They say politics makes strange bedfellows. So they say. Never realizing the half of it.

Politics. Got pretty exciting when Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario. Due to my originally hailing from beneath the iron curtain. Got excited like most everyone else in my shoes. Imagine that. Coming halfway round the world to this free and democratic society. To this very city of tolerance. Only for that vast abomination to come curtaining and dragging after. As if some colossal iron tar baby had spontaneously generated from all those factories of corruption. Scuttling beneath the ocean, creeping up the St. Lawrence and emerging just offshore in Lake Ontario. Waving tourist flags and propaganda pamphlets. Leaning on the CN Tower. “Greetings, comrade. Step back please. Make room for me.”

How bad could it get, though? This wasn’t some prairie province. Or some derelict collective farm. This was Ontario – the economic engine of Canada. Back then it was, anyway. Still. Very likely Ontario remained free and democratic. Whatever got voted for could as easily get voted against. So maybe it was a good thing.

It was all good, I eventually figured. All my Canadian friends – none of whom credited the irony of totalitarian curtains – would get a little learning experience. Have a tiny little taste. Sweet.

So, when they started trawling for public reaction at CFRB, I called in. And since the announcer seemed quite celebratory about it, I played along.

“Hi Peter. How do you feel about the unprecedented NDP victory?”
“I’m delighted, Jim.” Or was it Bob? Whatever. “I’m probably even happier about it than you are.”
“Really? Why is that? You must be a long-time NDP supporter.”
“NDP supporter? God, no.”
“Well.. why are you happy, then?”
“Because I’m from Romania.”
“Alright. Care to elaborate?”
“Sure. Nobody believes me when I tell them what kind of horror-show life behind the iron curtain was. So now, maybe they’ll start believing.”
“Let me get this straight. You think the NDP victory is a disaster – and you’re happy about it?”
“Sure it’s a disaster. But not unmitigated. Takes a while for the sky to cave in. And by when it starts seriously caving it’ll probably be in good time for the next election.”
“Oh, come on, Peter. How bad can it get?”
“That’s the whole point, Jim. That’s why I’m happy. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you. But give it a couple years and you’ll start getting clues. Finally.”
“Let’s be serious for a moment..”
“Nah. That’s all I wanted to share. Got’ta go celebrate. Bye.”

Anyhow. It didn’t play out like I’d expected. Indeed, Ontario had a little taste of Marxist governance. Nowhere near enough. Not nearly enough for my so-called friends to start believing me. And then the NDP got turfed like bad window treatment – way before any real harm got done. Way too early. If anything, even that tiny taste of Marxist governance overtaxed Ontarians. Next thing there was a conservative majority. And then another. Mike Harris’ common sense revolution. Yeah, right. Revolution. As if Ontarians had endured tribulations. Trials by fire. Some tremendous rite of passage. As if. There hadn’t been time enough for proper harming even to begin. What common sense revolution? More like common sense premature reaction. Premature convulsion.

Nothing whatsoever against Mike Harris. Turned out precisely as authoritarian as pledged. Exercised precisely the authority we voted and expected him to. He’d promised what we asked for – and then walked his talk. Ironic, though. How Ontarians loved despising him. How, to this day, many revile him as fascist. Yet we kept voting him to save us. Whereas Bob Rae, whom we heaved in reflexive premature reactionary discharge – well, he’s our posterity boy for cuteness and cuddling. There’s some irony for curtains.

Nothing against Mike Harris. To me, he was just what Bob Rae dragged in. Nothing to talk radio about. All my friends, though – they were talking nothing but Harris. What a fascist he was. Yet recall – but dimly – how it went one night busking on Queen Street. Trying to busk, anyway. Went something remotely like this.

“Come on – sign the petition,” he kept saying. Nudging my saxophone with his clipboard.
“Step back, man. I mean it.” I meant from the saxophone. Musical instruments grow dear regardless how cheaply bought. “What for?”
“Against Harris fascism.”
“Seriously?” Like, in event of fascism, circulate petitions?
“Damned right. Bastard cut my funding.”
Funding? This guy funded by the government? Unbelievable.
“You think he’s personally acquainted with your work?” By which I meant that I was regrettably acquainted with the guy’s trash in progress. And that no society ought conceivably have funded it. No sane society, anyhow.
“It’s his policies. He’s a fascist.”
“Seriously?”
“Everyone knows he’s a fascist.”
“I can’t tell. Never lived in a fascist country. Just a communist one. Maybe he is. You do realize, though, that Mike Harris is Ontario’s answer to Bob Rae?”
“Whatever. Will you sign the petition?”
“Sure.” By which I meant good luck defeating fascism by petition. Also, that I fancied the notion of Mike Harris as fascist. Would have meant that, however indirectly, Bob Rae’s damaging might yet prove somewhat lasting. Not entirely trivial or easily repaired. Just harmless fancy – the remote idea of Bob Rae triggering fascism. Satisfying regardless how obviously false. This was the umpteenth anti-Harris petition I wound up signing. Some in broad daylight. Right out in the open public. Never got arrested once. Even my funding was secure. Not because my trash was in better progress than the petitioner’s. Just because my funding was from the floundering after-hours crowd on Queen Street instead of Queen’s Park.

