Canada-Should leftists work inside the NDP?

[OI OI OI]

So I brought this up to user jammoe in the Canadian elections thread .
That Canadian leftists should work inside the NDP and try to get the best activists to the ideas of Marxism and through that way build their independent organization.
Through this tactic we can have a big Marxist nucleus inside the NDP and when the conditions change and there is a leap in peoples class conciousnes this nucleus of Marxists in the NDP can end up taking over the party and transforming it from a reformist party to an actual revolutionary marxist party.

This is a good tactic for me because of various reasons.
First of all through the NDP we find a way to great activists that seek for answers to their questions.
Second of all because no one cares/knows about the communist party or the RCP or whatever. Through the NDP our ideas can have a wider echoe.
Third of all building a party in any other way is fruitless.
Party building is not a linear process at all. You cannot start with 5-6 activists and build a party of thousands if you are divorced by the workers movement.

You need to work where the workers are and gradualy win them over to your ideas.

Of course the Marxists need to have their own independent organization while they work inside the NDP or any other party .

That is my line and the IMT line on how the communists should build their organization.

Through the experiense of the IMT so far these ideas look correct.
6 years ago the IMT was an organization of one man.
Now it is one of the largest marxist organizations in Canada, with branches from Vancouver to Montreal!

So I would like to discuss this method with other Canadian activists and see their objections , agreements etc.

Please people who are not aware of the situation in Canada DO NOT HIJACK this thread.

[Hyacinth]

I couldn't disagree more. The problem with entryism, which is what you seem to be suggesting, is that a) it legitimizes the existing electoral system by giving people the impression that they can attain substantive change through electoralism, and b) it undermines the credibility of communist ideas if you're at the same time both condemning bourgeois elections as shams *and* participating in them.

Now, I have no issue with trying to convince NDPers of the rightness of our cause, but that is a task entirely different from working with them toward their electoral goals.

While it is the case that we live in reactionary times where there don't exist any mass workers movements, or large leftist parties, this is hardly an argument that we should retreat into reformism. Our task in reactionary times is simple: tell the truth. It isn't easy, and people will not always listen, nevertheless I don't see why we should partake in bourgeois elections which don't matter anyway. It would be a waste of our efforts, and will only make the working classes even more cynical toward leftist ideas when we just repeat the same old shit as the NDP.

[OI OI OI]

a) it legitimizes the existing electoral system by giving people the impression that they can attain substantive change through electoralism, and b) it undermines the credibility of communist ideas if you're at the same time both condemning bourgeois elections as shams *and* participating in them. We can use the bourgeois electoral system in order to agitate for our cause while at the same time condemn the bourgeois political system.

Many "non-sellout" communist parties around the world utilize this method in order to agitate workers including the Communist Party of Greece which is one of the most hard-line stalinist parties.
Lenin also agrees with this.


Originally posted by: Lenin We are in favour of utilising the election campaign; for instance, we are for participation in the first stage of the elections for the sole purpose of agitation and organisation (Lenin collected works, Volume 21, page 401)

Now, I have no issue with trying to convince NDPers of the rightness of our cause, but that is a task entirely different from working with them toward their electoral goalsWorking inside the NDP does not mean that we will work in order for the NDP to gain more votes etc. We work inside the NDP having our own ideas and our own platform and not renouncing our platform or hiding that we are marxists. We are not opportunists. We don't put our energy to make the NDP the next government but for our ideas to gain support in the rank and file of the NDP !



While it is the case that we live in reactionary times where there don't exist any mass workers movements, or large leftist parties, this is hardly an argument that we should retreat into reformismdid I talk about being reformists?
Don't put words in my mouth. This is very offensive! Next time don't slander please.



Our task in reactionary times is simple: tell the truth. It isn't easy, and people will not always listen, nevertheless I don't see why we should partake in bourgeois elections which don't matter anyway.It's one thing telling the truth and another thing to tell the truth while having no audience to hear it!
I advocate telling the truth to an audience of workers and activists that exist inside the NDP. You advocate telling the truth to a limited or non-existent audience.




It would be a waste of our efforts, and will only make the working classes even more cynical toward leftist ideas when we just repeat the same old shit as the NDP.That's the main concept. Working inside the NDP in order to spread our ideas and not the ideas of the NDP!


EDIT(just so we won't have any further conflicts on wether should we participate in the bourgeois parliamentary system:)


Also posted by Lenin
that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses

[Guerrilla22]

What happens if the party higher ups simply ignore your your agenda and push you aside?

[OI OI OI]

What happens if the party higher ups simply ignore your your agenda and push you aside?

We don't work in those parties in order to "educate" the bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy is a bunch of sell-out carreerists who work in the party for their own benefit for the most part.

We work inside those parties in order to educate the rank and file.
And once we have the majority of the rank and file on our side we can push aside the bureaucracy.

