Forming a Canadian socialist party?

Comrade, there doesn't need to be more left groups in Canada. The question of participatory democracy is the paramount question on whether a party is good or not is quite silly. And neither the CPC or CPC -ML would disagree with your line on participatory democracy. We are very much in favour of democracy. There are immediate demands of the working class and long term, long term is socialist revolution and participatory democracy, short term is jobs, peace and sovereignty.

The CPC and CPC-ML is comprised of the working class. We do not have any bourgeoisie in our rank, with maybe the exception of Hardial Bains, deceased leader of the CPC-ML who apparently was a multimillionaire.

And finally you are too late the socialist party already exists and also there is several organizations who claim to be socialist such as the socialist project, the Socialist Party of Canada which has 20 or fewer members across the country and has existed since 1931, socialist caucus in the NDP. But they are very small.

Actually, participatory democracy is something to be strived for in the *short* term as a means to achieve socialist revolution.

I mean I'm all for it but Its an overestimation of where the people are right now. I would not say this tactic is wrong but we do not want to limit ourselves to one form of struggle. Setting up such councils would require immense resources and unity. I mean currently we have a hard time getting onto the labour councils across the country. Or establishing Left-Slate leadership of union locals and National leadership of the CLC

An already established organized vehicle of working class communication and activity. Setting up our own separate would be difficult and time consuming, we have forces that would act against them do not forget. I am not against it but I do not see it as something currently practical.

This is something that requires allies( no left grouping is currently strong enough) and non-disruptive ones. Then there's a problem of organization, if the councils are there, what is their purpose and goal? You say bring about revolutionary change?

Well we have difficulty building unity or sufficient strength on mass democratic struggles such as Health Care, Peace, Unemployment insurance, etc. Much less revolutionary ones.

You cannot compare south America to Canada, the class forces are at a different point in their struggle. We cannot cut and dry tactics from there to here. I'm not saying this will never happen but we must look at what is and not what could be. Obviously it is ideal to have such broad based worker democratic movements but what could we do to establish them in practical terms?

Comrade, I do not doubt when working people can move very quickly when it is necessary. Nor do I reject the call for participatory democracy. I however do reject that it is the paramount issue facing working people right now. The question of Jobs and a national economy is a higher priority. Though it isn't something that should be removed from the program.

In the battle of ideas the Bourgeoisie are placing a veil over the eyes of working people. They are telling them that there is no crisis, or that the crisis is mild and almost over. They are telling them that we are all in this together, bosses and workers are in the same boat. That its useless money in social spending or trade unions that have caused this problem not allowing us to be competitive. That our wages are too high and we should accept cuts. Social Democracy is unwilling to address these issues, they want to play the bourgeoisie's game with the bourgeoisie's definitions.

Our program is 70 - 90 pages long if I'm not mistaken. Its the most extensive political program of a political party in Canada. It serves its role as a guide to action for working people. Its an ever evolving program. Sometimes we go too far with a minimum program, sometimes we do not go far enough. We always look at what would immediately improve the living standards of working people on every front.

Increasing funding for social program I cannot say the CPC-ML's position on it as I am not their member. But is that slogan incorrect? Well if that there is their slogan it is a little weak, and I hope they are more specific when laying out that slogan. Are we against increasing funding to social services? No of course not. Is social spending the way out of this crisis? No its not. Its a bandage to a wound. Its absolutely needed under capitalism as capitalism is a system of crisises.

The slogan of peace jobs and a national economy would be a proper slogan in this time in my opinion. The problem with the CPC-ML is that they are all over the map politically, they have social democrats, maoists, anarchists and some committed marxist-leninists. They in many cities, close to my party, in other cities they treat us as competition or they represent revisionist or ultra-leftist trends.

The problem is the short-term answer often leads to long-term failure. The CPC and CPC-ML play the same game as the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Bloc; forwarding a limited-scope platform which focuses solely on the most immediate and often inconsequential issues rather than the pursuit of real fundamental change. Increasing welfare spending, cutting back corporate hegemony and those sorts of issues don't change a thing; and if the population cries out for it enough the established bourgeois parties will do the same thing, and spend millions on advertisements and campaigns ensuring every single Canadian hears and accepts their "plans" over any others.

