Another one of my daughters went out with a guy named Toker, at one time. A motely "low class" crew it was, my poor daughters had to choose from. :-D

And two: No one can define for sure what is moderate.

That just about covers it, doesn't it?

I think we can come up with some general concensus of what moderate means for the average British Columbian. The paradox at the polls helps explain our concept of moderation. Healthcare, the environment, education, the economy and our personal taxes. All these score highly in our rankings of importance. Yet are they compatible? It seems to me that when we want a moderate govenment we want a government who will balance all these things out and not start sacrificing some of them in the interest of persuing others. The NDP and the Liberals are two different camps when it comes to some of the issues we hold important, at least in our perceptions of them. The reality is that brokering political arrangements usually forces moderation upon a party even if it has a radical agenda. Yet we can determine where a parties emphasis lies. Perhaps we are looking for a party which is free from debt to external interests. Which is why James made the NDP's distancing from unions a central piece of her electoral message. Not that I want to assist the Liberals but, perhaps they would do better if they tried to show they are not in the pocket books of Howe Street and major international resource companies. (The real question though is if the voters would buy it).

Hide bound ideologues of either right or left see no meaning in the words "moderate" or "centrist".

Should anyone be surprised?

In either extreme ideological case what the citizens themselves may actually say they want always takes second chair to what the ideologues tell the people they want. Or perhaps more precisely, what will be good for them.

It's what BC has been mired in for several decades.

coyote,

Strange is right! I, too, experienced problems this morning in attempting to respond to one of your posts. See: How close was it? (from previous HomePage) Now in Views.

You may want to go there anyhow for a free diagnosis ;-)

The race to the center involves dilution of policy as you embrace the mealymouthed.

The masses may not be right (as in correct) If one doubts that, given what we know about air quality, and the cost of oil not only at the pump but in blood, look at what much of the masses is driving.

At one time the German masses were terribly wrong under a government calling itself Social Democrat.

I believe the governments we get are invariably those the Establishment want. It's not sufficient to say that if you don't like a particular policy you can vote the scoundrels out in four years or so. In the meantime they can give away the store or sign agreements too difficult or costly to break. AirCare comes to mind - sweetheart deal that it was - in my opinion.

Electoral reform is most certainly needed, as is media reform. I get so tired of polls telling me what I really want.

Interesting, until I got the creative thinking comment: How does an out dated resource-dependent economy differ from an up dated resource-dependent economy?

Wrong, Skeptikool, wrong. Cripes, how the facile love to think that Germany suffered because of "social democracy". Wrong!

You're thinking of "National Socialism", my friend, and even that was phoney and intended to hoodwink people ... stolen from the workers who Hitler, at the earliest beginning, pretended to represent. Then he smashed the unions just as National Socialism changed to the unique Nazi monicker. Oh. And he was supposed to smash Socialism, too ... then Communism. Look it up. But do not annoy me by getting these polar opposites mixed up.

I think what the poll indicates is, that most folks dislike the bitter partisan rhetoric and distortion that often passes for political dialogue in this province.

Probably the most effective means of addessing the issue of polarization lies in Ms. James' proposal to ban political donations by both unions and businesses. This one simple change to the election financing Act would accomplish two main objectives:

1) Ensure that people, not business or labour interests, finance political parties - which will affect the tone and substance of policy debate.

2) Remove the ability of political commentators and pundits to exploit the canard that parties are "in the pockets of..." business, labour etc.

The other initiative that would address the issue of political polarization lays in the implementation of a form of proportional representation in the legislature.

If Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) had been in place this election, the results would have forced a minority outcome, with the Liberals being given the first opportunity to form government. Ideological differences would likely result in the Libs not being able to form government.

In this event, the NDp would be asked by the Lieutenant Governor to form government. The combined NDP and Green vote would ensure a slim working majority in the legislature.

In this event, the pressure would be on the Greens to prove their worth on the provincial stage. Rather than complaining that the two big parties dominate the political stage - even though they received far more media coverage in this election than their 9% justified - the citizens of the province would have an opportunity to see if their party really deserves to be on the same stage as the main political parties.

My guess is, after reviewing their recent platforms and looking at the party's poorly developed organizational structure, that a MMP system would show the Greens to be the true fringe party they really are, and would be consigned once again to marginal status in subsequent elections.

Good observation BC Mary, although Skeptikool isn’t entirely incorrect. The Social Democrats were in power for over a decade prior to the National Socialist/Nazis took control, which may have had something to do with fostering voter complacency and acceptance of the Nazis (just a hunch on my part).

Aside from the aside, interested folks might benefit from a cursory glance at Alan Bullock’s “ Hitler, A Study In Tyranny”, specifically the chapter, Revolution after Power. If Bullock's analysis is correct, the parallels in political strategy, then and now, are scary. But perhaps I’m reading more into it than need be. Perhaps that’s just the way it is in the political world.

I thought the NDP WAS centrist

beers is right on here. that's why the next four years will be so much fun. can't wait.

The NDP is the centrist party now, alas. Sold their soul to cater to what they thought voters wanted, much to my disgust. Some here actually think that Labour has equal clout with Big Business! According to Canadian law, less than 2% of the workplace power is in the hands of UNION workers. There's littel for non-union workers that can't be easily ignored by any employer. PLUS Labour does not have a remotely friendly press/TV. The full power of courts, Law, WCB and Labour Laws are all heavily weighted against workers/employees. Even Human Rights laws don't have any provision for workers, and the small provisions for the disabled and women don't stand up in courts very often. It's Ye Olde Master-Servant mentality by those with more money than God dictating to us all. Some sage wrote above here that we get the government the Establishment wants. The establishment is Big Business/Big Money. The majority of the rest of us are stupid enough to give them legitimacy by voting for the worst of Establishment's puppet governments all too often. We're brainwashed masochists at heart. Don't you think it's time we voted in our own best interests, instead of the Wealthy's interests? Or looked after the poor, the mentally ill/addicted, disabled, seniors and single moms, hmm? We're worse to them than we were in the early days of the Industrial Revolution--especially now that supposedly charitable Sally Ann has gone commercial and corporate, opening on the NASDAQ a few years ago. What we've done by voting in harsh governments is: we have forced people who should be saving for retirement to help their destitute adult children and grandchildren --all to give the richest tax cuts they definitely don't need. They don't do any good with that extra money, anyway. They only invest it in sweatshops abroad and glean more tax breaks here for doing so. The Hannibal Lector Solution: Eat the rich with a nice Chianti.

PS. Where is spellcheck on this site?

seanorr posted:
"I thought the NDP WAS centrist"

Gee I thought the same. You mean its not. Oh silly me!

I think it must be the work of the media and years of Socred, Son of Socred and right-wing Liberal propaganda that has painted the NDP - a very moderate and pale pink social democratic party by any objective historical standards - as being somehow "to the left or radical. What folks are complaining about ultimately when they desire "moderation" is the existence of a class war. Thing is the existence of this class war is not up to the NDP, labour or even the groups to the left of these. It is being imposed upon us by the corporate agenda of the Liberals who are attempting to turn back the clock and destroy the lives of working people. Wannabe moderates and centrists, you are living in dreamland, you aren't going to get it as long as the corporate agenda is being imposed.

BC Mary,

You wrote:

"Wrong, Skeptikool, wrong. Cripes, how the facile love to think that Germany suffered because of "social democracy". Wrong!"

Quite right on the moniker, BC Mary. I was going on memory and shouldna dunit. You did, however, seem to miss my meaning when I wrote "calling itself".

We have a fine example right here at home where we had a recent government calling itself: Liberal.

So, in the matter of parties masquerading under false names, we appear to be in agreement.

Gordo Liberals moderate??

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ndp centrist? tell that to david cubanovsky, jim sinclair, adrian dix and jinny sims. oh, this is going to be so much fun.

Good piece, Marysue, from my viewpoint. No spellcheck. To paragraph format, just double space where you want to create a paragraph break.

And Anarcho always cuts directly to it, like a hot knife through butter. You and I must have unknowingly shared a similar political development history brother, because you are yet to produce a piece I can quarrel with. :-)
(The times really are achanging, yet again, eh?)

We will leave the Centrists to their own kind of "above-class non-conflict" fantasy world, wherein everyone accepts their social class assignment and its consequences, and "just get's along."

But to return to the quote above, by that renegade radical bio-terrorist "distant" relation of mine, KWD :-), he has , in my read of the literature, nailed the historical "moderate centrist" Social Democratic "complacency" model, that in fact tolerated, and objectively created the atmosphere of tolerance that allowed Nazi Fascism to develop and flourish. Their fantasy, Gentlemen and Ladies Club approach to "Loyal Opposition" politics, seen here around the kind of contest they chose to engage with Neoconazi Liberals, for example, gives us a demonstration of how they, intentionally or unintentionally, do that; cower before it, and feed the growth of The Beast.

Class War is a reality, and becoming more evident again here, as the Great Post War Prosperity Period recedes further and further into history. The Left is on one side of that class war divide, and the Neoconazi Liberals, Conservatives and other assorted fascists are on the other. The Social Democrats and sundry small "l" liberals, are the appeasers and enablers who would live their fantasy "Just love one another" political positions in the shell pocked and bombed out no man's land between.

Capitalism has changed again, my friends, and is retrogressing back to historical type, is the reality. The dream of a loving and peaceful "Centre" continues to persist yet, of course, around which the true Social Democrats and liberals still seek to huddle and influence events, but the reality of the growing class conflict will continue to press in on them, as it is, and did earlier in Nazi Germany. Where they played the same essential enabler role.

Again, from my class vantage point, and my read of the history.

Having lived in 4 countries under every form of ideology burped up by the 20th century, and spent 40 years on the search for the "common denominator of history's tragedies", and having been calling myself a social democrat since my Cambridge days, over 50 years ago, I have long lost faith in any and every form of ideology, because ideologies, religions and theories can be twisted inside out and the most beautiful words can become the mass murder of societies. There're no left and right wing ideologies, because they can not be defined and the terminology has long lost its value, if there ever was one. Because wealth and property are the temporary contol of energy/resouces, and neither can be created, only taken from other sectors, or the environment, the political spectrum must be redefined, as the "Exploiters vs. the Exploited", which can happen under every ideology, or religion. If the human race wants to survive, economic theories must be based on solid and strict physical laws and facts.Yes, it can be done and many of us have been working on it for many years. Monetary values are not realities, but often violence induced temporary perceptions, therefore can not be used for economic calculations. The presently reigning neoclassical market economy theory is the biggest crime wave in human history and if we continue its use, we're facing permanent wars, colonizations and enslavement, which could easily destroy human civilization. The GDP, Growth and Productivity calculations are using fraudulent economic accounting systems. Therefore the NDP can not move to the centre, because there's no such thing. Yes, I'm an NDP member, albeit not on ideological, but practical grounds, as the only Party with a hope in hell to wake up and start making the necessary moves to save our necks, although at the present the mysterious inner circle are still playing silly ideology based economic games. So, I'm waiting for a miracle. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC<

Ohh, I'd say Skeptikool gets it. (My friend, BC Mary is clearly feeling buoyed and made even more feisty by the NDP win. :-)

What is left, and what is right, in today’s world? No one can answer that question authoritatively, certainly not me. But in even trying to get a grip on it, the stupidest mistake one can make is to put on the parochial blinkers and insist on looking at it from an exclusively BC viewpoint.

Why not start at the national level? After all, I assume that BC, being a province of Canada, is populated by Canadians, or have I got something backwards here? The emotionally intense combat between the national Liberal and Conservative parties, which is felt all across English Canada, isn’t the result of hard fought disagreements over fiscal and economic issues. Indeed, while the 2005 Budget was still being read by Minister Goodale, Opposition Leader Harper strode out into the corridors to say, “It’s fine by me”.

Instead the cleavage between “moderate” Liberals and “right wing” Conservatives comes on the basis of social policy, and for the most part, social policies which involve no expenditures. It’s not a matter of major differences on the CPP or OAS/GIS, though some of the Reformers did want to privatize CPP and force everyone to buy RRSPs, rather like President Bush. Rather, the source of the tension is symbolic issues such as same sex marriage, child pornography, prostitution, and the like. In other words, the game is to find issues which involve no money, but lots of sex and morality, again, just like President Bush, and need one say it, Karl Rove. There is also the crime issue, where the Conservatives, picking up from Reform, are in favour of much longer sentences and no gun registry, while the Liberals are in favour of less incarceration, quicker parole, and an expensive firearms registry. The NDP position in all this has tended to boil down to Liberal me-tooing, which may go along way to explaining the last 12 years of NDP anemia at the national level.

Is there any BC correspondent or pundit who is so ridiculously isolationist that they really think none of this material, which has enough horse power to propel the entire national agenda, is somehow not operating at the provincial level as well? As between the provincial Liberal and NDP parties there is more agreement on same sex marriage and on many other related issues than one finds in Ottawa.

But Coleman and Maynecourt were determined to paint the NDP as “soft on crime” and to some degree it worked. The NDP is heavily influenced by health and social workers, and treating dirty, smelly bums and hobos and bored, disaffected youth vandals as an urban dis-amenity is contrary to the party’s principles, but is wildly popular among people whose neighborhoods and public spaces are being made dirty and degrading. In addition, while little has been done to actually appease the anti-abortion and religious right elements, beyond some tinkering with school parent councils, the BC Liberals (Coleman, Polak, etc.) definitely have a major opening to the Christian Right throughout the Fraser and Okanagan Valleys and in the Peace Country as well.

People who naively believe that privatization or labour legislation is the only thing on the public’s mind, or that it is the only thing that should be on the public’s mind, are misinforming themselves and others. If the definition of left and right has changed from economic and fiscal to social, sexual, and moral, then so has the definition of centrist. Perhaps the question should be reworded and asked again by the pollster:

“If a party whose attitudes towards crime, morality, and sexual matters were more neutral than those of the BC Liberal or BC NDP parties, would you be more or less likely to support that party?”

I must be away now, but hopefully I will be able to get back to this piece by Bud Campbell, with whom I disagree very much in his piece above me. Though I do also "kind of" address it above.

Other than to say, where he is most wrong in fact, is the division between left and right remains rooted in the economy where it has always been, around the issue of its ownership, who it is there to serve, and who has real power within it, and who does not.

Mostly, however, it's that the Social Democrats see it as their role to gloss over this issue and the glaring inequities that occur there, and manifest themselves in a multitude of forms throughout social life, including sexual etc.. It is that classis role of appeasers and enablers which they assume, to seek to smooth out the class war waters, as a service to "the system" and to encourage ruling class trust of them. (Which they never do, of course. They are not of their class and real values.)

Budd Campbell's article, in my read of it, is about that, about that Social Democratic attempt to gloss over and skirt around the left-right divide within the economy, where it has always been, and which underpins people's lives. Which is why they avoid the disaffected who refuse to vote, and are hostile to the system, and focus instead on the mug-wamp "undecided." These latter are "safer" territory.

A very interesting thread. Great comments from all.

Ed Deak, I love your image of ideology being burped up by the 20th century.

I agree with so much in your post. Terminology has lost its meaning. Well, in some cases it is hiding underneath itself. But, 'left', 'right' no longer have meaning grounded in reality.

I completely agree with your assessment of neoclassical market theory. It very well might be the end of civilization as we know it and it is a great crime wave against humanity. I view it as the greatest blight we have ever seen, not only for obvious reasons, but because at this point in history the destruction has no limits.

I wondering how do you determine strict physical laws of fact in order to establish the economic theory. Do you mean scientific law about the environment? That the environment must be allowed to remain in optimum balance and economics follow that premise?
Or, perhaps the physical law that without enough to eat, one will starve therefore everyone has a right to eat?

You couldn't be more wrong Coyote. I have no use for unreconstructed Marxists, especially those who have only recently stopped spending the majority of their waking hours trying to rationalize the old Soviet empire in Eastern Europe.

But as a lifelong social democrat I am disturbed, not pleased, by the new trend towards social rather than economic division of the vote. I thought I had made that clear by the reference to Karl Rove.

However, while I might not like this trend, there is nothing more stupid, or more dishonest, than to deny it's existence. What it might take to reactivate discussion around economic rather than social choices isn't really clear to me. Once people have decided to be fascinated with this kind of material, which lends itself so very easily to total tabloidization (eg how many more times coverage will Billionare Blonde Bombshell Businesswoman Belinda Stronach get than was garnered in ten years by Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa MacDonough combined???) trying to get them off the stuff and back onto economic and fiscal issues isn't going to be easy.

I think to some degree the left needs to look at the fact that the right took total control over economic and fiscal issues over a period of twenty to thirty years. It was partly because they set up the Fraser Inst and other think tanks long before there was a CCPA, and partly because they own the media that popularizes the so-called findings. And there is no left-wing media or alternative media in Canada, less even than in the US, let alone Europe. And it was partly because labour unions wasted a ton of time and money tilting at the free trade windmill, and partly it was because Broadbent's NDP spent the entire 1970s and 1980s denying that the federal debt or deficits could ever become an issue of any real importance. And it was partly because at the provincial level the BC CCF and NDP have wasted half a century protesting "blacktop government", because the teachers and social workers didn't like resources being spent on other public goods and services, with the result that BC voters, especially men, invariably identify the NDP as weak on economics.

