true
Results 21 to 40 of 59
Nothing short of an NDP majority, or (less likely) an NDP minority with support from a substantial number of Green Party MPs, stands a chance of possibly going through with a repeal of Bill C-51. Even that only addresses the symptom of the problem, however, even from a 'mainstream' liberal perspective.
The fetishism of law itself is a problem, but let's leave that aside for a moment. Legal and other experts have criticized not only the powers this bill grants CSIS and other agencies, but the lack of any serious legislative or 'independent' oversight. Granted, that lack of oversight is in no small part due to its dismantlement by the Conservatives. Even without that dismantlement, however, any agencies tasked with oversight of secretive, extralegal police and intelligence practices will necessarily be limited in their effectiveness. The very nature of those practices means any popular resistance cannot be confined to trying to influence parliament. As has been pointed out, these laws in Canada and elsewhere merely codify much of what would take place irrespective of laws.
Of course, the only way to deal with Bill C-51, the lack of oversight that makes it especially dangerous, and the problem of legal fetishism altogether, is popular resistance that recognizes and addresses the source of the law's power in capitalist society.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
true
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada...q3?ocid=ASUDHP
She shouldn't have apologized, but the media reaction in spite of the apology is really fucking irritating. "How dare she have a political sense of humor that doesn't conform to the proper standards of passivity!"
+ YouTube Video
Last edited by The Intransigent Faction; 13th May 2015 at 01:30.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
I made the mistake of going to a CLC event last night, complete with tears shed over Jack Layton, an expression of hope that we could have an NDP government and therefore never need to strike, and "politicians who will keep their promises". On the last one I couldn't help but let fly my one heckle of the night, "Just like Dexter?"
Funny enough, it earned me a pat on the back and a "right on!" from one of the former members of the CLM's Marxist-Leninist Caucus. Who would've guessed that one?
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
NDP is really surging post- local elections. Basically a three way tie now.
Hopefully if they are able to form a coalition, it will be the NDP on top and not the Liberals.
As much as i hate the wimpy so called left in Canada (the NDP) i would much rather see them come out on top then the Liberals. I really don't like Trudeau at all as he seems like a proper sleveen just like his dad Mr.War measures act himself was.
But i as most people from my province will be quite happy just to see Harper go. It irritates me to no end that a neanderthal like Harper is running Canada into the ground and making us look very bad on the international stage. I mean since when did Canada become more Conservative then the US? Not to mention since the federal Conservatives can't even buy a vote here they are even less concerned with doing anything good for us. Not that he hides his hatred for east coasters mind you.
Peter MacKay has announced that he will resign this fall. That leaves Jason Kenney as the most likely successor if Harper were to resign following a loss in the next election.
Of course, it had to be the biggest douche of the bunch. Some of his notable achievements include:
-Cutting health care benefits for refugees and then circulating a petition thanking himself for it.
-Declaring "bogus" refugee claims from so-called "safe countries".
-Banning George Galloway from Canada in order to prevent him from speaking to an anti-war rally, due to Galloway's opposition to Zionism.
-This exchange with Romeo Dallaire in which he (Kenney) defended the then-ongoing refusal to repatriate Omar Khadr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-00a9MMACCM
More to the point, MacKay helped orchestrate the merge and represents the link between the former Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. With Kenney as leader, the Cons will likely veer further to the right and drag so-called "progressive" opportunists, as well the spectrum of "acceptable" discourse, along with them.
Last edited by The Intransigent Faction; 29th May 2015 at 21:04.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Well folks it's coming up! Probably gonna be called this weekend. The reason to call it earlier (it doesn't affect the election date) is that campaign expenses can be increased and the Conservatives have the most cash on hand.
Anyways, the odd development is that the NDP are leading in the polls and it might well be the first time we have an NDPer as Prime Minister. They've announced they're open to forming a coalition with the Liberals, who are trailing in third place.
Yet another party of social democrats has been shifting to the right and put its opportunism on full display. There's absolutely nothing odd about that. Clearly the Liberal brand has lost its appeal, though. You either love or hate the Tories, so nobody wants Tory-Lite. Meanwhile the Tories have shown signs of shifting ridiculously to the right to the point of seemingly alienating many potential supporters.