Seasons came and went. Years kept going by. Fascism got no second thoughts from me. Until shortly prior Sarkozy’s election in France. When everyone was alerting against it. Saying if Sarkozy got elected it would give rise to fascism. That’s when I gave it a second thought. Like, so what if funding ceased for entire loads of trash? Might prove socially useful. Economical, even. Thus went my second thinking – about Sarkozy fascism. But then the famous Quebec sovereigntist Segolene Royal was headlined threatening riots if Sarkozy got elected. Threatening violence and brutality would be unleashed if he won. And when he did, there was. Violence, brutality, riots in French streets.

Had to think yet again. Violence, brutality, riots – somewhat at odds from when Mike Harris got elected. Could it be petitioners in Paris got carried away? That Paris petitions got carried out more expressively, more passionately than in Toronto? Or was there actually something to riot over? Something more significant to fascism than I’d realized?

Perhaps. Certainly when relatively free and democratic societies sustain sufficient trauma – be the harm military, criminal, economic or too spectacularly corrupt – authority figures gain popularity. Authoritarian figures get crusading and far more likely elected. By pledging turning military tables, hunting criminals to justice, redistributing economic property or getting large brooms sweeping corruption under the social fabric.

In relatively free and democratic societies we’ve managed making some of our own decisions. Managed having some say in our lives. Only some, though. For when progressively traumatized we start yearning heroes – increasingly parental authoritarian figures pledging sweeping our troubles away. Not quite so with societies remaining totalitarian since forever – where there’s been no turning away from figures of absolute authority in the first place. Nor is it necessarily childish nightmare or fool’s parade. Might be some authoritarians cut sweepingly dashing figures. Promising everything we secretly desire. Or just what we ask for. And then go walking their talk into glorious sunsets. Could happen.

However. Roads to glorious sunsets are fraught. Twisting and too likely turning entirely to darkness. Some civil liberties curtailed, perhaps. Some unwarranted surveillance, maybe. Possibly requiring a few internal passports. All temporary, of course. Like for homeland security. What decent citizen could ever refuse? Only temporary. But how much temporizing does it take between curtailing civil liberties and totally curtaining democracy, at any rate?

Each step down glorious sunset roads twists and trends to darkness. No preventing falling into totalitarian darkness should we step too far. Invariably, those leading us down such roads maintain they must break some eggs to make an omelette. What comedians. Like we didn’t know that already. Who raises the chickens? Who carries the eggs to and from market? Who cooks with utmost care not to needlessly break eggs? Some of us are literate. Not as easily confused as we used to be. Glorious sunsets no longer blind us to those indiscriminately breaking and confiscating eggs – or baskets or farms or whatever we plant in our gardens. We know precisely how many eggs it takes to make an omelette. How endless many it takes to feed corruption. How infinitely many it takes to sustain armies of egg and head-breaking thugs. Breaking our eggs to make an omelette. Yeah. It isn’t an omelette those indiscriminately breaking our eggs are making.

But there recur unfortunate times. Times at which we become shocked and confused by dreadful headline news. Traumatized. And at such times we seek for authorities telling us where to go. Down what roads.

No helping some unfortunate times. But most unfortunate times? Those we bring on ourselves. Like unfortunate times we forget the meaning of responsibility. Or dignity. Or when we forget the meaning of productivity.

Imagine that. Forgetting the meaning of productivity. Seen it happen, though. Most spectacularly. Due to my hailing from beneath the iron curtain and all. Even seen it start happening – not spectacularly or long enough – right here in Ontario. As when Bob Rae got elected. Nevermind in France. Might no longer matter who gets elected in France. Since Marxism has excavated France as its private trench.

When we start seriously social crediting Marxism, that’s the sign we’re forgetting the meaning of productivity. And whenever we elect Marxist governance, signals flare that we’d rather just forget about it. Rather just forget the meaning of productivity.