:-D Too amusing, Budd. Your arrow landed you know not where, but I do think we understand each other, quite well. Another Social Democrat trade mark; kiss the ass of everyone to your right, but attack everyone on your Left.

Which no doubt is how the discussion between Social Democrats and everyone else on the Left is going to be framed, no doubt. It's a new period, but it will also have many characteristics of the old, because the issues were never really entirely resolved. It only appeared so, when they were more in abeyance.

The Centre have always been left-right deniers, thinking they are the sum total of appropriate politics, or attempting to foster that mythology-, as if "the centre" was forever fixed in permanent place. In fact, depending on from whence the greater direction of force is coming, it moves left and right all the time.

It is merely now that the greater force is coming from the ruling class right, and it is the prevailing wind to which Social Democrats and liberals always bent. Though they are most comfortable when it bends to the Right, no doubt, eh.

Right on Fait lux, "Right and Left," are in fact, "Exploiter and Exploited."
Since days of old when the Knights grew bold, the western version of Parliamentary Democracy
evolved into becoming a roller-coaster called,
"Re-Distribution of Wealth and Power."

The "WEALTHY",(those who feel they have the most to lose)have enough "Power" in government
to create a system they pay the least taxes in.

We'll call them "EXPLOITERS."

Democracy in Canada has become the battleground of the Lieberals and the neocons.
Power will be the spoils of war.

The,"EXPLOITED" those who pay the most in taxes,(these are the workers whose taxes are deducted at source) will be paying for the next election,(war) through their taxes.
Now the Lieberals and Neocons won't have to dive into their deep pockets to pay for the next political war

There is no right or left. Just winners and losers.

Which are you?

'
We are now, in Canada, at the point where the
wealthy are bickering on who will become the
Exploiter.
Who will win? Lieberal or Neoconazi.
That is what "Democracy" has become. The battleground of the rich.

This is a great discussion by all.

The superficial, the facile, the greedy, the corrupt, now control as Fiat lux (Ed Deak)above says the "greatest crime wave in human history"... globally hard-wired like sharks (with apologies to all sharks) they attack with swift emotionless drive... lethal in their greed, precise in their targets.

What is really so scary now is, as redrivergirl says, that "the destruction has no limits." The neo-cons have a lot more weapons of persuasion and mass control at their service than Nazi Germany ever had eg. a complicitly-corporate worldwide media at their disposal, the soft steel handed hammer of advertising influence...these are the new weapons and they will travel anywhere on this earth at almost any speed.... weapons that so effectively convince, in their endless repetition of a creed that demands more and more, at any cost, and allows in the end "the enabling" of the masses (thanks Coyote) to continue.

Watched the BBC News, yesterday and there were German workers protesting their jobs being outsourced to China et al...same story worldwide now...our own countries are betraying us...circling us like sharks...as Ed Deak says we need a miracle....

okay, I'm already disagreeing with my own post..

You know where you're wrong, lynn?

Where?

In that "waiting on a miracle" (criticizing your usage of it, not Ed's)...something about waiting for Someone Else to do something isn't sitting well...that's where moderation, niceness, gets its tenacious grip over us all...they want us to feel oh so comfortable while we wait...and we do...that's advertising's trick pony...keeping us comfortable in our safeness...so we never want ot give it up...

no, we are going to have to figure out what to "do"...and then do it.

Ok, but what would be the nature of the miracle if you could have one? What could you change that would do it?

I have read all the posts here today, and I think I understand what everybody is saying, and none of it is wrong at all, from it's own points of view, but...

I think I disagree from a position of realpolitik. I disagree that the market structure is the cause of the 'global crime wave' we've been experiencing since the late fifties. The market structure, even in the interfaces where ideological conflicts arise, has been astoundingly productive of creativity and plenty both socially and materially wherever it's had a chance to operate.

The source of the global crime wave isn't the system, it's the fact that the system has been co-opted by global criminals, organized in gangs and liberally financed (pun intended).

They've infiltrated political parties and security services, bought or elected many who espouse one view with their mouths, while serving quite another with their actions. This is why so many are so confused about ideology lately. What they say doesn't match what they do.

They're neoconservatives whether you find them in Liberal or Conservative or Republican or Democratic or even Green parties.

And they're as surreptitous about it as any cold war spy ever was.

Personally, I think it more or less gelled in the early 60s around Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, if philosophy is the right word for such a sociopathically selfish and narrow worldview.

Coyote, unbelievably, wrote:

Wha-a-at??

I [hangs head, scuffs toe] extend my hand to Skeptikool, having suffered once too often from ijits who toss off ideas-free stereotypes such as "Hitler was a socialist, too." I mistook you for one of those.

One day, in a small military museum in Nanaimo, I understood this better. A sweet elderly lady asked if she could help me find anything.

"Yes," I said, "I'd like to see a Sten gun." She replied that it would have been best to leave them all in Europe to fight the socialists. I gawped at her. "Well," she flustered, "Hitler was a socialist."

"Madam," I roared, "I am a socialist and I can assure you, Hitler was no socialist!" I doubled up laughing, once I got out onto the sidewalk. Talk about stereotypes.

But if we were talking about stereotypes, I'd prefer to be called a Democratic Socialist. And to talk a whole lot about peace and all that.

To those who say "I thought the N.D.P. WAS centrist" I reply that, in my opinion, they are right of centre. They are simply the most left of the right. The centre is no-where near where it used to be in, say, the days of the Trudeau Liberals. That government, to my mind, was centrist. If it existed today it would be considered left--far left.

Coyote, I agree with what you say for the most part, but I do think you misunderstood some of what Budd was saying regarding people being distracted from the economic meanings of "right" and "left" by issues that involve crime and sex. A lot of ordinary people just have no clue as to what the traditional meanings of "right" and "left" are. One friend of mine thought "right" meant centrist and conforming, and that "left" meant extremist. I had wondered why she'd said something about not being "so left wing" she'd support marijuana legalization, since a lot of right-wingers support that and, it turned out, that her understanding of these terms was somewhat skewed. Never underestimate the ignorance of the average person.

To me, it is very simple. "Left" means for the good of the average person (i.e. the workers, which is most of us, not just blue collar), and "right" means for the good of the elites--only the average person doesn't seem to understand this!

Yes, I thought I'd remembered my history correctly, that it was a wishy-washy social democratic government that enabled the Nazis to gain power. Hasn't that sort of thing happened prior to a few other dictatorships around the world in recent decades, as well?

I would say that, if anything, Gordon Campbell can be given some credit with his moderate social agenda. He has been able to keep in check those social conservatives in his party that would be more than happy to fight same-sex marriages, not fund abortions, and make sure teens received absolutely no information on birth control.

The point is that no one is completely moderate in their approach, but at least in BC, no one seems so far left or right in every aspect of their policy.

Where Campbell has been shown to be less than moderate is his fiscal policy and labour code. It is hard to call yourself moderate when you are the only jurisdiction to allow 12 year olds to work in North America.

What about Carol James and her crew? The next four years will tell. I say give them a chance to show that they can appeal to the bigger majority. Sirjohna will never vote for them, but who really cares anyways.

There has been so much good writing this thread, that I don't know where or with whom to begin. (I'm going to be swallowed up in short order here, by my cycling project, and I am going to hugely miss the discussion that goes on with all of you here, even those I much disagree with.)

Rockyvoids, which always makes me think of haemorrhoids. :-)

But outside of that, who writes a brilliant piece that totally shatters my earlier formed conceptions of the fellow. (I cannot conceive of le femme, (I am being too pretentious.), who would call herself "rockyvoids". Which would make it a good disguise.)

"There is no right or left. Just winners and losers. Which are you?" he says. And all the degrees of, between.

There is no need or justification for me to dissect it, it is a brilliant piece as a stand alone.

I have been wrong about people before, and will be so again, is all I can say.

Lynn. This woman, in my opinion, captures the essence of what this period , beginning in the later '70s, feels like, at least to us "losers" that rockyvoids writes about so eloquently.

You obviously watched the same BBC report I did, Lynn. It IS a world wide deterioration of society and the hiterto standards which even capitalism held to, that is going. Which is "the important" point to get I think, out of this period.

Market activity, and the shuffling about of paper wealth, and even the number of jobs available in the Help Wanteds may be robust, in the non-ending games The Market plays with peoples lives, but the point is, while there may be cause for excitement in it for the ruling class/ the players, there is but thin stone soup for the masses.

We are but the means to the meal for the circling sharks.

Bailey, just when I think I understand you, you say something totally brilliant like, "They're neoconservatives whether you find them in Liberal or Conservative or Republican or Democratic or even Green parties."

I think I actually may be beginning to understand what you mean when you say, it is not the global economic system that is at fault, per se, but in who "controls" it. And fuck, man, there is a level at which I agree with you-, if we really are talking about the same thing, in the same context.

"...to me, it is very simple. "Left" means for the good of the average person (i.e. the workers, which is most of us, not just blue collar), and "right" means for the good of the elites--only the average person doesn't seem to understand this!" writes Anne.

And BC Mary, I may have spun myself away from you with my analysis of the historical role of Social Democrats. I still think it is essentially correct, but.... all I can say is, there are exceptions to every rule.

Mostly I am talking about Social Democracy as a formal political "ideology", to me, of compromise with capitalism, and with a long history to it. (I, as the man cut down from the mast later said, have felt its lash.) But within that context, there are many folks, at various levels and degrees of intent. Even IF you consider yourself a "Social Democrat" in the formal sense, I KNOW you do not fit the formulae of Social Democracy that I have described. And you have as much right to your usage and understanding of the word as I do.

Many folks whom I have admired across many years in this country, not the least Tommy Douglas, considered themselves "Social Democrats". I had and have no quarrel with them. I am talking at quite a different level of politics, and looking at quite a different level of people within the inner sanctum of, as I say, "formal" Social Democracy, as an ideology and its leadership-, who can and often are a quite different entity than the mass of people from ordinary life who make it up, like Tony Blair who took England into Iraq and the mass of Labour Party supporters who oppose it.

And very often that is true of political movements across the entire spectrum, from right to left, unfortunately. And it is always important to see and understand the distinction.

I think both Ed Deak and Coyote have a good start on what needs to be done. Deak on saying that economic theories must be built on solid and strict physical laws and facts. Like redrivergirl, I wish you would expand on this. It seems you are referring to a measuring and monitoring of our resources, free from the tyranny of ideological spin and the abiding of physical laws needed to sustain and nurture life. The indisputable limits placed on this earth that must be honoured for our survival.

Coyote speaks of the self-determination of workers, control of ownership and profit. He says this much better than I do so I'll let him say it.

It seems we are back to the same argument, where a number of us have been before, how do we prevent greed and power from entering the structure? Is that possible at all? The prevention of elites?

To me it has a lot to do with the misleading and often deceiving qualities of comfort.

Unions were born out of discomfort, dissatisfaction, strife. The guys I went to school with inherited the good life that unions fought for. A union job at Mac and Blo gave them a new car, a house, a yearly holiday in Hawaii, and a cabin up the lake. That was the formula that so many of them lived by. Losing it becomes a real fear so the level of risk becomes less and less. And the selling out begins. They accept more and more of the kicks from management because they have more to lose, more bills that need to be paid, and an image of themselves as anything but a worker.

They are on their way UP, so they moderate more and more, they fight less and less for their rights as workers. A diplomatically nice but suicidal game.

Now once more the rights of workers hang precariously on the brink...more than just a cyclical seachange this time round, this is a worldwide assault to eradicate the rights of workers across this planet.

But workers themselves have become part of the problem, as they continue to give up their power by allowing corporations to dream for them, and desiring only what corporations dream, with little idea or imagination for a new dream of their own.

To redrivergirl, et al...... More ideologies and undefineable words like "social consciousness" etc. make things worse, because crooks can twist them into pretzels to serve their own interests.
The definition of economics, which is the working part of politics, is defined in textbooks as "The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources". No economic theory in history came close to this ideal, with the exception of Maynard Keynes, who, at least tried. Wealth is the temporary control of resources. It can not be made, or created, or earned, but has to be taken from other sectors and the environment. All political systems in human history have been ruled by the conspiracy of 3 classes: The Merchants, who develop the demands, now represented by multinationals and banks; the Priesthoods, who develop the theories for the justification of theft, mass murder and colonizations, claiming to be "divine orders", now represented by neoclassical economists misquoting Adam Smith etc.; the Military who do the dirty work, hoping for the absolution of their crimes by the Priesthoods.
Virtually everything these ruling classes ever demanded and preached can be proven wrong by 4 long standing and unbreakable physical laws all economic activities are built on, but never recognized by economists: The First and Second Laws of Theromodynamics and Newton's Laws on speed and reaction. All economic systems of the past and present self destructed, taking societies with them, because they didn't know or, as in the present, ignored these laws. For all practical purposes, economic theories self destruct because all have used false definitions of economic efficiency. E.g. Today in neoclassical terms: "Economic efficiency equals the biggest profits with the least monetary inputs." This is fraud, because costs can not be cut, only transferred on others; all costs start and end in eternity, therefore we don't know the real costs of anything; human labour doesn't cost anything to an economy. All these and many other facts can be proven very easily. I also believe that the costs of many so called "cheap" imported goods are in fact much higher on the long run, than products made at home. In other words, we're paying very dearly for things "Made in China" and 1-800 operators answering our calls in India. If only our politicians could learn to think in real terms. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

one more thing...I think all the people on this thread should run the world...what a great lot of comments...gives you hope...

Coyote - as usual - is on to something in his last posting about social democracy. The term covers a lot of territory. It used to mean -up till the 1950's at least - the achievement of socialism through reforms or parliamentary means. Please note the word "socialism". Since then, the notion of a final goal (socialism) has been dropped and social democracy came to mean vague welfare state reformism. Now, with the Blairites and their ilk, an alleged (and after the Iraq war a very alleged) kinder face of neoconservatism. Thus it is quite possible for somone as great as Tommy Douglas to consider himself a social democrat (and BC Mary too) Their refernce is, of course to the older form of social democracy.

my god. just when i didn't think the drivel could get any worse i tune in to today's posts. do you people get embarrassed when you read this garbage?

We do, sirj, but you just keep posting it. Nobody seems to be able to convince you that a thing like that is neither a point nor an argument.

It's not a contribution, it's just a grunt.

C'mon SirJ, the election is over. It makes better reading if you contribute your own view to the discussion.

As for us Social Democrats... well I agree with Ed above, ideology doesn't put milk in a bottle. Whatever system feeds and houses people and is governed by the rule of law is better than one with gangs running through the streets doling out "justice".

As Lynn pointed out, a lot of people are tied in to the existing system, not just for a vacation in Hawaii but even to make it through their day to day existence. Hard to claim they should act on behalf of chaos in the hope that a brave new world is just over the next horizon and can be acheived painlessly.

Change doesn't have to be violent. In fact, I would argue change is permanent if its not violent. With democracy there is always the power to change the system. If people don't like huge disparities between rich and poor then stop voting for it. If they don't like kids being raised in poverty, don't vote for it. Your environment being raped? Same solution.

So why do people keep voting for it? Because they're afraid of the unknown, and always will be. They become concerned when reading the fear-mongering that passes for editorial comment. They are worried about what they see going on but are even more worried about what would happen to them if they lost their job. All politics is about "me". Can someone offer an ideology where everyone keeps their jobs, houses, cars and DVD-player but somehow do it without hurting the environment or leaving millions in poverty? Because that's the ideology people want to hear about.

I see social democrats as trying to walk a tightrope where we work for positive changes within the current socio-economic sphere. If something big happens in the meantime to cause the collapse of the system itself we'll worry about it when it happens and not try to bring it on faster because really, no one is sure what a replacement system would look like or what it would entail to get there or if it would even be better.

"With democracy there is always the power to change the system." says Frank.

Making the leap of faith assumption again, which he would have us follow, that a "democracy" in any seriouusly meaningful sense actually exists, and is accessible to people, either politically or within the economy.

The point is, Frank, I question the assumption you ground yourself in.

Elements of a patchwork kind of democracy that come out of a long history of people's struggles, not infrequently violent, do not a balanced, equitable democratic system make. It makes only a patchwork democracy, at least thus far, that continues to have its strings pulled by the ruling class.

I know you are not really that naive, Frank, which causes me to puzzle your motivations.

And this insistance of yours of violence, when no one here is actually advocating any violence. I sure as Hell am not, though I am advocating that folks organize, insist and persist in the advocacy of their needs and rights. So if we are not advocating violence, who is, do you think?

You really do need to answer this question, otherwise it seems to indicate an attempt to tar by association. Which I know you would never do. :-)

As good a definition of economics, and this above quote, of class society, as I've ever come across. It was a good and interesting read, which at first blush, I am much in agreement with.