MOST of the media continues its trend of style-over-substance coverage that focuses on sports analogies and whether or not Candidate A's verbal sparring was in better form than Candidate B's. There's a lack of any real in-depth discussion of what the election's socioeconomic implications are even from a liberal perspective. It's almost at the point that we're in a Fahrenheit-451esque world where debate consists of whether or not Justin Trudeau is attractive enough to woo people into voting for him. I don't give a flying fuck about who is "leading in the polls" or who has the "most hard-hitting attack ads". That's just a circus.
Last edited by The Intransigent Faction; 4th August 2015 at 00:13.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Communist parties battle for few Marxist votes: No will to unite Canada’s far left
Tristin Hopper | August 10, 2015 | Last Updated: Aug 11 1:30 PM ET
More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper
It has been this way for nearly 40 years. In a country whose Communist movement largely fizzled out two generations ago, Canada has two rival parties vying for the handful of Marxist votes left.
“They (the Marxist-Leninists) are not high on the list of who we want to form coalitions with; there’s a past history where more of their hostility appeared to be directed towards us than towards the capitalists,” said Naomi Rankin, a longtime candidate for the Communist Party based in Edmonton.
The Communist Party of Canada, founded in 1921 and based in Toronto, is the country’s historic far-left party.
The second party, the Montreal-based Marxist-Leninists, cropped up in the 1960s. While the Communist Party was loyal to the former Soviet Union, the Marxist-Leninists sided with China and rebelled against the “revisionism” of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
Officially, the party’s title is “Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist,” but Elections Canada made it pick the current name to avoid ballot confusion.
Both parties insist there is no “rift” between them, and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have done much to bring them together.
“At this time we emphasize the ways in which we co-operate to democratize the political process,” wrote Marxist-Leninist Leader Anna Di Carlo in an email.
With the occasional exception, parties generally try to avoid running against each other in the same riding. And, lately, they’ve even taken to issuing joint press releases.
Full article: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...nadas-far-left
The article is bad enough... but my god those fucking comments.
It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists.
-Karl Marx
I love how the overall tone of the article seems to contradict the headline. In any case, there's a reason I didn't mention those parties above and haven't paid serious attention to them: They lack a genuinely Marxist/communist program, but without the slight yet non-redemptive benefit of greater electoral viability seen from explicitly social-democratic parties.
They may as well form a front with the RCP, because the likelihood of genuine revolution from a victory by these parties is about the same as the likelihood of a protracted 'people's war' under a Maoist banner breaking out on the streets of Canada in the near future.
As for the comments, I didn't read them, but if comments on similar past articles are any indication of general public opinion rather than that of small groups of trolls, then the gulags are going to be operating well over capacity.
Also, this is incredibly ironic:
You know what's confusing (for potential voters, at least)? What's confusing is forcing a name change which obscures just how serious the problem of sectarianism and splits is or was. What's confusing is insisting on a name which still further marginalizes non-Leninists, as if by virtue of a group being called "Communist", it's a given that its goal is simply to emulate the former Soviet Union because it's either that or capitalism.
There's more, but I don't need to preach here about the lousiness of the article itself as a portrayal of what communism could actually represent for Canada.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
I mostly thought it was funny although it does have some okay background. One of my pals who was a CPer in 80s posted on FB, that's how even knew about it. I ended up reading the comments (I usually take a pass. Ick.)
Here's a good piece by Yves Engler on the NDP and their support for trade deals with the EU and Jordan (!?!): http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yves-en...b_4166887.html
I'm going anything but Conservative this time, but we gotta be ready to fight.
If you think that the NDP, let alone the liberals, are worthy of even the most critical of support in this election, then just drop the charade already and come out openly as a social-democrat. No Marxist, on the other hand, would uphold such a suicidal strategy. If you espouse an ABC line when in contact with fellow workers Blake, then I'm sorry to say, but you're part of the problem. I'm used to hearing such nonsense when talking politics with friends, but not on an ostensibly revolutionary forum. You're actively playing a role in the further fracturing of any hope for proletarian political independence and are feeding into the pressure placed on the working class which binds them politically to the labor lieutenants of capital. When I hear people espouse this ABC line I can't help but be a bit frustrated, but to hear you uphold it is just sad, cause you should know better.