CPC/CPC-ML simply aren't able to beat the bourgeois parties at their own game. Not with the way this society works.

Comrade I think you are confused on the difference between short term immediate goals and long term goals. They are linked yet different. The idea of the Marxist-Leninist party and the communist party are not that to win at bourgeoisie democracy. But while we have a bourgeoisie democracy and not a worker's democracy is to still continue to struggle for the gains we can make. If you real either of our programs you will see that there is an indepth explanation of the Canadian Situation. We are in favour of whatever increasing the social conditions of working people regardless of how small they might be at the same time fighting for the bigger picture.

Yes, I'm well informed about the revisionist policy of playing election games to spread their message rather than win votes -- though, let's be real here, the two outcomes are intricately linked. Your methodology isn't winning votes, it's losing them, and losing support. Our bourgeois political system has been engineered for over a century to convince the masses that the smallest, most arbitrary matters are the most important, which is most of the reason why the reformist Communist parties dance to the same tune of providing short-term, temporary bandaid patches to the capitalist system. While your real agenda is buried deep inside the anals of your website, the fact of the matter is, come election time, issues like employment insurance benefits, low-income housing and increased access to basic necessities dominates completely your political demands. And while these issues are important in their own way, they are wholly minor issues which still pander to the reality of capitalism. And in that regard, the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives are far, far more efficient at convincing the masses that they know best how to handle these small issues -- they have hundreds of millions of dollars, infact, that they are willing to spend to flood every facet of the media, every network television station, every newspaper, billboard and advertisement screen with that message. And yet still, the reformist parties trudge along, patting themselves on the back every year as vote numbers sink and sink, still convinced that somehow through the quagmire of a bourgeois-dominated parliamentary system the moral superiority of the socialist way will draw the masses like moths to a flame.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It may have in Russia in 1917 when the technological disparity between state-owned and state-affiliated media outlets and private activists was much smaller; where small groups of people could afford to purchase, build and maintain printing presses to spread propaganda at just as prolific a rate as anyone else. Today, bourgeois interests dominate thousands of television channels, can print newspapers in the millions per day and flood our lives with the placidity of accepting the capitalist lifestyle, your obscure internet website and hobbled-together monthly newspaper simply don't cut it.

Like I said, you're trying to play a game the bourgeois won long, long ago. Regardless of the moral or material validity of your message, your message is simply not enough. As drops in the ocean of capitalism we communists must make waves to get noticed.

Comrade, if my party was reformist I would not be a member. We are not playing the bourgeoisie game. We run candidates because we can and that method of struggle is open to us. We get funding for our party and press during elections. Interest in our party's material increases as seen by getting more hits on our website. Our message is not enough not because the message is bad, but we lack the resources and capacity to do more. Sometimes our party doesn't utilize our resources effectively. I'm sure you have faced short comings in your own organizations to this regard

And I would argue its easier and cheaper to get a message out now than it was in 1917. However the face of media has changed from reading to watching.

And it is not about just getting the message out. its about organizing and rallying around the democratic people's movement. To build the fight back and win.

The reason we participate in bourgeiosie parliamentry elections is because there isn't proletariat elections.

So instead of saying "Revolutionaries don't do this or that" as a simple minded windbag would do, and you shouldn't you are much smarter than that. Explain what we should do. A communist provides solutions. A communist proves scientifically a tactic is incorrect and replaces it with a advanced tactic. A communist corrects a wrong theory not by saying it is wrong, but by saying what is better.

The reason we do not having socialism in canada is because of the material conditions we struggle under on a day to day basis. The sufficient strenght to lead a fight back is not solely on the communist shoulders, we do not have the strenght to go in alone. As such we must be the first to build coalitions to win on the most basic of demands if that is all we can do.

We run candidates because we can and that method of struggle is open to us

What a perfectly logical reason to do something. Because you can. Damned if it actually accomplishes something tangible and real (no, website hits are not tangible indications of anything when every Canadian who googles communism will see your website at the top).

Explain what we should do. A communist provides solutions.

The "solution" is in the programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada). The development of rebellion and insurrection; fighting against the state rather than inviting Canadians to become a part of it on our behalf; public, and when necessary physical, manifestations of dissent and anti-capitalism. Protests, rallies, marches, to start off with; generate and use support. Talk with workers and give them something other than "well, we can't do shit for you now, but go vote for us when the time comes. Also, unionize."