[Frost]

I know people who do, and I was one myself. The major problem to this is that the NDP has plenty of infighting and a lack of support in the first place. The "first past the post" electoral system is devastating for NDP representation in government and will undoubtedly continue to do so. They get a lot more of the popular vote than what the average voter would think had they fully understand electoral systems.

This being said, the system works against them and favours the two-party Liberal/Conservative (both the same in my opinion) political paradigm. The disparity of funding between the two top parties and the NDP is also significant. Liberals and especially Conservatives receive millions of dollars coming from corporate interests, while the NDP is mainly funded by unions that dish out a lot less.

Also, a farther left platorm probably won't work for the public. Most Canadians just buy into bourgeois values. Many people think they are already too left of a party.

Lastly, I would say that within the NDP right now there is still a continual push for environmentalism as opposed to more concrete class issues. It would take a mass movement of people joining the party to actually have the chance of changing anything. Not to forget Guerrilla22's most likely scenario of the party big-wigs pushing you aside. Trust me on this one, the higher-up people care a lot more about name-recognition than the issues.

[Hyacinth]

OI OI OI, if I've misinterpreted what you've said I do apologize, though initially it did sound as though what you were advocating was 'working to get the NDP elected', which I read as reformist. Upon further clarification I see I was mistaken.

If indeed the aim is solely to attempt to raise the class consciousness of NDP members and their supporters, rather than to assist the NDP in its efforts to get elected, I have no reservations with this tactic.

[Edgar]

I think entryism into the NDP would be a huge waste of time. The NDP has a well documented history of carrying out purges of marxists, so any entryism would have to be done covertly if it's to last long.

And what effect would it really have anyway? Most of the Canadian working class votes Liberal or Conservative, but I doubt any of us would advocate entering those parties, would we?

[Zurdito]

Working inside the NDP does not mean that we will work in order for the NDP to gain more votes etc.


really? but the IMT in the UK works for the Labour Party to gain votes, the IMT in Venezuela works for Chavez to gain votes, and the IMT in Pakistan works for the PPP to gain more votes, etc., so why not? All those parties repress the working-class vanguard and rule in the interests of big capital so what makes the NDP worse?

[Die Neue Zeit]

OI OI OI, if I've misinterpreted what you've said I do apologize, though initially it did sound as though what you were advocating was 'working to get the NDP elected', which I read as reformist. Upon further clarification I see I was mistaken.

If indeed the aim is solely to attempt to raise the class consciousness of NDP members and their supporters, rather than to assist the NDP in its efforts to get elected, I have no reservations with this tactic.

I still have a problem, though: the NDP is too "reformist." :(

I also don't think it would be within party rules to agitate for ballot rejections. ;)

[OI OI OI]

I think entryism into the NDP would be a huge waste of time. The NDP has a well documented history of carrying out purges of marxists, so any entryism would have to be done covertly if it's to last long.6 years of working inside the NDP has caused us no problems...
When the leadership purges us we will surely take a lot of dissatisfied NDPers with us just like we did in Denmark. So either way we win.


And what effect would it really have anyway? Most of the Canadian working class votes Liberal or Conservative, but I doubt any of us would advocate entring those parties, would we?Well there is a vanguard to be built in Canada......
I am just arguing that the best way to build the vanguard is to work inside the NDP and recruit the best activists from there while taking over the party eventualy...



Originaly posted by Ignorant Slanderer
really? but the IMT in the UK works for the Labour Party to gain votes, the IMT in Venezuela works for Chavez to gain votes, and the IMT in Pakistan works for the PPP to gain more votes, etc., so why not? All those parties repress the working-class vanguard and rule in the interests of big capital so what makes the NDP worse?That is just idiotic slander. I didn't expect anything better... as I explained before entryism does not mean that you build the party in which you perform entryism in.



I still have a problem, though: the NDP is too "reformist." http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gifWe don't work inside the NDP because of its policies we work inside it because of the fact that most of the canadian honest activists that want to "change the world" work inside the NDP. And through that we make significant recruits.

PS: As I said this conversation should be limited to those with knowledge of Canadian politics and preferebly to those who actualy are activists in Canada. No offense but some people derail the conversation. Please don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer or if you don't have a clue about the situation in Canada. Thank you!

[Zurdito]

That is just idiotic slander. I didn't expect anything better... as I explained before entryism does not mean that you build the party in which you perform entryism in.

no but the IMT does call for votes for and campaign for those parties/candidates in elections. why wouldn't you do so in the NDP?



