The Waffle Manifesto

Posted on Thursday, August 12 at 11:00 by sthompson
The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times is not national unity but national survival, and the fundamental threat is external, not internal. American corporate capitalism is the dominant factor shaping Canadian society. In Canada American economic control operates through the formidable medium of the multinational corporation. The Canadian corporate elite has opted for a junior partnership with these American enterprises. Canada has been reduced to a resource base and consumer market within the American empire. The American empire is the central reality for Canadians. It is an empire characterized by militarism abroad and racism at home. Canadian resources and diplomacy have been enlisted in the support of that empire. In the barbarous war in Vietnam, Canada has supported the United States through its membership on the International Control Commission and through sales of arms and strategic resources to the American military-industrial complex. The American empire is held together through world-wide military alliances and by giant corporations. Canada's membership in the American alliance system and the ownership of the Canadian economy by American corporations precluded Canada's playing an independent role in the world. These bonds must be cut if corporate capitalism and the social priorities it creates is to be effectively challenged. Canadian development is distorted by a corporate capitalist economy. Corporate investment creates and fosters superfluous individual consumption at the expense of social needs. Corporate decision making concentrates investment in a few major urban areas which become increasingly uninhabitable while the rest of the country sinks into underdevelopment. The criterion that the most profitable pursuits are the most important ones causes the neglect of activities whose value cannot be measured by the standard of profitability. It is not accidental that housing, education, medical care and public transportation are inadequately provided for by the present social system. The problem of regional disparities is rooted in the profit orientation of capitalism. The social costs of stagnant areas are irrelevant to the corporations. For Canada the problem is compounded by the reduction of Canada to the position of an economic colony of the United States. The foreign capitalist has even less concern for balanced development of the country than the Canadian capitalist with roots in a particular region. An independence movement based on substituting Canadian capitalists for American capitalists, or on public policy to make foreign corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations, cannot be our final objective. There is not now an independent Canadian capitalism and any lingering pretensions on the part of Canadian businessmen to independence lack credibility. Without a strong national capitalist class behind them, Canadian governments, Liberal and Conservative, have functioned in the interests of international and particularly American capitalism, and have lacked the will to pursue even a modest strategy of economic independence. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. Canadian nationalism is a relevant force on which to build to the extent that it is anti-imperialist. On the road to socialism, such aspirations for independence must be taken into account. For to pursue independence seriously is to make visible the necessity of socialism in Canada. Those who desire socialism and independence for Canada have often been baffled and mystified by the problem of internal divisions within Canada. While the essential fact of Canadian history in the past century is the reduction of Canada to a colony of the United States, with a consequent increase in regional inequalities, there is no denying the existence of two nations within Canada, each with its own language, culture and aspiration. This reality must be incorporated into the strategy of the New Democratic Party. English Canada and Quebec can share common institutions to the extent that they share common purposes. So long as, Canada is governed by those who believe that national policy should be limited to the passive function of maintaining a peaceful and secure climate for foreign investors, there can be no meaningful unity between English and French Canadians. So long as the federal government refuses to protect the country from American economic and cultural domination, English Canada is bound to appear to French Canadians simply as part of the United States. An English Canada concerned with its own national survival would create common aspirations that would help to tie the two nations together once more. Nor can the present treatment of the constitutional issue in isolation from economic and social forces that transcend the two nations be anything but irrelevant. Our present constitution was drafted a century ago by politicians committed to the values and structure of a capitalist society. Constitutional change relevant to socialists must be based on the needs of the people rather than the corporations and must reflect the power of classes and groups excluded from effective decision-making by the present system. A united Canada is of critical importance in pursuing a successful strategy against the reality of American imperialism. Quebec's history and aspirations must be allowed full expression and implementation in the conviction that new ties will emerge from the common perception of "two nations, one struggle". Socialists in English Canada must ally themselves with socialists in Quebec in this common cause. Central to the creation of an independent socialist Canada is the strength and tradition of the Canadian working class and the trade union movement. The revitalization and extension of the labour movement would involve a fundamental democratization of our society. Corporate capitalism is characterized by the predominant power of the corporate elite aided and abetted by the political elite. A central objective of Canadian socialists must be to further the democratization process in industry. The Canadian trade union movement throughout its history has waged a democratic battle against the so-called rights or prerogatives of ownership and management. It has achieved the important moral and legal victory of providing for working men an effective say in what their wages will be. At present, management's "right" to control technological change is being challenged. The New Democratic Party must provide leadership in the struggle to extend working men's influence into every area of industrial decision-making. Those who work must have effective control in the determination of working conditions, and substantial power in determining the nature of the product, prices, and so on. Democracy and socialism require nothing less. Trade unionists and New Democrats have led in extending the welfare state in Canada. Much remains to be done: more and better housing, a really progressive tax structure, a guaranteed annual income. But these are no longer enough. A socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions which have a major effect on men's lives and where there is equal opportunity for creative non-exploitative self-development. It is now time to go beyond the welfare state. New Democrats must begin now to insist on the redistribution of power, and not simply welfare, in a socialist direction. The struggle for worker participation in industrial decision-making and against management "rights" is such a move toward economic and social democracy. By strengthening the Canadian labour movement, New Democrats will further the pursuit of Canadian independence. So long as Canadian economic activity is dominated by the corporate elite, and so long as workers' rights are confined within their present limits, corporate requirements for profit will continue to take precedence over human needs. By bringing men together primarily as buyers and sellers of each other, by enshrining profitability and material gain in place of humanity and spiritual growth, capitalism has always been inherently alienating. Today, sheer size combined with modern technology further exaggerates man's sense of insignificance and impotence. A socialist transformation of society will return to man his sense of humanity, to replace his sense of being a commodity. But a socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate environment as well, and in any strategy for building socialism, community democracy is as vital as the struggle for electoral success. To that end, socialists must strive for democracy at those levels which most directly affect us all?in our neighbourhoods, our schools, our places of work. Tenants' unions, consumers' and producers' co-operatives are examples of areas in which socialists must lead in efforts to involve people directly in the struggle to control their own destinies. Socialism is a process and a programme. The process is the raising of socialist consciousness, the building of a mass base of socialists, and a strategy to make visible the limits of liberal capitalism. While the programme must evolve out of the process, its leading features seem clear. Relevant instruments for bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control and for altering the priorities established by corporate capitalism are to hand. They include extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the key resources industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy. Within that programme, workers' participation in all institutions promises to release creative energies, promote decentralization, and restore human and social priorities. The struggle to build a democratic socialist Canada must proceed at all levels of Canadian society. The New Democratic Party is the organization suited to bringing these activities into a common focus. The New Democratic Party has grown out of a movement for democratic socialism that has deep roots in Canadian history. It is the core around which should be mobilized the social and political movement necessary for building an independent socialist Canada. The New Democratic Party must rise to that challenge or become irrelevant. Victory lies in joining the struggle.

