Saturday, June 18, 2011

BULLETIN FROM THE NDP: SOCIALISM, 1796-2011, IS DEAD. RIP.

The NDP leadership has announced that Socialism, aged 215, is dead. “Nobody uses the word ‘democratic socialism’ in contemporary terms. It is very rare,” an unnamed senior party official told the press on the eve of the NDP convention in Vancouver. The convention was expected to remove the word “socialist” from the preamble to the party constitution. When unnamed NDP officials speak they get their way.

As these things go, socialism had a good run before the NDP brass consigned it to the dustbin of history.

In its modern form, socialism put in a first appearance in 1796 in the latter stages of the French Revolution. In truth, it was the foundling of the revolution, unanticipated by the Revolution’s most illustrious figures who ushered the tenets of liberal capitalism onto the stage of history as a transformative force.

Up popped the first socialists during the revolution to proclaim that the liberal conception of equality was incomplete, that it bestowed the rights of citizenship on all men (not yet women), but that it did not come to terms with the social and economic inequality that is intrinsic to capitalism. Capitalism establishes a new ruling class and capitalists control those who work for them and reap the profits of their labour, the socialists declared, before being dispatched to the guillotine.

The capitalists had managed a great revolution, the socialists said, but there was another giant step toward equality that remained to be taken. With that step, social and economic exploitation would end and those who worked for a living would gain the fruits of their labour and would set the priorities for their places of work. Economic and social democracy would exist side by side with political democracy.

Equality of condition and not merely equality of opportunity would be the goal.

In Canada, the greatest achievement of those who espoused equality of condition has been medicare. Tommy Douglas knew that medicare must serve all people who need health care on an equal basis, regardless of their income or wealth. Barack Obama is mired in a liberal muddle, trying to introduce fairness to a health care system that leaves private insurance companies in charge.

During its 215 year lifespan, socialism took many forms and socialists fought long and hard internecine battles. In the totalitarian Communist regimes that called themselves socialist, dissent was a capital offence. (Capitalism had its own dark side, I should add. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militarist Japan, not to mention today’s China, have all been capitalist societies.)

Democratic socialism proved a hardy breed and took multiple forms in the industrialized countries. Some sects were small enough to meet in a telephone booth; others could have held their conclaves in psychiatric institutions.

Socialist parties in Europe have often achieved more that their sisters and brothers in Canada---in some cases including free university tuition, strong job protection and termination benefits, higher minimum wages, better pensions, pharmacare, free full day early childhood education, state funded family vacations, worker participation in the management of industry, generous parental leave, a shorter work week, rent subsidies, and in a few odd cases, free firewood, and free access to municipally owned ski lifts and ski runs.

The Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament, one of the two largest groupings in the EP, includes member parties from across the EU including the French Socialists, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, the British Labour Party, the German Social Democrats, and the Swedish Social Democrats.

The early 18th and 19th century socialists would not have been surprised to learn that for the past several decades the gap in income and wealth between the rich and the rest of the population, including wage and salary earners and the poor, has been yawning ever wider, that greater inequality is a fact of life in all industrialized countries. That’s capitalism for you, they would think. Time to roll up our sleeves and carry on the socialist struggle, they would have concluded.

But I’m not one to argue with the NDP leadership, especially its unnamed officials, who have announced that socialism was dead.

Word of socialism’s death will still have to be broken to the millions of Europeans and their parties who haven’t yet heard the news. Perhaps a top, unnamed NDP official should be sent on a mission to let the laggards know that at the age of 215, socialism has gone belly up.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm very sorry to hear that. Now all the political parties are the same.
SM

Bill Bell said...

This might be a hint that the NDP is involved in a different kind of struggle. I'm trying to hold on to the fact that the party leader is a person who wrote a book about homelessness a decade or two ago.

leftdog said...

During the 20th Century, we saw the ultra Right Wing 'National Socialist Party' initiate what became the Second World War. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was engaged in a devastating conflict with National Socialist Germany.

Two completely different ideologies, at war with each other and the only thing they had in common was the word 'socialist' in their names.

It could be argued that the word 'socialist' is not a precise descriptor of any kind of similarity between these two enemies. It does leave many wondering exactly what the word 'socialist' means. It can mean varying things to different people.

