On 2010-04-17, at 2:43 PM, brad bauerly wrote:
> I have never said that we should reach out to TP
> activists. My nuance was there from the beginning, it is only
> recently that people have begun to realize that their can be a nuanced
> position- instead of associating general curiosity about the TP with
> apologetics and support for the TP- that seeks to understand the TP
> and their appeal in an effort to prevent further workers from moving
> rightward and offer a potential source of left organization.
====================
But who here doesn't understand the TP as a right populist movement vaguely hostile to Wall Street bankers and more pointedly hostile to blacks, immigrants, muslims, trade unionists, feminists, gays etc. and their liberal and socialist supporters? How in the world does such understanding "prevent further workers from moving rightward and offer a potential source of left organization"? You'll have to come down from the clouds to explain how it translates in practice.
>
> You need to read the history of the NDP. It did not form from a
> liberal basis but from a populist one arising out of the radical
> center of the two other parties (particularly the 1929 support of the
> Conservatives by the Progressive party to defeat the Liberals). [The
> NDP for those unfamiliar with politics up here is responsible for
> Canada's socialised medical program.]
I'm familiar with the history of the NDP, and was active in left-wing factions within it. I wasn't engaging in historical debate. I noted that NDP'ers and other contemporary social democrats were politically indistinguishable from Democratic party members - against your suggestion that social democratic parties offered greater possibilities for radical action. These parties long ago abandoned even a notional commitment to public ownership and their formal ties to the trade unions and are today ideologically aligned with the US Democrats except in rare instances where their respective national interests collide.