Because Marxism is – not just economically – inexorably corruptive. Crippling corrosive. Marxism is definitive concerning means of production as the bone of absolute contention – and that diverse human classes necessarily struggle at the bone mindlessly as rabid dogs in the streets. Mindlessly because, far as Marxism concerned, it is never understanding or ideology which determine who we are, what we stand for and what we aim to do. Mere opiates. Rather, we are entirely and only determined by material causes. And this – economic, historical, dialectic – materialism is axiomatic to Marxists. They say it is scientific. But nevermind how wrong they are. Nevermind that cultural – and ideological – principles define who we collectively are, preceding even the possibility of society – or economics – as sunlight precedes vegetation. Nevermind that they are wrong in fact. Marxists are incoherent in meaning. For what is Marxism but an ideology? Nothing but. An utterly dogmatic, absolutely not scientific, self-refuting ideology which dismisses itself as mere opiate.

Nevermind that either. What’s telling is that since Marxists can’t stop obsessing the means of production – as root cause and bone of material contention – they can’t even conceive the meaning of productivity. Standard voluntary employment relationships, for instance, are not voluntary. Not to any genuine Marxist. Not conceivably voluntary or collaborative – since employers profit from employees’ labour. There can be no meaningful mutuality of profit or profitable mutuality. No constructive co-labourating. None. By their very definition of exploitation – profiting from another’s labour – employees and employers are enemies. Class enemies. Struggling mindlessly rabid at the bone. The Marxist means of production bone. Eradicating all meaning of productivity.

Profitable mutuality, which we think best for all, Marxists consider the worst. By their ill-laboured definition, profit means exploitation. Mutuality, if admitted, only makes it worse – since multiple wrongs make nothing right. Profit means exploitation, exploitation fundamentally expresses class enmity – and Marxism is the fundamentalist dedication to finally, however violently resolving class enmity. Thus, where Marxist dedication grows culturally entrenched, gutted societies remain to rot.

The poor must fight the rich until all become sufficiently impoverished. Impoverished to death. It must be so. There’s no voluntary agreeing – as in private employment – permitted. Not permitted since, according to Marxist dogmatic materialism, such would constitute endorsing exploitation. Therefore labour must be made collective; and collective labouring must get re-enforced by authority – even if at gunpoint. Collective gunpoint forced labouring in order to ensure exploitation – i.e., voluntary working as in private employment – is extirpated. But what gets extirpated, of course, is everything voluntary. Including voluntary working. Eventually, no work remains voluntary. All work is at gunpoint. If not at gunpoint – well, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

Thus do the axiomatic Marxist means of production deny the meaning of productivity. Economies crushed beneath curtains of iron were not mismanaged. They were managed precisely as if productivity had lost all meaning.

Trauma may get inflicted on us. When our principal residences or trade centres get blown up, for instance. Mostly, though, we traumatize ourselves. When we become sufficiently corrupt to forget the meaning of responsibility. Or when we forget all meaning of dignity and start fighting amongst ourselves. Or when we forget the meaning of productivity. Hard even to imagine such absurdity. But it keeps happening round the world regular enough to set the times by.

Marxism traumatizes as it grows increasingly entrenched. We may well respond to that trauma by turning to authoritarian leadership for rescue. Worse case scenario, Marxism becomes fully entrenched as state communism in which case governance becomes fully totalitarian. And that’s no different from fascism. Totalitarian by any name. Marxism either may lead to fascism, or – if actualized as state communism – becomes indistinguishable from it. That’s the incestuous intimacy between Marxism and fascism. The bed they’re in together. The depravity they seek to consummate. The darkness they seek to raise. Together. Regardless how they carry on against each other in public.

Marxism has destroyed generations. And it has lost all credit and credibility among those surviving state communism. But among those who have not experienced the consequences of unrestrained Marxism, who have not been crushed beneath curtains of iron, it proliferates.

We aren’t ready to let it go. We can’t just laugh it off. Not yet. We fear that, absent Marxism and its endless derivatives – i.e., we’re determined not by economics but by gender; or race; or historical accident; or geographic coincident; or etc. – we shall be crushed under weight of our own selfish self-involvement. Marxism provides us the sole credible-seeming, materialist-sounding alternative: a duty of utter altruism.

God is dead and we’ve conceived nothing reliable and less absurd than Marxism to save us from the common tragedy of our selfishness. Fair enough. It’ll take some – long – while reconsidering the nature of truth. Won’t be overnight that we realize how un-self-involved an expression of identity selfishness may become; nor how identity emerges from forms of idealism rather than materialism. Forms of idealism, principles, theories, stories – even ideologies like Marxism, ironically enough.

We’re stuck with it for now. For as long as we dismiss understanding itself as an opiate. For as long as we remain fallen in materialism – most all of us, not only Marxists. Doesn’t mean we have to go overboard, though. Doesn’t mean we must drown in it or get crushed by it.

