Paul Phillips and I could go back and forth to no avail -- "yes it is", "no
it isn't" -- about whether the Alexa quote I submitted is "good social
democratic stuff". Or we could just agree to disagree. On a positive note,
I'm pleased to see the NDP's statement on the MAI (as far as it goes) even
though there's nothing in it that's particularly "social democratic". One
doesn't have to be a socialist or even a social democrat to be against
secret deals and special privileges.
I don't object to the NDP for "not being a socialist". If anything, I object
to the NDP not being sufficiently confident in their social democratic
principles to run on them and not being sufficiently coherent to get them
across to a broader public than their die-hard constituency. But I should be
clear that "not being confident enough" is a dilemma that I see as endemic
to social democracy. Give me a social democratic party that will campaign
and govern on social democratic principles and I'd be happy. In my view
that's like saying "give me a steak that will cut itself off the steer and
barbeque itself."
When I listen to the NDP (or anyone for that matter, self excluded), I
listen with two ears. With one ear I hear what I think they're saying in the
context of what I know about their philosophy, history, platform etc., etc.
With the other ear I try to hear what the "non-literati" hear -- just the
words spoken against a much hazier backdrop of mainstream framing of issues.
In p.r. jargon it's called a "communication audit".
Noam Chomsky can gripe all he wants about the New York Times, he still gets
his message across. Whether through repetition, careful exposition of his
argument, exhaustive documentation or sheer doggedness, Chomsky gets his
message across.
I know that you (Paul) know what the NDP message is. I think I know what it
is. But when I listen to the NDP, I don't hear their message. I hear
excuses, I hear indignation, sometimes I even hear a kind of
self-congratulatory tone as if being marginalized was vindication enough of
moral superiority ("the meek shall inherit the earth.") BUT I DON'T HEAR
THEIR MESSAGE.
Paul asked,
>What I asked of you was what would you campaign credibly
>on that you think wouldbring about a socialist society?
I'll stick to what I know -- even though it might sound like I have an ax to
grind -- reducing work time and redistributing work. It's an issue that
wouldn't necessarily bring about a socialist society, but without it I see
little prospects for significant progressive social change of any kind. It's
an issue people are passionate about, that the NDP has a clearly defined
position on but that the NDP seems reluctant to raise forcefully -- perhaps
for fear that people "aren't ready" for it?
Saturday I was doing a "community day" table for shorter work time at the
public library. All day long we had people coming up to us saying how glad
they were somebody was raising the issue of the need to redistribute work.
In the afternoon, several people who had just come from an all-candidates
meeting remarked on how frustrated they were that no one seemed to be
addressing the issue of unemployment creatively, "_this_ is what they should
be talking about" they told us (including one delightful 80-year old
grandmother wearing a HUGE Dawn Black (NDP) button).
Redistributing work is in the NDP platform. I've also heard several NDP
candidates address the issue. For example, Svend Robinson, appearing on
Cross-country Checkup responded to a very articulate question on the issue
by saying "It's in our platform and we support it." End of answer. During
the leader's debates, Alexa McDonough made an allusion to redistributing
work that was so vague and indirect that, unless you already knew it was in
the platform and already knew all the code words, you would've had to read
her mind to have any idea at all what she was talking about.
I suspect that what makes the NDP nervous about pushing this issue is not
that it is a socialist issue but that it is a nascent "movement issue".
Movement issues can upset the internal balance of an organization -- bring
in all sorts of "outsiders" who aren't house-broken to the party culture.
Let's be honest, there are heeps of needy, alienated people rattling around
hungering for a cause to attach themselves to (and receive validation from)
and it can be safer in these perilous times to maintain a certain veneer of
institutional imperviousness. The litmus test of this outsider anxiety is
the question "who are you with?" On a political scale the equivalent
question is "how can the party appeal to a larger number of people who are
just like us."
It seems to me that's the question the NDP keeps asking itself.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
