacted to enforce it and penalties are created for those who violate it.

3. After the new line has been enforced for a period of time (determined by the party leadership), the party cadre then return to the masses and inquire once more: "how are things going?".

A party without state power can only punish its own members, of course, for violating the line.

A party with state power can punish the masses or a portion thereof.

Mao&#39;s party did that...most notably in the great famine of the early 1960s.


We are not nation-wreckers, we are nation builders; we are internationalists. At the same time we bourgeois-state smashers; border smashers.


The appeal of "dialectics". You can say two completely opposite things at the same time...and sincerely believe that you are speaking the truth.

The mind boggles&#33; :blink:


Well, who is the authority on who the Communists are? Ultra-Leftist imitation Marxists like yourself?

Yep. We are self-appointed "truth in advertising" consultants to the entire left.

It&#39;s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. :P


Why do you think reforms are an obstacle to revolution?

Short answer:

1. They consume time and energy better devoted to more productive tasks.

2. They send a false message to the masses...that capitalism is "fixable".

3. They corrupt those that pursue them.

Communists should leave reforms to the real reformists. We have different priorities and our energies should go exclusively to those priorities.


But when we, and other organizations such as OCAP, fight for the rights of the people, it is not out of opportunism but out of necessity.

"Rights" are a bourgeois fiction; the masses have no "rights" in capitalist societies.

What they do occasionally win, as a result of mass struggle, are temporary concessions...grants from the bourgeoisie that the bourgeoisie reserves the (real) right to withdraw.

The "right" (concession) of workers to form trade unions and go on strike, for example, is something that has been granted and withdrawn and re-granted on a number of occasions in the history of western capitalism.

To the extent that masses of people struggle for reforms in a vigorous and largely self-directed fashion, I think communists should energetically participate...and raise even more radical perspectives within those movements.

But typically that&#39;s not the case, as you know. Most reformist organizations are run by professional bureaucracies with little or no input from the masses at all...except a vote now and then.

It is far better (more communist) to instigate a wildcat strike than to be elected head bureaucrat of your local.


Or maybe we should all just sit back and constantly criticise and agitate other leftists, like your standard Trot (or someone like you)&#33;

Another flying armchair at Redstar2000&#33; He gracefully sidesteps as it crashes into the wall&#33; :lol:


OR an even better idea: let&#39;s all vote for the most reactionary party possible to create horrid conditions for the masses in order to create consciousness&#33;

You still miss the point. Whether you vote or not and whoever you vote for will make no difference. The capitalist class will create "horrid conditions for the masses" all by itself.

And consciousness will grow.

Voting one way or another gives you the illusion that you are "doing something".

But you&#39;re not.


The first thing I listen to every morning is the Internationale, followed by the Soviet Anthem. I have portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Che in my living room. Stalin portrait and a Mao bust on my desk. I never go outside without a pin of Lenin, or Mao.

I wear red armbands, red laces, red suspenders.

If you want to get into a pissing match of who is the most communist, I will win.

Gee, I don&#39;t have any of that stuff.

Yes, you win&#33; :P


In your ultra-leftist view, we should all be walking around cursing dogmas and acting sectarian like the Sparts (or on the internet).

That&#39;s an evasion...and I think you know that.

Let&#39;s review what you wrote...


People are uniting together now more than ever and taking up the cause of Nation Building through sovereignty, democratic renewal, and social justice.

And my response...


For a so-called "communist" party in an advanced capitalist country to indulge in this sort of mindless patriotic babble is utterly [b]reprehensible.

Given what you have written and assuming it&#39;s part of your "mass line", why is it "sectarian" of me to call it what it is -- mindless patriotic babble?


Those are the types of slogans you use to build support in the early stages of revolution.

Indeed you do...in the early stages of a bourgeois revolution.

"Land&#33; Peace&#33; Bread&#33;" was a call by the Bolsheviks to carry the bourgeois revolution through to the end.

Do you wish to suggest that Canada has not yet completed its bourgeois revolution?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
you&#39;re only embarrassing yourself. can you make any post without bolding it and quoting things?????????????????????????????????????? you sound mentally retarded.

i love reading people like you. you think you have it soooo bad in canada. why don&#39;t you leave? i am leftist obviously, but that doesn&#39;t mean i have to degrade my country, and constantly complain. you have it good redstar. you live in a great country. sure changes can be made, but stop complaining. you live in canada, not jordan.

and i ask again redstar... when is this revolution taking place again? are you leading it? are you going to take up arms and physically remove paul martin from power should he win? please... you&#39;re an internet hero.

internet hero = someone who posts tough shit on the internet, but in real life just sits on his computer dreaming of getting laid.

[redstar2000]

Whether you like it or not, these elections will determine who will be in parliament, and they will make decisions that will affect you, so you&#39;re better off having a seat at the bargaining table than being an armchair activist.

Dodging yet another flying armchair, I would point out that the "bargaining table" is simply another bourgeois illusion.

There is no "bargaining" between the class that has state power and the class that doesn&#39;t.

The ruling class imposes its will...by fake "bargaining" if possible, by force if necessary.