Funnily enough I was thinking of Mulcair as proving Daniel DeLeon right! He is a class enemy and his politics are pretty much in line with old Progressive Conservative politics. I'm in favour of a break with the NDP but given that we have 60 days or so until the election, that's not realistic. For now get rid of Harper with no illusions on the replacement.
Full article: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/thoma...ent-in-the-ndp
The issue, as far as I see it, is that you view the lot of the working class in Canada as something that is decided up on parliament hill, as being based on decisions made by benevolent or hand wringing politicians, not by the contradiction which arises between working class militancy and the realities of global capital.
Harper represents a faction of the bourgoeisie, other factions are represented by Trudeau, Mulcair, and May. If you think any one of these individuals, or their party's, have anything at all to offer the proletariat, then I'm afraid you've crossed some very clear class lines. I personally don't vote, but at the same time don't derride friends who cast a tactical ballot; but as a Marxist, if you advocate and whip up support for one of those parties, then in response, the only recourse is to paraphrase Engels: either you are hopelessly confused, or betray the movement of the proletariat, either way, you serve the reaction.
Oooof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcfhE3BPhf8
Good fucking Christ.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to have the election 'Murcasplained by liberals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPUDtA7tWw
If I cringe any harder I'll have to call an ambulance.
Last edited by Counterculturalist; 17th August 2015 at 00:11.
It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists.
-Karl Marx
What the...Oooof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcfhE3BPhf8
Good fucking Christ.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to have the election 'Murcasplained by liberals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPUDtA7tWw
If I cringe any harder I'll have to call an ambulance.
I don't want this thread to turn into an Unruhe hatefest, and I don't want to irritate the mods by contributing to that. However, I do have to say that I've admittedly seen several of his videos over several years, and that sounds like a rather strange position for a self-proclaimed Third-Worldist. I may sit through it Clockwork Orange-style just to see how he reaches that position.
The parties themselves are of course taking the typically petty approach for the sake of distraction.
EDIT: Oh, shit. The debate already happened? I don't know if I can take sitting through that, but I may have to try. If they're taking questions from the internet, I doubt any of mine would get past the screening process. Heh.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Just to comment on that particular video in case anyone can't bring themselves to watch it: he recommends voting "strategically" for the candidates who will "end wars"... And which candidates would those be, exactly? It's just really dumb.
And the highlight of the Young Turks video is one of those guys proclaiming that Harper is some kind of lefty social democrat because "it's Canada, they're so liberal there compared to us, even their conservatives are liberal" and then getting all exited about "Tim Mulcair and his National Democrats."
It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists.
-Karl Marx
I 'brought myself' to sit through the entire Leaders' Debate, and somehow resisted the urge to punch the next person I saw square in the face.
Mulcair tried to justify his position against a more progressive income tax, among other things. Justin Trudeau said, WORD-FOR-WORD about an NDP proposal: "His plan to hike corporate taxes is simply pandering to the people who like to hate corporations". He repeatedly tried to portray the Liberals as the "rational moderates" between two knee-jerk "extremes". Every party experienced "middle-class syndrome" (repeated, obsessive use of that term along with a relative absence of references to the two central contending classes in capitalism). Harper, of course, did everything you'd expect Harper to do (if I have to hear the phrase "Let's be clear" ONE more time...).
May made some points that made her seem genuinely agreeable, before she went off about the Conservatives' lack of action on 'barriers' to interprovincial trade. For a brief, fleeting moment, to her credit, she mentioned the suffering of the homeless---though apparently the only aspect of that worthy of mentioning was how the Fair Elections Act would make it even harder for them to ever vote. She stated that her party's rise in support was due to her encouragement of people to vote. This of course would mean that the Green Party is an effective tool for luring otherwise justifiably cynical non-voters toward a false alternative that, if actually put in power, would only reinforce cynicism with its ineffectiveness.
Anywho, it was an unbelievably irritating 90 minutes long, so I could probably say far more, but I'm tired.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
