social democrats should seek to democratize the party and align it around a comprehensive, ideologically coherent program at the maximum steady pace possible. corbyn is what happens when you lack the political will to do that.
with the provinces my gut reaction says marginalize the blairite bureaucracy’s influence amongst the r&f/quotidian operations and then dare them to split. hard balance to strike at the right time, but it’s necessary — again look at the price of failure.
it seems like the militarist/atlanticist center left european S&D parties (esp. SPD) have too much soft power in the NDP. find better role models (e.g. progintl) + social democrats who suck less (e.g. ireland, spain, norway).
In what way did Corbyn not have a coherent program as Labour Leader? Or are you referring to the Your Party's flawed rollout? (I felt the latter's problem may have been an excess, if nominal, commitment to "democratization" as much as it was a lack of program)
It feels at this moment that "meeting people where they are at" (if taken literally) requires some bold willingness to say "things are pretty fucked and need to change completely". I am not sure you meant it this way but, to that end, "solutions" (to tangible immediate material challenges) are a way to talk about that, especially when those solutions expose and transcend the silly self-imposed restraints of capitalism.
Yeah, I think that's fine and I'm not opposed to the language of solutions as such. But it matters a great deal what that rests on, and if it has no foundation beyond some vague idea of "making life better" by "giving you a break" or whatever then I think we're dealing with the wrong kind of solutionism.
Political parties are NEVER truly "a political instrument of the people". That is populist rhetoric for a goal that is unattainable in practice.
In the party system, there are gatekeepers and internal mechanisms to mediate between the politician and the people. Representative democracy, by design, creates a barrier between politician and the electorate.
Transforming the party into "a political instrument of the people" is what the Greens claimed they aspired to achieve. Elizabeth May's backroom shenanigans and excommunication of Alex Tyrell resembles the NDP's egregious expulsion of Yves Engler and the contrived (misogynistic, racist?) rejection of Bianca Mugyenyi leadership bid.
Both parties are not evwn close to matching rhetoric with deeds.
social democrats should seek to democratize the party and align it around a comprehensive, ideologically coherent program at the maximum steady pace possible. corbyn is what happens when you lack the political will to do that.
with the provinces my gut reaction says marginalize the blairite bureaucracy’s influence amongst the r&f/quotidian operations and then dare them to split. hard balance to strike at the right time, but it’s necessary — again look at the price of failure.
it seems like the militarist/atlanticist center left european S&D parties (esp. SPD) have too much soft power in the NDP. find better role models (e.g. progintl) + social democrats who suck less (e.g. ireland, spain, norway).
In what way did Corbyn not have a coherent program as Labour Leader? Or are you referring to the Your Party's flawed rollout? (I felt the latter's problem may have been an excess, if nominal, commitment to "democratization" as much as it was a lack of program)
It feels at this moment that "meeting people where they are at" (if taken literally) requires some bold willingness to say "things are pretty fucked and need to change completely". I am not sure you meant it this way but, to that end, "solutions" (to tangible immediate material challenges) are a way to talk about that, especially when those solutions expose and transcend the silly self-imposed restraints of capitalism.
Yeah, I think that's fine and I'm not opposed to the language of solutions as such. But it matters a great deal what that rests on, and if it has no foundation beyond some vague idea of "making life better" by "giving you a break" or whatever then I think we're dealing with the wrong kind of solutionism.
Political parties are NEVER truly "a political instrument of the people". That is populist rhetoric for a goal that is unattainable in practice.
In the party system, there are gatekeepers and internal mechanisms to mediate between the politician and the people. Representative democracy, by design, creates a barrier between politician and the electorate.
Transforming the party into "a political instrument of the people" is what the Greens claimed they aspired to achieve. Elizabeth May's backroom shenanigans and excommunication of Alex Tyrell resembles the NDP's egregious expulsion of Yves Engler and the contrived (misogynistic, racist?) rejection of Bianca Mugyenyi leadership bid.
Both parties are not evwn close to matching rhetoric with deeds.