PS: As I said this conversation should be limited to those with knowledge of Canadian politics and preferebly to those who actualy are activists in Canada. No offense but some people derail the conversation. Please don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer or if you don't have a clue about the situation in Canada. Thank you!

well thankfully you're not a mod, so you don't have the power to control who replies to your threads. if you can find a mod or admin to agree that I am derailing your thread then you can get my posts trashed, however I doubt this will happen because my point, while not speicifically about Canada (in fact I asked you a question about the NDP in order to fit this into my wider understanding of the IMT's method, which I think is valid in a thread like this), was about the International Marxist Tendency, and therefore relevant.

[Lost In Translation]

Personally, I do support leftists in Canada working inside the NDP. As we've seen in recent years, the Canadian voting public has been unkind to outsiders trying to join the race (The Green Party comes to mind, after being rejected from appearing in the national debates for the 3rd time). It will be far too tasking to try to construct a whole new political party in hopes of competing with the big names.

I do realize that there seems to be a flaw, seeing as the NDP is quite reformist. However, it will be much more palatable to the voters that way IMO. Still, we are capable of changing the outlook of the NDP, and it will be easier than starting from scratch.

One concern though. It seems that the NDP are now a running joke more than anything these days. Layton's platform is very one-dimensional. It lacks depth, and rigid. I fear that working with them may not as effective as we had hoped, and may be difficult.

Disregarding my concerns, though, I do believe involvement with the NDP will help get our message across.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We don't work inside the NDP because of its policies we work inside it because of the fact that most of the canadian honest activists that want to "change the world" work inside the NDP. And through that we make significant recruits.

PS: As I said this conversation should be limited to those with knowledge of Canadian politics and preferebly to those who actualy are activists in Canada. No offense but some people derail the conversation. Please don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer or if you don't have a clue about the situation in Canada. Thank you!

I regrettably voted for the NDP person in my riding during the last election. :p

[Edgar]

6 years of working inside the NDP has caused us no problems...
When the leadership purges us we will surely take a lot of dissatisfied NDPers with us
Where will you take them, exactly? Will you find some other reformist party to enter?

/

[Ismail]

No, never. Entryism is not only a waste of time, it prolongs capitalism. You cannot change a bourgeois party. Even if you were to move the NDP into a truly 'democratic socialist' position, then you now have an enemy of communism who claims that Trotskyism/Marxism-Leninism/etc. is the enemy of democracy and 'reforms' capitalism to give it another 100 years of existence. It's like the types who say "Well, you gotta support somebody" in elections.

Lenin apparently once said "The worse things are, the better they are", and I agree. What purpose do you think fascism has? To prolong capitalism. However once workers and such start realizing how absolutely horrible workers rights are under it, fascism doesn't last long and you wind up with a newly-strong capitalist economy under bourgeois democracy. Hell, you could just have light economic fascism (Huey Long, Franklin Roosevelt) while keeping bourgeois democracy and that in itself prolongs capitalism.

Even if you do break off and form the Truly New Democratic Party of the Yukon or whatever, you'll still lack popular support since actually gaining leadership would end in other non-communists going "OSHI-" and the NDP utterly breaking up. What's wrong with building a revolutionary vanguard party? Why move a party which only exists to gain votes (as is the same with every other bourgeois party) to the 'left', thus transforming it into a populist one at best?

[Goose]

Of course the Marxists need to have their own independent organization while they work inside the NDP or any other party .

.

Run that past me again?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Run that past me again?

I think he meant that we ought to maintain a revolutionary Communist party of some sort while working within the NDP to bring misled reformists over to revolutionary thought.

In any case, I'll have more to say on this later, perhaps but for now:

In a thread I made about this upcoming election, I made the point that we ought to recognize that reformism at least shares goals closer to ours than those of the neoconservatives.

The problem is how to mainstream ourselves without political exposure. I've revised my stance on the NDP per Jack Layton's mishandling of the Elizabeth May issue. If Layton is not willing to let even the Green Party get such exposure, where does that leave Marxists?

My history teacher made the point himself the other day that it would then become a question from those opposed to Elizabeth May's participation of whether or not that now means we must involved parties like "the Christian Heritage Party and the Communist Party".

I believe that the most important thing in such a season of political exposure is to exploit the chance to declare and defend our Marxist views.
Some have taken the approach that we ought to support the Conservatives in order to instigate more oppression of the workers in order to instigate revolutionary thought in North America's "proletariat".

All my partisan beliefs regarding the dividing issues between first-world and third-world proletariat aside (and this is not to say North American workers aren't exploited, but multinational corporations are moving constantly toward a trend of superexploitation in the third-world)..I would suggest that our motto ought to be "allies of the working class; enemies of the bourgeoisie" and not merely the latter half of that statement. There is indeed a fundamental difference. Can serious revolutionaries be so willing to call for the intensification of that which we fight against in order to increase the potential of long-term workers' solidarity and revolutionary thought? What if, by the time such thought has spread, the iron grip of the bourgeois has taken too strong a hold?