And you are right about your millworkers, of course, Lynn. Except now the "unsustainability" of their hopes and dreams is now being made clear, and is all unravelling. Though it is likely to take awhile for the reality of what is happening to them, in this "late capitalism", to catch up with them, in terms of what it all means.

We are in a period, slowly but steadily evolving and unravelling, I think, that if it is not yet, IS going to have a profound effect on people's thinking, and the way in which they see politics and economics. There is likely to be little choice.

Lynn, I hope you have carefully read that piece by Fiat Lux. He/she packed a really good analysis, from a quite different take, into a small bit of writing there.

Coyote, I know you're not advocating violence. But historically, for the most part, changing a system has required it. The problem being the system will resist being changed, that is where most armies of the world are deployed after all, its not against each other.

The only other way I see of changing the system is waiting till its fully discredited and quietly passes away in the night so to speak (although even then there is still upheaval in economic terms). Unfortunately, the current system is not fully discredited yet. It is with me, and with you I assume but opposition has not yet reached critical mass. And that's understandable since it hasn't been that long since the post-war boom under Bretton-Woods petered out. People still believe we can return to the good economic times and that they will last decades if not centuries. Naive? Clearly. But until they decide otherwise I just don't see this system falling.

Because we can actually vote the system out of existence. Theoretically, we could all vote for an extreme right or left party in the next national election. Why we don't is because people may want change but they're also afraid of it impacting them in a negative way. Why are they afraid when so few have ever investigated for themselves what change would mean? That's where what you call the "ruling class" comes into play. Influencing people's beliefs through a constant barrage of tripe, misinformation and so on through all channels available. To use a line from Linda McQuaig's book, the zoo in NZ shot the hippo because they had no alternative. Well, if you believe you have no alternative its the same as not having one, right?

To return to local politics, the system will not survive or fall based on the actions of social democrats. Therefore I see nothing wrong with working within the system to do as much good as possible. Child protection policies, women's shelters, universal healthcare, fighting anti-human rights policies, etc are not going to save the system but they can do a lot of good in the here and now.

Coyote, between 1945 and 85 I spent 40 years searching for the common denominator of history's tragedies, based on my personal experiences under various ideologies. By 18 I was a wounded war veteran, POW, and homeless refugee, and then by studying hundreds of books on history, psychology, motivation, etc. 7 years at Cambridge, without finding anything conclusive. I started reading economics in 1982. In 1985 I discovered the false definition of economic efficiency in 2 opposing and contradicting ways in the same textbook, which I still have. I found this unbelievable and followed it up for 6 years, reading and consulting with many scientists, etc. I copyrighted the only scientifically correct definition in 1991 to establish the date, not for monetary purposes. Titled " A PRINCIPLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TO ECONOMICS" and has now been in circulation on the Net for 9 years,on several World Bank forums, read by thousands of economists, scientists, used in PhD dissertations and remains unbreakable. Albeit ignored, because a correct definition of economic efficiency would force the money based neoclassical market economy to collapse. I offered it to an NDP Minister friend in 1991. The NDP's economists thought it was very interesting, but they "disagreed". Which means exactly nothing. A disagreement is not the proof on anything. I disagree with people eating seafoods and with vegetarians, but these are personal opinions, not based on facts.

The biggest problem we're facing today is the imminent collapse of the misdirected US economy, now approx. $73.trillion in unfunded debt, temporarily surviving on the daily purchase of $2. billion of US bonds by the communist Chinese, capitalist Japanese etc. governments and on the reserve currency status of the worthless US Dollar,used in international trade, like oil. If OPEC switches to Euros, which is beginning to happen, the US economy will collapse, taking the Canadian and world economies with it. In this case, which could happen any day, Canada will be in the best position to survive and lead the world out of the mess, if we have politicians who have some brains and enterprising spirit to act. What bothers me is that no government, or political party seems to have any backup plans. They all, includuding the NDP, are desperately trying to jump on the same bandwagon careening downhill, out of control, without brakes. So, what's the answer to wake them up ? Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC

An issue that I see, and have been watching for years now is that "the centre", or "moderate" position has been moving consistantly to the right, so now what is considered to be 'left' is actually a more true centre. Left parties do not close hospitals, alienate unions, cut civil services, or work with businesses.

So people are wanting a rightist party, just not so in-your-face rightist party as BC saw for the last 4 years.

How is Carole James going to keep the NDP on a centrist tilt over the next few years? This question has come up in various pundit columns. Keith Baldrey recently wrote that James will have trouble with people he described as being too labour oriented and too left wing. He specifically mentioned Harry Lali, Leonard Krog and David Chudnovsky.

To me, this looks like a simple re-read of the Liberal election script, in which anyone connected to the BCTF, like Chudnovsky, or anyone who annoyed powerful pundits, like Lali, or anyone who was thought to be too intellectual, like Krog, is labelled a dangerous left wing lunatic. These fake charges have the same degree of accuracy and sincerity as labelling Glen Clark a left-wing nut in spite of the fact that he is now prospering even more than Victoria's top paid media people as an executive in the Pattison empire. And this from Keith Baldrey, normally one of the least anti-NDP and least anti-union pundits around.

Anyone who knows a genuine issue when they see one will realize that the action and the stress will come elsewhere, in conflicts over the Gateway Project, and the Pitt River and Port Mann Bridges. The new Vancouver Hastings MLA Shane Simpson, backed up by Vancouver East MP Libby Davies in one of her free Parliamentary mailouts, has stated publicly in numerous forums over the past year the he is completely and unalterably opposed to any increase whatsoever in the capacity of the Trans Canada Highway. To a somewhat lesser degree the new Vancouver Fairview MLA Gregor Robertson, has also stated his doubts about Port Mann and Gateway.

But the new Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows MLA Michael Sather has stated unequivocally that he is in favour of the new Pitt River bridge, and will hold the Liberal government too that, and will be watching for any sign that the project is being abandoned simply because the Liberals lost that riding. Similarly, the five Surrey-Delta NDP MLAs can reasonably be expected to be in favour of twinning Port Mann and building the South Fraser Perimeter Road, even though their ridings are in the western edge of Surrey and are more likely to use the much closer Alex Fraser Bridge.

This will no doubt be an intense debate in the NDP Caucus, and there will be environmental groups such as the Suzuki Foundation that will take a strict "vote no" position on any highway construction anywhere in the Lower Mainland. The Suzuki Foundation has particular pull in NDP circles since its director is Jim Fulton, the former NDP MP from Skeena (and former employer of Colleen McCrory, the 2001 Green spoiler from Nelson Creston). Also, the party's Provincial Director Gerry Scott spent several years at the Suzuki Foundation alongside Fulton.

Good post Fiat, with which I agree almost completely. Except on the last point. Its not up to the NDP to challenge the world or lead us off to nirvana. Its their job to do what their voters want. Which is defend the status quo, not rock the boat too much.

The problem is not the NDP, its voters themselves. The NDP would reduce itself to nothing if it announced it wanted to dismantle the system. If the electorate want a party on the left they should support one with their votes, if they did, parties would not have to move to the centre to garner that support.

The job then is to move the entire electorate to the left, once there, the NDP and other parties will happily follow.

A friend posted this on another site, thought it might be interesting to some although its only distantly related to the current subject

"I'm reading Michael Mann's fascinating new book about comparative forms of Fascism. He's done demographic studies of the Fascist and related (i.e. Nazi, Falangist, etc) movements in several countries, and come up with the following profile.

Fascists tended to be:

* Middle-class
* Young males, from teens to mid-30s.
* Educated to a level slightly above the national average, yet disparaging of "intellectuals"
* Highly nationalistic, to the point of "Macho" behaviors and hyper-masculine rhetoric.
* Suspicious of foreigners and opposed to immigration.
* Regular church-goers (to a much higher degree than other parties)
* Military veterans and "young men with paramilitary values"
* Highly sensitized to pop-culture, but usually in a negative way: i.e., they ranted about the evils of jazz music, dancing, modern art, etc, as evidence that society was in decline, and needed to be saved.
* Very media-aware (regular readers of newspapers and listeners to radio)

One interesting thing is their obsession with the way they were covered in the media, and the frequency with which they claimed "unfair" or "biased" coverage from mainstream media. The Fascists in Italy were obsessed with this, and ultimately shut down or absorbed all competing media outlets. The Nazis co-opted the big conservative media empire of Alfred Hugenberg, turning it into their first organized mouthpiece - long before Goebbels was prominent.

Another fascinating point was the frequency with which the Fascists accused their opponents (usually Communists and Democratic Socialists) of trying to foment "class warfare" whenever these groups raised issues like unionization, minimum wages, childrens' health, public education, and so on. Some of the early Fascist movements (like the early pre-Beer Hall Putsch Nazis) spoke in classist language, themselves, but ultimately all Fascist movements allied with Big Business leaders, or - in the case of agrarian nations like Porgtugal or Romania - with the big land-owners.

No, I agree Coyote, the sustainability of the lifestyle of the millworkers is unravelling. Their comfort level is still such that a lot of them are still in denial...not that I am not wishing them a good life, the well-deserved fruits of their labour, only that the materialism of today is a bit of a catch-22. It makes us believe we are bulletproof when its objective is to make us ever more vulnerable to its charms, more at their mercy.

Somewhere there has to be a better dream to dream.

Fiat Lux's ( Ed Deak's) theory is very interesting. He is saying something much different than what I at first thought he was referring to, basing economics in the "unbreakable" scientific physical laws, not the strictly environmental take I had at first thought from his previous post. His relating of "costs cannot be cut" to the idea of energy not being able to be destroyed, just transformed, is uniquely brilliant...and puts the lie to the efficiency subterfuge game relentlessly used by the neo-cons.

I'm still thinking on what he said, but I'll work my way through it... have to be honest, the mention of economics and scientific theory together makes me a little nervous, I'm an english lit gal, so I always feel over my head in these areas...but dang! (that's for you, Coyote and BC Mary) that's never stopped me before. :-)

Geeze Frank, that typical fascist sounds a lot like my daughter's ex fiance! (So glad he's ex.)

Great posts Lynn, Coyote and Fiat Lux.

Lynn, it still disturbs me how you, and to a greater extent, B.C. Mary, still express admiration for N.D.P. leaders who have sold out and then you turn around and ask how we can prevent social democratic parties from being co-opted! Have you thought that maybe it is by demanding better from the leadership, instead of going, "Oh, Glen Clark wasn't so bad," or whatever. You have such a good analysis Lynn, that I can't believe you are still doing this!

Shortsummer, I'm so glad you brought up the fact that the centre has moved to the right. I am very tired of being the only voice to keep saying that (I think no one listens to me 'cause I'm a girl, another reason to have nicknames on these comments lists that don't reveal one's sex!) Hell, the SOCREDS had policies that would get today's N.D.P. labelled "far left" in this climate!

Frank, violence can still be done to people who are not being violent themselves. What I have heard expressed on this list is that "moderates" want to turn a blind eye to violence that is done to the vulnerable, and they want the vulnerable to just take it and not fight back--especially if it is their goody-goody social democratic government that colludes with or even inflicts the violence. I still remember the single mother who had to turn to the food bank BECAUSE she was working, under the N.D.P., who had cancelled her earnings exemption, and how the more she worked the more in the hole she went as the costs of going to work were deducted dollar for dollar from her Welfare cheque. She tried to circulate a petition about it at her workplace but the union workers didn't get it. They didn't want to.

If sending a mother and her child to the foodbank isn't a form of violence, what is? If you don't want people to resist their poverty with violence, then treat them right in the first place!

As to "the public could choose to vote for left wing parties"--first we have to educate the public as to what left-wing means, and what right-wing means. And I see such education as part of the job of social democratic parties. I'll bet Tommy Douglas didn't mind educating people. Instead, our so-called social democrats just avoid talking about what it all means.

I would really like to read what Fiat Lux has written on economics. You say it is on the web, Could you post a URL for me and anyone else interested?

Fantastic discussion. Thanks for the clarification Ed Deak.

I agree with Lynn and find what I can grasp of your premise fascinating. It reminds me of Taoist thought and the ancient Chinese systems of traditional medicine based on Chi.

If we do enter a period of deflation, which it appears we will, I want the NDP to be governing because I trust them to be inovative. It's a terrible thing to note, but I don't think the BC Liberals are up for anything that requires real creativity, or genuinely difficult work.

i found it! here's the funniest paragraph so far:
"To me, this looks like a simple re-read of the Liberal election script, in which anyone connected to the BCTF, like Chudnovsky, or anyone who annoyed powerful pundits, like Lali, or anyone who was thought to be too intellectual, like Krog, is labelled a dangerous left wing lunatic. These fake charges have the same degree of accuracy and sincerity as labelling Glen Clark a left-wing nut in spite of the fact that he is now prospering even more than Victoria's top paid media people as an executive in the Pattison empire. And this from Keith Baldrey, normally one of the least anti-NDP and least anti-union pundits around."
did you catch that? leonard krog is 'too intellectual'! please excuse me while i laugh my ass off.

Like Lynn, I'm still digesting and connecting some of the dots with your economic theory, brother, but gotta tell ya, I think you are brilliant. And your analysis, in its implications, connects in a very interesting way, not only with my kind of "modified" Marxism, but with much Green economic theory even, of which I am aware. (I wouldn't mind hearing my friend KWD's take on your idea.)

That all said, I am entirely in agreement with your read on this new period, especially pertaining to the position of US capitalism, and the effect its unravelling is certainly going to have on this country, and indeed the whole world, if it continues to evolve in its current direction. If OPEC especially, as I understand Russia already has, I seem to recall reading somewhere, ever wearies or decides that the US economy has just become too great a risk and they, the OPEC states and the rest of the world are just carrying too much of their debt to be prudent, and switches to the Euro to cut its losses and/or punish the US for any reason, I agree, they and we are toast. (The PNAC vision and its Israel reliance is toast.) More specifically, "the economic system" we are intertwined in is charred toast.

I must set up a dummy mailbox, Fiat Lux, so that I can post it here, and we exchange co-orespondences. You are an interesting fellow with, obviously, an exceptional mind for economic theory. And I hope you will keep posting here, and giving us your read on matters as they arise.

Frank said "Coyote, I know you're not advocating violence. But historically, for the most part, changing a system has required it. The problem being the system will resist being changed, that is where most armies of the world are deployed after all, its not against each other."

I think we have other models than civil war. Take for example the non-violent revolution which overthrew the E. German Stalinists or the uprising in Bolivia which tossed out the Neoconazis. Essentially, you are talking about general strikes combined with mass mobilizations. The thing is - and this is where I agree with Frank - is that the government and system have to be completely discredited in people's eyes for this to work, otherwise you have a split in the population and the reactionaries will have enough allies to defeat the movement. I think you have a ways to go in BC in that regard, at least by the vote you just endured. BUT IT WILL COME!

Actually Anne, I see it the same way. "Moderates" seem to me as being accused of turning a blind eye, as you put it, to violence (physical or economic) against the vulnerable.

I simply disagree.

Take your anecdote, I agree that's a bad outcome, and agree that it shouldn't have happened under the NDP or anyone else.

Where I disagree is with the assertion that a more left-wing NDP would be able to fix these problems because I don't think they'd be elected at all. The problem is not with the NDP, its with a populace that doesn't care.

And that's where I disagree with your last point, a lot of "social democrats" try very hard to shift the centre of the debate towards the left. Failure is not due to a lack of trying.

Many on the right-wing of the social spectrum believe that media of all kinds is responsible for feminism, gay marriage, teen sex and a host of other things they find wrong. I agree with them that societies' movement along a more progressive social path is due in large part to media. What I can't understand is why the same people sneer at left-wing criticisms of the same media for pushing us along a path of neo-con economic policies. Against that all-pervasive media, voices of social democrats are difficult to even notice.

So I would say its tough to be radical and talk of changing the system when you can't even get people to look at huge problems like child poverty and address them with increased social transfers. If we can't even get enough money into the hands of mothers to feed their kids in a nutritious way because somehow it might encourage "laziness" how can we move even further to the left and call for policies many recoil from in fear?

Social democrats are simply trying to work within the system to help those kids and the homeless etc. As Layton just did by leveraging the votes he got to get a few billion out of Martin for social improvements. Its not turning a blind eye to the problems at all. Its just trying to be realistic about what can be accomplished at this point.

Anne, I don't think I ever said "Oh , Glen Clark wasn't so bad." I just have no intention of discounting him completely, its against my nature. He stood up to the US on the salmon fishery and on the nuclear sub base issue in Nanoose. He froze university tuition. I just think he deserves credit for the things he did well.

I'm no apologist for Clark, but he has to be looked at in light of one of the most carefully orchestrated and intentional political assassinations ever waged against a Canadian politican. He was demonized out of all proportion. He was not the anti-Christ of BC politics. To not investigate why this happened - the why of the media - the why of the RCMP - the why of the part the BC Liberals played in this - is to forfeit the ability to find the missing puzzle pieces of the americanization of this province.

He was set up to fall. Why?