And I think it's incredulous you talk about "scientific" proof; scientifically the proof is slapping you in the face with a glove full of nails -- your party's popularity, voter turnout and presence has bombed over and over and over again since the 1950s. Rather than accomplish scientifically provable tasks the CPC has rolled back progress again and again, losing membership, losing support, losing votes, losing listeners. In 1945 the CPC (under Progressive Labour) got over 100,000 votes. 1953, 59,000. 1958, 9,000. 1963, 4,000. 1974, 12,000. 1980, 6,000. 1988, 7,000. 2000, 8,000. 2004, 4,000. 2006, 3,000. 2008, 3,500.

Where do you see progress? Even the Marxist-Leninists have consistently beaten you in polls since their creation.

And where are these supporters that you claim to have reached out to via the elections? Where are your rallies, your meetings, conventions? Where can I find a group of CPC members and supporters numbering more than 10 in the same place at the same time in any part of the country?

You're right. A communist provides solutions; he analyzes situations, factors in material conditions, criticizes functions and behaviours and applies intelligence to solve problems and issues. I see none of this in the CPC; I see no adaptability, no change (positive, anyway), nothing which suggests there exists deep within the ranks of the CPC's internet warriors any sort of self-critical approach, re-analyzation or contemplation of a shift of tactics or strategy.

The entire basis of the RCP is not knee-jerk antireaction to parliamentarism. Many have asked what the point of Maoism is in the First World. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism more than any other ideological sect establishes that there is no one answer, that every factor must be taken into consideration for an appropriate response and course of action. In the West, there simply is no plausible way for parliamentarism to succeed, not with the way in which the bourgeois state has developed and established itself over the past 100 years, no way for revolutionaries to work with or within the state to achieve revolutionary goals.

The only plausible course of action therefore is a movement which establishes itself outside of the state's artificial boundaries of political law and order, that serves to fight against the state in any way necessary, to foster dissent and insurrection from the masses. We should be teaching the masses to rise up against the state, not to adopt the same lemming tactics to line up for the voting booth.

The RCP is the penultimate example of this strategy. Since 2001 the RCP has seen its support grow exponentially. Prior to 2006 revolutionary activists, anarchists, anti-capitalists, communists would celebrate May 1st by holding the back of the line at the marches held by the bourgeois-minded big trade unions. Since 2006 the RCP has held its own independant protests on the 1st, away from the unions, and these rallies involve hundreds of activists of various flavours who have one thing in common: they're sick and tired of the politics, of the unions, of the "state-sanctioned" terms of protest. They don't want to go to the ballot box and they certainly don't want to be told they should. Today Canadians are looking for a different way to express their anger and dissatisfaction and to achieve real change, which more and more people are realizing will never come pandering to any political party which wants to be elected. The CPC's own voter turnouts prove this; the history-breaking low voter turnouts for all Canadians proves this; the success of the RCP's strategy is proving this. And just to hammer it home: since 2007 when the RCP began to really kick up its public "showmanship", holding independant rallies all across Quebec, your party (both factions) have become "minor partners" taking part in our organized rallies and demonstrations (along with a slew of other groups, organizations and tendencies).

What I urge you to do is talk with your members and leaders, ask if they believe the current strategy is working for the CPC; ask what other options there are, ask that the situation be constantly re-analyzed and scrutinized and criticized; ask if you're really doing the right thing, if its really "paying off", and what you have to show for it.

In a perfect world, our organizations could work together to achieve what is obviously an identical goal. But as a support of the RCP I have to say I believe that the RCP has the correct analysis of the Canadian situation going for it and has applied what it believes (and what I believe) are the appropriate strategies and tactics that Canada needs to develop revolutionary consciousness and movement. There will come a day when parliamentarism will be back on the table, once the iron grip on politics that the ruling class has has been weakened significantly. An example of this is Nepal; in 1996 when our Maoist comrades began their fight the idea of parliamentary communism was a fool's hope. After over a decade of brutal fighting and struggle, not just with guns but with public insurrection, strikes, worker organization and mobilization, they finally won the "right", or rather ability, to enter the parliamentary arena under the fact that Nepali ruling classes had been significantly weakened enough that a truely progressive political force could be ushered in. And they won that election.