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:37 pm
    I haven't finished reading this, but the only thing I think that cost the Waffle movement was their position on Quebec. (That and the party establishment's ties to American unions.) They said Quebec should unite with Canada, but only if it wanted to . They were wrong--there is no other real option for those that believ ein Canada. This lack of the defence of our federation was cited by James Laxer in his book "In search of a new left: Canadian politics After the neo-conservative asasult" as the Waflle movement's main shortcoming.

  2. Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:05 pm
    ugh, i'm all for ensuring the survial of the Canadian state, but this socialist talk is rubbish. Forced collectivism is inherently evil. Capitalism along with strong social democratic reforms is the best compromise for organising human society. Not entirely individualistc, yet not entirely socialist. Socialism was tried and it failed massively. In theory it may work fine. (i.e., The Communist Manifesto, which actually contains some dead on critiques of capitalism) But humans are individuals at heart and that can't really be modified by force without creating hell on earth.

    I like capitalism. I like the idea of a free market. Competition is good. But the way the system operates now, well, it's just out of hand. There is excess is everything in life and that is what is happening now to capitalism. Even Adam Smith warned against the dangers of capitalism going to far. But good god, socialism is not the answer.

  3. Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:07 pm
    Socialiam is not Communism. Socialism and Capitalism can co-exist.<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />

  4. Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:34 pm
    It's the same thing buddy. Marx in the Communist Manifesto droned on about the socialist paradise that would follow the institution of the democratic dictatorship. true socialism=communism. read the manifesto bud.

  5. Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:16 pm
    This is why it's useful to read more than one book before deciding you are an expert on something. :) Socialism and communism are not the same thing, but they are points along the same curve. I believe that Marx said that socialism was an important step towards communism, ie capitalism had to be replaced by socialism to eventually be replaced by communism. But socialism and communism are different systems with different characteristics and they aren't ever treated as interchangeable, except maybe when they're used as slurs against a person or a group by people who should really know better. AKA, redbaiting (eg "those NDPers are all commies, they'll destroy the nation, bah humbug").

