My Kind of Socialism II

Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the British Labour Party from 1955 until his untimely death in 1963 is perhaps best known now for being the first leader of the party to push for the amendment of the strictly socialist Clause IV, first incorporated into the party constitution in 1918, which briefly sets out the general objectives of Labour in the governing of the United Kingdom. It was left to Tony Blair thirty-six years later to revive the push, sucessfully this time, for amending the clause in 1995. As the following selection makes clear, while both leaders were opposed to the clause in its original form, Gaitskell was far more committed to equality than the present UK prime minister. Imagine Blair saying the following:

The central socialist ideal is equality. By this I do not mean identical outcomes or uniform habits and tastes. But I do mean a classless society - one in which the relations between all people are similar to those hitherto existing within one social class; one in which though there are differences between individuals, there are no feelings or attitudes of superiority and inferiority between groups; one in which although some jobs are paid more than others, the differentials are based on generally acceptable criteria - skill, responsibility, effort, danger, dirt, etc.; one in which though people develop differently, there is equal opportunity for all to develop.

(From "Public Ownership and Equality", Socialist Commentary, June 1955)

From A Red State Dissident

Dennis Perrin, who has been a valuable although biased (a bias I happen to agree with) source of information for me on the war in Lebanon, is an eloquent and informed voice of the left in the United States while being, as the title of his weblog says, a "red state son". The red state in his case is Michigan, and in his latest posting he gives readers a disturbing look at his part of what has been called "Middle America". His piece can be found here. His previous posting includes from YouTube a David Bowie/Trent Reznor music video, whose song title he says, "sums up my current state of mind". Watch and see if you agree.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Message to the People of Cuba

As Cuban President Fidel Castro was reportedly recovering from surgery for a stomach tumour, on Aug. 4 the American secretary of state issued an English language message to the Cuban people through Radio Marti. In the transcript of her address I have inserted certain words that I believe would have made it more honest:

Today, I would like to speak directly to the Cuban people. [I would like to, but probably your government has managed to jam Radio Marti's broadcast signals once again]:
We in the United States are closely watching the events in Cuba [we still have some spies there]. Much is changing there [we hope in our interest], yet one thing remains constant: America’s commitment to supporting a future of [economic] freedom for Cuba, a future that will be defined by you -- the Cuban people [and by us].
The United States respects your aspirations as sovereign citizens [so long as you accept our trade and investment policies]. And we will stand with you to secure your rights -- to speak as you choose, to think as you please, [to run your businesses as you please,] to worship as you wish [our evangelicals are preparing to go over to spread the gospel], and to choose your leaders, freely and fairly, [just as President Bush was chosen by the American people,] in democratic elections.
All Cubans who desire peaceful democratic [capitalist] change can count on the support of the United States [to bring about the end of socialism]. We encourage the Cuban people to work at home for positive change [in a free market direction], and we stand ready to provide you with humanitarian assistance [which you will need after your social welfare system is done away with], as you begin to chart a new course for your country [really determined by us].
The United States is also encouraging all democratic nations to join together and call for the release of political prisoners [except for ours], for the restoration of your fundamental freedoms [like you had under Batista], and for a transition that quickly leads to multiparty elections in Cuba [,"multiparty" hopefully only meaning two parties].
It has long been the hope of the United States that a free [market], [nominally] independent, and democratic [capitalist] Cuba would be more than just a close neighbor – it would be a close friend [and subject]. This is our goal, now more than ever, and throughout this time of change, all of you must know that you have no greater friend than the United States of America [except for Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Sweden, Norway...].

An E-Mail Exchange with Jim Travers of the Toronto Star

[Normally I wouldn't publish e-mail correspondence with one of the Toronto Star's best columnists, but after some thought I decided the subject would be of interest to readers. What appears is unedited, other than my insertion of Mr. Travers's name into what were Blackberry messages, and my addition of relevant links.]