I'm just saying, that day isn't today. It isn't tomorrow; it won't be for awhile. The struggle against the bourgeoisie in Nepal is absolutely miniscule next to what we face in the west, the absolute monopolization on each and every aspect of life on the part of big business interests. I've criticized other Maoists for getting "too far ahead of themselves", for dreaming about aspects of the struggle which are nowhere near close to realization. I'm sure as hell going to criticize the CPC for dreaming about aspects which are even further out into the future, if you get my drift.

Woo, long-winded post.

I wholly agree with BCsocialist, he problem within the Canadian left is that it is too dispersed, let me explain. the right has one party, the conservatives, they receive all the votes of right wingers in the country which unfortunately amounts to a lot of votes. on the left we have (presumably) the liberals, NDP, Marxist-Leninist in some areas and green. in some way, shape or form, these parties all strive for similar goals yet end up taking votes away from one and other and we are left with a conservative government. so, in order to be an effective force, the left needs to unite and share its goals and resources for a common good. the amount of votes received by the left was greater than that the conservatives received, (therefore no majority, thank god). if there had been only one party we could have perhaps won the last federal election.
thats just my 2 cents, tell me what you think

what about the pirate party? http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com/ would any of you wish to join it and give it a larger platform towards socialism and not just a single issue party?

Personally, I think there really is only one left party that is actually competitive in Canada. That would be the NDP. The CPC is an out-dated and devastated party after the split occured within it. I don't know how some of you see the Liberals as a left party, but in my opinion, the Liberals are centre-right.

The problem I see right now is that the NDP isn't left enough. I agree with my comrade who started the thread. I believe we need to start another party. There are many people in the NDP that are socialists, although, there's no alternative, farther-left party to join and vote for.

EDIT-- More or less, I'd like to make one more point. What we REALLY need is a modern, 21st century socialist party here in Canada.

We didn't have a split outside of the nationalists in Quebec and it didn't destroy our party.

You must realize party building is not something that happens over night, you do not gain mass support or even memberships without hard work. What we don't need is more parties, what we need is more unity in the form of coalitions. Do not forget an international counter revolution succeeded a mere 20 years ago, this had a huge impact on the world socialist movement, including our party. Our international fight back has only really been coming back in the last couple of years. Our parties are beginning to grow again.

Let us not forget that the advanced members of the working class are by and far the industrial proletariat, they have been the centre of union activity for years and with the concentration of production into fewer and fewer hands we have fewer and fewer workers of this category, the communists themselves historically pull many members from this section of the proletariat. With the declining size and strength of the industrial proletariat in Canada and in much of the imperialist world, we are faced with a smaller advanced section of our class, however this also means that this advanced section are more powerful, it takes fewer workers to stop production.

Che, the split in the 1991s was lead by social democratic and their CSIS counterparts in order to liquadate the assests of the party, At the end of things they ended up with a nice little slush fund curiousity of thousands of Canadian communists over decades of struggle. It wasn't a split it was a liquidation attempt. The liquadators failed but they did harm the party. We have since grown from then. And the CPC is far from dead.

And our party does actually fight for the working class, we are a serious socialist party, we also use every mean open to us in order to struggle, including bourgeoisie elections. But this is the Capitalist's state, and it is not merely a matter of a wrong approach that causes the problems for why we don't have socialism. The struggle has not matured to that point.

What you are asking for is in essence the CPC but magically bigger and with a new name. Building the party requires hard work, not people who don't know what their talking about telling us to disband and magically create a bigger organization. Unfortunately class struggle isn't linear.

We are a small party and any of your "modern socialists" parties in canada are small too.

What soviet-like politics do we have? What policies do we have that are outdated?

The reason we aren't getting 1% of the votes is because we don't even have 1% of the media access, we don't have the resources to run 300 candidates. If you want to explain how we can get this 1% please tell us. And lets say we get 1% or even 10% of the vote? How does that change things?

Communists don't simply criticize and take pot shots but they offer solutions, so do so.

You haven't answered a single question you are just ranting and raging without anything backing it up.

Grow up.