He was attacked in a very personal way, his home invaded and filmed for public consumption in a National Enquirer-style media approach. His power as premier was denigrated by those reporters on his doorstep who "psychically" knew just when the RCMP would descend. ( The denigration of his privacy somewhat akin to Sadaam getting his teeth checked, in the underpants). In order to humiliate.

How do you destroy someone, undermine? The NDP weren't perfect, they weakened their social policies instead of courageously enacting them.(I've said many times where I disagree with them, their straying from their roots, their too soft, nice approach, their lack of fire)... but this travesty was a lot worse in its eventual consequences to this province... and in its future potential... and I'm talking here about the behind the scenes machinations here to assassinate character, to topple governments in the service of those with a special interest in their demise.

I give credit to Glen Clark and his wife for surviving it all. I want no part in the further destroying of him.

I don't think you have to worry abour BC Mary, she is a pretty good judge of character and I don't think much fools her.

For those wanting to follow up on Ed's work

http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd-dotcom/tech_global_poor/0411/0061.html

and

http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/CV22.html

(scroll halfway down the page to Ecology and Economy)

I hope that is not bloody true Anne. I know I have read you a number of times here, and if I haven't treated you with the respect you deserve, it has nothing to do with you being a girl, I promise you.

I like girls. Goodness knows my wife commands my respect, and the fruit of my loins have been overwhelmingly girls, and they EXPECT their father to show them respect. There's many fine women with insightful minds here, including yourself in this piece. (I hope you have noted that, on a number of occassions, including this thread, I have shared your observation that "the centre" in politics is a fickle thing, and much moves about with the prevailing political winds-, those who crowd the centre like they were tied to their mother's apron strings, tend to be, in my observation, an opportunism obsessed lot. (And generally, because they tend to be the more timid and tame, they are the last to know when the centre actually shifts anyway-, let alone do anything to help it along. They are more, mere drifters on the political sea, being blown here and blown there. :-)

Which is why we need a powerful political left not succumbed to, I'll say it again, social democratic opportunism and preoccupation with "pleasing business", and appearing "all things to all people". If for no other reason, and I think there are many other reasons, this country is going to increasingly need a powerful and clearly defined "Militant Left" to maintain a counter pressure on the Neoconazi Right, and to attempt to drag that obsessive crew so desparate to be constantly at suckling the Centre Tit, over here, onto the Left, on the side of we common folks.

Without that powerful, aggressive Left, not inclined to whine about fears of violence, but more concerned with actually moving events in "the peoples'" favour, and the particular analysis of political and economic reality that it can bring to bear on capitalist society, the current period of Neoconazi drift will continue unchecked, certainly not by the NDP. And that proverbial centre, with all the same obsessive fucks sucking its teat, will continue to be dragged further right, as this current NDP is itself, whining incessantly about its fears of violence, and the importance of us all being nice little boys and girls. :-)

Anne, this was an excellent write you did. It got my attention. If I haven't, however unknowingly, treated you with respect, I will so from here on in. Promise. :-)

Again, I like and respect girls. They've been too big a part of my life for me to have any other attitude. :-D

Ehhhh. And we seem to share a political "attitude". That counts.

Thanks for this, Frank. Fascinating reading by this fellow.

Thanks for the info on my stuff, Frank, I didn't know about its existence. The second one, published in Australia by my friend Prof. Dion Giles, is one of my columns that appear biweekly in the Gold River Record, edited by my very courageous friend, Jerry West, who also invented the title, meaning, "Let there be light". I don't think too many editors would dare to publish my irreverent iconoclasm. The last one I wrote was # 141 and I'm supposed to write another on Friday to come out next Wed. I don't know whether Jerry has any archives ? No time for a website, right now I'm building a twin axle stock trailer, but if anybody really wants to be buried in Deakisms, go to google and type in my name. There's an economics professor in the USA with the same name, who must be going through hell, having to make disclaimers for my writings. I don't think I'll be invited for dinner at his table very soon.
Propaganda is the rape of minds. I have seen what lifelong brainwash can do to people and in another life I was a British trained propaganda buster and information analyst in 3 languages. Google shows a bit of our time in England, written by me, covering what should be known. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Thanks, Lynn.

It's okay Coyote, I didn't mean you, and my comment was half-joking anyway. But, it is true that many women have experienced saying something at a meeting, for instance, and having everyone ignore it, and then having a man say the same thing a few minutes later and having everyone (male or female) go, "Oh! What a great idea!" It happened to me on one of these strings a week or two back, but it was no big deal so I didn't comment. I can't even remember who did it.

Anyway, Lynn. I can't feel too sorry for Clark having his privacy invaded and being humiliated when his government was responsible for invading the privacy of and humiliating its most vulnerable citizens. The anecdote I posted was just one of many in my career as a welfare right's advocate. I know that you mean
that Clark's humiliation was bad in terms of the big picture, but so was hurting the poor bad in terms of the big picture!

B.C. Mary said, a few comments lists back, that she "rather liked" Clark. I assume that when she said that she had no idea that the Clark government had attacked the poor the way they did. That is, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe my personal experiences and the experiences of others I knew about have made me
just too emotional on this topic, but I can't help feeling--when people praise the N.D.P. and even say things about how the N.D.P. never hurt the poor, as if a whole segment of society, that the N.D.P. had courted before they were in power--suddenly became invisible. I know I am being repetitive, but I am going to do my best to make sure that as many people as possible know what really happened and that the poor don't get forgotten (or attacked)by the N.D.P. and its supporters again!

And Frank, what did all that poor-bashing when they were in power get the N.D.P. anyway? They lost worse in the 2000 election than they ever did before! I, and a lot of other people who had wanted the N.D.P. to stick to their principles, voted Green in protest during that election, including the retired district supervisor of our local Welfare office. (She was a decent person replaced by a sadist who very definitely, Lynn, invaded people's privacy to at least the extent that Glen Clark's was invaded. I'm inclined to call his humiliation poetic justice!) She confided to me recently that, having seen what B.C. Benefits did to her clients (and she was by no means knee-jerk sympathetic to every one of her clients, but she could see how destructive the new laws were to decent people) she could not bring herself to vote N.D.P. in 2000, though she intended to in this latest election to get rid of the Liberals. Anyway, to get back to my point, I believe that if the N.D.P. had stuck to their principles they'd have formed an opposition, at least, in 2000. So, this having to be "centrist", or, as I see it, "right-wing" simply turns their traditional supporters off. Yes, they may not have won, but they'd have lost with honour. The only reason they did so well in this past election is because the Liberals have been so very, very bad.

Anne; Maybe that meeting thing isn't about your gender. I've seen it happen many times, and I think it happens to ideas that are just more complex than can be assessed in a moment. They hear it, but it's too much to take in to process quickly.

Then, after it perks around a bit, somebody else brings it up again, not to rip it off, but to reintegrate it into the thought process of the group, If it's a really good idea, it might have to pop up two or three times before the beauty of it sinks in and gets appreciated.

So it's not because you're a girl. It's because you're so darn smart.

Ya think?

I know Anne, as I said all over the STV threads we have government of the lesser of two evils. Same thing happened to the NDP in Ontario I believe, they abandoned what got them elected.

Although I give the NDP the benefit of the doubt most of the time, it is clear that they are too willing to bend over backwards to please the media and business interests who attack them anyway. Its one thing to modify your position to get elected, its another thing entirely to go back on your principles after the election is won. I'm fine with the former, but not the latter.

Ed, I love Jerry West's articles on Rabble. Nice to see you're associated with him.

Anne, as I have expressed on a number of other threads to you I think you make some important and true points about where the NDP failed the poor in this province. And I especially understand that when you say you vote for a party to stand up for your rights, one that is supposed to be there for you, and they don't come through, the betrayal is felt deeply.

However, I've certainly never defended them in this regard as I've said above, and I think I have been fairly critical of their weaknesses and their leadership...it's certainly not like the NDP are phoning me for my opinion. Still I think they accomplished some good things and should be recognized for them. In the case of Clark, I think his standing up to the US was commendable and a rare thing, especially these days, that's all.

I know you have little sympathy for him when his house was invaded by press and police, again fine, certainly your choice. I just feel quite differently about it... a sign of just how far freedoms would eventually be transgressed in this province, as well as ensconcing Mr. Campbell quite firmly in place for years to come.

I agree with Frank in his assertion that many of us have tried to shift the debate towards the left. In his words, "failure is not due to lack of trying". The problem is the avenues of expression have become more and more limited. The Tyee is one of the few places that offers that voice. Late night, Anne... hope this makes sense.

Damn rights it's because I'm smart, Bailey, and it's because I'm the wrong gender and social class to presume to be smart. I'm uppity. To most people intelligence is assumed to go along with social status because most people don't recognize intelligence when they see it.

Yes, sometimes the recognition of an idea happens in the way you say it does, but the other thing happens too. So much so that it has become a feminist cliche. One time I was actually hired to do research by a non-profit. I presented a finding at a meeting. Everyone ignored it. A man on the board who had already taken a dislike to me asked for the phone number of the source of my idea. I gave it to him (my motivation being to see the non-profit flourish). Months later he presented this same idea as if it were his. At the next meeting the president announced that this was a wonderful idea of J.'s. No one could hear it until a man said it.

Lynn, the original point I was trying to make about Clark was related to the discussion on this string, of social democratic governments enabling fascism, or at least covering for capitalism. Glen Clark, getting his cushy job with Jimmy Pattison, to me exemplified the kind of so-called social democrat who does this. Yes, I have heard you criticize the N.D.P.'s social justice failings and I have heard you agree with some of the points I've made. That's why your continued naivity about the N.D.P. surprises me. I believe they are rotten to the core and irredeemable. Their "niceness" in this campaign sounded completely phony. I can't recall them saying anything about changing their ways except that they want to be more friendly to business! You and I will just have to agree to disagree about all that I guess. But my point was--the rank and file N.D.P. defending sell-out leaders is what contributes to the social democratic culture that enables fascism.

My current volitility on the subject stems from the string a couple of weeks back (I think you missed that one, Coyote, I kept wishing you would join in) where Glen Clark was being attacked by a few Greens (plus the usual right-wingers) and everyone rallied, not just to his defense, but to praise him, and some even went so far as to defend Jimmy Pattison, Mr. Billionaire! I joined the debate somewhat late and felt appalled at what I was reading. For one thing, the Green types had made some valid criticisms! I hate, and have always hated, a mentality of "Our leader right or wrong!" and it felt like that was what I was reading. Lynn, with you, I know it is more complex than that, but at the same time, I feel as if there are a couple of things you have failed to put together here while hanging onto your hope that the N.D.P. can make things better.

Anne, I know, I know, it's annoying. But really, you don't have to have a prick to be a prick.

I've worked with lots of women professionally, and some of them will rip off credit and gouge the competition with the best.

Why do you want to tar a whole gender because you met a few jerks? There are lots of nice, fair and even handed people around, as well as lots of jerks. And some of both kinds sometimes wear skirts.

All well and good to say the NDP isn't perfect but I remind you the NDP doesn't have referendums to decide minority rights, it doesn't send out huge forms to the disabled to fill out, it put resources into combatting homelessness, didn't dream up plans of allowing people to only collect welfare for two years, didn't promote the hunting of grizzly bears, wouldn't allow oil and gas development off the coast, didn't ignore the problems of pesticides, didn't allow fish farms to expand, didn't reduce conservation officers, didn't put corporations in charge of policing themselves in the woods, didn't kick the HEU workers out of their jobs and replace them with $10 an hour McJobs.

Add to that the NDP put money into education and health care at a time when the federal government under Paul Martin decided it would be a good idea to get rid of the $40 billion a year deficit the Conservatives left the country with, by taking the money from, among others, the provinces. Most of the other provinces passed those cuts on and decimated their systems but instead the BC NDP ran its own deficit which could have now been paid back since the federal money is coming through once again.

But if you can't vote for them because everything they do isn't perfect well there's always the Greens.

You present your own view quite well, Anne.

Myself, I know little of Clark per se, other than as an NDP media figure, though I recognize that he was likely nailed by a media/Liberal conspiracy, to discredit him and bring down the NDP. Beyond that, though I actually thought the FastCat Ferry business was also part of that same discrediting/ bringing-down process, I agree that he and the NDP were and are really a part of the problem. It has been for a good while. Unfortunately. Hopefully, that will change, but I'm not holding my breathe. Social Democratic ideological influence is just too great there, and in a mood to go along with Neocon Capitalism

I voted NDP this election, only for that old "lesser of two evils" thing which seems to typify what curently passes for "democracy".

I am resolved though, that unless they actually commit to working to reverse all the Neocon agenda of recent years, and mount a public fightback, and become part of an attempt to organize people and unions etc, as part of that, I will not vote for them again. For in which case, what will it bloody matter fundamentally, if its the Neoconazis dressed up as Liberals or NDP that are in power, in opposition or whatever.

Clark is history and still part of the problem, working for Jimmy Patterson. It's only an apparent contradiction that NDPers especially, seem to have no trouble rationalizing to themselves. (You could have gone back to labour law at least, Glen. But it must have tasted too good. Like good sex.:-)

Coyote, sorry for the delay. I hope I'm not too late but I took a day off from catching Tyee and all of a sudden there’s a boatload of fresh fillets to savour.

Ed Deak’s writing is very insightful, a pleasure to read, and his “scientifically correct definition” of economic efficiency contains an undisputable novelty in that it presents a unified ‘theory’ amalgamating the scientific, religious, military and economic controls on society. However, the ideas aren’t new. Ecologists from as far back as the time of Malthus have recognized the importance of energy flows, energy thefts and energy losses (resources, wealth, power) and how they affect population dynamics (the distribution and abundance of predators, prey, parasites and decomposers - human and non human). But who listens to ecologists? Obviously, when they’re not talking dollars and cents and profit and loss and politics and empires it’s nothing more than a passing interest.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I think Ed’s theory isn’t correct, it is, but as he admits, acceptance means the collapse of the neoclassical market economies. And who, institutionally or individually, is prepared to put themselves in harms way? Who is going to be the first to give up their level of affluence in order to create less effluence?

And it’s not that he doesn’t ask the right questions, it’s just that the answers don’t match the question. For example when he asks, “… we can only shake our heads in awe how they can get away with it and how the public and politicians can be gullible enough to tie the lives of billions of people to these transparent lies?” The answer to Ed’s question is actually contained in his question: It’s the gullibility factor that needs examination and exposure, but Ed chooses to focus on the “transparent lies” of a “fraudulent definition of economic efficiency” as the reason for humanities ills and the collapse of empires.

But I have to ask: Why do the multinational crooks and con artists steal, rob, disposes and murder, and get away with it? And why do empires fall?

It’s no accident. They get away with it because we let them; not because of some confusion over which economic efficiency theory is correct, but because we want them to. They get away with it because the institutions that allow societies to function as cohesive units teach us to accept their “fraudulent” behaviour. They get away with it because we are trained to think the way the controlling institutions want us to think. They get away with it because to think and do otherwise is too painful. And it is this pain/pleasure aspect of our existence, in my opinion, that harbours the secret; they get away with it because these institutions (religious, economic, political, military) know our lives are directed by the way we have been trained to respond to the cues that are directly linked to pain and pleasure.

We aren’t born crooks and con artists or with Capitalist or Marxist or Stalinist or Bushite ideologies firmly in place, we are taught to think these ways.

As naive as it is, that's my take on it.

You're correct KWD. I didn't invent anything new. When I discovered the false definition of economic efficiency in 1985, the basis and foundation of all economic theories, all I did was to follow up where this fraud contradicted long established physical laws, which then I narrowed down to the 4 I mentioned. I have no scientific background, or more knowledge than what I learned in highschool over 60 years ago and since. Yet, it was obvious to me that no manmade laws and theories can oppose physical laws without courting disaster. This was confirmed by my scientist friends I consulted and 6 more years of researching the subject through history, where economic efficiency has always been defined as some form of divinely ordained seigneurs' rights to steal from everybody.

Economists, even the good ones, like the late Schumacher, often quote Einstein who said that physical laws can not be applied to economics. With due respect to Einstein, whom I admire, he was badly wrong on this and we can see the results.
What economists claim is that we can overrule physical laws, like gravity, by applying enough energy, licenced by the control of imaginary capital.Again, at least some of us can see the results, while the gullible still are waiting for some economic Rapture that has no chance in hell to come. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

The Social democrats are in power in Germany now. (SDP)
They had the original pink newspaper and it was printed in switzerland and smuggled into germany when Bismark was chancellor way back in 1890something. It is quite interesting how far back they go.
Kwd said
"Ecologists from as far back as the time of Malthus have recognized the importance of energy flows, energy thefts and energy losses (resources, wealth, power) and how they affect population dynamics (the distribution and abundance of predators, prey, parasites and decomposers - human and non human). But who listens to ecologists?"]
It is a pity that we dont. The systems that they study are mimiked by what we create.

