Sam Gindin-Ernie Tate exchange

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

(Sam Gindin is on the editorial board of Socialist Register. Ernie
Tate is a Canadian worker who was in the British Trotskyist movement
in the 1960s and a leader of the antiwar movement.)

THE NEW POLITICAL INITIATIVE: HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND?

Sam Gindin
July 15, 2001

The New Political Initiative (NPI) is a call to stop whining about
the NDP and either radically reform it or start a new party of the
left. The sponsors of the NPI - impressive individuals, with proven
credentials and, apparently, some trade union support - are surely
right to insist that there is both a unique opportunity and a
desperate need to respond to the gap in left politics.  But does
their particular strategy and content provide that magic "something"
we have been waiting for?

We cannot do something really different until we have had the
serious, open and widespread discussions that can help us come to
grips with all that was really wrong with our politics before  - and
that can't happen if we simply proclaim a new initiative and tie it,
as the NPI does, to a timetable based on the next NDP Convention. In
its approach, the NPI seems to have underestimated two particular
issues: the depth of the crisis in social democracy, and the  extent
of the alienation with electoral politics.

The NDP may be dormant, but if that was the only concern we'd look to
New Labour in Britain. The point is that social democracy, as an
alternative to neoliberalism, is in crisis world-wide. Its therefore
not a matter of fixing the NDP,  but the more intimidating prospect
of reinventing a politics that doesn't currently exist anywhere
(suggestive experiments do of course exist, but though inspiring,
they remain localized and embryonic).  Parallel to this, neither
organized workers nor the young protestors whose energy any new
movement must tap are likely to rush into  any new party.  Both are
certainly frustrated with their lack of control over their lives, yet
their attitude to any kind of formal politics is distrust, a
hyper-wariness of being  treated like "political commodities" for
someone else's agenda, and a skepticism that will insist on waiting
for any new organization to first prove itself.

In contemplating our response, I think we must see the present
political moment as transitional. Every orientation - street
politics, social democracy of the center or left, socialism - is in
the midst of internal confusion and debates that will, especially if
they are successful, only cause more debates and splits. These splits
will, in the next while cross each other: street activists will look
to political organization, social democrats will move to the center
or become more radical, attempts at a structured movement like
"Rebuilding The Left" will confront remaining a movement or forming a
new socialist organization, etc.  So the basic question is how can we
go through this difficult but necessary period of instability -
necessary because a superficial unity is neither possible nor
desirable - while maintaining a civil working relationship amongst
ourselves?

The NPI is positive and progressive. But we should have no illusions
about it "answering" the question of how to create a socialist
culture and movement. We must therefore figure out how to remain
independent of the NPI,  yet constructively engaged with it. We must
welcome the  space it opens for discussions and debates amongst
committed socialists, uncertain working class activists, and
tentative "others" over what's going on, appropriate tactical
responses, and more generally, overcoming past  histories of
fragmentation and sectarianism to cooperate on specific campaigns
even as we disagree on the larger questions of how to respond to
capitalism.

====

Comments On Sam Gindin's Article, "The New Political

Initiative: How We Should Respond", July 15, 2001.

By Ernest Tate, August 1, 2001

I think it would be a mistake for the Rebuilding the Left (R.T.L.)
movement - such as it is - to stand aside from the present debate
that is going on in the labour movement and in the New Democratic
Party (N.D.P.) about that party's future.  This is the implication of
Sam's observations about the New Politics Initiative (N.P.I.), even
though he does says we must figure out "how to remain independent of
the N.P.I. yet constructively engaged with it."  The following is my
response to his comments.

The crises of the N.D.P.

This debate about the N.D.P. crises, represents one of the most
important developments in the recent history of working class
politics in the country - much greater and more profound, in my
opinion, than the birth of the Waffle in the N.D.P. in 1971, which
was the last major challenge to the party's leadership from the left.
This time around, the challenges are more numerous and more profound
and the party is much weaker, and takes place when there is the
beginning of a new radicalization, albeit outside the unions.  Even
though the long period of working class passivity has not come to an
end, important trade unions such as the Canadian Autoworkers Union
(C.A.W.), which strongly supported the party since its founding, and
the Ontario Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees
(C.U.P.EI), are now calling for fundamental changes to make the it a
more effective working class alternative to the big business parties,
or to create a new party.  The C.A.W. is mobilizing it forces to
attend the coming N.D.P. convention. The Canadian Labour Congress
(C.L.C.) has entered the fray, but not necessarily on the left and is
putting its traditional support for the party up for discussion. On
the right of the N.D.P. leadership, a group calling itself
NDProgress is calling for the party to more aggressively model itself
on Tony Blair's New Labour, endorsing Blair's neo-liberal trajectory.

