Rabid Socialist Bites NDP Donut Jack Layton

Leave it to a frothing at the mouth socialist to be the first to take a bite out of NDP leader Jack Layton. Stan Hister on Rabble.ca begins his article by calling Layton a donut.

Hister's main complaint appears to be what Hister sees as Layton's distancing of the NDP from socialist principles. The crux of Hister's argument appears to be that only socialism can cure society's ills. He believes in the old revolutionary top down restructuring of society where where corporate elites are replaced by bureaucratic ones. It is a tired refrain from a form of thinking that has seen its heyday come and go. But it is none-the-less important to confront these arguments, and hopefully add a few nails to the coffin of an ideology that when fully realized is capable of horrors as great as those of any corporate dominatated society.

The foundation of Hister's argument is that Layton, like a donut, is full of empty calories in the form of quaint homolies about dealing with change on the local level. But like a donut Layton has no nutritional value, because he does not provide an alternative to capitalism, which from a socialist perspective is the root of all evil.

Hister supports his argument by quoting from a Layton interview. However, Hister conveniently paraphrases Layton's response, and twists Layton's words to fit his sugary pastry characiture. Compare where Hister writes:

“At one point Panitch says, 'We get the feeling that the kind of politics you're [Layton] engaged in walks around the margins of capital. You're not talking about taking capital away from capital. Is that where we're condemned to be operating — only where capital leaves us some space? Is there a vision beyond that?' Essentially Layton's answer is yes to the first question and no to the second. Of course he doesn't come out and say that. Instead he goes into a spiel about achieving big changes through 'a huge number of local actions.'“

And this is Layton's actual quote from the interview in question:

“My belief is that the way you transform the big phenomenon is by a huge number of local actions, a multitude of specific interventions at the local level. The older notion of fundamental once-and-for-all transformation of society is less likely to succeed. Besides it's unpalatable to Canadians and to me as well.”

Hister dismisses Layton's argument that substantive change can be achieved locally and gradually over time, because it doesn't appeal to his revolutionary form of socialism. Hister goes on to declare that replacing capitalism is the only only solution. “There's no mystery about what's missing here, about what should be where the hole in the donut is. It's an alternative to capitalism, i.e. a vision of socialism.”

I've always been wary of people willing to depend on an ideology to do their thinking for them. It encourages the kind of lazy thinking and lack of critical awareness that damns local needs and local realities in favour of pursuing utopian fantasies.

We've seen this sort of stupidity operating on a large scale most recently in the United States with a powerful neo-conservative elite setting the American agenda. Their version of utpoia is of American world hegemony, where the United States uses its military might to pacify, democratize and bring the free market to the world. We're already seeing the beginning of the horrors of their first project in Iraq.

“Destroying the village to save it” isn't the kind of change I want to be involved in, nor do I think does Layton. A true and inclusive vision of change requires a lot of hard work and a lot of attention being paid to local needs on a local level. To start willy nilly restructuing society to better fit a utopian ideal at its essense describes the old saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Providing groups and individuals in society with the tools and the incentives to affect positive change should be the role of government. That can come from something as simple as taxing polluters and rewarding green energy. Providing a stable foundation of civic society with a functioning public infrastructure that the public can use to build their own businesses and communities should also be the role of government.

But telling people how they should live every instant of their lives be it either through corporate controlled and promoted consumption, or through elaborate government controlled bueaucracy, not only removes choice, it focuses power in an elite.

Healthy change comes slowly, through painstaking negotiation and endless discussion. Hister seems sadly unaware of even this possibility. Instead he ends his article with an appeal to what else, but utopia... literally nowhere.