And now to the bozo corner...


you&#39;re only embarrassing yourself. can you make any post without bolding it and quoting things?????????????????????????????????????? you sound mentally retarded.

I realize that "rich text" is something of a challenge to someone unable to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence and with a question-mark key that is evidently broken.

As you must endure my "shortcomings", I will patiently endure yours.


you think you have it soooo bad in canada. why don&#39;t you leave?

Typical right-wing bullshit response&#33;


i am leftist obviously, but that doesn&#39;t mean i have to degrade my country, and constantly complain.

You are not leftist in any sense of the word. You sound like you&#39;re just another patriotic dummy with his head up his ass&#33;


and i ask again redstar... when is this revolution taking place again?

When dummies like you "wise up".

That will take a while, won&#39;t it?

Meanwhile, thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent responses to the arguments that I raised. Come back and talk to me again...when you&#39;ve mastered the art of reading with comprehension.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Neo-Democratic Force]

Whether you like it or not, these elections will determine who will be in parliament, and they will make decisions that will affect you, so you&#39;re better off having a seat at the bargaining table than being an armchair activist.

Dodging yet another flying armchair, I would point out that the "bargaining table" is simply another bourgeois illusion.

The decisions of elected officials are real and do affect our daily lives.


There is no "bargaining" between the class that has state power and the class that doesn&#39;t.

The ruling class imposes its will...by fake "bargaining" if possible, by force if necessary.

What if the ruled class were to seize power from the ruling class by electing a proletariat government?

[redstar2000]

The decisions of elected officials are real and do affect our daily lives.

Not as much as you might think, actually. The trend in modern bourgeois "democracy" is to place more and more actual decision-making power in the hands of those who are insulated from even nominal popular accountability.

Directors of central banks, for example, have enormous power...and you not only cannot run against them, you can&#39;t even vote against them.

For example, they could torpedo any social program they didn&#39;t like by simply increasing interest rates to the point of provoking a recession or even a depression.

The appointed judiciary is another reservoir of power for the ruling class; policies that annoy them can be quickly and permanently enjoined.

Your "seat" at the "bargaining table" may be comfortable to you personally...but it will gain nothing of substance for the working class.


What if the ruled class were to seize power from the ruling class by electing a proletarian government?

What if pigs could fly? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:25 PM
I realize that "rich text" is something of a challenge to someone unable to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence and with a question-mark key that is evidently broken.

As you must endure my "shortcomings", I will patiently endure yours.


you think you have it soooo bad in canada. why don&#39;t you leave?

Typical right-wing bullshit response&#33;


i am leftist obviously, but that doesn&#39;t mean i have to degrade my country, and constantly complain.

You are not leftist in any sense of the word. You sound like you&#39;re just another patriotic dummy with his head up his ass&#33;


and i ask again redstar... when is this revolution taking place again?

When dummies like you "wise up".

That will take a while, won&#39;t it?

Meanwhile, thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent responses to the arguments that I raised. Come back and talk to me again...when you&#39;ve mastered the art of reading with comprehension.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
hahaha. not only do you embarass "yourself" you are an embarrassment to anyone who is on "the" left. somehow you think in order to be left, you need to revolt against EVERYTHING. shutup.

i ask you a question, and all you can muster "up" is "typical right-wing reponse." well, why don&#39;t you actually answer the question? is "it" because you have no answer? righties could just say thats a "typical" left-wing response, evading an answer.

p.s. you let me know when the armed revolution happens in canada that you speak so beeply about. i know you love che, and want an armed revolution to be him, but this is not exactly the batista regime we are living under. grow up. stop living a fanatsy. there will be no armed revolution in canada. grow up.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Thus, even though you know that bourgeois elections are a fraud, you will encourage the masses to personally participate in them so that they will learn from personal experience that, yes, bourgeois elections are indeed a fraud.

The only way you can do this, of course, is to lie&#33; You must pretend that bourgeois elections "are not a fraud" in order to get the masses to participate in them.

Is it necessary for me to remind you that any strategy based on lying to the masses, even when it&#39;s "for their own good", is highly probable to end in catastrophe for you...when the lie is exposed?



Brilliant deductions RS. I am rather shocked that the "debate" went beyond this.




hahaha. not only do you embarass "yourself" you are an embarrassment to anyone who is on "the" left. somehow you think in order to be left, you need to revolt against EVERYTHING. shutup.



And the chickens have come home to roost; how beautifully ironic.

This kid is a riot.




The first thing I listen to every morning is the Internationale, followed by the Soviet Anthem. I have portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Che in my living room. Stalin portrait and a Mao bust on my desk. I never go outside without a pin of Lenin, or Mao.

I wear red armbands, red laces, red suspenders.

If you want to get into a pissing match of who is the most communist, I will win.

Good grief, I certainly hope this comrade was not serious. "Win" a "communist match"? I believe we have struck a nerve; typical reactionary nonsense from what apears to be a reactionary "skin".

[redstar2000]

solo ar, you will be happy to learn that you are the first person at Che-Lives that I have put on my new "Bozo List".

I&#39;ve just installed a new program called BozoBlocker. It runs in the background of my browser and, when I visit a message board, I enable it from the toolbar.