Perhaps it is too late for France. To salvage without severely curtailing liberties. But in Canada – or Ontario? No problem. Too much common sense for spinning revolutions over here. Particularly in Ontario. Still. Should large quantities of Marxist opiates find their way into our drinking water, should the NDP get a few turns actually running the country – I shall be celebrating. As if there would be no tomorrow. Which there might not be. Just because sometimes only seeing and personal experiencing is believing. And justified true believing is the best opiate of all.

[2007 French election posters image by Hughes Leglise-Bataille and used via Creative Commons license.]

1. Brilliant post. Passionate, knowledgeable and articulate. I’m proud to link this to my site.
   Lemon

   Posted by Brian Lemon  on  05/24  at  04:48 PM

2. Thank you, Brian. Very glad that you enjoyed.

   Peter

   Posted by  on  05/24  at  04:57 PM
4. Peter, you get my nomination to the Ayn Rand hall of fame. Why is it that talented writers who left the socialist regimes of Eastern Europe are so eloquent in their repudiation of those systems? Maybe living it then not living it generates some kind of purging reflex that cannot be resisted. A powerful story — the kind that I dreamed would find a home on Reading Toronto. Thank you.
   
   Posted by Editor  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by Editor  on  05/24  at  05:25 PM

5. Nicely done Mr. Fruchter!
   I hope you are saying wisdom, courage and compassion do not come wrapped in ideology but in the greatness of mankind and our struggle to be fair and just with each other. Mike Harris and Bob Rae knew that but pretended they could make it happen by putting down all the ideals of their opponent and appear wiser and more just and compassionate. Neither were.
   Idelogy is the poison of politics!

   Posted by frank dwyer  on  05/24  at  09:10 PM

6. That’s a thorny one, frank. I wasn’t saying anything against ideology. Not in general. But after reading your comment a few times, guess what? You talked me into it.

   So, alright. Ideology is bad. Thing is, though—ideals are good. Right? Like, really good. Not just as basis of culture or morality. Arguably, ideal principles are indispensable elements of all (i.e. scientific) theories; perhaps even axiomatic in (pure) mathematics. I go so far as arguing it’s the (categorical) difference between ideal truths and material truths which enables human intelligence—any knowing and all knowlede.

   So, ok, let’s get rid of ideology. Since it does us so much harm. Right on. I can get with that. But: let’s not go losing our ideals. That would be crazy. Literally. Losing all our ideals would mean losing our minds.

   Anyway. Even if not agreeing with all that (above), you might agree it’s thorny. How do we get rid of “bad” ideology without losing our principles, our “good” ideals?

   To answer, must first figure out what the difference is between “ideals” and “ideology”—that difference making ideals good and ideology bad.

   I say the difference is basic honesty. That ideology is just dishonestly maintained ideals. And Marxism is a terrific example of this. Of ideological dishonesty. Of maintaining that an ideal is (scientifically, eh?) true in fact.

   Nevermind what a silly ideal (not only) I think Marxism is. Just say right up front that all conflict must be defined as materially economic. That any other kind of conflict (like ideological conflict—like most substantial disagreeing) is to be considered meaningless. Undefined.

   Just say it right up front. Then people can test and decide for themselves whether to adopt or reject that ideal. Don’t let that (however silly) ideal turn ideological. Don’t go claiming the definition is already established as scientifically true in fact. That there’s nothing to be tested because it would be meaningless and contradictory to even conceive conflict that isn’t materially economic. That’s precisely not how science works. That’s not how honesty works.

   So.. yeah. I agree. Honest ideals are good and necessary. Ideology is bad. Bad and most responsible for us getting destructive as we get. Like you say, it’s poison. Ideology is what happens when we get dishonest enough to cling to our worst ideals dogmatically.

   Peter

   Posted by  on  05/25  at  03:17 PM

7. Hi Guys,
   Great discussion…
   I wrote a piece a while back on the differences between philosophy (ideology), morality & ethics.
   One problem is that people often mistake philosophy (ideology) for morality. So a person that has a certain series of beliefs might conclude that anything within his idelogy is moral. That’s why a fundamentalist maniac of any belief system will be sanctimonious and even harm those who do not agree and believe he is doing the right thing.
   Never forget though, the limitations of ideals. If they are not acted upon they remain figments of imagination. Which is the best outcome for bad ones.

   Posted by brian lemon  on  05/25  at  03:41 PM

8. Hey brian,

   .. whew. I totally wasn’t planning spending my day commenting and responding here. Did have other plans. But I have to respond to your point about ideals.