Now, I realize that reformism is essentially short-term in a system where the gains of the workers are threatened endlessly by the ruling class. However, I believe it dangerous to suggest that we ought to work against reformist parties to show our support for gains by the working class. Note the paradox of those ideas. I believe that, as it seems the post I quoted was stating, we ought to offer our criticisms to reformists in order to show why such a system can only bring moderate and temporary benefits for the working class, which at the same time emphasizing support for workers' solidarity and the noble goal of loosening the grip of the bourgeoisie over their lives. At times like this, it is crucial that we define ourselves as supporters of material gains by the working class.

Those like myself who have studied the Winnipeg General Strike know just how far the bourgeois will go to maintain power over the workers. Imagine if, as the strike died down with a whimper, we revolutionaries stood up and applauded the actions of the "Citizens' Committee of 1000" and their bourgeois government cronies who sent armed troops to break up the strike..in the hopes that such an endorsement would inspire revolution rather than contribute to the disheartening felt by the workers.

I have to get some sleep now so I'll stop here with this: Under current circumstances, support for imperialism on the grounds that it could weaken the imperialist power substantially..does perhaps make sense, but not at the cost of abandoning what we support in the end. Of course, under certain circumstances, such 'support' may well be appropriate.

Actually, I may even rethink this. Just a tired ramble I thought I'd put out here.

[Zurdito]

The problem is how to mainstream ourselves without political exposure. I've revised my stance on the NDP per Jack Layton's mishandling of the Elizabeth May issue. If Layton is not willing to let even the Green Party get such exposure, where does that leave Marxists?

marxists won't be mainstream outside of a revolutionary situation. do the conditions for revolution exist in Canada today? if not, then how on earth could revolutionaries be mainstream? the only way to do that would be to stop being a revolutionary, and then, what's the point of that?

no, the idea is to build up your forces by presenting a credible argument to the working clss vnguard, small minority in many cases, in order to be ready when the conditions for revolution do exist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

marxists won't be mainstream outside of a revolutionary situation.

True. We'll never be mainstream in a bourgeois system. That's why I wasn't advocating us being reformists. I thought I made it quite clear that I simply think we can win over supporters from the mainstream by being willing to work within the NDP. I don't have the time to type up what I mean by that over again in full detail.


do the conditions for revolution exist in Canada today? if not, then how on earth could revolutionaries be mainstream? the only way to do that would be to stop being a revolutionary, and then, what's the point of that?

To go "mainstream" is not to stop being revolutionary. You seem to recognize that we would have to be for a revolution to occur. Well we're never going to get anywhere if we stick to a comfort zone. We have to be willing to push for reforms--because the more reforms occur, the more blatant the bourgeois resistance will be. The workers must take steps before they can learn to embrace revolutionary thought.

Such reforms are only granted to the working class to appease them--but at some point they will say that workers have pushed too hard and try to push back. We keep an eye out for strikes, for example, despite that they generally haven't been revolutionary to the point we're looking for.


no, the idea is to build up your forces by presenting a credible argument to the working class vanguard, small minority in many cases, in order to be ready when the conditions for revolution do exist.

Yeah, I know, and I see what you're saying. I just don't agree with the idea that we can get any closer to the conditions for revolution without mobilizing the workers to request drastic reforms instead of working against them to their advantage.

[Zurdito]

I'm not against demanding reforms, though. I never said anything to give that impression.

My point is that a transitional programme has to be based on building on the level the vanguard of the class has reached, teaching the need for unity across sectors, under a party,t o acheive these reforms, and bridging these existing demands to a revolutionary perspective.

This is not the same as saying that a small propaganda group can go directly to the mass of the class (i.e., be mainstream), and adjust its programme to their consciousness.

Once a vanguard party exists, then it's possible for this party to fight for the leadership of the whole class. However for small propaganda groups to adjust their current programmes to consciosuness of the mass of the class goes against the struggle to untie the vanguard of the class around a classist and then revolutionary platform.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But Zurdito, how do you define "reforms," and which "reforms" are most appropriate?

[Charles Xavier]

So I brought this up to user jammoe in the Canadian elections thread .
That Canadian leftists should work inside the NDP and try to get the best activists to the ideas of Marxism and through that way build their independent organization.
Through this tactic we can have a big Marxist nucleus inside the NDP and when the conditions change and there is a leap in peoples class conciousnes this nucleus of Marxists in the NDP can end up taking over the party and transforming it from a reformist party to an actual revolutionary marxist party.

This is a good tactic for me because of various reasons.
First of all through the NDP we find a way to great activists that seek for answers to their questions.
Second of all because no one cares/knows about the communist party or the RCP or whatever. Through the NDP our ideas can have a wider echoe.
Third of all building a party in any other way is fruitless.
Party building is not a linear process at all. You cannot start with 5-6 activists and build a party of thousands if you are divorced by the workers movement.