    I agree that capitalism as it is has gone too far--in fact, in many ways it betrays its own precepts (eg, competition is good--so why all the merging and convergence? eg, barriers to trade are bad--so why all the tariffs and protectionism from countries like the U.S.?) Whether or not I agree with the need to replace it with socialism, I'm still not sure. I absolutely agree that if we're going to stay capitalist, that capitalism needs to be balanced by a continued and renewed commitment to public programs (health care, auto insurance, etc) etc.

    Incidentally, the NDP is comprised of social democrats, although there is a socialist caucus (along with a women's caucus, an environmental caucus, and a youth caucus) within the NDP.

    ---
    Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

  6. Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:31 pm
    To continue on Susan's theme, Socialism is the state providing for the needs of the people, not taking their stuff away. That seems to be capitalism's thing lately.<p> You notice that when you buy something, electronics especially home entertainment, you don't purchase the item; but rather you purchase a license to use the item under certain conditions? Sounds like communism to me ;)<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />

  7. by avatar Zaphod
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:37 pm
    The major hurdles facing Socialisms are:
    1. Most people detest the idea, eve "workers"
    2. there are about 8 million definitions of it, no spokeman who can represent it.
    3.Get any group of leftists together and an elite "central committee" forms, squeezing out opposition.

  8. Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:21 pm
    Actually anon, Marx would not like "Police-state" governments like those in China and the Soviet Union. Marx favoured no dictatorship--HE EVEN opposed a central authority. He thought that people would behave in a communal way of their own volition--therefore he was an unrealistic idealist. (kind of like a left-wing anarchist today, favouring neo-liberal decentralization.) The societies that did develop recognized the need for a central authority, but were hard-liner societies with a few socialist policies. They weren't Marx's communism, not at all, although Marx's wouldn't haev worked either.

  9. by avatar canuck
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:46 pm
    How can such a broad term as socialism be used to specify the beliefs of a communist? It is true that communism is a socialist concept, but simply being a socialist can not mean one will become a communist.

    How does a democratic socialist government relate to communist government? The authoritative nature of communist governments appears to be directly at odds to the values of the democratic socialist. Equality of opportunity and equality of result are not the same as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and the strengthening of our various cooperatives is widely favoured over communist style collectives... the fundamentals of democracy, rights and freedoms, and social responsibility are exactly what democratic socialists are trying to preserve and enhance. Democratic socialists are far from being communists who also have their own distinct party...

  10. by avatar canuck
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:06 pm
    This is an interesting point. Just out of curiosity, can somebody tell me which party ends up representing Marx's ideals more accurately: the Marxist-Leninists or the Communists?

    Was the Marxist-Leninist party created to break from the tendency of authoritarian government the Communist party has made for itself?

  11. Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:42 am
    Socialism originally meant voluntary coopertive associations such as those proposed by Robt. Owen. Communist societies were forrmed about the same time. these difered from the socialit ones by not having income differentials - the old "from each according to his ability , to each according to his needs routine. Socialism was thus more moderate, but had nothing to do with the state. This came with Louis Blanc in 1848 who proposed that the state employ the unemployed. Socialists of the day criticized this as statism. Marx called himself a communist to differentiate himself from the moderate and so-called utopia varieties like Owen. Later, the Marxists used the terms inter-changeably. It was Lenin, not Marx who introduced the idea that socialism was stage one to communism. Neither Marx nor Engels ever entertained such an idea. Neither were they in favor of state socialism, the very idea revolted them. They favored a kind of national worker co-op. Real socialism remains that - worker owned and controlled production - a natural extension of political democracy. State socialism which also is called state capitalism, is as much the enemy of the working people as corporate capitalism. Russia, China etc were never socialist but state capitalist. Socialism in its true sense still remains are possiblity and indeed a need for those of us forced to work for someone other than ourselves.

  12. Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:52 am
    The Waffle movement was far-left lunacy fueled by visceral hatred of of the United States. Laxer still kills a lot of trees bashing Americans, their culture and their values.

    What killed the Waffle movement was the lack of a convenient way to kick the United States out of the continent.

  13. Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:39 am
    I agree, and would also suggest socialism can take many forms....one could suggest the Soviet Union was more insular than China perhaps, and less capitalist, though more hard-line. China may have been communist, but I think they were pretty reluctant about it....many Soviets apparently want to go back--China seems not to want to.

  14. by N Say
    Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:38 am
    I think they're more-or-less right about everything except the stuff about the USA being the biggest threat to us. I think the real threats to Canada are idiots like Mulroney & Harper, who won't look out for us. It has nothing to do with the USA.

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news