The possible creation of a new working class party as an alternative
to the N.D.P. has been raised in a dramatic fashion by the N.P.I., a
recently organized grouping led by Judy Rebick, a prominent leftist,
author and media personality, Svend Robinson and Libby Davies, both
N.D.P. members of parliament, Jim Stanford, an economist with the
C.A.W, and other prominent left personalities and academics. Stanford
is a close collaborator of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the C.A.W., which
is actively promoting by new formation.  The N.P.I. has called for
the N.D.P. to reconstitute itself and set up a founding convention
within two years to prepare for the creation of a more left
organization that would pose a more radical alternative to the
Liberal's neo-liberal agenda and which would seek to meet the
aspirations of the new generation of militants who are involved in
the anti-globalization movement.

The N.P.I. has produced a "Vision Statement" which spells out its
ideas for the proposed party.  It is a major contribution to the
discussion about a socialist future for Canada. Thanks to media
interest, the Internet and the thirst for new ideas in the party, it
has gone throughout the N.D.P., and across the country with various
party constituencies organizing debates around what it has to say.

Rebick, who is not a member of the N.D.P., has been tireless in
promoting the N.P.I. initiative and debating the leadership of the
party.  She has urged those on the left to become involved in the
discussion, pointing out that the N.D.P. is fairly open at this time
to hearing other viewpoints. She has stated that Paul Hellyer's group
is having discussion about the N.P.I. and their relation to it.  I
wouldn't be surprised if Maude Barlow's Council of Canadian - or some
of its members - does not do the same.
An increase in socialist activity

The improved situation for discussion in the N.D.P. can be seen in
the recent increased support for the Socialist Caucus - a radical
left opposition which was formed a few years ago to challenge the
rightward drift of the leadership - confirming Rebick's view that
there is an increase in receptivity for radical ideas in the party.
The Socialist Caucus has seen its influence increase in the
constituency organizations.  It has the support, for example, of
Peter Kormos, the party's House Leader in the Ontario Legislature.
Recently the Socialist Caucus held a conference in Toronto to prepare
resolutions for the coming federal convention. The conference,
attended by over 160 supporters, had good representation from N.D.P.
riding associations.  The Socialist Caucus has declared its
solidarity with the N.P.I. and is now busy at work preparing
resolutions - among them a model resolution that encompasses the
proposals of the N.P.I. for the proposed new party. It is
significant, that such is the increased support in the party for the
Socialist Caucus, that Howard Hampton sent greetings to the
conference.  The International Socialists have also carried out a
turn to the N.D.P. and have members in both the Socialist Caucus and
the N.P.I.  Unlike in Britain, where the left has been driven out of
the Labour Party or has been marginalized, in this country where the
N.D.P. has suffered decline and is in crisis, there has been a growth
of the left.

The issues being discussed in the run-up to the N.D.P. convention -
and their resolution at the convention - will have a major impact
upon the Canadian left for many years to come.  What's up for
discussion are some of the most fundamental ideas about the
transition from capitalism to a socialist society, about the
programme and demands required to challenge the neo-liberal offensive
of the ruling class. And while this is not immediately clear in the
N.P.I.'s Vision Statement, only socialists can offer a comprehensive
reply to the issues it raises.

But what is primarily being discussed is something that should be of
maximum interest to everyone in the R.T.L.: what could a future mass
party of the Canadian working class look like? These ideas are of
vital interest to all socialists, whether they are members of the
N.D.P . or not.

The N.D.P., while heading up provincial government across the country
and administering capitalist budgets, with their regimes of the
cut-backs over the past decade or more, have totally disarmed the
working class politically and have severely diminished support for
the party. Long time supporters in the unions and who have no
connection with the left are totally disgusted with it.  This can be
seen in the luke-warm reception for the party at the last Ontario
Federation of Labour Convention and in various union conventions such
as that of the Ontario Division of C.U.P.E.  The N.D.P. seeks to
address this crises of confidence in it by reinventing itself without
seriously examining the programme and strategy which got it into this
mess in the first place.

Shouldn't we socialists in the R.T.L. have something to say about
this?  Don't we have a responsibility to these workers as they go
through this re-examination of the N.D.P. experience, to indicate the
way ahead?  At least, shouldn't we be part of the discussion?
Shouldn't we try to influence it?