   Because I absolutely don’t see that limitation.

   Let’s say someone seriously buys into an ideal. That it becomes a definitive principle for them. Could be anything. Howeve silly. Like.. .. mmm… let’s say they adopt the ideal that real men don’t eat quiche.

   Let’s also say this person is a total coward. Would never overtly stand up for what they believe in.

   Doesn’t matter, though. Without ever overtly declaring who they are or what they stand for, this person’s believing that real men don’t eat quishe changes the world.

   Even if only covertly, believing that real men don’t eat quishe creates a different world from the one in which that person believes real men always eat nothing but quiche. Because, as a true believer in the manliness of quiche, this person self-identifies differently—and makes uncountably many decisions differently. Who they talk to and how they talk to them. What they do and don’t purchase. What they encourage and discourage. Who they smile at or frown at. Who they don’t consider marrying, perhaps. Who they bat eyeleashes at. Or not. Even their breathing patterns, maybe.

   Ideas, ideals, ideologies—they are categorically not factually true of the world. They are rooted in definitions—definitive meanings—not in descriptive facts. But each agreeing or disagreeing, understanding or mis-understanding in principle counterfactually alters the world. Re-writes the future.

   So, yes, if ideals aren’t acted upon they remain figments of imagination. But even so—even covertly—imagination transforms more powerfully than the best laid imperative plans of rats and dictators.

   Peter

   Posted by  on  05/25  at  04:55 PM

9. Maietas Desidero:
   My Latin is old but my understanding is ; that translates, greatness missed.
   When we watch Bob Rae and Mike HARRIS ON TVO THESE DAYS, , DISCUSSING GOVERNANCE ON STEVE PAKEN’S BROADCAST, THEY ARE NOW SO REASONABLE.
   When we can govern with all elected members more interested in improving life for all, and being credited for it, instead of trying to gain power, (ie make voters like them more than them other guys ,gals ,) Then we will, have arrived.
   No body has all the answers! When you look at the men and woman who seek election and power, they are mostly flawed to that end and pretend, fein greatmess.( i want to make the world better.) But they miss it. That goal… A few guys got it. Bobby Kennedy, who i met in 1965 understood, so did Churchill..but they had to suffer greatly to arrive at that understanding, I suggest!...Bob Rae and Milke Harris were a little off the moral and ethical mark.Still are… too comfortable …
   Best, Frank Dwyer

   Posted by frank dwyer  on  05/25  at  05:37 PM

10. Every once and a while this site plays host to comments from those whose opinions contrast the general tone of the postings here. I followed Brian Lemon’s comment back to his site and laughed when I realized Mr. Lemmon(?) is a staunch conservative party supporter. If only to support the idea (or is that ideal) that RT is an equal opportunity blog, I want to thank Mr. Lemmon for his thoughts on Peter’s posting. My take on Peter’s post is that all ideologies also bring with them an innate fallibility. Thus, the idea of right and left are artifacts of an earlier time – pre Internet – when information was not easily available and ideas had to be distilled down to concepts that were readily understood. Think Good vs. Bad here. Any economic system derived from these simple ideas was bound to fail.

    Posted by editor  on  05/25  at  08:21 PM

11. Hey Ed,
    I got the same kind of response when I posted at GNN (although one of its founders is a good friend).
    I would hope to lend more to this site. A little dialectic can often go a long way.
    Your site has a good prospect, in pieces like Peter’s and resulting commentary, to do this.

    Posted by brian lemon  on  05/25  at  08:49 PM

12. In my view, one of Reading Toronto’s many great strengths is its openness to diverse viewpoints, and do not see why Brian Lemon’s personal conservatism might disqualify him from participating here. It would be an error to conclude that only rubes from the sticks are conservatives, or that all enlightened Torontonians fantasize nightly about Jack Layton’s mustache. Toronto tends to swing left currently, but in my lifetime I have seen it wobble all over the political map. I myself have explored most of Canada’s political terrain. I find the radical left as unpalatable as the reactionary right, but that doesn’t mean I might never again vote (or seek to run) NDP—or conservative, for that matter.

    One question I’ve had throughout this fascinating discussion, especially in light of Peter’s commentary, is to wonder how Toronto will shift at the next municipal election. The City’s widely admitted fiscal crisis (which is attributable equally to City incompetence as it is to provincial/federal reluctance to increase transfer payments) would seem, if pattern holds, to foretell a right-of-centre administration the next time around. How the pendulum swings.