I started a thread on babble. ¨ is 60% social engineering?" Which was about the elite altering the perceptions of the public. I think that the perception is now successfully altered such that "in the future important referenda will require 60% public approval to be enacted while unimportant ones will just require 50% +1"
The government has basically grabbed more power with the 60% rule and nobody even noticed!
Anyway, I dont think any of the posts were about the bc rules for referenda now being substantially out of step with the rest of the world. They were all about STV.
The numbers for stv were 57% yes in 97% of ridings by the way.
Carole James worried about the rural voters, but strangely, they supported electoral reform and she didnt.
Another thing that didnt get noticed is the beefing up of the electoral register. Why have they put so much effort into registering people? Is it just that they are taking no chances?
Any attempt to get a new referendum if the government do not act on electoral reform requires 50% of registered voters to vote to succeed. If you can register more people who will probably not bother to vote ever, (after all, they didnt take the time to register to vote) it makes a referendum success even more extremely unlikely.
Just so you know what is going on!

brian; babble is the perfect name for that site. 60% is a standard threshold for such a major change. social engineering is what the lefties have been up to in this country for about the last 35 years or so, ever since the confused flower child mr. trudeau was shocked to realize that he was actually the 'leader' of this great country. lmao.

Imao must stand for "in my arrogant opinion".

Anne, I am beginning to think you, of all people, have bought the corporate media bullshit about demon Glen.

I too think Clark and his government screwed up on a number of important issues, especially as it tried to act like Socreds or Liberals when dealing with the poor.

But to go off the deep end and parrot the blatent propaganda spewed out by the corporate community and their shills is disappointing.

The right and, make no mistake about it, the right's corporate financial lifeline went ballistic when their chosen "premier" Gordon Campbell fell flat on his face in 1996.

Enraged that a young former labour organizer who wasn't afraid to sneer at them was now premier of the province, big business and it's media lackies worked overtime to disrupt.

Next time you get near a library go and read the Vancouver Sun-Province front page headlines from 1996 until 2001.

The corporate hatred for anything Glen or NDP leaps off the pages in a pattern that would impress an ad executive for its clear message.

Ok, so after being set up by police and opposition politicians and then ambushed by the premature arrival of BCTV's crime fighting team of reporters and then several years of reporting and editorializing why Clark was guilty, the damned courts went and found him not guilty.

Now, as for Clark's job with billionaire Jimmy Pattison, who is it you are angry at over that, Clark for seeking an income to feed his family or Pattison for speculating Clark would be a positive in his company.

Perhaps you were referring to me when you stated that some people went out of their way to defend Pattison when you earlier wrote on this issue.

I won't apologize for apologizing for him because I didn no such thing.

Someone stated he is the most anti-union employer in BC. I happen to disagree given that most people employed at Pattison owned companies have union representation.

Granted Pattison would likely prefer not to have to deal with unions, but he certainly hasn't tried to undercut the unions by the unsavoury tactics other business people have tried.

Should you wish, I'll lay out some of the shit the business community has been using for eons in BC to try to bust unions.

I have a great many concerns about the impact of Pattison on cultural, political and economic issues in this province.

But the fact that he gave a job to a former NDP premier (as bad as the optics may be for some), isn't a concern.

Ok, maybe I'm tainted because I was once in the employ of a former Canadian who is now a embattled Lord in merry olde England.

I had to stick it out for several years before fleeing the increasing cheapness that soon permiated anything to do with this guy other than his own wants.

Should I have quit my job the day he became the boss? In those days I would have jumped at a chance to get away from this guy even if it meant working for Jimmy Pattison.

NOTE TO BRIAN WHITE So now you see a conspiracy by the dark forces to register all those dumb non-voters "who will probably not bother to vote ever" just to kill your fatted lamb?

Here's an idea for you. Go out and register supporters of the failed STV proposal instead of whining about conspirators doing you in.

That's right, get a little political stuff under your nails by actually participating in the political process if you think those who have been registered are all deadbeats who just haven't the smarts to agree with you.

Otherwise, please move on.

Allan, I never said I agreed with the media attack on Clark. That has nothing to do with the other issues I dislike him for.

As to his working for Pattison, I think it's fishy, that's all. Why would a billionaire give a cushy job to a left-winger unless the left-winger wasn't really one?

Bailey, my attitudes are never simplistic. I do not "tar a whole gender with the same brush". If I did, then Coyote wouldn't be my favourite poster on this list. When that man in that certain group was given credit for an idea I had presented to the group first, the people who gave him credit were all women. He was the only man in the group and the other women were all kissing his ass. In short, I have equal contempt for women when they act this way. I guess I'm just misanthropic. In many groups I have preferred working with some of the men because the women were being wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed. My criticism is of human behaviour in regard to hierarchy. As KWD so wonderfully put it in that last post, we LET them do it to us!

Frank, the fact that the N.D.P. has not been as bad as the Liberals does not excuse the evil they did do. If you can possibly find it, get a hold of The Premier's Forum Report on Working and Living, put out by the Harcourt gov't just before Clark took over. Not only does it contain the blueprint for the B.C. Benefits legislation, but it shows that the N.D.P.'s long-term plan was to screw organized labour and the apprenticship program. The Liberals have done it, but the N.D.P. were thinking of it before that!

Lynn is my second favourite person on this list and that is why I was disppointed that she joined the defenders of Clark. Yes, she was speaking about the unfair media attack, but she had to go and praise him as a person as well. Yes, she has a right to her opinion and I am just reacting emotionally, but I have a right to be disappointed that she holds that opinion.

I am interested in those postings that talk about Social Democratic concessions enabling fascism because that has been my feeling all along. My experience in life has been that if you are concilliatory to bullies, hoping that will make them hurt you less, they just keep demanding more and more concessions. How can we possibly fight fascism by giving in to it? Wasn't that Neville Chamberlin's mistake? Anyway, I'd like to hear from people more educated on the subject than myself, just what were the mechanics of how fascism was enabled by social democratic governments.

is anne babbling about fascism again?
lynn; fyi; it's an 'l', and it stands for laugh my ass off. which is what i do when i read all of the blather on this site.

Anne, maybe a billionaire would give a job to a left winger because he realized the left winger could do the job well.

That may be way off the mark, but it seems a bit more sensical than to suggest that Glen Clark is a capitalist pig in disguise.

One thing I fully suspect is that whatever job Jimmy Pattison gives to anyone it is unlikely to be "cushy".

Oh, I see the idiot who refers to anything deeper than he can grasp as "blather" is back breaking wind and proving that evolution sometimes means a step or two backward.

Anne, as I've said many times before, you have much to offer here, are a great writer and I like you. You have kept the conversation honest especially in regards to the poor.

I have to say that if it is naive to find what is still good and worthy in imperfect things then I guess I am happily so. It has carried me through much of my life, especially through those dark nights that we all experience from time to time. This doesn't mean I haven't been highly critical at times or fought for a lot of things in my life.

And this is as one woman to another where I know our emotions play a factor and justly so, nothing wrong with emotions, never apologize for feeling deeply about things, I don't, but where I disagree with you, and we all disagree on this site at times, so please take this in the good spirit it is offered, is that I find nothing wrong with commending what is still worthy or good. Surely, to prohibit this in an all or nothing, irredeemable take on the world is a tyranny in itself.

The neo-con view allows for no criticism of what is bad or unworthy, their system is always deemed perfect. But to counter that view with one that allows for no praise or commendation for what is still good or worthy, and again to expect perfection in imperfect people and imperfect systems are really just two sides of the same coin. Two tyrannies of thought and from my perspective a very tough way to live your life because you will always be disappointed.

This is off topic but would someone please explain to me about "qualified privilege" in regards to politcians? Seems that Campbell was let off a slanderous statement against The Ironworkers Union in '94 because a judge said it could apply outside of the legislature. In todays Province Micheal Smyth he is talking about the BCTF's lawsuit. While I can understand that politicians may make mistakes and when they do they shouldn't necessarily end up in court; should they not be required to try to be correct in their statements and if making a incorrect one they should at least be required to correct it? If not why do we, the ordinary citizen, get so shocked by the scandals that occur? Tell me why the rest of the population is held to a higher level of conduct than our elected representatives? Is this another pile of steaming shit that judges like to avoid?

blonde; fyi; people who, by the nature of their work, are required to express their opinions are protected by qualified privilege.
its purpose is to encourage free speech (which the bctf deplores if it doesn't suit their needs) on matters of public importance. it will succeed as a defence if the defendant can prove that the statements were made in good faith and without malice. what this really means is that the bctf doesn't have a hope, but they will use this issue to pump up their next strike vote.

blonde pitbull, qualified privilage is what some people get from some judges while others are thrown to the wolves (media), who in this province have learned to cooperate by serving up a fast-track sort of rough frontier justice that some judges might like to impose if it were not so tacky.

But even when the odds are stacked, I think it would be pretty hard for even el Gordo to pretend to be stupid enough to believe what he said wasn't an out-and-out lie.

Oh well, he can always say he was drunk when he made the comments. That'll rally the media support for the man once again I'm sure.

Sirj, sorry but that I understand, its how MS/GC and or you apply it to the BCTF letter and having it "liberally" interpreted into reading a strike before the school years end. His statements were outside of the legislature, not without malice and incorrect. All he had/has to do was retract it, clarify it or face the consquences like the average person.
I'm not a labour lawyer but since this came out I've asked those who are involved with my union at my facility how quickly a strike vote could be set up, taken, legal notice given and inacted and have been told that it would be virtually impossible to pull off. Now, maybe, and I'm really stretching to give GC the benefit of the doubt, he doesn't know the requirements of the contracts that the teachers work under.I,personally, highly doubt that considering his "wife" is and has been one for her entire working life. Why should he not be required to, at least, correct his statemnets?

Sirj, I agree with Allan even GC is going to have a hard time convincing even the most devout follower his "opinions" expressed weren't an out and out lie.

blonde; what gordo did was obviously pure politics in the heat of an election campaign. everyone knows that, but to sue him for defamation is ridiculous and won't even get to a courtroom. however, the bctf doesn't seem to mind spending it's members dollars on frivolous lawsuits

Lynn, I have no trouble with you finding the good where it really exists. I just believe that false hope is worse than no hope at all because it keeps us spinning wheels for useless causes. If a person has no hope then they might begin to search for hope where it is more likely to be found--perhaps in peoples' movements rather than in a burnt out, sold out political party. And yes, I'm sure you are looking for hope in those alternative places too.

I wanted to clarify what I meant when I addressed others about social democratic parties colluding with the right. It's kind of like this: the N.D.P. was confronted with a bully in the form of the corporate agenda. Instead of standing up to the bully the Clark government said, "Don't hurt us! Here, we'll give you our little brothers and sisters and you can whale on them! We'll even help you! Go for it, beat on those 'welfare bums' and those Elaho protesters! Greenpeace is the enemy of B.C. anyways!" And never mind that certain segments of the union movement thought the government was standing up for them over the environmental issues, it was the forest companies who benefited. So, people wonder aloud why Joe Foy hates Clark, or why someone like me does. And you all start flapping about what the media did to Clark, as if that had anything to do with how he screwed environmentalists and poor people. We don't like him cause he's a bully, okay. And the bullies he was sucking up to finally beat up on him. What did he expect?

And, Lynn, I do give Clark credit for standing up against the U.S. in those couple of instances where he did. I'm simply confused as to why he could do the right thing then and the wrong thing other times, so, I suspect it was because the rank and file of the party were getting upset about all the wrong things he'd done and he went, "Guess I'd better do the right thing once in a while." I believe it was pressure from party members, not goodness on his part.

The N.D.P. did more than just not stand up for the welfare poor, they actually promoted hatred
with several comments made by different ministers. Then all kinds of people who had been supportive of poor people before began to poor-bash too. The neighbour who had tried to get a welfare family kicked out of my townhouse complex proudly hung an N.D.P. sign off her balcony right after! I started to wonder if how I was feeling was how the Jews began to feel at the onset of the Nazi's promotion of hatred against them. It was way worse in its effect than when the Socreds had poor-bashed because both "left" and right joined in. I begin to stockpile sleeping pills, I kid you not, because if the N.D.P. attacked us could death camps be far behind? (I got over that one. I want to stay and fight now.)

So as "obviously pure politics" good faith is out, malice is in, and the man is required to correct his statements. As for not making it to court well, we'll see... there are three other lawsuits that he has led his gov't into court on basically for the same reasons; I/we don't have to play by the rules of the land those laws are for everybody else... It should be interesting to see him/them spin their way out of...Unless like Allan says he/they going to use the "I/we were/was too intoxicated to know what I/we were/was doing, your Honor"...That will adding a "new" one to the list of intoxicates...Power Hungry Anonymous... Remember, now the Liberals also went to the public saying that the NDP were the ones who were soft on crime not them. Oh, but that's just politics too, right?

"I'd like to hear from people more educated on the subject than myself, just what were the mechanics of how fascism was enabled by social democratic governments."

I'd say fascism was not enabled by social democrats, it was enabled by those who found social democrats didn't go far enough so they sat on their hands and let the fascists take over. There were probably many at the time who said the social democrats were just the same as the fascists so why support them.

Anyway, there's lots of other parties in BC, 46 I think I saw mentioned, many of them to the left of the NDP. There's always someone to vote for.

" because if the N.D.P. attacked us could death camps be far behind?"

I would say there's quite a bit of distance between the NDP denying someone benefits and the setting up of death camps.

glen clark was not 'standing up to the americans'. he was grandstanding, and it backfired. another pathetic political act by a power hungry ideologue. american bashing is trendy, hip, and necessary to the left. it works and it wins.

Ed Deak's latest column can be found at:

island.net/~record

Click on the button for Current Issue and you will access the entire May 18 issue in pdf format, about 5mb in size.

anne; you should be ashamed of yourself for making reference to the plight of the jews in nazi germany so flippantly! you disgust me.

Blonde Pitbull, excellent point about Gordo's wife being a teacher for many years and that that it would be pretty hard to escape the knowledge of how teachers' contracts work...unless, of course, they actually never talk to each other.

I'm not absolutely sure but I think the letter they sent to him seeking a retraction from him stated that it would be impossible to initiate any kind of job action before the school year ended.

Lynn, you could be right the few times I've seen them filmed together they don't send me the "couple vibe" but still I just can't picture him not knowing...which is why I think he should grow up and say: "I was wrong" if he can't force out the words "I lied"....Although the court room version would be much more entertaining if it will anything like the TV debate.
As for the letter requesting a retraction, I think you're right, wasn't there a link to it here around May 13th? I know I read it somewhere...

Which I would say is an excellent take on it KWD, and I see Anne agrees as well. "-)

I am in agreement with much of Fait Lux myself, with a reservation or two, but.., which I don't have time to get into right now, also like you say, not all of his answers to his own questions and observations. Another time perhaps.

That said, I think he is an admirable writer and dare I say, amateur economist-, which is certainly NOT an insult. We need more mere citizens prepared to make the rewarding effort.

I am much tied up presently, my good friends all here. I will return with full vigour, spotty until then, certainly around the end of June.

Frank, I was not comparing the Clark gov't to the Nazis ONLY because they "denied someone benefits"--I thought I made it clear that it was the hatred that was being spouted by that government, the attempt to create an underclass and then scapegoat us, that made me feel that a "final solution" for the poor might be the eventual outcome. Also, the demeaning way in which people had to apply for benefits ("demean, delay, deny" as a friend of mine expressed it), the dehumanizing hoops people were forced to jump through--even disabled people and people with children. Obviously, how I felt 9 years ago was paranoid, as things have not yet gotten that bad, despite the Liberals. But about the time all this betrayal was going on I heard a radio broadcast on C.B.C. wherein historian Erna Paris was interviewed. She explained the history of persecution of the Jews. The Jews were scape-goated whenever the powers-that-be needed to distract the populace from what was really going wrong. At the very end Ms. Paris said that there is a group in North American society right now that governments are using for this scapegoating purpose and that this time it is the poor. It isn't just my personal paranoia, you see. And the fact that people all around me were expressing this hatred toward a group that I was, at that time, a member of, did not bolster any assurances that "it can't happen here". If you were in relatively comfortable circumstances during the N.D.P. betrayal of the welfare poor, then it is easy for you to make it all abstract, isn't it? "They came for the poor, but I was not on Welfare so I did nothing..." Also, Frank, it's really nice to know that you think the poor-bashing was wrong because the N.D.P. said they wouldn't do it before they were elected, but it would have been all right with you if they poor-bashed if they hadn't said they wouldn't?!

I am a person who believes that "the end justifies the means" is an ethically faulty doctrine, particularly when it is the least able to defend themselves who are sacrficed to it.