Then, when I&#39;m reading a thread and I encounter a bozo post, the post itself is not displayed on my monitor...instead there is just a single line, "Bozo Blocked&#33;", and then the next post is displayed normally.

Thus you may address your moronic rants to others, as I will no longer be seeing them.

Have a nice life, bozo.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Marcel]

I will responde to all posts when I get a chance.

Obviously there has been some excellent points brought forward by Comrade Redstar2000.

Right now I having to be out on the street virtually all day in order to reach the people in this community.

So far there has been fair response from people. I have also met many youth who are interested in learning more about Communism as a result.

IF I can recruit even one person to the movement as a result of election work than to me it will be worth the time.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Neo&#045;Democratic [email protected] 31 2004, 05:25 PM
Whether you like it or not, these elections will determine who will be in parliament, and they will make decisions that will affect you, so you&#39;re better off having a seat at the bargaining table than being an armchair activist.
You mean well, so there&#39;s nothing wrong with your emphatic vote for the NDP.

It&#39;s one thing to recognize the shame that elections are, and quite another to completely abandon the working class&#39;s short-term well-being. Your vote for the NDP is in a way, a fringe vote. Obviously not as fringe as red suspenders, but still fringe.

Let&#39;s call it fringe with benefits :D Because they will get about 20%, and probably hold the balance of power when the minority government is formed.

Sure, some small concessions will be won from this. Some hard-earned concessions that will surely give the working class more breathing space. There is nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with voting for it. However, you must remember that these concessions are still completely voluntary.

They are given on loan by the ruling classes. So don&#39;t be surprised when they send someone to collect.

Furthermore, don&#39;t expect any of these concessions to lead to real "ownership" of the nation. That will never happen.

It is not possible to win the class war by using the tools of the ruling class.

[h&s]

IF I can recruit even one person to the movement as a result of election work than to me it will be worth the time.

That is the kind of attitude we need&#33;
No more pessimism&#33;
Stand up for what you actually believe in&#33; :hammer:

[Camarade du Che]

I will vote for the Bloc Québécois because they are the only ones that will protect Québec&#39;s values like no war in Irak, social justice, respect of the french language, etc. A Conservatives&#39; victory would be really good for the possible independancy of Québec because the Conservatives don&#39;t have any french minister and they would show, by their decisions, how federalism is not good for Québec. This would be combined to Charest&#39;s federalist and rightist government&#39;s incompetence in Québec, so the chance of a positive referendum in 3 or 4 years would be really good.

By the way, if I really were a Canadian, I would probably vote for the NDP.

[solo_ar]

Originally posted by Camarade du [email protected] 4 2004, 09:02 PM
I will vote for the Bloc Québécois because they are the only ones that will protect Québec&#39;s values like no war in Irak, social justice, respect of the french language, etc. A Conservatives&#39; victory would be really good for the possible independancy of Québec because the Conservatives don&#39;t have any french minister and they will show, by their decisions, how federalism is not good for Québec. This would be combined to Charest&#39;s federalist and rightist government&#39;s incompetence in Québec, so the chance of a positive referendum in 3 or 4 years would be really good.

By the way, if I really were a Canadian, I would probably vote for the NDP.
yah, quebec.. i hope you guys do seperate. i would love it. you would sink like a stone. do it. we dare you.

what currency are you going to use?

[Camarade du Che]

"yah, quebec.. i hope you guys do seperate. i would love it. you would sink like a stone. do it. we dare you."

Thanks. I prefer your attitude than the attitude of those Canadians that used millions from our taxes to make a "We love Québec" manifestation before the last referendum.

"what currency are you going to use?"

It would probably still be canadian. If not, we could have our own currency: it&#39;s funny that, in the seventies, federalists were saying that our currency would drop to 0,70&#036; american if we seperated and that this is what happened to the canadian currency&#33;

[Guest1]

Comrade, while I am sympathetic to the seperatist cause, voting bloc this election is counter-productive, half the bloc members are former Conservatives.

Vote NDP, who hold no federalist stance, and look for the repeal of the "clarity act".

[Pete]

Also, from what I&#39;ve heard, the Greens in Canada are very rightist economically. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, of course.

You&#39;re wrong. But thats okay. I spent a day at their head office trying to get a job. They want to lower income taxes for the lowest two tax brackets, increase gas taxes, end subsidies to big industry, and legalize marijuana to tax it. This will give them more money, which they want to use to create preventative health care, and increase education spending among other things. They also want some kind of proportional representation system. (It is true, though, that the leader used to be a PC, but he changed suits about 20 years ago)

I&#39;ll vote green. If they get more tahn 2% of teh vote nation wide (which they will, running 308 candidates) they get 1.75&#036; per vote until the next election. This will allow them to push their policy of sustainability and also prepare for the next election which will probaly be in 2-3 years. I think the Conservatives will form a minority, which won&#39;t work to will with the Bloq as the swing vote. And on the NDP, I talked to Ed Broadbent the other day. A good guy. (Former leader, candidate in Ottawa-Centre.) Jack Layton is, in my opinion, a political oil spill. He is a monster in hiding.