http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040130/COSALU30//?query=Layton

I don't agree with everything said, but to see this debate in the mainstream press is fantastic.

We do need to be reminded now and then that without alternatives to capitalism, we will only be a bandaid. Social concerns are not enough. Where I disagree with Salutin is that I think Jack understands this very well, and is a far cry from another Tony Blair. We've had the third way bullshit in Canada, we called it Liberal.

Edited to add:
Here's a more readable version of the interview

[ 30 January 2004: Message edited by: Tim Hutchinson ]

quote:

---

Much of the 19th century was taken up with the struggle for everybody's simple political right to vote. The battle for equal economic rights -- in areas like health, education and subsistence -- took up much of the 20th century. Largely under the threat or fear of socialism and communism, even hardy supporters of capitalism eventually bought in. There may be holdouts, but most proud right-wingers like Stephen Harper (and Belinda Stronach) do not deny those universal social rights any more. Yet if capitalists gave in on equal social rights, socialists gave in on the economic route to reach them.

The premises of capitalism and the free market are now as widely accepted on the left as the social agenda on the right.

---

But I think the intention was to make Layton seem cheerful and hopeful, and the old guard marxists (Salutins characture) as, well, glum as he said.

He was trying to juxtaposition the new left and old left, that's all. That being said it is approaching dishonest (even though I agree with Salutin's main thrusts) to read verbs liek chirp into a print article. How the fuck does he know how it was said? The context isn't enough to support these verbs.

[ 30 January 2004: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]

As for building this house now versus political polemics, I am 100% behind building this house now, which puts me 100% behind Jack Layton.

quote:

---

By the side of the road, like Foulfellow and Gideon laying for Pinocchio, wait Sam and Leo

---

Here he sets up Jack as optimistic, the Marxists as dour and ponderous. The rhetorical effect of the piece is the reversal at the end, and the basic point of this column is that the deep, old questions don't go away. So the caricatures at the beginning -- and they are caricatures -- are just for that rhetorical effect. I don't think he's being dismissive of Jack -- on the contrary, he situates him squarely within a broad contemporary stream of non-ideological, "pragmatic" electoral leftism ranging from Tony Blair on the far-right "third way" to more traditional social democrats back home, recognizing in a fairly non-evaluative way that this often vainly "pragmatic" stream has emerged out of historical conditions.

If he missed anything, it's that Jack probably understands, at some intellectual level, where Gindin and Panitch are coming from. It's just that he has to navigate a real world of immediate politics in which he has been immersed for a couple of decades. But it's also true that you can't factor out the effect of this distortion from Jack's remarks. What you commit to publicly does in fact constitute your politics to a large degree.

[ 30 January 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

The reason why an NDPer cannot answer if they still believe in socialism as an alterntive to a capitalist economy is that in practice the NDP, like most social democratic parties around the world, has given up on the project.

I think the majority of NDPers believe that by fighting for social justice and equality on an issue by issue basis, this will eventually lead us to where we want to be. The long Journey Jack was referring to.

I am not at all convince of this strategy and I do belive that the broad based left should seriously discuss and debate economic alternatives. I think if we do not attack the fundamentals of economic power relationships then any social democratic gains can be easily unravelled. Silently, many on the left have accepted the economic system we live in yet wish to humanize it.

Those who remember my (long) posts on babble during the leadership race will recall that the heart of Pierre's campaign was this idea of economic democracy.

I am a strong advocate of proposing a long term clear vision of where it is we want to be and what kind of economy we want to live in..not because we can get there tomorrow but because we can build it in small incriments right now.

It is a debate we need to have...because honestly right now the party cannot answer the question:

What kind of economy do you want in practical terms?

quote:

---

The reason why an NDPer cannot answer if they still believe in socialism as an alterntive to a capitalist economy is that in practice the NDP, like most social democratic parties around the world, has given up on the project.