As to me "sitting on my hands and letting the fascists take over", well, fuck you, Frank! Up yours! What do you think I've been fighting against to no avail for the last however many years? What do you think I've been trying to tell people was happening, only to be disbelieved, especially by complacent, middle class N.D.P.ers! People on Welfare are the canaries in the mine, is what I've been saying.
And, no, there was no left of the N.D.P. party in my riding I could vote for. There were four parties, not 46, running in this riding but the DR B.C. guy, who I might have voted for, didn't even bother to run a campaign, evidently. He wouldn't talk to the local press and I didn't find out that party's platform until after the election. So, yes, I didn't vote, for the first time in my entire life (I am 57 years old) I voted for no one, because my stomach got upset every time I tried to choose between Green and N.D.P. If the N.D.P. guy who got in here does a good job I may consider voting for him next time.

It was not me, by the way, who brought up the talk of social democratic governments enabling fascim. It was other people earlier on this string. Yet, I notice it wasn't THEM you accused of "sitting on their hands". It was them, not you, I was asking for more information from. I have done lots of political work, as a radical, outside of political parties, to try to raise people's consciousness on issues, and someone like you has no right to assume I've been "sitting on my hands". Just what have you been doing, Mr. Self-Righteous Middle-of-the Road Uncaring Jerk?

Here, I've found who said it: KWD says, early on in this string, "The Social Democrats were in power...prior to the Nazis...which may have had something to do with fostering voter complacency and acceptance of the Nazis." Then Coyote agrees with KWD, in his post 3 days ago: "they, intentionally or unintentionally...cower before it, and feed the growth of The Beast." "The Social Democrats...are the appeasers and enablers", "the reality of the growing class conflict will continue to press in on them...as it did earlier in Nazi Germany, where they played the same essential ENABLER role." (Coyote uses italics, for "enabler" but I don't know how to do that.) There may have been others agreeing with this theory, but I haven't time to read through the whole list again.

So, Frank, how come you didn't treat Coyote and
KWD to the scorn with which you have reacted to me over this theory? And, Coyote and KWD, how about helping me out here with this argument, and also, how about telling me just how it went in Nazi Germany, since it was you I was asking, not Frank, who thinks I flatter him by thinking he might be more knowledgable on this than I am.

Coyote, I always welcome anybody to prove me wrong on any question, or subject, which then I can write off as a learning experience. I'd also welcome if anybody could kick me out of economics, which I consider a very boring, dead end subject, so I could spend more time on real life work. The only reason I stick with this silly, childish nonsense called economics, is the incredible destruction and suffering it causes around the world, while reporting major benefits with the use of fraudulent accounting systems. Ed Deak, Big Lake. BC.

Anne, Frank's anything but a self-righteous uncaring jerk. Far from it. You're not scoring any points with me.

Fiat Lux , I read your article in the Gold River paper on the link above. It was very interesting. I was also most impressed that a local paper would print an article that expressed a more radical view, especially regarding the americanization of this country. Good for them. Our local paper is much more conservative in viewpoint though I know some of the other regional ones are not.

Lynn, I wasn't trying to score any points with you. What Frank said to me was pretty damned insulting and I was reacting to it, okay. I have worked my ass off trying to bring about social justice in whatever way I could for the past 17 years, or more. When I have tried to work "within the system" or to cooperate with mainstream people, I get patronized, silenced, sidelined. I get told that what I know to be happening is not happening. People assume I just want attention, and think I'll be satisfied with the attention I get for doing the shit-work for whatever the cause is but never having my input taken seriously. It's called classism. Then, when I leave, people like Frank accuse me of "dividing the left" because I don't want to be treated like the poor cousin. And because I'm not in the group of "important" people I must be doing nothing. Yet, I am remembered in this community by many of the "unimportant" people because I helped get them their rights.

Oh, and, by the way, I had lots of friendly acquaintances among the social democrat crowd BEFORE the big sell-out. Then when they turned against us all I was frightened. Now I'm angry.

I think Frank's point was and is a good one that it was the people themselves, not the Social Democrats, that led to the rise of fascism. Just as now it is the people that LET them, not just a politcal party, not just the NDP boogeyman. That the impetus of the populace plays a major part, whether they are willing to finally act. Anarcho has a good comment above in this regard, agreeing with Frank in fact on the role the populace plays.

Frank is also making a good point that the tarring of everything, even what is good, in an unwillingness to distinguish or redeem anything that is worthy or good, can open the fascism door in its own way as well.

anne; even the lefties think you're a fool. take a reality pill and call me in the morning. or move to france.

Sirjohna, if you are being paid to be on this list I don't think you are enjoying your job much because your postings are so uninspired. Whoever is paying you should fire you so you can find a career you like better.

Well, this has been a really horrible conversation , people, what with me getting angry and people getting angry at me. I just can't accept that the way the N.D.P. treated the poor was just a small imperfection that I ought to overlook. Or that it's okay, in the name of "moderation" to allow some people's lives to be devastated. Lynn, you say "The neo-con view allows for no critcism of what is bad or unworthy, their system is always deemed perfect." True, but when the N.D.P. were in power they seemed to have exactly that view of their own system and did not allow for criticism of what was bad or unworthy. And they were supposed to be the good guys. That is why I am so enraged.

I think what I'll do is this: I'll delete this week's Tyee (much as I'd like to hear that response, if it's forthcoming, from Coyote and KWD) and see you all next week, when hopefully we're all in a better mood. No, it's not because I want the last word--part of me would really like to hear how people respond, if people respond. And no, Sirjohna, it's not because I've taken a "reality pill". I'm just tired of screaming in the wind, that's all.

I'm sorry if anyone's feelings are hurt. Mine sure are. And I'm still curious as to why no one's reamed out KWD or Coyote for saying that social democrats enable fascism, if you're really in such disagreement with that. Am I the one who gets contradicted because I'm the one who brings up examples of actual human casualities of such collaboration?

There are no good guys, Anne, only human beings...and yeah you're right not always all that human. But your criticism of the Clark government could be found under almost any government, from Bennett and Son, to Vanderzalm , Harcourt and onwards. Under the Republicans, under the Democrats. It is the structure that kills the poor and de-humanizes them. This isn't a good set-up, no miracles and hierarchical as hell.

The same goes for welfare. The experiences and structure you speak of would have been felt under all previous provincial governments as well. And I know they were. It has never been easy to be on welfare here. You are at their mercy. It is even worse now. There were no two year limits then.

I guess you can go on and on poking at the NDP, like a KGB agent with a poison-tipped umbrella, if it makes you feel better... have at it. It's just about qualifies for a sport these days, anyway. But they were not the anti-Christ, not perfect but I think they made some significant accomplishments (hey, I know no one wants to hear them...oh how Gordo has won that mind game of the dismal decade, now replaced with the new and improved golden decade as the rise of fascism marches on).

But an anti-Christ, whatever its political stripe, is always an effective ploy and so obliging in its haunting threat of return... someone to blame, to help us shirk off our own culpabiltiy in the whole damned mess. Blame just lets us all off the hook and we can go on about our day, not have to worry, it's ALL you-know-who's fault anyway. ( I'm speaking in general terms here, Anne, about the populace, of which I include myself, not aimed at you, and by the way if you re-read Frank's comment you will find his reply was a general comment as well... his view, but not aimed specifically at you at all).

My final word for a long time, I promise.

Let me read upthread Anne, and see if I can find that question you want me to comment on. (I'm considerably distracted right now, and irregularly trying to keep some track of the conversation here.

In a fairly quick perusal, I think you are asking me how Social Democracy is actually playing a role in enabling this "drift" towards fascism I claim, which again, I contend, the rise of the Neoconazis represent.

I thought I had dealt with that above but, to try a different quick and dirty tack: From the time of the splitting of the Socialist International around the issues of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath, through the rise of Nazi Germany, down to today, what has come to be/ indeed was already known as "Social Democracy", of the NDP type, has played a fairly consistent role in capitalist politics and economic theory. And primarily that role has been, despite frequent talk and genuflection to the "socialist ideal", and the "reformation" of capitalism into "a kind of socialism"..., outright abandoned for some time now.. has been in practice a "legalistic" preoccupation with putting a human face on capitalism.

This latter which has involved, largely, rather than organizing and facilitating the ordinary "mass" of folks to take control of their own lives and the economy upon which they depend, to submit to ruling class authority, and "Leave the driving to US.", the NDP/Social Democracy, to cut the deals with the ruling class and their political front men. Which during the period of the rise of Nazi fascism, saw them make Communist and Anarchist groupings, and their allied labour organizations, which were unacceptable to the ruling class, the greater enemy than Fascism, and to rely more on parliamentary maneuvering to keep the Nazis at bay-, until it of course all unravelled in what came to be, that Hitler was elected to the Reichstag, and ultimately handed the Weimar Republic by then Chancellor Hindenberg.

And that same historical tendency, only even more so now, long after the NDP has abandoned any pretence at socialist ideals and policy, and with its obsessively "legalistic" approach to politics and power, eschewing the mass involvement of the citizenry itself, pure reliance on "ruling class weighted" parliamentary democracy, and the eunuchizing of the trade union movement where it has influence there, is leading in the direction of a result "not entirely unlike" what occurred in Nazi Germany, around the rise of the Neoconazi agenda everywhere. Here too, in this period, Social Democracy is proceeding to the game plan it has historically favoured, currying favour with the business and ruling class, encouraging obedience to the again "weighted" ruling class laws it favours or apologizes for, and to gentlemanly parliamentary procedure and conduct in the "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" tradition.

As with any stick of course, there is always the carrot as well, of course, and the NDP does talk the talk, and wring its hands about the lot increasingly befalling "the common man and woman", though there is a marked paucity of specifics, and now and again the NDP has facilitated, tentatively and gingerly, the falling of crumbs from the ruling class table to the floor of the Unwashed. And during what I have described as the Great Prosperity Period of the immediate Post WW2, until around the late 1970s, whilst the ruling class was flush with the wealth from rebuilding Europe and other parts of the world destroyed by the war, and that same ruling class feared communism, the "social democratic" deal making approach to capitalism actually worked for awhile, or seemed to. All of which has become steadily "less" effective with the rise of Neoconazi ruling class influence and ideology, since the time of the austerity budgets of Little Bill Bennett here, Margaret Thatcher in England, and Reagan (with the help of the neo-liberal economists such as Friedman).

To where we are, at a place where I think this "traditional" Social Democratic/NDP approach to dealing with the problems of current Neoconazi Capitalism are not only ineffective, but dangerous. And this approach of theirs is dangerous because their movement is all towards compromising with the Neocons, muting their criticism and peacemaking with the business and ruling class that is the real power and deep pockets behind the Neoconazis. And sensing this vacillation of the NDP, and their reluctance to engage them head on, unapologetically and openly, is the degree to which they effectively are acting to encourage and enable this rise of the new fascism.

In summary, and perhaps with excessive brevity, for it is a complex subject, I appreciate, my own conclusion is that the NDP/Social Democracy likely cannot be relied upon in this "Post Prosperity Period", certainly in and of themselves, though they MAY prove of some use, but must at least be augmented, perhaps even eventually overwhelmed, by the creation of "citizen's movements" that will organize people around the issues and concerns of their own lives, and in the defence and advocacy of this economic and political interests. And pivotal to that, in my mind, as the prelude to a new kind of political power even, is the working through, advancement and taking up by the great mass of working class folks and their allied groupings of women, the poor and environmental movements, of this concept of a new kind of "economic democracy" that will begin the process, of including the ordinary citizenry in the decision making and strategic and management decision affairs of the economy. To entail, during the course of which, the circumscribing of current ruling class power and control.

There is an overwhelming need emerging, I think, to demystify economic power and "democratize" it; make it subject to the interests and will of the great mass of society, not just its ruling class interest.

Without this counter-demand, and successful mobilation around it, I think, which the NDP will not, certainly without much heaving and pushing, be willing to take up, in large part because of its obsessively "deal making" view of the universe, the steady rise of the Neoconazis will continue, with the NDP holding their coats and enabling them, like they did of old, in the time of Hindenburg.

My view of the current political universe. Which I hope answes your question Anne.

(Ohh, and Anne. Political quarreling is an indispensible part of the process, which one must have the stomach for. :-) Even good people, much in agreement on most matters, will have their quarrels. It is life, not?)

Anne, I sincerely apologize for making you upset and suggesting you're paving the road to fascism. I've always enjoyed reading your posts.

To go back to your comments, you said would it be alright in my mind if the NDP had said they were going to bash the poor before they were elected. My answer is yes. I believe you also asked if I would have a problem with that and my answer to that is also yes. In fact I wouldn't have voted for them. I'm fine with political parties being up front about what they're going to do, even if I don't agree.

I thought your connection between welfare and death camps was over the top. As you added later, you were probably paranoid at the time. I'm not going to bash you for feeling paranoid, many do. And I understand how people can sometimes feel they're up against a wall and have no other recourse. You asked if I was in the same situation or was I instead basking in luxury. Well, neither. In between.

Clearly at the personal level all governments can sometimes look the same, same gov't worker and same answer from the other side of the counter. But that alone doesn't make the two governments the same. Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture is necessary. A gov't that is losing federal funds and is targeting which programs it can keep at the same level and which have to be cut is different than one that does it for ideological reasons when there is no revenue shortfall. But on the other side of the counter I agree the overall reason doesn't really matter.

My problem with social democrats being called the same as fascists is I think it arises out of a feeling that all governments are the same, bad. I would agree that no government in Cdn history has ever been perfect, and most have had their scandals but I do see real policy differences between the various parties that have led the country or a province.

As for Hitler, well, there's a lot of books on this question, one of the best being "Hitler: A study in tyranny". And its a complex subject. And there are many reasons. But one was certainly the fact that all government was becoming discredited because it wasn't fixing the problems people had. Germany let's recall had two depressions, was humiliated by Versailles and lots of other problems stemming from the war. So people seemed to want real change, not just the decent gov't of the Weimar Republic. Clearly the soc-dems weren't up to the problems of the time. Hitler seemed confident, gave positive answers instead of reasons why not. So he became Chancellor. More people didn't vote for Hitler than those that did and many were certainly scared of him but the fact is they never got another chance to vote him out. But my point is, the road to fascism requires the discrediting of government itself and all responsible political parties. Outside of depression and war I doubt real "death-camp" type fascists could ever get elected. Most are like Franco and Pinochet, not elected, they just seize power with the help of the army and the wealthy elites during a time of domestic unrest.

Women's perogative to change mind. The rise of fascism had much to do with the refusal of the left in the twenties and thirties to recognize a common enemy and to act cohesively against it. They distracted themselves by a power struggle among themselves.

The Communists also pulled their weight in this by characterising the Social Democrats as social-fascists. The moderates of the left, the people themselves, (not merely an artificial construct of social democracy on which to attach blame) but the people themselves sold out in making alliances where they should have stood their ground and fought back... and they certainly enabled fascism in this way but they were not yet fascists...not yet... maybe close in some instances but no cigar, still redeemable... but by characterising each other as such, in a suicidal diversionary tactic from the real battleground, the warring factions of the left just fractured their unity more and more and gave all their power away.

In fact, I think the working class in Germany gave only 3-4% of their vote to the fascists, so there was still much resistance to fascism in the workers, there was just no unified base of action with which to mount their struggle. The left was too busy backstabbing itself in its quest for control of the anti-fascist throne.

With which theme, I do not fundamentally diasagee.There is a risk, I concur, that while we, different elements of "the left" do need to speak frankly to each other as we move into this new social and economic period, identifying and arguing out our legitimate differences, that we will fall to such quarrelling, as you identify Lynn; that we will also create another kind of situation which also enables or facilitates these new Neoconazis.

But while that be said, many of the rest of us "non-social democrats" on the left, in and outside the NDP, have made our compromises with this tendency, in the extreme, since the height of the cold war and its broad brush strokes in North America. Indeed, with little choice on our parts, we have been ridden roughshod over and silenced, to a degree that we have had little choice but to watch the trade union movement fall into stagnation and decline through Social Democratic utilitarian use and leadership, and even while we have been slandered and insulted by them, we have continued to vote for them, and urge others to do so, and we have allowed them, largely through no choice, I concede, to monopolize and write the political and economic agenda for the entire "left" through the Prosperity Period. Which we have also watched become hopelessly compromised, mired in opportunist deal making, engage in the outright destruction of working class gains themselves, if somewhat more modestly, and finally become near completely eunuchized and chickenshit.

The early signs are, this period is about to produce a different political brew and mix on the Left, and has to change. So Social Democrats should expect the voices within and without, from on their Left, to become steadily more insistant and strident, and demanding new respect. And the fate of the Left, along with the outcome of the social period we are in, isn't going to be determined entirely by the, for want of a better word, "militant" Left. (Like we do not entirely ourselves get to decided the issue of violence or no violenc. "The System" and its choice of responses are also a deciding element, perhaps the...) Social Democrats are part of this issue of future Left Unity as well, and while they have heretofore displayed more than a willingness to compromise and cut deals with a Neoconazi ruling class and its political frontmen, it has not so with other elements of the Left outside its centre-arsed self.

My hope IS that there will be unity. But there is no unity in rolling over and playing dead, only surrender and an abandonment of the field of contest. Which I say, the Left outside the NDP should certainly NOT do.