Dear Mr Travers,
You've written a fine assessment of the Lib leadership race as it presently stands, but what do you mean by "the outdated left-right political spectrum"? I don't get the impression that you're one of those believers in the so-called end of ideology, which I've noted tends to come from those satisfied with the status quo (no doubt you've read Mr Broadbent's remarks re Mr Rae in the Globe). It is no truer today than it was in the 1960s when it was first announced.
Gregg Hill (4/30/06)

Thanks for your note. Most parties and far more voters no longer see poltics as left or right. The parties include left and right anf only about ten per cent of votersare party specific. The result is isuue by issue positioning cheers

Jim Travers (4/30/06)

The voters and the party members may no longer use the terms 'left' and 'right' but I think that if they were asked which policies "issue by issue" they supported or opposed preserved or advanced equality or inequality socially or economically (according to the late Italian political philosopher Norberto Bobbio the criterion to distinguish between left and right "is the attitude of real people in society to the ideal of equality") they would see matters quite clearly, though the supporters of inequality social and/or economic differ from the supporters of equality in being rather less explicit in their support.
Gregg Hill (5/01/06)

But the question is so loaded in the abstract that the answer would be meaningless. Daycare poses the same question in a different context but for complex reasons, voters chose the the "right" rather than the more usual "left".....I just don't think it works well anymore...cheers
Jim Travers (5/01/06)

I don't think that particular example supports your position. That minority of voters who supported the return of family allowance over the state daycare programme did so for reasons of economic individualism (under the standard euphemism of 'choice'), or on the basis of so-called traditional values (which state daycare supposedly threatens as an interventionist egalitarian institution and a product of feminism), either stance of which is generally regarded as on the right.I will concede your point to the extent that support for state daycare doesn't necessarily translate into left-right terms (though the policy was originated by the left) but opposition to it certainly does, excepting those parents whose stated opposition is based on the ground that they would not have benefitted from the programme.
Best, GH (5/01/06)

thanks for the comments. cheers
Jim Travers (5/01/06)

[Travers may not like to use the left-right divide by name even while in various columns he recognizes its conditions, but at times despite his stated position he is unable to abandon the language. In his May 27 column for example, he wrote this: "Sometime during the depths of the winter campaign, it became clear that for much of the last decade, Liberals had been winning elections while living a lie. Instead of shrewd politics, their strategy of holding the centre by campaigning from the left and governing from the right became a transparent embarrassment."]

An Open Letter to the Toronto Star

[This is an open letter because the newspaper would not print it. Too long perhaps? In any case, I think the information I disclose is worth knowing.]
In his defence of PM Harper's defence of Israel's actions in Lebanon ("Measured response or war crime?", Aug. 7) Neil Finkelstein neglects to mention a number of facts:
1) The day before Hamas soldiers "kidnapped" an Israeli soldier on Israeli soil, Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to "detain" (really the same action) two Palestinians Israel has claimed are Hamas members.
2) The area in Israel Hamas attacked was a military post close to Gaza that had been used among other fortified positions to fire the hundreds of shells into Gaza that had led to some 30 deaths in the preceding weeks.
3) Hamas "stepped up their firing of rockets at Israeli civilians" after Israel had stepped up its firing of more advanced weapons at Gaza civilians after the "kidnapping" of its soldier.
4) Hezbollah began firing its rockets only after Israel, rejecting negotiation, began bombing raids over certain areas in Lebanon after the two soldiers were "kidnapped"
5) Hezbollah "kidnapped" the soldiers to use them as bargaining chips in a prisoner exchange. This has long been standard practice on both sides, terminology favouring Israel notwithstanding.
6) Israel has also destroyed various utilities with its declared "precision" weapons in addition to "the bridges and communications infrastructure" allowing Hezbollah movement to Syria.
7) Israel's military is no less blended in with the civilian population than is Hezbollah's. The 12 Israeli soldiers killed on Aug 6 were in the entrance of a kibbutz. How much closer were the Hezbollah soldiers to civilians at Qana? Too bad Lebanese civilians don't have the network of air raid shelters Israelis do, and too bad they have to face much more powerful weapons than Katayusha rockets.
And too bad most of these facts aren't coming to light in most of our mainstream media.

[In case anyone is wondering about the sources of my information, they can be found here, here, here, here, and here. Gainsay who dare.]

One Electoral Reform PM Harper Won't Be Adopting

[One of the advantages of having a blog is that you can include articles you submitted that were rejected for publication. Was the Toronto Star right to reject this? Read on and judge for yourselves.]