I think the majority of NDPers believe that by fighting for social justice and equality on an issue by issue basis, this will eventually lead us to where we want to be. The long Journey Jack was referring to.

I am not at all convince of this strategy and I do belive that the broad based left should seriously discuss and debate economic alternatives. I think if we do not attack the fundamentals of economic power relationships then any social democratic gains can be easily unravelled. Silently, many on the left have accepted the economic system we live in yet wish to humanize it.

---

I fully agree with this -- and so would Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch. The fact is, you can't plan strategically if you don't have a long-term goal. It's not that you should be dogmatic about the nature of the goal -- it can be debated in the light of new experience and history. But that debate, and a recognition of the importance of a deeper political project, is central to the ability to succeed in the long-journey at all, as opposed to the disappointing pendulum politics we are now engaged in.

Fundamental to this, as you say, is the need to address basic questions of power. Without addressing these, piecemeal, issue-by-issue changes are unlikely to endure, and unlikely to inspire for very long. Issue-by-issue campaigning outside an articulate long-term perspective is self-defeating in the long run.

One of the tools needed to address basic issues of power, and to develop long-term political vision, is political theory and mass political sophistication. Yet there is both an absence of political theory in the activist base of the party, and an absence of recognition on both the near and far left of the inadequacy of the old theories, and our collective need to forge new ones. It is a pressing need for the left.

Tom, if you would like to be part of some process of initiating and facilitating this kind of dialogue in a structured, sustainable way, send me a PM.

[ 30 January 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

We should be looking at Lula's experience in Brazil. I.e. the biggest threat is ensuring that the "market" doesn't panic. Like it or not, if NDP make big gains, there will be a negative knee jerk reaction. Thus, it's interesting to see what Lula had to do to maintain the confidence of foreign lending markets that he wouldn't send the economy in an inflationary tailspin.

Also, Schroeder in Germany and (although he's not in power now) Jospin in France would be interesting.

[ 30 January 2004: Message edited by: FPTP ]

quote:

---

Tom, if you would like to be part of some process of initiating and facilitating this kind of dialogue in a structured, sustainable way, send me a PM.

---

I will be working on this after the election, we want Pierre's EcoDem page to evolve into an open forum where we (NDPers and others on the Left) can debate vision and strategy. Originally, we wanted to get this underway after the leadership race, but due to the proximity of the next federal election and time constraints, it was decided to plunge into this after the election.

With such a space for discussion, we can look at ideas from Parecon, models like Mondragon, events that took place in Spain in the 30's, left-libertarian movements in Latin America, the co-operative movement thrpighout the world etc. as well as how all these various expressions of economic democracy can be aided by a left government. We want to talk about where it is we want to go and how can we buid those real alternative here and now.

I think it is paramount that the various tendencies on the left talk to each other..but yes, the idea is to create such a forum, for discussion, debate and eventually action.

Jack is as left wing a leader as the NDP is likely to have in my lifetime. But, he understands that "shouting" left-wing ideology isn't going to get a single NDPer elected this spring. Most voters don't even understand the concept of left vs. right. Of those that do, there are just a handful that would categorize themselves a far left. So, it makes sense for Jack to talk about "how we get this housing built". In that sense, he "gets it" far more than Rick is giving him credit for.

Jack seemed to be leaving the door open to challenging the power of capital and working towards genuine economic democracy.

But then I read some of the interviews referred to in another babble thread on Jack's election strategy and I adopted pretty much the same reading of the first interview as Salutin. I realised that Layton is not prepared to look at radical solutions to the economic power imbalance in our society. It's too "old left" for him.

quote:

---

"Capitalism is a social system with its own internal logic," intones Sam. "At some point it stops working and this poses the question of what you will be replacing it with." "It is something to think about," chirps Jack. "If you're on a truthful journey, you can't be sure where you will end up."

---

While on first blush, Jack's answer may seem glib, it's hard to give an intelligent answer to a stupid question.