Unity of all the movements of the people is important, but not at any and all costs is it a likelihood. There must be a mutual willingness to compromise and cut deals amongst ourselves, no less than Social Democrats are prepared to cut with those who work to undermine the interests of working class folks and their friends.And there, they have sometimes displayed themselves to be contortionists and gymnasts.

I hope what Lynn has described can be avoided, looking into the future, BUT... there must be a mutual respect and willingness to cut bait. Of which there is little evidence coming out of the NDP to here, only demands of the Greens and others to this point. There is no sign of any abatement of their arrogance whatsoever-, yet.

It a man's perogative to change his mind too. :-) We do all the time.

Lynn, the so called working class of Germany was fully supportive of Hitler, who created an economic miracle in the first 3-4 years of his regime, killing the depression in Germany and creating well paid full employment, becoming the envy of the whole, still depression ridden Europe, free medical care etc. His anti-semitism was not only accepted, but praised, as anti-semitism was a fact of life right across Europe, preached even in churches.
I have written evidence of this in books published by churches at the time. Of course, very few knew,or even imagined even at the very end, of the death camps and if there was any talk it was dismissed as propaganda. I've lost one of my closest friends, by the name of Peter Adam, to Auschwitz and haven't played chess in his memory since we played last in 1943. I saw the collapse, the last six months of the nazi empire, from the inside and have been sentenced to death by the nazi Hungarian army in the last few days for "high treason and espionage", a couple of days after my 18th birthday. Unfortunately I was innocen, but I made it up with the communists. So, I'm no fun of the nazis, but facts are facts. After the war I spent 3 years in Austria, where most people were still dreaming of the good times under Hitler. About 14 months in a military hospital with terribly mangled bodies, first as a patient for about 3 months, then as an orderly, helping with amputations, carrying legless guys, bedpans and food buckets around. We were all starving, even the officer doctors had the same garbage food as everybody. In all that time I can not remember a single case where a wounded would have cursed Hitler and the nazis, blaming them for his misery and losses. The talk was always what good times they had before the war and that it wasn't Hitler's fault that things went wrong, but of those around him.
If Hitler had been still alive and there'd been free elections in Germany after the war, Hitler and his nazis would have won hands down.
As far the communists were concerned, at one of the Comintern Conferences in the '30s, social democracy was declared as the worst enemy of communism. After the war, in the Soviet occupied countries, social democrats were hunted down, jailed and exterminated like mad dogs. I've lost some friends and was sentenced to the gulags in absentia, But by that time, thanks to the Attlee boys I was in England.

I'm sorry friends, but these are the facts, without any emotional side taking.
As far how Hitler managed his economic miracle, we could learn a lot from it and use the method for our own benefit.It was extremely simple by creating money for home use, concentrating on production and benefits for Germans. I've never hesitated to learn from anybody, from 5 year olds to professors and even criminals if they had some good ideas. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Fiat lux, you have lived quite a life. I had read that fascism had found it very difficult to recruit a working class base. (fascist unions) That in the German factory council elections,of 1931, the fascists achieved only 5% of the vote.

But I see what you are saying - the support for Hitler himself among the working class was a completely different thing. His lethal charisma for inpiring Germany with confidence and a successful method for economic benefit as you say.

Have you considered writing a book about your life, Fiat lux?

Another interesting piece from yourself, Ed Deak. And I do not doubt its veracity, by and large, one jit. Indeed, while I lacked that historical experience of yours, it fits more or less with my own "learned" knowledge of the period, and some presumptions about the nature of people, including the working class. This latter with whom I do have more than a little living experience-, not all pleasant, and amonst whose lower strata I have long been numbered.

The reality is, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag. Hindenberg handed him his own Chancellorship because Germany was in chaos, and it was thought that as a result of Hitler's obvious charisma and capacity to "influence" the masses, he could restore order to Germany. Which he indeed did, for a time and at a consequence.

There is little to be gained by us all pretending that fascism has no appeal to, especially, a desparate working class dreaming of regularity, the trains running on time and order in their lives. Not only that, the ruling class knows it too, which is why they dress it up so carefully, now as a kind of business suit and tie fascism, as the face of order, regularity and good business, in a way that appeals to the insecurities of the working class. Desparate people are more willing to resort to desparate measures, period, and the ruling class DOES know how to rule. They have been doing it for a long time.

More, unless the greatest number on the Left and amongst folks on the street are aware of it, and know and understand the history, it CAN repeat itself, likewise again with the support of social democracy AND others. Indeed, in the early going at least, many elements on the left bought into Hitler's slogan of National Socialism, from which the NAZI acronym comes. (It can be argued that Stalin, once he'd secured the General Secretaryship of the Communist Party from the dying Lenin, represented a more or less similar tendency and phenomena in Russia, for the same essential reasons.)

And it bears repeating, for I can recall one or two similar discussions here:

"As for how Hitler managed his economic miracle, we could learn a lot from it and use the method for our own benefit.It was extremely simple by creating money for home use, concentrating on production and benefits for Germans. I've never hesitated to learn from anybody, from 5 year olds to professors and even criminals if they had some good ideas..."

Into which only I would integrate my own druther, "...by creating money for home use, concentrating on production and benefits for Canadians-, in a form and with a content that actually begins to strengthen the influence and control of ordinary citizens over the economy, enhancing popular democracy, rather than through some ruling class or ostensibly benevolent State."

Purely my own preference. Which still does not guarantee that ordinary citizens cannot or will not do terrible things in their own name, as the ruling class has and does. Life is some more complex than that, still. And the need for some level of personal and social morality grounded in an internationalist and humane spirit is a constant, within whatever social form or time.

"by creating money for home use, concentrating on production and benefits for Canadians"

Sounds similar to Paul Hellyer's view and that of CAP.

It still comes back to my earlier point that no one is going to elect an extreme right or left wing party when most people haven't become disillusioned with government. How many well-functioning states have elected facists?

Hitler would not have been elected if Germany had won WW1 and hadn't faced a double depression. Even the USA had its own very right-wing groups back in the 30's which would have garnered more support if the US had faced the same challenges as Weimar Germany.

In no way, shape or form can Hitler be blamed on social democrats.

Holy Mackerel! You guys going to break into a rousing rendition of 'Lily Marlene' anytime soon?

Economies in general are artificial things, depressions are doubly artificial. The inflation of the period between the wars created a triple threat in Germany.

Any tinpot insane despot worth a damn could have replicated the German 'economic miracle". of the thirties, with a German class system oppressed by the victorious allied forces of Europe draining their country of all good things to pay war reparations.

Under those conditions, with absolute power, you or I could have done as well. An actual economist probably would have done even better.

Enough praise for the mad corporal, if you don't mind, please.

The main blame for Hitler rests with the Versailles Treaty, especially French President Clemenceau, who insisted on revenge. A bunch of semi literate politicians went wild with the euphora of their victory and screwed up the world forever. Countries were cut apart, like the 1000 year old borders of Hungary, the Sudetenland, East Prussia cut off from Germany. Millions of ethnic peoples dumped into artificially created countries, with burning hate on both sides. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, both artificially created, containing several nationalities hating each other, are the best examples. Then came the Depression on top of huge war reparation payments by the losing countries, creating the best of hotbeds for hate propaganda and war. Communism didn't appeal, with the exception of a small minority, because of its proven bloodbaths wherever it raised its ugly head. The most part of Europe had no democratic traditions and had not idea how the system worked. Also, democracies tend to self destruct and turned into dictatorships on account of people wanting strong father figures and imagined security. We can see this in our own times and countries. Hitler came at the right time with the right words, albeit not even a German citizen in the beginning, and people, wanting security, fell for that ridiculous figure of a pompous jerk. His early economic miracle drew followers in all countries, not realizing his ultimate plans. On this point it is interesting to read the actions of his money chief, Hjalmar Schacht.

With deregulated banks money became a "Licence to control energy, issued by a special interest sector for its own benefit". My definition. We're in a huge inflationary period with money created against assets for takeovers, mergers and people control. By law, all monies belong to the country and it is the most idiotic action when governments borrow their own money back from a special interest sector and even pay usury on money they already own. The ultimate corruption and stupidity. I hate to admit, but Hillier has the right ideas. He asked me a couple of times to join the CAP and I had extensive correspondence with Connie Fogal some years ago. It would have been for the NDP's benefit to accept the offer of the CAP for a merger.

By the time I was 21, I've lived under 7 monetary systems and my wife under 8 at 20. So much for the value of money we keep on hearing about by people demanding "fiscal responsibility" over an artificial concept created from air.
Sorry lynn, no books from this hick in the sticks. Too busy and far too much trouble.
Ed Deak, Big Lake,

Frank,

I think it would be difficult, though certainly NOT impossible, based on what we see and know now of our current Post Prosperity Period, to envisage the working class/ citizenry electing an extreme left or right party. (Though yet to be defined is the difference between "moderate" and "sell-out".) Realities have a way of mutating and altering however, in quite unexpected ways. (I mean, the post war welfare state capitalism was expected at the time, to last forever. Suddenly, you have the events around Solidarity 1983, here in BC, which red flags a whole new period of capitalist development/ undevelopment, depending on how you look at it.

Likewise, much of your own presumption about political impossibilities, I suggest, are based on old ideas and packaging of the Left and Right, and a different generations experience with same. It is said that you can't fool folks twice, even itself a dangerous assumption, but less likely if you try it in exactly the same way. You just need to keep doing it differently it is said by advertising men.

And, certainly to my mind, the rise of the Neocons and the "drift" towards fascism they represent, thus far at least, seems to have rejected the swastika and jackboot version of the phenomna-, and is being elected to power on a characteristicly fascist "corporatist" economic programme. There being "no left" to speak of in this country, unlike Germany at the time of the rise of that fascist variant, where there were powerful socialist, communist and anarchist groupings, there were the ideas of socialism and egalitarianism, and their notions of peoples welfare with which National Socialism had to compete, that these Neocons do not, the NDP itself having abandoned that field steadily.

And the Neoconazis have been and are, here, in the US, England (dressed up as Labour) and increasingly again in Germany and France as outright neo-fascist and conservative movements, emerging as political forces within capitalism to be contended with again.

Likewise, a "new Left", which I and others here address the need for, as a counter balance to the rise of this Corporatist Right, and a well spring of new ideas about democracy, the working class role in the economy, social and international relationships, is too going to have turn away from elements of "its" history, and dress itself up "some" differently, frankly.

Then we shall see how the new period, the working class and its friends, women, the poor and the new environmentalist order reacts and does not. I think your presumptions based on what is now already much ancient history, is a little premature. Nothing remains the same forever; people, events, possibilities, ideas and ideologies evolve as well with experience and discovery, and no less is that true of politics and political presumptions in general.

No doubt, who was and was not complicit in the rise of Hitlerian Fascism, is something we can discuss and have views on, but really, it too is confined to its particular context and time. It is now already history as well. Not invaluable, but history nonetheless.

People are unlikely long to support an NDP either, that much longer fails to respond to the Neoconazi rape of the people's interest as well, and continues to bend over and bare its ass, and be complicit, in this time. Nor are they likely to be long impressed with ab NDP that assists in holding the working class down to current violation of its interest and right to normality and reasonable participation in social and economic life, and material reward. There is the risk, I would say from the evidence as far back as two elections ago, that folks let you in this time already, only because we did not know what else to do, or where else to turn.

Which will not last for long, if the NDP is any further seen as part of the problem, however firmly its ass is parked in that crowded "centre" of politics. So it's not just left and right that may experience some electability issues Frank, but even the old safe and staid NDP.

Hindenberg had his ass parked in the centre of German politics too. And the history of politics is, in the right/wrong circumstances, there is more than the ballot box route to political power-, maybe even, as there is some fear, in Bush's America, exported here, along with many of our other dependancies on them.

I think your read of politics, in this instance, is too simplistic and formulistic.

It is typically we "radicals" who get accused of being too closed and dogmatic in our thinking. Much though, it seems here, that it is many of those around the NDP who are insistant upon holding to their rigid, simplistic and formulaic positions, and read of the socio-economic evidence.

Political and intellectual timidity and vacillation is not particularly an indicator of flexibility or creative thinking in politics, but of something else quite altogether.

"The Centre" is a construct, that can be torn down, even moved on a flat bed truck, and reconstructed wherever folks decide to plunk it down. (Then watch the NDP and others hussle their bare little bottoms over, in search of the "new" centre. The sight in one's imagination boggles the mind, and one's aesthetic sensibilities. :-)

Well, there now. Revenge I can understand.

No doubt Clemenceau was a fool, to drive the Germans to the wall like that. But I must admit, that while reading the history of the German peoples' unbroken record of driving the world repeatedly into dire dark ages by wrecking other peoples empires, apparently because nobody deserves an empire if it isn't German, the thought occurred to me that the only real safety for the world might lie in destroying the German language utterly and forbidding Germans to live closer than a hundred meters from any other Germans.

I know, it'd never be possible. Wouldn't work anyway, but by God, those people have wrought more than their share of Evil in the world, and usually for reasons that make no cultural sense to me at all.

No doubt my understanding is clouded by my resentment.

Coyote, I might be just being slow on the uptake here, but I can't agree about the center. It's not a construct at all.

You might make that case for either the right or left or any other passionately held position, but the center is different. It's the eye of the storm.

When titans clash, ants are trampled. Your sainted working class not least. Opposing interests tend to arive at a very different place than they thought they were headed, due to the influence of their opponents.

The only safe place for such as you and I, my friend, is the center. The stillish place that arises between evenly matched strong opposing ideologies.

If the left represents one worldview, the collective view of society, and the right represents the other, laissez faire, kick-em-when-they're-down self interest, the only thing that protects anyone from being imposed on by the other side is their own side.

We are only safe from the right because of the eternal vigilence of the left. Only safe from the left because of the eternal vigilence of the right.

Only safe at all because neither is strong enough to overcome the other, and turn our world into, well, Germany of 1939.

Well, the working class is NOT sainted, though it is the majority of society. But we'll let that go to address the point above.

The reality is, the post war centre has already been reconstructed from where it was during the height of Welfare State Capitalism-, and shifted right, where the NDP has sought it out and found it again-, like I say, right of where it was. So the point is obvious, or one simply does not want to see it, I think. And what can be done so, can be undone.

So, we will simply have to disagree on this point.

I would only observe, that we should watch for this phenomena over the coming period, for the social conditions are re-emerging for a resurrection of the Left in this country, and elsewhere-, a different left product of its own time, but a Left nonetheless. And one of the consequences of that will be, a tug of war over the more proper placement of the political centre.

That is my prognostication. :-) We shall have to see. :-)

To which I would only add, that one should carefully observe the satallite images of a hurricanes behaviour, next chance you get. Watch that central eye of the storm move, and being pulled here and there by the swirling of the events around it, always in motion, never stable, seeking but never finding a new stability until it plays itself out. :-)

A very good, compelling image. I've been in the eye of a hurricane, and that's exactly what it does. An interesting metaphore there, however.

When you pass into the eye, the hurricane is blowing all one way. In the eye, the air is calm, the sky is blue. If you watch, you can see the other wall approaching. When it arrives, the wind blows just as hard as before, but in the exactly opposite direction.

It does even more damage than the first, because, whatever the first wind loosened, the second wipes away.

I wasn't being sarcastic about the 'sainted' workers. Well, not very. Everything real that arises in society, comes out of the hands and skills of workers. Everybody else is just support staff. They buy or sell or count or manage, and they keep a lot for themselves. Powerless as they are, though, without what workers create, they're all just pissing in their own teapots, aren't they?

Versailles was a harsh treaty which infuriated the Germans but I don't believe it was worse than the German designs on France and the Low Countries and was certainly better than the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians.

But it was what arose out of Versailles that I believe was the major problem. The whole "stab in the back" myth perpetuated by the German generals. In essence they claimed the German army was winning but the socialists and democrats had stabbed the army in the back by creating problems at home and weakening the army's resolve. An absolute lie of course. But its aimed directly at the social-democrats and centrists that have formed the new government at Weimar.

So on the right you have the constant attacks from nationalists who want the government to reject Versailles, even if it means being invaded and on the left you have the Communists whose resolve and numbers are strengthened by the result in Russia. Meanwhile the gov't has to somehow deal with loss of territory and population, massive unemployment, reparations and in 1923 a French army that moves itself onto German territory.

The Allies did seem to feel some responsibility because they then start treating Germany better and relax some of the treaty's stipulations. If it hadn't been for the Great Depression maybe Germany would have been able to become more stable, but just as that may have occurred Wall Street collapsed and back in the toilet went the economy.

Anyway you look at it, conditions were ripe for real change, the right probably with more adherents due to the whole "stab in the back" myth. But the Communists were also gaining strength and there were lots of street battles between the two.

Either way, the growing strength of both sides, as they constantly blamed the soc-dems and centrists for Germany's problems, came at the expense of the centre. I believe that there was no way many Germans on the right would have been happy with the terms of any treaty and that the Communists on the left would not have been happy with anything the soc-dems did.