    Posted by Amy Lavender Harris  on  05/26  at  07:08 AM

13. I agree Amy . As I wrote above idelogy ( particularly when it is couched in indignation and self righteous attitudes) is the ruination of good discussion.
    As for the City and it budget. The Federation of Canada is broken and no longer works well. City states like Toronto have to be recognized as prime cultural and living centers and Ottawa has to stop taking the lion’s share ( and running huge surpluses) of the taxes realized and turn most of that, to the provinces and the Cities. Otaawa did it’s job. It built the infastructure that is Canada. Now those provinces and cities are grown up and need/ deserve to be allowed to continue the Canada journey. Ottawa needs to step back. It is the only way new and desperately needed transit and support programs for the people, can be built and sustained… It will be a hugh fight. Giving up power is harder than giving up great sex! Truly.

    Posted by frank dwyer  on  05/26  at  08:26 AM

14. I have been a funtionary for civic development over the years (city state for TO is an old idea), organizer of various major events and on the board of arts festivals.
    Never has there been so little real support ($) for what makes the city tick than in the last 10 years.
    Berlin spends more on opera than Toronto does for all cultural events.
    And it wasn’t the righties that killed the Olympics (that would have been the platform for new transit and public housing).
    This is a great platform for solid non-partisan debate on rebuilding the city.
    I tried being non-partisan on a blog and it was a dismal flop. Like many poli-blogs I went partisan, and get a lot of attention, but not a lot of useful debate. Like most (all?) idealogical exchanges the discourse becomes polarized. Fun, kinda, but not really useful.
    The truth is always somewhere in the valley, and I think the truth is that most of us want the same things for the city and we have far more in common than we have different.
    Peter’s piece was great and so is the discourse.
    And yes, my arts friends are amazed when they find out that I’m a conservative. . .

    Posted by brian lemon  on  05/26  at  08:44 AM
16. Not since the writings of Lubor J. Zink have I been witness to such classic Cold war hyperbole. I suppose that politics like fashion or music can also be prone to retro chic. The return of anti-communist rhetoric is perhaps symptomatic of something else at a time when there is visible and growing inequality both locally and globally. To speak of Marxism as one monolithic unitary idea with a particularly virulent strain of totalitarianism as its only reference point, is to engage in willful ideological blindness if not outright intellectual dishonesty. Lost is the rich diversity representing the full spectrum of Marxist/Marxian analyis and critique. Yet this was the function of cold war anti-communism, the stifling of dissent, critique and analysis be it reformist or revolutionary. To call Bob Rae Marxist is not only patently absurd but it also intentionally equates all left wing critique in all its diversity to the horrors of Stalinism. This discourse only leads to the dead “end of history” intellectual cul-de-sac of Fukayama, suggesting the only future of humanity is embracing the ideology of market fundamentalism, endless consumption, growing inequity and environmental devastation. Cold war rhetoric is also notable for what is left unspoken and whose voices are absent. To speak of Canada as “ free and democratic” is to ignore the legacy of European colonialism and imperialism. It denies the history of conquest and the legacy of broken land treaties, policies of forced assimilation and relocation of people and the horror of residential schools. The evidence of the legacy is apparent not only in the prevalence of first nations people living on the streets or imprisoned but more hopefully in Caledonia and other sites of resistance. The classic anti-communist rhetoric also conveniently and consistently ignores the abduction and forced labour of African people and it’s ongoing legacy. This at first might seem more apparent south of the border but Canadian people’s originating from the Carribean who were invited with the expectancy to do menial work but abandoned in periods when higher unemployment became normalized. Canada can now depend on highly skilled professionals from south east and south asia to drive our cabs, wash or dishes,or work the factory floors or warehouses. It is not coincidental that these groups were amongst those targeted by Mike Harris or threatened. It is the legacy of Harris manufactured crises in education, healthcare, homelessness and increased poverty and inequality. Nor is it surprising that those groups over represented in the populations of the marginalized, the impoverished and the imprisoned will also be targeted under Sarkozy. The experience of those living under Soviet Bloc is undeniably traumatic yet it doesn’t logically dictate that all radical critique of capitalism be dismissed or abandoned. There are innumerable streams of radical thought that have been and continue to be critical of both Soviet and western imperialism. There are also radical critiques, democtratic socialist, anarchist, Marxist or Marxian that offer alterative to endlessly embracing market fundamentalism or global capitalism. for the record I am not nor have never been a member of the communist party
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  05/26  at  10:54 PM

17. So. When Brian made a possibly right-leaning and absolutely materialist point—that ideals/ideology are only “figments” unless materially acted upon – I replied at length. Replied that ideals/ideology are not materially limited.