You need to work where the workers are and gradualy win them over to your ideas.

Of course the Marxists need to have their own independent organization while they work inside the NDP or any other party .

That is my line and the IMT line on how the communists should build their organization.

Through the experiense of the IMT so far these ideas look correct.
6 years ago the IMT was an organization of one man.
Now it is one of the largest marxist organizations in Canada, with branches from Vancouver to Montreal!

So I would like to discuss this method with other Canadian activists and see their objections , agreements etc.

Please people who are not aware of the situation in Canada DO NOT HIJACK this thread.


IMT is not the largest Marxist group there is absolutely no IMT in Ontario I have never heard of them prior to entering this forum. The RCP likewis e are a very tiny organization, I don't even know if they exist anymore and when they did exist they only were in Quebec and were a student group. The communist party of Canada is much much larger with actual ties to the trade union movement same with the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. Further this method is divisive. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentry struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not work with it. Workers are found in the workplace not in the NDP, workers are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. Thats just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

[OI OI OI]

IMT is not the largest Marxist group there is absolutely no IMT in Ontario I have never heard of them prior to entering this forum.

Activist wise the IMT is the largest one.
And this is natural as it is an organization of activists at the moment with a lot of sympathizers its true but mainly activists. In Ontario there is IMT, the name of the group is Fightback and there are more than 20 activists with a lot of sympathizers. Also in Montreal we have double or triple the number of IMT activists than communist party activists. Also keep in mind that the IMT started 6 years ago in Canada and it has been doubling its membership every year. This only comes to show the corectness of its tactics. The CPC has been around for decades but it hasn't attracted neither a lot of activists nor a lot of sympathizers.


The RCP likewis e are a very tiny organization, I don't even know if they exist anymore and when they did exist they only were in Quebec and were a student group

The RCP is the biggest group in Quebec but only exists in Quebec.


The communist party of Canada is much much larger with actual ties to the trade union movement same with the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

The trade unions themselves are tied to the NDP. Plus the CPC does not have a lot of activists.



Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas.

Entryism is a good method in order to grow. Once you get strong enough for the right wing to fear you inside the NDP, either you overthrow them and purge them, either they purge you but you leave taking with you the majority of the activists and forming your own mass party. It's a win-win situation. Also don't forget that what happened in the 70s happened in a period of capitalist boom, so the purging did not result in a formation of a radical left wing mass party. Although the Waffle almost overthrew the right wing.


.
Further this method is divisive. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentry struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not work with it. Workers are found in the workplace not in the NDP, workers are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

The NDP has more than 3000 activists in Canada. So it is a party with a lot of activists. Also the trade unions fund and support it. So the NDP is a good means of getting workers than sympathize with it on your side.
Also working inside the NDP does not make someone dishonest. Fight back never hid their identity. We put our positions forward as MArxists, not as reformists....



Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. Thats just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest

Wrong again. Working inside the NDP does not mean that we hide our identity. That would be dishonest and opportunists. We work as MArxists and we never hide our identity.

[OI OI OI]

I regrettably voted for the NDP person in my riding during the last election. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif

I never realized that you were Canadian...:rolleyes:


The problem is how to mainstream ourselves without political exposure. I've revised my stance on the NDP per Jack Layton's mishandling of the Elizabeth May issue. If Layton is not willing to let even the Green Party get such exposure, where does that leave Marxists?

Again you don't draw the line between the bureaucracy and the rank and file. We don't expect the bureaucracy to help us. On the contrary we expect them to fight against us. We work with the rank and file and so far it has been pretty succesfull.



No, never. Entryism is not only a waste of time, it prolongs capitalism. You cannot change a bourgeois party. Even if you were to move the NDP into a truly 'democratic socialist' position, then you now have an enemy of communism who claims that Trotskyism/Marxism-Leninism/etc. is the enemy of democracy and 'reforms' capitalism to give it another 100 years of existence. It's like the types who say "Well, you gotta support somebody" in elections.


No you got it all wrong Ismail . Entryism is not about making the NDP social democrats or about supporting the NDP ellectoraly . It is a means of finding a road to its activists and taking them over to MArxism and building the revolutionary party (the IMT in this case) that will be strong enough numericaly and qualitatively to be the vanguard of the proletariat. Now you can build a party by declaring it but you will end up with the same old people, which would be 3 men and a dog.

By working inside the NDP you can build a strong nucleus , strong enough to take over the party and transform it into a revolutionary party or if purged , to have the basis of forming a mass revolutionary party . It is not about supporting someone in the bourgeois ellections .