Coyote, much of my view of the world is based on the past, that's true. To paraphrase Bismarck, I believe looking at the past is the best way to understand the future. Nothing is ever the same of course but there are usually a lot of parallels since humans tend to react the same way to challenges no matter when the time period.

I do accept your point that it is possible to see a communist or fascist government elected. I don't believe it will happen without a great amount of stress on the system but I agree it can happen. And I agree with you that what we refer to as "neo-con" type policies are a drift towards fascism in some ways. Libertarian in others. The "corporate" agenda is now being fed to us with the sugar-coating of "there is no alternative".

I disagree with your calling Britain's Labour party "neoconnazis". Blair is no great friend of the left, but many, including Brown, are.

As for your desire for a "New Left". I'm all for it. I have said to you before that if we weren't forced into the same party due to first past the post political needs that there would be no need for the NDP to stay united. I certainly understand the desire of yourself, Anne, Peter and others to want a more left-wing party that doesn't have to move to the centre. I believe that overall that would be a healthy thing.

As for the NDP, its not in the centre, its currently on the centre-left. I think the NDP should maintain that position even as the centre itself moves. It should always act as a magnet to move the debate to the left. I don't believe that view is simplistic, I think its pragmatic.

As for Hindenburg, he was always a fool. He just won the lottery and got Ludendorff and Hoffman to do the actual planning while he went around looking good and fatherly.

My intuitive sense is that we are up against the big one this time, a massive blow, that we will almost wish for the battle ground scenario that was part of the two world wars because this one will be hard to fight.

Much agree with what you say, Coyote, about the potential of impossiblities becoming realities, much like the runner who keeps breaking the minute mile record, a momentum, a force that keeps upping the ante. Then there's always a surprise turn of events like Hindenberg that suddenly makes Hitler, well...Hitler. But this time that click! that seals events like the snap of a tupperware lid, will be quite the seal, quite the snap I think to overcome, because corporatism is woven into the structure of the world now, it has no geographical limitations or cultural ones either anymore. It is pervasive and backed by an advertising media that tells the world what kind of life it should and will lead.

This time, there will be no offensive to be launched by a separate allied resistance, because the cancer is inside all, an opportunistic host that has invaded worldwide. As we see with New Labour under Blair where labour has mutated and must be fought outside of itself now, in a whole different kind of way, a different kind of coalition.

Where I agree with Frank and this is why I see the continual attacks on the NDP as... well, a little useless, is that that political parties don't lead and never have. They are a reflection of the populace, they move to where the vote is. It is the people who must wake up here, and demand more, and thus demand more of the political parties... just as it was the people who should have paid closer attention pre - 1939 Germany, can't all be blamed on the Social Democrats, they are an artificial construct, anyway.

As Ed says above the workers in Germany were feeling quite comforted in the gains they had made, finally some kind of security returning. Just as now the populace is quite happy to park itself in front of the TV and have someone else do the thinking for them. It is quite comfortable now, although I agree, the tide is turning, but most people don't want to be disturbed and they won't vote for parties that disturb. We need a media that will disturb them, rouse them, make them think and deamnd more of their politcal parties but I don't have to tell any of you the truth of that situation.

I would guess most of us post here because we enjoy the discussion of politics, which is really just about life itself but if you are like me, few of your friends have little interest in it. That may not be true for you but I find most people don't give a damn or at least not much of a damn. That is what is so great about the Tyee, to find others share your interest.

This new resistance will be an interesting one because as I have remarked before in the small town near me it is the mill workers who play golf at the local club, have the cabins up the lake now (the ones who benefited from the sixties to mid-eighties good times economy), and who voted in droves for Campbell in 2001. This, I know is changing. Those without seniority have lost their jobs and in a number of cases their homes. Then there is the educated poor, students with big student loans to repay, non-union jobs, few benefits, and lower wages. Then there is the poor who are not organized, see no reason to vote, (understandably) and disenchanted with all parties to put it mildly. And the list goes on and on..I've gone on far too long myself...anyway, as they say... interesting times.

I would like to add I believe political parties should lead with the integrity of their beliefs but this is politics after all and they are political parties...history shows they largely compromise...and lie...and that is why the real responsiblity falls on us.

I haven't followed the thread on this story. I simply wish to note for readers who did not examine Tyee's election coverage story on "the 3P Project the NDP loves," a new politics of convergence has emerged involving the NDP and Liberals -- at least in Nanaimo. Call it the new middle ground.

Their collective idea is that unions and developers should get together on public spending projects such as conference centres. The idea they hold in common is that it's OK to invite a developer in for a 3P project and cook up a deal in the back rooms before springing a quick referendum campaign on the public to gain approval.

Before the campaign starts, it's OK to budget a huge amount of the taxpayers' own money to sell the project and to start paying very large fees to the developer before anything is approved.

During the campaign (and afterwards) it's OK to not reveal important information to the public, misrepresent the nature of the project, deny any group skeptical of the project funding to investigate and present its case, make quite unsubstantiated claims about economic benefits, take unwarranted risks with the taxpayers' money, ignore important provincial laws, and ignore municipal bylaw requirements.

After the referendum, it's OK to keep stonewalling the public and to arrange with the provincial government to overlook legislative requirements, defying anyone opposed to round up the $50,000 or more it takes to challenge a decision of this kind in court, bearing in mind that the municipality can spend any amount of the taxpayers' money to engage in legal combat through to the higher courts.

Such an approach to development projects, now given the green light by both major political parties, should concern everyone. You can bet that Nanaimo's new way of doing 3P approvals has been studied by municipal leaders elsewhere and that many are more than anxious to get in on the action -- especially in communties where the press is not interested in investigating and is only too happy to jump on board as cheerleaders.

As for the Liberal Party, approving this way of doing business (in the order of $50 millions plus -- the limit is not known because the City will not say) without tendering makes a mockery of any claim that it is the party of free enterprise.

As for the NDP, being willing to do business on the same basis as the Liberal Party makes a mockery of any claim that it represents "ordinary" people, as it so often likes to boast. It also puts the lie to any claim that it is the superior guardian of the demeocratic process.

So this is one major new idea from the two main parties about what constitutes the "middle ground." Watch for it. It may soon be coming to your neighbourhood. Get ready for a raid on your wallet.

For more information on the bizarre politics of Nanaimo, visit:

friendsofnanaimo.org

With which I largely agree, allowing for some "discreet" reservations, which I will set aside. :-) Though, I'm guessing, if I am right in my read of the "new period", one should expect that a more specific and articulated critique of the NDP will nonetheless emerge. It will, I suspect, have its assumptions increasingly questioned, and its raison d'etre challenged. But like I say, it is more my mere attempt to play the prophet, and we shall see.

How the NDP responds to that will have much to do with their fate on Frank's presumed :-) centre left, and its governing potential as seen by the ruling class and/or "the mass" of society.

But, Bailey, I understood there was a lot of "heat" there that caused you to strike out, just a tad. Which is okay. I think we understand each other pretty much. :-D

The working class are the infantry in the army, the actual pointy end that interfaces with the enemy, and who must secure and hold. For which the rest of the army is merely created to support, but winds up mistakenly thinking that it is the really indispensible aspect of the army. (Until they get handed a rifle and told to get out on the front line themselves, then there is the moment of "discovery", as to who and what is the real army.

But they are also just people-, sinners and saints, the wise and articulate, the stupid and the over reactive, and even the racist and sexist male and female. But, like I say, we are also the majority. And while the minority claims the need to have its rights protected, that is not so much the real problem, as seen from this former class perspective.

Though it may seem I am defending the NDP, I am not. My own personal opinion is that if they do not come through and remain in the diplomatic, compromised role they have been playing for far too long now they will not get my vote next time.

But the impetus must come from the people themselves, they must demand the social change and live it in their own lives. They must move the NDP to the left.

In homo civicus's post, the blame is falling only on the political parties but it is also obvious that the people themselves, in unions, in businesses, the ordinary people have made their choices... their choice is to sell out. When we have enough people who won't sell out their principles, either the NDP will move to that more left position, or those people with those principles will move away from the NDP.

That P3 is not happening in Nanaimo without the support and sell-out of unions and the workers willing to man those jobs. It is the people themselves that love the security of the middle ground - blaming the NDP or... the Liberals (wow! that one hurt me to say)...is also too simplistic. We are letting them do it.

Just received the news that French voters rejected the "competitive market economy" based EU Constitution.

A great day for democracy! Let's hope the world is beginning to wake up. Perhaps even Canada will one day ?????

Ed Deak, Big Lake

In bloody deed! Amen.

Or evolve another "Left". One or the other.

But upon the pivotal role of ordinary people's choices-, what can be the only real source of the impetus, we are entirely agreed. Whatever role or positions anyone takes up, it will be they, by their actions or inertia who WILL decide it.

And the problem is glaringly manifest, unquestionably, around this P3 incident which homo civicus raises here. Neocon influenced politicans, of whatever "formal" stripe, co-opted trade union leaders, and people desparate for jobs in that corrupted environment, are all a part of the undoing of the old post war Prosperity Period , that is the hallmark of the period.

"...that is the hallmark of the period." I said.

Meaning, "...that is the hallmark of this period."

wow, what a riveting conversation. coyote and bailey waxing poetic about pretty much nothing. where's my clicker?

Wow yourself there sirj. Deep stuff. Well up to your usual standard.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion on the history of the twentieth century and its influence on partisan politics in the twenty-first.

So, it's not a pump handle any more? It's a clicker? What a lot of names you have for it!

Well, one can't be sure she just isn't a hermaphrodite of course, but he/she claims to have an insie. But then, she could simply be an outie wannabe too. Or an outie, insie wannabe. Presumably there are fair numbers of sexually ambiguous, ambidextrous , confused, altered, or just generally fucked up folks on the Neocon right as well. :-)

The depth of this critters observations are simply boggling of the intellect though, in their complete absence of complexity, lucidity or profundity.

We ARE all working on her overall communication skills development too, trying to get her to speak in more than mere monosyllabic grunts and belches whilst she scratches/fondles her crotch piece, what ere it be. Another boggling mental image comes to mind. (One cannot be too sure what she is doing. She does roll her eyes and moan, which could just be an epileptic seizure though. :-)

Either it is a Neocon or a Creutzfeldt Jakob case, though they have simiar symptoms: the stumbling, glazed, mad looking eyes, and mumbling, spittle lathered speech. Duh! (Which could also just be me, one too many whiskies over the line.)

No. I am being a good boy tonight. But then old men don't get much chance to be otherwise. :-D

my you two are so intelligent you must be doctors or something. and you're both so good at being obscene, what with all the fancy innuendos. 'history of the twentieth century and its influence on partisan politics'????? now there's something i can laugh my ass off about. and coyote's ramblings, my how special. you even know how to spell creutzfeldt jakob. great blather guys, you're really moving us forward. keep fightin' the man.

Whoa, glaxed over half of the discussion. The truth in politics is that "left" and "right" are primarily use to paint negative pictures in a two party system. Rather than parties serving as a legitimate endorser of candidates, they serve one of two rolls, to maintain government, or to overthrow it.

The idea of a moderate or centrist force is also imaginary. The federal Liberals have got perpetually elected because they are centrist, well centrist only in that they have parties which claim to be on either side of them. But really it is just a marketing tactic, as their policies ultimately differed very little from Mulrooney's tories in the long run.

What the parties try to do is open up wider umbrellas, expand their support, so they can win the soft support voters who are non party loyal. Again just marketing tactics, as all the MLAs/MPs seem like sheep when the votes actually come up.

The best thing for BC and for Canada, is to adopt political systems that increase the number of political parties to at least 5 or 6. That way, the parties no longer have to live on the left or the right of the spectrum, they can exist above and below or on issues. Let the Christian Cowboys have their own party, so fiscal conservatives can exist outside of the religious right. Let a labour party, an urban social activist party, and an environmental party exist. Maybe throw in a few regional farmers parties, and let them negotiate until they really come up with a middle of the road plan, by placing checks and balances on each other, and by negotiation, and discussing solutions.

The so called left and right he political spectrum are not at the horizontal, but on the vertical level. Like the C and F on a thermometer with a thin line separating them. I call this the "Nut Ladder". The higher the ideologies are on this ladder, the crazier they are. Hitler's nazis and Stalin's communists the best examples.

Majority of people are at the bottom, or at very low levels. If nazism and communism are counted as 100 C, I would place the present neoliberal so called market economy based BC government at 80-85 C on the right and the NDP
at 25-30 C on the left. I would also place the Trudeau Liberals at 15-20 C, the Martin Liberals at 50-60 C and the Harper Conservatives at 80-85 C on the right, imitating the Bushite Republicans at 90 C and climbing.

Ideologues are the most dangerous people on Earth and have been through human history. Their theories never work, nut they keep pushing them at any cost to satisfy their madness.

I've been writing on this for over 20 years, evaluating various governemnts and ideologies with this method.
Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Certainly an interesting concept which, if it works for you, use it. An interesting ideological take. :-)

As for ideologies however, that too is relative, I would argue. All individuals and groups have their view and interpretation(s) of reality, which is at the least a "low level" ideology, to the degree it is a concious and systematized thing. Fait Lux himself has a very clear and articulated "ideological outlook", even if it is all his own. (Which is unlikely for him, or myself.)

The problem is not "ideologies" per se, in my view, for, like I say, we all have them, but the issue of whom they serve, to what ends, and at what level of "evidence based" accuracy is a particular "system of ideas". Or further re this latter point, to what degree does it actually reflect our best scientifically discernible understanding of reality and real phenomenon? (In which their is nearly always some degree of "speculation".)

In other words, ideologies, like all other aspects of human life and endeavour, have to be measured by the degree to which they reflect and help us understand real life, not a faith based view of it, and as such, are a useful tool in guiding practice. (Though religions are based on a set of ideological assumptions as well, about the universe, the existance of God, etc.)

And in my experience, all systems of ideas that might be described as a particular ideology,or ideological take on reality, are subject to the same essential laws as other phenomenon. They are subject as well to changing reality and must evolve along side it, or slip into dogmatism, irrelevance and ultimate disuse, which the Catholic Churck even, is showing signs of experiencing in our time, at various levels. During the course of which, depending upon the degree of a particular ideology's influence, crimes of various levels of severity are not infrequently committed, in an effort to force continued adherence.

The central thrust of my point being, Social Democracy, Coyote, Fait Lux, the Neocons, the Legal Profession, all reflect their acceptance of an ideology or ideological framework as a guide to their views and actions. These may or may not evolve, eventually reflecting their relevance to a time and place, or failure to be relevant any longer.

Mostly what goes on, especially around those who "Pooh, pooh" down their noses at systems of ideas, or ideology, is that they see the other fellows easily enough, but typically fail to see their own.

And to have no or zero ideology, one's mind would have to be a "wiped" blank page, in my view. Zero neural network connections going on.

Now, I'm out of here for awhile again. And I'm weather watching, in advance of disappearing from here suddenly, for a week or so.

A good day, my friends. I always much enjoy,and get much out of, my time here with y'all.

I try to base all my beliefs and decisions on physical laws and realities, as much as humanly possible. In other words, while they may have similarities with certain ideologies, the connection is purely coincidental, because nothing and nobody can escape physical laws, therefore all ideologies contain certain physical realities. The problem begins when they try to overrule them. Like fishfarms and the oil economy for example.

By the way, I was talking about ideologues, not ideologies, which are different realities.
Now off to town to start spending our hard earned OAPs Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Fiat lux; I would be interested in hearing what methodologies you use to evaluate these ideolgues.

Roughly what sort of scoring system do you use, sir?

Very simple. As all life forms survive on resorce conversion for every second of their existence, therefore all human activities cause a certain amount of unavoidable damage to the environment. I try to evaluate how much unnecessary damage a certain ideology causes and go from there. It isn't scientific, neither are ideologies or religions, yet we live by them and follw their teachings.When, for example, an economic system based on ideology claims that we have to convert more and more reources unnecessarily and regardles of consequences to create profits and give extra powers to a certain ruling class, by disempowering others from the benefits of conversion, anybody should be able to smell a rat and condemn it. So, I try to guesstimate how much the unnecessary damage is and evaluate the ideology on this basis. My scientist friends in the field agree with it. Ed Deak, Big Lake

I kind of like it myself. It ought to be possible to refine the definitions and quantify the excess resource conversion quite precisely.

Really, very fine thinking, sir. You should publish it.

he just did. but i doubt if there will be many offers pouring in soon.

Fiat lux, well said--and an excellent algorithm for calculating entropy. I really like it. Okay, I'm undervaluing...It's actually quite brilliant!

This is late, very late, but sir john a's last comment cannot go unchallenged.

Offers of what? Valid ideas survive pathetic and illogical attacks like yours, that rely on the assumption that an idea's validity requires instant popularity. Can you save your doubt for the source of your dogmatic drivel? Fortunately, at least in good science, the lack of preordained certainty (doubt) is the opening to enquiry. Or are you more comfortable attacking people who have the intellectual courage to actually express their own ideas instead of spouting crap that wastes peoples' time?