This is not about getting  "Broadbent, Rebick to take our advice" as
some have sarcastically stated elsewhere.  (Though I fail to see
what's wrong with that?   Rank-and-file workers do it all the time
when they are making proposals to those who lead.)  This is about
getting involved in a living political struggle. What we are seeing
is that the failure of the N.D.P. in confronting the neo-liberal
offensive of the employers, has inevitably found expression within
and around the N.D.P.  It is still a mass party with important
electoral support, with M.P.'s and M.L.A.s, etc., and comparatively
large resources.  And even though the discussion will not be confined
to the N.D.P., or even the N.P.I., it is still a crucial milieu for
debate, and relatively open. I think it would be a mistake for
socialists to stand aside from this process, as is implied in Sam's
article.

The Vision Statement

Of course criticisms could be made of the N.P.I. Vision Statement,
but we should keep in mind that the authors of the document have
stated that this is an "initial statement" and that the "word is not
set in stone."  Probably the statement will be revised as the
discussion develops among its supporters across the country. (The
version I'm referring to is dated August 1, 01.) Those who discuss it
will have to deal with what is an obvious contradiction: it seeks to
fashion a more radical kind of social-democracy when that shop-worn
ideology has proven to be totally inadequate in meeting with the
needs of the oppressed in country after country.  Social democratic
leaders in many countries have abandoned any notion of socialism
whatsoever, and have been converted to seeing the market as providing
for society's needs.

What the Vision Statement says about Quebec is much better that what
the N.D.P. says, and shows much courage on the part of its drafters
in the face of the anti-Quebec sentiment that prevails in English
Canada where the ruling class has been successful in isolating those
who challenge its policies.  The statement says:  "Any of our demands
for the protection and establishment of federal-level funding
arrangements and social standards will fully respect Quebec's
national rights to establish and govern its own programmes, in the
context of our general recognition of Quebec's full right to
self-determination."  The statement also criticizes the federal
Liberals' approach to the Clarity Bill C-20.  These few words are a
good start to winning support in the Quebec working class where
nationalism is a powerful force.  A socialist project hasn't much of
a future in Canada if it doesn't get this question right.

On the economic front, the Vision Statement doesn't discuss how a
future government, that might comes to power on the bases of the
N.P.I.'s proposals, will the deal with the problem of the flight of
capital and how such a government would resist the squeeze of the
international bond-holders to force such it to abandon its programme.
This was a dilemma the Rae government faced before it caved in to
this pressure early on in its mandate.  This is an important question
for many members and supporters of the N.D.P. and they will be
looking for answers to it.  But it is still early days in the
discussion.

The N.P.I. Vision Statement is one of the most radical statements to
appear in the Canadian working class in a long time.  It's the reason
why the big-business press have been quick to try and isolate the
N.P.I. and to try to shore up the N.D.P. leadership.  They fear a
radical alternative to it. Already, the new formation seems to have
challenged the political status quo.  It is in this spirit we should
critically examine the N.P.I.'s proposals.  But this should be done
objectively and in a fraternal way. We should discuss the N.P.I. from
the point of view of seeing what we have in common in this struggle
to create a different kind of working class political party for
Canada.  We should even look upon those who are leading it as our
allies.

The N.P.I. "timetable"

I think it is a mistake to fault the N.P.I., as Sam does, for having
tied itself  "to a timetable based on the next N.D.P. convention."
There are some indications from some of its leaders that they see
this timetable as flexible, perhaps realizing that a key factor here
will be the dynamic of the struggle with the N.D.P. leadership which
will not necessarily terminate at the Convention but which may
continue through the leadership struggle and after. That is purely a
tactical question. Nevertheless, most militants will fully understand
why the folks leading the N.P.I. are focusing on the Convention. They
would be crazy not to.  That is where the action is.  They are
seizing the political moment.  This is the best opportunity, and the
best circumstance to have the maximum effect.  Why should they wait
until the present crises has passed by, giving the N.D.P. leadership
the chance to get its act together?  We can predict that there will
be powerful forces lined up in the party against the left.  Those
conservative unions who resisted the Ontario Days Of Action - openly
or quietly -- have yet to make their voices heard. Among them are
comprised some of the most energetic backers of the present N.D.P.
leadership.

How important is it that the N.P.I. underestimates "the depth of the
crises in social democracy and the extent of the alienation with
electoral politics", as Sam says?  I think this could be a matter for
discussion, but aside from the question of social-democracy, a fair
reading of the N.P.I. statements shows that this is not the case. But
even if it is, I don't see the reason for the pessimism here.  They
are not talking about "fixing the N.D.P.", but about creating a new
political party that will attract new more militant forces.  Who
knows where this will take them, and to a certain extent it depends
upon what happens in the class struggle and working class
consciousness and in the various extra-parliamentary oppositions that
exist throughout the country.  Moreover, the N.P.I.'s ideas are being
tested in debate in an actual living political struggle.  What could
be better?