    I won’t reply to the Dowling comment. But not because it’s more dogmatically materialist than Brian’s was. It isn’t. Nor because it’s left-leaning. Irrelevant. I won’t reply because it’s ideologically entrenched. Replying would contribute nothing to our discussion.

    I won’t reply. I’ll just take it apart a little. Not to be mean. Heck, I was flattered. The Dowling comment carricatures my post as next best anti-Marxism since Lubor J. Zink’s. Wow. Nobody was better than Lubor when it came to character acting. Especially those roles in which he portrayed the assistant to a coven of mad scientists. Wow. Talk about credible. After Editor’s nomination to the Ayn Rand (I Rant?) hall of fame.. hey, not bad for this former Queen Street busker.

    Not to be mean. But must take the Dowling comment apart a little. Show and tell what makes it tick. Before it blows up. Practice for the ideological bomb squad. That’s what we’re talking about.

    Here we go. Not too slow nor too careful. It’s actually a simple device, the Dowling comment.

    First, note the general casting. Our choice is alleged as binary. Either the right-leaning dogmatic materialism of bulemic consumption—or the left-leaning dogmatic materialism of Marxism. Selfish corporatism or self destructive Marxism—but either way, only materialism. No hope any rising from dogmatic materialism, no hope any realizing how un-self-involved an expression of identity selfishness may yet become. Inconceivable. Our only material(ist) options: terminally selfish or terminally self destructive. No better signifying ideals to identify with, no principles conceivably guiding us to better selves. That’s the general casting, folks. Ideologically entrenched unmitigated materialism. Principles? Ideals? Ideologies? But these are mere opiates, see? So maintains Marxist ideology. So maintains this ideology totally entrenched in materialism—and absolutely dismissing itself as an opiate. Unreal.

    So. That’s the self-refuting general casting of this ideology. Now let’s get to what’s ticking away inside.

    Ok. What’s ticking away inside is an argument structure. That’s important to note. The particular examples don’t matter in the least. What matters, what’s ticking are any collection of examples consistent with the dogmatic notion of material subjugation as permanent, sole cause of human conflict. As if it yet remained to be confirmed by such examples that all conflict must emerge from material subjugation. As if that hadn’t already been defined as such by the—self-refuting—materialist general casting.

    That’s important to note. It doesn’t matter what examples are actually used—just so long as the examples seem consistent with the anti-idealist Marxist dogma of materialism. I.e., that all conflict must emerge from material subjugation.

    So, to demonstrate, let’s reproduce the Dowling comment argument structure—but using different examples.

    Continued below…..

    Posted by  on  05/28  at  06:03 PM

18. .. continues ..

    In the Dowling comment, we are to conclude that Canada is a place of perpetual material subjugation—i.e., not free and democratic—due to examples such as: past European imperialism, broken native treaties, assimilation and residential schools, menial labour of Carribean people and menial labour of professional south/east Asian people.

    Let’s use different examples—and reproduce the same argument structure. Here goes.

    The Irish had a hard go when they first arrived. See? Canadians aren’t so tolerant. Italians were totally discriminated against when first arriving. So much for the multicultural mosaic myth. Heard about the Chinese head tax? What kind of free and democratic society does that? And how about Japanese internment? There. Rampaging discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. Canadian intolerance rampant over fields, streams and entire domains of oppression. Flying bells, whistles, banners and streamers of subjugation and suppression. No justice – no peace! Silence is violence!

    And there it is. The argument structure as-if establishing how we Canadians perpetually materially subjugate. How oppressive or gender/race discriminating or prejudiced or bigoted or intolerant we are. Pick one. Pick all. All the same. Examples purportedly establishing the constant, perpetual, persisting, permanent, incessant, ongoing material subjugating practiced by Canadians. Or, if not pure Marxist material economic subjugation, pick any non-economic Marxist-derivative type of subjugation. So long as it’s a material form of subjugating. The list is endless. Like gender or race, to start with. Just to start. It really can be anything so long as material. Like cross-dressing, for instance. No joke.

    Tick. Tick. Tick. It’s time. High time to de-fuse this nonsense.

    What if we don’t buy into the dogmatic materialist premise of Marxist ideology in the first place? What if not all conflict arises from material subjugation? What if conflict, particularly Canadian conflict, only very rarely if ever reflects material subjugation? Ok? Let’s try it out.

    What other than material subjugation might such examples of conflict above reflect? Well, how about divergence in ideals, ideology and cultural principles? How about differences which are precisely not reflecting any historically forced, economically determined, eternally struggling permanent practice of material subjugation? How about differences which reflect cultural not-understanding or ideological disagreeing but which, provided sufficient tolerance, prove not permanent? Like, what if all peoples experience conflict when regarding each other as strangers but, provided sufficient mutual tolerance, they may become friends? What if, provided sufficient tolerance, they become one? United as a singular people particularly by the cultural principle of tolerance?