Lenin apparently once said "The worse things are, the better they are", and I agree. What purpose do you think fascism has? To prolong capitalism. However once workers and such start realizing how absolutely horrible workers rights are under it, fascism doesn't last long and you wind up with a newly-strong capitalist economy under bourgeois democracy. Hell, you could just have light economic fascism (Huey Long, Franklin Roosevelt) while keeping bourgeois democracy and that in itself prolongs capitalism.

I know what purpose fascism has but how is it relevant?
Entryism does not mean that we support social-democracy which indeed prolongs capitalism it is just a means of building our organization, which from the results so far has been proven correct.
Don't forget that Lenin also said that" We should be firm on principle , but felxible on tactics"



Even if you do break off and form the Truly New Democratic Party of the Yukon or whatever, you'll still lack popular support since actually gaining leadership would end in other non-communists going "OSHI-" and the NDP utterly breaking up. What's wrong with building a revolutionary vanguard party? Why move a party which only exists to gain votes (as is the same with every other bourgeois party) to the 'left', thus transforming it into a populist one at best?

Because building a mass revolutionary party needs flexible tactics. And our tactics of entryism are the most correct of building a strong revolutionary party.
The process of building a party is not a linear one. It is not like declaring that you have a party and then expecting it to be a mass revolutionary party.

In fact the experience of the CPC nowdays and other organizations show that it is impossible to build a mass revolutionary party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why doesn't the IMT do more work in the Work Less Party?

[OI OI OI]

Why doesn't the IMT do more work in the Work Less Party?

Why don't you create more useless theories?:lol:


On another note you still didn't tell me, which part of Canada are you from?

[Charles Xavier]

Activist wise the IMT is the largest one.
And this is natural as it is an organization of activists at the moment with a lot of sympathizers its true but mainly activists. In Ontario there is IMT, the name of the group is Fightback and there are more than 20 activists with a lot of sympathizers. Also in Montreal we have double or triple the number of IMT activists than communist party activists. Also keep in mind that the IMT started 6 years ago in Canada and it has been doubling its membership every year. This only comes to show the corectness of its tactics. The CPC has been around for decades but it hasn't attracted neither a lot of activists nor a lot of sympathizers.



The RCP is the biggest group in Quebec but only exists in Quebec.


The trade unions themselves are tied to the NDP. Plus the CPC does not have a lot of activists.




Entryism is a good method in order to grow. Once you get strong enough for the right wing to fear you inside the NDP, either you overthrow them and purge them, either they purge you but you leave taking with you the majority of the activists and forming your own mass party. It's a win-win situation. Also don't forget that what happened in the 70s happened in a period of capitalist boom, so the purging did not result in a formation of a radical left wing mass party. Although the Waffle almost overthrew the right wing.


.

The NDP has more than 3000 activists in Canada. So it is a party with a lot of activists. Also the trade unions fund and support it. So the NDP is a good means of getting workers than sympathize with it on your side.
Also working inside the NDP does not make someone dishonest. Fight back never hid their identity. We put our positions forward as MArxists, not as reformists....


Wrong again. Working inside the NDP does not mean that we hide our identity. That would be dishonest and opportunists. We work as MArxists and we never hide our identity.

I am not going to disclose information about my party but I will tell you in Ontario we greatly outnumber fightback. Speaking as a member of the Communist party of Canada we have a great number of activists accross the provience and are by no means a university student group.

My experience dealing with Fightback is that they only talk about "Stalinism"(which speaks of their political maturity) and are university students. I met this weird bald headed guy from Toronto( no offense if that is you) who spoke that the greatest threat to the Canadian working class is Stalinism. They usually hide behind this group called "Hands off Venezuela" which goes to various labour congresses and from what I heard siphon funds for their own press. I have no problems with them except they continually harass other leftists at protests and demostrations but I do this this is a very dishonest way of doing business.


Entryism is very dishonest method and the working class will see this and it is not a way to build leftist Unity. Its a failed method and you will learn from the quality of your cadre that it will sink the organization like the titanic and don't begin to use Lenin's name to justify it. He never spoke of that.

btw can you please write in Paragraphs its very hard to read what you say.

[OI OI OI]

I am not going to disclose information about my party but I will tell you in Ontario we greatly outnumber fightback. Speaking as a member of the Communist party of Canada we have a great number of activists accross the provience and are by no means a university student group.

That might be true but don't forget that Fightback exists only 6 years now and just a couple of years in Ontario. It is evident that you will have more members but the IMT has a lot of members in a National Level and of course it has international ties.

But on terms of growth the IMT as been growing the fastest thanks to its tactics and correct theory.


My experience dealing with Fightback is that they only talk about "Stalinism"(which speaks of their political maturity) and are university students.

Both of these assertions are wrong.

They do not talk about stalinism but they bring it up in order to differentiate themselves from other parties and to tell you the truth Stalinism gave a bad name to communism and it turns a lot of people off.

