Social Democracy has become a policy of compromise to comfort.Capitalism has convinced even many on the left through cultural mystification that it is the natural state of being.If the Left cannot put away its petty internal troubles we will descend into a feudal barbarism. But this time the Barons will not be under any obligations.
Interesting article indeed, thanks Andrew. Perhaps a bit like Larry, however, I do sense a certain reluctance on the part of the authors to move past certain safe boundaries.
They speak abundantly of the need to acknowledge new means of communication, of relating to each other, yet they still vest much of the responsibility for the move forward in the leader of the party, not to speak of the team that presumably surrounds him. Wouldn’t it be interesting for the hierarchy to actually and actively devolve some (most?) of its power to party members and the population at large? A sort of socialism by the people rather than for the people…
Moreover, relating more to Larry’s point, there is an implicit acceptance that some form of capitalism, tamed as it may be, is to remain on the agenda. This is accomplished by pitting it against bureaucratic planning, thus presented as the only forseeable alternative. The authors claim they are looking for an other way – going for “blue” instead of the usual shades of grey. Why keep the old system then?
Social Democracy has become a policy of compromise to comfort.Capitalism has convinced even many on the left through cultural mystification that it is the natural state of being.If the Left cannot put away its petty internal troubles we will descend into a feudal barbarism. But this time the Barons will not be under any obligations.
Interesting article indeed, thanks Andrew. Perhaps a bit like Larry, however, I do sense a certain reluctance on the part of the authors to move past certain safe boundaries.
They speak abundantly of the need to acknowledge new means of communication, of relating to each other, yet they still vest much of the responsibility for the move forward in the leader of the party, not to speak of the team that presumably surrounds him. Wouldn’t it be interesting for the hierarchy to actually and actively devolve some (most?) of its power to party members and the population at large? A sort of socialism by the people rather than for the people…
Moreover, relating more to Larry’s point, there is an implicit acceptance that some form of capitalism, tamed as it may be, is to remain on the agenda. This is accomplished by pitting it against bureaucratic planning, thus presented as the only forseeable alternative. The authors claim they are looking for an other way – going for “blue” instead of the usual shades of grey. Why keep the old system then?
Capitalism has proved extremely apt at subverting regulation. While this is not a good reason for not shackling it with some more, it should encourage efforts to move beyond it, so that we can resolve the old regulation – liberalisation dialectics. Many in the disenfranchised population (ref. a previous post on Democratic Reform in BC by Marc Lee) are more than ready for this… As I often like to point out, while a relatively small number of people bother to vote in elections they deem meaningless, virtually everybody voted in the last referendum in Québec. If the stakes are real and people feel they’re part of the discussion, they’ll come forth and participate.