    Continued below…..

    Posted by  on  05/28  at  06:05 PM

19. .. continues ..

    What if, indeed. Might be metaphysically and psychologically prerequisite rejecting Marxist ideology even to consider it. And while I’m no more fan of the term “reasonable accommodation” than “shared accommodation”, that’s pretty much what happens in Canada. Haroon Siddiqui, in his March 8, 2007 Toronto Star article (though in rather different context) says so too. Says it’s the ”.. honourable Canadian tradition”. That’s what he says about ”..finding reasonable accommodation for a myriad of minority practices.”

    Not only should examples of conflict in Canada not be ideologically construed as reflecting forms of persistent ongoing material subjugation. To the contrary. Canadians prove particularly exemplary when it comes to not subjugating. We are particularly good at resolving conflict without subjugating because of our unifying cultural principle: tolerance. As Siddiqui points out, “The world looks up to Canada for its multicultural achievements.”

    I do have some bones to pick with Siddiqui. For while he seems to agree that tolerance is the cultural principle Canadian identity stands for, I very much disagree with him on the meaning, significance and origin of Canadian tolerance. But nevermind that right now.

    Nevermind the meaning or significance of cultural principles. Or of ideals or ideologies. For Marxist ideological materialism denies all such – itself included – as opiates. Among much else, once we fall for it we can but deny who we are in cultural principle. Those of us falling for that nonsense are doomed to repeat the most historic mistakes in denial of our own principles, ideals and ideologies. That kind of metaphysical denial is far worse than the personal, psychological variety. It dooms us to cultural clashing and ideological conflict—all the while denying culture and ideology. Clamouring material subjugation. Inevitably leading to material subjugating—even if only to terminate and settle irresolvably escalating ideological conflict.

    That’s what the cold war was about. Not Soviet and western imperialism causally determined by material forces to seek mutual subjugation. What nonsense—material historical forces pushing peoples to mutually assured destruction. Nonsense. The cold war was about ideological conflict. Most severe conflict is, was and remains ideologically entrenched. But, at least for now, that’s absolutely and precisely not what being Canadian is about. Being Canadian is about tolerance. About having ideals without getting too ideologically entrenched to work things out.

    So. Enough about materialist ideology. The whole point is adequately avoiding it before it gets entrenched. Maybe not quite as reflexively as Ontarians discharged Bob Rae.. but certainly before severe trauma or rigor mortis set in. Good enough. I look forward returning to exploring the meaning of Canadian tolerance. The future of the world is in pretty dire need of that.

    Posted by  on  05/28  at  06:08 PM
21. Well Peter I’m pleased you didn’t respond to my comment as something more protracted and verbose than your non-response would have been even more difficult to digest. My first response was to wonder “who are you talking to ” because it was clear that you were not engaging in dialogue with me or my comment. It soon became apparent that “the ideological time bomb” you sought to dispose of was clearly the image of one that had exploded with devastating consequence some time ago. The shock and trauma and impact of this explosion was so great that it is clearly implanted on your mind condemning you to witness the specter of dogmatic Marxist materialism everywhere. Rather than responding to my comment but were responding to a trauma generated memory, a paratoxic distortion or at the very least the construction of a Straw-bomb. To speak of oppression, social inequality , social exclusion of marginalization does not mean that someone is a Marxist. Nor is it essentially Marxist to be aware of the history and ongoing legacy of colonialism and its consequence. A critical awareness of dominant narratives and ideological positions does not make one a Marxist either dogmatic or otherwise. In my original comment I merely stated that Marxism rather than a single unitary idea is a collection of theories, discourses often reflecting competing values and beliefs. Even this represents only part of a broader anti-capitalist discourse. To acknowledge this and to acknowledge that there is some value in some of these ideas, critical analysis or analytic tools also does not make someone a Marxist. Speaking of oppression also does not mean that someone is a materialist. Oppression is first in foremost a social act with interpersonal, psychological and spiritual components rather than mere “material subjugation”. Oppression, social exclusion and marginalization operate not only by limiting access to materials but denying access to social power, position and connectivity. Your claims of being non-ideological or ideological neutrality also need to be challenged. It is as disingenuous as the radical logical positivists who claimed to be atheoretical as there is implicit theory there is also implicit ideology. There is greater clarity in what is unsaid than what is said, your expression of opposition clearly outline an ideological position in which capitalism is presented as natural necessary, and desirable and let us be clear capitalism is an ideology.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  06/03  at  11:01 PM

<< Back to main