But the main reason they talk about stalinism is to make people understand that communism is not stalinism and to show the way to genuine Marxism-Leninism.


I met this weird bald headed guy from Toronto( no offense if that is you) who spoke that the greatest threat to the Canadian working class is Stalinism.

No it is not me :lol:
I ve met the guy and he s not at all weird:)
But the thing he said , if he said it, is not true obviously and its not an IMT position.



They usually hide behind this group called "Hands off Venezuela" which goes to various labour congresses and from what I heard siphon funds for their own press

Slander.
Next time talk with facts.

HOV is an international solidarity campaign with the Bollivarian Revolution .


I have no problems with them except they continually harass other leftists at protests and demostrations but I do this this is a very dishonest way of doing business.

Again lies.
Explain yourself. How, when , where?



Entryism is very dishonest method and the working class will see this and it is not a way to build leftist Unity. Its a failed method and you will learn from the quality of your cadre that it will sink the organization like the titanic and don't begin to use Lenin's name to justify it. He never spoke of that.

Marx spoke about that :)


Marx:
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

We cannot be sectarians and be away from the working class like the CPC.

We need to work where the working class is.

Lenin himself was never sectarian . We understand that we need an independent party and we have that but at the same time our independent party without hiding its identity as Marxist uses the tactics necessary in order to build.

Now you can make as many predictions with no facts as you want but the truth is that the IMT is growing the fastest of all Marxist organizations in Canada and that manifests the necessity of leftists to work in the parties of the working class and make enormous gains for the party and the movement

[Charles Xavier]

HOV in Toronto I'm not talking about worldwide (if it still exists) is controlled by Fightback its not a mass democratic organization. The proof of this is the fact each time someone from HOV is at anything and I mean the 2 or 3 guys that I've seen. They bring their "Fightback" material and sell it. Just do a search on Google : http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=yKP&q=Hands+off+venezuela+toronto&btnG=Search&meta=

You are misunderstanding Marx, Social Democracy is petty-bourgeioisie, not a worker's party. Most social democrats don't even think the working class exists, we are all just middle class.The social democrats serve two masters, the working class and the boss class I can explain this in much more detail if requested this is a whole other discussion. Anyways, you take that quote from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, not from the Manifesto of Social Democracy.

We are not opposed to the NDP, nor working in more broad terms we are opposed to its Class Collaboration against the workers.

I fail to see how my party is sectarian, we always put the interests of our class ahead of the interests of our organization.

[OI OI OI]

HOV in Toronto I'm not talking about worldwide (if it still exists) is controlled by Fightback its not a mass democratic organization. The proof of this is the fact each time someone from HOV is at anything and I mean the 2 or 3 guys that I've seen. They bring their "Fightback" material and sell it. Just do a search on Google : http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...G=Search&meta= (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=yKP&q=Hands+off+venezuela+toronto&btnG=Search&meta=)

The HOV campaign was started by the IMT but it is open to anyone who wishes to join.
For example in Montreal the HOV has mostly people outside the IMT.
I don't live in Toronto but from what I heard a lot of actvists outside the IMT have joined HOV. not to lie though the IMT recruits the best activists from hOV while HOV is used as a front group as well to reach people interested in Latin American solidarity.

Oh and here is an article just to "prove" that HOV is a worldwide campaign

http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-rallies-support-chavez-against-imperialism.htm



You are misunderstanding Marx, Social Democracy is petty-bourgeioisie, not a worker's party. Most social democrats don't even think the working class exists, we are all just middle class.The social democrats serve two masters, the working class and the boss class I can explain this in much more detail if requested this is a whole other discussion.

I agree with your analysis on the social-democrats.
BUT a lot of genuine activists are social democrats and by working inside the NDP we can rectuit them. Same with the workers. They mostly support the NDP and we need to reach them by means of working inside the NDP but of course reserving our independence as an organiztion and doing open work as well.



Anyways, you take that quote from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, not from the Manifesto of Social Democracy.

This quote is about the attitude of the communists towards the workers organizations therefore it is totaly relevant.



We are not opposed to the NDP, nor working in more broad terms we are opposed to its Class Collaboration against the workers.

That is exactly our position!


I fail to see how my party is sectarian, we always put the interests of our class ahead of the interests of our organization.

Your party is a joke and sectarian so far as it prefers working cut away from the masses and running in elections on its own and gaining a couple of hundred votes in the scale of 100 000 .

[Charles Xavier]

The HOV campaign was started by the IMT but it is open to anyone who wishes to join.
For example in Montreal the HOV has mostly people outside the IMT.
I don't live in Toronto but from what I heard a lot of actvists outside the IMT have joined HOV. not to lie though the IMT recruits the best activists from hOV while HOV is used as a front group as well to reach people interested in Latin American solidarity.