Perhaps the most well-known statement by Gerard Kennedy as a federal Liberal leadership candidate has been, “Those of us who have the insight, who know better, cannot let Stephen Harper do to Canada, what Mike Harris did to Ontario.” This does not appear to be hyperbole in light of the Prime Minister’s past writings, speeches, behaviour as PM, and indications in the recent budget, which taken together establish the conclusion that with a majority government Harper would establish a regime similar to Ontario’s under Harris. But there would be another similarity as well. Harper would like Harris be able to forward a neoconservative agenda with less than a majority of voters supporting it.
Harper could win a majority government with as little as 38% of the vote (as the Liberals did in 1997) because of our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, in which candidates can win seats in their constituencies with less than half of the votes cast, a plurality rather than a majority of the vote. A party could therefore theoretically win every seat even if it was opposed by a majority of voters in every constituency. If such a system can result in a politically radical majority government being elected despite a majority of voters opposing it, the most logical way to prevent such an outcome is obvious, replace the system.
It may be assumed that the system to replace first-past-the-post would be one based on proportional representation (PR), but we need not go as far as this. The system we can adopt would still produce manufactured majorities like FPTP but unlike it candidates could only be elected with the support of a majority of voters. This system, long in use in Australian federal elections for its lower house, has been called among other things preferential voting, in Britain and Canada the alternative vote (AV), and in the United States, most descriptively, instant runoff voting (IRV). Canadians have been long familiar with leadership conventions in which in a series of voting rounds or runoffs candidates with the least support are eliminated with their supporters going to other candidates until one candidate wins with more than half the votes. In AV electors number candidates on the ballot in order of preference and if no candidate has 50% plus 1 of first preferences the candidate with the least support is eliminated and his or her supporters’ votes are transferred to their second preferences for a second count, and so on until a candidate wins a majority of votes. Voters would no longer as in many cases under FPTP have to choose between sincere and strategic voting, but under AV could in effect do both through first and succeeding preferences respectively, so that even smaller parties like the Greens could benefit.
In Canada the benefits of adopting AV to the Liberals and New Democrats are clear, as the two parties could stop battling over votes and confine themselves to bidding for the second preferences of the other party’s supporters while allying against the Conservatives. As a center party the Liberals would gain most, but without the risk of letting the Tories come up the middle more voters would likely support the NDP as their first preference. As for the Bloc Quebecois, it could in most cases lose to the Liberals only if Liberal voters cast second preferences for the Conservatives, but it could defeat the Tories in select ridings (it would probably have been four in the last election) with second preference support from NDP or Green voters alone, who would likely rather have a sovereigntist social democrat elected than a federalist conservative. As for the Conservatives, failing second preference support from Liberal voters the alternatives would be winning a majority of first preference votes or not winning at all.
With a Tory minority government the Liberals, NDP and Bloc could end first-past-the-post federal elections in Canada now, not changing constituencies (unlike with PR) but only the way votes are cast and counted. Such a move would be attacked as being done for electoral advantage, which it would be but no more so than when the Conservatives’ Australian counterparts, the Liberal and National parties, first introduced AV in 1918 to unite the conservative vote against the Labour Party, or when AV was used rurally in provincial elections in Alberta (1924-56) and Manitoba (1924-55) to weaken the socialist threat from the NDP’s predecessor the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (AV’s proportional counterpart, the single transferable vote, was used in urban areas) or when various conservative scholars and journalists advocated AV in the 1990s to end vote-splitting between the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives. Replacing first-past-the-post with the alternative vote would not necessarily prevent the Harper government from being re-elected but it would ensure that government would lack a majority in the House if it also did in the country. If as many have claimed the majority of Canadian voters are left of centre shouldn’t we have an electoral system that better represents that majority than the one we have now?

One Cartoonist's View of the Lebanon Conflict

Ted Rall is one of the most controversial editorial cartoonists in the U.S. as this example shows. His views are often harsh and, as in this case, usually correct but not to be taken at face value. Fortunately he also writes a weekly column, also often harsh, so we can know exactly where he stands on the issues he draws about.