The R.T.L. and the N.D.P. discussion

Should we suggest to the N.P.I. that they follow the methodology that
was used for constructing the R.T.L.?  Aside from it promising
beginning and potential for becoming a regroupment vehicle for the
radical left, I think many would agree that this is not the best
model when we look at the experience in Toronto. The R.T.L. got
together last October, comprised of a somewhat loose coalition of
groups and individuals (myself included), without any political
agreement (although Sam proposed this at the beginning) or statement
and no authorized leadership or a formal membership and financial
structure (again proposed by Sam.) This in actual practice has meant
that anyone can show up to the group's Coordinating Committee or any
of its committees and reverse previous decisions, paralyse the
Committee in endless discussions that resolve nothing and adopt new
positions without reference to the broad open meetings which formed
the base of the organization. Despite promising circumstances and
opportunities, the organization has been hampered by this weakness.

Many of us in the R.T.L. have urged the R.T.L. to it get itself
together - or at least have a discussion - to intervene in the N.D.P.
crises, but we could never manage get this on the agenda of its
meetings.  If anything, the more we tried to have this discussion,
the more hostile and the less political the opposition to this
became. The N.P.I. will not have to be much better to improve on
this.  At least it starts off with a proposal - and it invites debate
about, and changes to, that programmatic proposal.

For the R.T.L. to move forward, it will have to discuss some of the
ideas of the N.P.I. in any case.  That's what's involved in the
series of discussions underway to prepare our "Statement of
Principles", which I hope will be an agreement and political
statement that will be ready in some form by the fall.  Wouldn't it
be better to have this discussion where there is a broader audience
involving trade-unionists and working class activists?
Will the activists be interested in the debate?

Why should we assume, as has been suggested, that there is no
audience for this discussion about the N.D.P. among the young
anti-globalization protestors?  We should be hesitant to rush to
quickly characterize the supporters of this heterogeneous and
sometimes contradictory movement as not being interested in
"traditional politics".  We simply don't have enough information to
come to this conclusion, but if the short history of the movement
tells us anything, the youth who are active in it and who are leading
it are going through a rapid political evolution.

Can we say with certainty, as Sam says, that, "neither organized
workers nor the young protestors whose energy any new movement must
tap are likely to rush into any new party."  I don't doubt that would
be the case if we were to take a snapshot today of how they felt
about political parties, but we will see about this when an election
comes around.   Party politics and "electoralism" are so powerful in
our society, everybody will get swept up in it.  It's perfectly
understandable. We live in a party political system.  Class interests
are expressed through parties.  Despite everything that's said about
the ruling class more and more acting in a way that negates
parliaments, it's still where the main class forces in the country
enter into political struggle.  It's why socialists participate in
them, when they can.  Even though there is a falling rate of
participation in them by the general population, most working people
take elections very seriously.  How can we say that the
anti-capitalist protestors will not be drawn to this? To what degree,
will depend upon whether or not there exists a political party with
some good ideas that can appeal to them.  We should be careful not
confuse an "extra-parliamentary" strategy with an anti-parliamentary
one.  The latter is for anarchists, the former for political
militants.

I don't think the young activists will be immune from this political
debate, which is now shaking up the N.D.P.  The discussion just by
itself will tend to exert a powerful pull on them.  It will attract
and energize new forces. This was the experience in the party when
the Waffle developed.  At that time, there was an influx of new
forces, which included those people, who in the preceding period had
left the party in disillusionment. (It's interesting that Mel Watkins
has recently joined the N.P.I. but Jim Laxer is critical of it,
welcoming it only as a "contribution" to the discussion. Both were
former leaders of the Waffle.)  I know things have changed
considerably since then both in the composition of the working class
and the relative weight of the industrial unions in it. But this has
been the experience in the N.D.P. since its founding and we will have
to wait to see if that is still true this time around.  But usually
when big internal debates ensue in the N.D.P., it starts to look more
and more attractive to those who are interested in the ideas of
social and political change.

We can't wait until the confusion on the left goes away

It is already late for the R.T.L to enter this discussion.  It has
made no effort to date to influence it, at least formally.  But even
at this stage, if we enter the discussion, we have the potential of
talking to an audience much larger than what we have seen to date.
This would be the best way for the R.T.L. to remain "constructively
engaged with the N.P.I."  But we can't wait until the confusion on
the left gets less. That may take a long time. If the R.T.L. is
unable or unwilling to be involved in this process, then those in the
R.T.L. who see the importance of this question, should intervene,
until such time as the politics in the R.T.L. become clearer.

--
Louis Proyect, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx on 08/04/2001

Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org