Oh and here is an article just to "prove" that HOV is a worldwide campaign

http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-rallies-support-chavez-against-imperialism.htm




I agree with your analysis on the social-democrats.
BUT a lot of genuine activists are social democrats and by working inside the NDP we can rectuit them. Same with the workers. They mostly support the NDP and we need to reach them by means of working inside the NDP but of course reserving our independence as an organiztion and doing open work as well.



This quote is about the attitude of the communists towards the workers organizations therefore it is totaly relevant.



That is exactly our position!


Your party is a joke and sectarian so far as it prefers working cut away from the masses and running in elections on its own and gaining a couple of hundred votes in the scale of 100 000 .



I am not talking about HOV in general, I am talking about the Toronto Chapter. The Toronto Chapter is a front group and not a mass democratic organization.

Our party is not oppose to any working class party. We will work with all working class parties and support them, whether they work with us or accept our support is another story.

Our party is willing to work with other groups and causes to achieve certain issues. Its not our fault petty-bougie intelligensias like the IMT think they are the only true marxists. We are the working class, we work openly and honestly we do not hide our intentions, we do not organize in secret, hatch secret plots or conspricacies we work with the masses, we earn their trust, we work towards victory. We are not some shady organization full of shame and secrets. Our struggle is for the struggle of the working class. We do not reject reforms but reformism. We are not in a position to be reformist, we are not gentlemen revolutionists, we are the working class, we are being attacked, we are lining up in the unemployment line, hungry with children to feed. We follow Marxism-Leninism as a guide to action in order to liberate our people, not to be some club of intellectuals thinking we are better than everyone else. Our goal is the goal of the working class nothing more nothing less.

We are not a mass democratic organization, we are a small vanguard organization which builds the mass democratic organizations.

[Random Precision]

Through this tactic we can have a big Marxist nucleus inside the NDP and when the conditions change and there is a leap in peoples class conciousnes this nucleus of Marxists in the NDP can end up taking over the party and transforming it from a reformist party to an actual revolutionary marxist party.

Just like Rosa Luxemburg's fight against reformism in the SDP (which unlike the NDP started as an actual workers party) led to the bureaucratic leadership being tossed out during 1918 in an upturn of the class struggle followed by a successful revolution in Germany... right?


First of all through the NDP we find a way to great activists that seek for answers to their questions.

And for some reason these "great activists" cannot be reached through work outside their party? Like, I don't know, maybe union work or protests?


Second of all because no one cares/knows about the communist party or the RCP or whatever. Through the NDP our ideas can have a wider echoe.

If the leadership allows your "ideas" to be heard, perhaps.


Third of all building a party in any other way is fruitless.

Ever heard of this guy called Lenin? He led a group called the Bolsheviks. You might want to read a bit about those guys.


Party building is not a linear process at all. You cannot start with 5-6 activists and build a party of thousands if you are divorced by the workers movement.

You need to work where the workers are and gradualy win them over to your ideas.

You're assuming that all workers are to be found within a party. You might find just as many in, say, a union?


Through the experiense of the IMT so far these ideas look correct.
6 years ago the IMT was an organization of one man.
Now it is one of the largest marxist organizations in Canada, with branches from Vancouver to Montreal!

Big who cares. Call me up when you've led a revolution.


So I would like to discuss this method with other Canadian activists and see their objections , agreements etc.

Please people who are not aware of the situation in Canada DO NOT HIJACK this thread.

It's pretty rich that you're pleading some kind of unique situation in Canada considering that entering a "workers party" or what's judged to be closest to it is the IMT strategy in every country they happen to have a presence in.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just like Rosa Luxemburg's fight against reformism in the SPD (which unlike the NDP started as an actual workers party) led to the bureaucratic leadership being tossed out during 1918 in an upturn of the class struggle followed by a successful revolution in Germany... right?

Ever heard of this guy called Lenin? He led a group called the Bolsheviks. You might want to read a bit about those guys.

I know we've had our spats, but have you ever heard of Lenin's politico-organizational inspirations, two guys called Bebel and Liebknecht? They led the international proletariat's first vanguard party, which survived the Anti-Socialist Laws and became the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands. You might want to read a bit about those guys. ;)

[bretty]

IMT is not the largest Marxist group there is absolutely no IMT in Ontario I have never heard of them prior to entering this forum. The RCP likewis e are a very tiny organization, I don't even know if they exist anymore and when they did exist they only were in Quebec and were a student group. The communist party of Canada is much much larger with actual ties to the trade union movement same with the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. Further this method is divisive. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentry struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not work with it. Workers are found in the workplace not in the NDP, workers are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. Thats just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

I agree with this, I'm a resident of Canada and I don't see why it's necessary to hide our agenda in a reformist party. My friend at school who is in the NDP always tells me how the NDP is full of socialists but how far can a reformist policy take you beyond reformism?