So now in the 21st Century, the hard Right has been relentlessly and somewhat successfully vilifying the word 'socialist' in their propaganda.

The title of your post cites 1796 as a date involved with the evolution of the word's meaning. Perhaps it is time to update and better describe what it is that 'socialism' means.

One last thought on word meanings over time. In an 1890's Christmas carol, 'don we now our gay apparel' had a very different meaning for the word 'gay'.

Robert McClelland said...

It does leave many wondering exactly what the word 'socialist' means.

Exactly. JS Woodsworth said during his first national campaign that the CCF would not follow the socialism of Europe but would instead work to build a different kind of socialism. Nearly a century later there has been no effort to truly define that made in Canada socialism. I did try about 5 years ago when I started the Blogging Dippers but nobody joined my effort. So good riddance to a bad label that only allows our opponents to define us as they see fit.

leftdog said...

I note that many who are habitually quick to condemn the New Democratic Party have tried to portray this as an abandonment of 'socialist' principles. Anonymous said above "Now all the political parties are the same." Pure nonsense. Harper's Conservatives have positions on health care, education, finance, taxation, foreign affairs, science, women and Justice that are night/day to the New Democrats.
The Left has been losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people NOT because the we are not 'socialist' enough, but because we remain unable to clearly articulate our vision for society that resonates and makes sense with good, common working families.

Adam Fulsom said...

I would just like to say that calling China a capitalist country and putting it in the same kind of catagory as Nazi Germany is erronious. Despite what we have been told by our media here about China, there is lively debate about the future of socialism in China.

the regina mom said...

I'm inclined to agree with leftdog. James, and others here and elsewhere, are jumping to ridiculous conclusions! Removing a word from a preamble is really quite meaningless in the big picture. Just because the word "socialist" isn't there, doesn't mean the ideas and beliefs we as socialists within the party hold, end, ffs!

What I think it does mean is that Liberals are taking hold of our party.

Jamie Laidlaw said...

The word is obsolete and now a new generation is bravely moving on downstream. The liberal democracy movement fuelled by science is the central contribution of our western European culture. Freedom of association is critical to continual improvement. IF the party is intellectual framework is shaped by a subset there to retain benefits it too will become obsolete. This shift forward looks like an intuitive understanding of this moment in time. Bodes well.

Anonymous said...

Prof. James:
It's a branding matter. Why call yourself a socialist party when you won't enforce the Canada Health Act to stop extra billing and your job creation program relies on tax cuts to small business? If you let the market decide who shall be employed, you're not a socialist party. So goodbye to the old label. New wine, new label.
Socialism was great fun, but it was just one of those things.

Anonymous said...

Labels are one thing, policies are what count. As long as the NDP continues to push for maximum coverage under medicare; supports progressive taxation that allows the most vulnerable to live decently, generous no-strings foreign aid, maximum efforts to enable all to benefit from higher education; supports the arts; reverts to peace keeping for our military; keeps the doors open for Canada to welcome UN Charter refugees; encourages energy conservation and commits Canada to meet international greenhouse gas emission reduction standards, the NDP is OK.

Anonymous said...

I suppose this is what "success" brings? Of course leading the opposition is not the same thing as forming the government.

All I know is that whether they use the term "socialism" or "socialist" or something else(?) what I want to see is a party truly committed to egalitarianism, democracy and justice. If the NDP acts on those principles then I will be glad to participate. I just hope that they do and that they are a strong and effective and a focused opposition.

Anonymous said...

The word ‘socialist” has become tainted – maybe beyond redemption – by years of lies, misrepresentations and distortions. If a lie is repeated often enough, people believe it, even when they should know better. That's what anyone calling themselves socialist is up against in 2011. Whether the decision represents a massive betrayal depends on whether it's just a word that's being thrown out or bedrock principles: Bathwater or baby.

jeffry house said...

If James lived in one of those European nations whose parties still haven't got the news, he'd be saying they were betraying socialism also.

Things might be different if there had been a single successful socialist economy among the many attempts in the 20th century. But all failed.

Anonymous said...

hey, didn't the NDP leadership fail to dump socialism from the party constitution?

Charles said...

The preamble was ultimately left as-is when the motion was referred (i.e. sent to purgatory).