International Workers Party?

That's a very good point; if the corporations are succeeding because they are going global, unions and parties should be able to do so as well. Look at the success of indymedia in globalising grassroots media; it can be done!

That's pretty much what the ILO does, so again, you don't have to re-invent the wheel. Go to www.ilo.org and go through their website, I'd assume that's the type of stuff that is being referred to. There are also numerous UN bodies which also deal with many of these issues, and even OECD bodies. Part of the problem is something mentioned at another thread that if an american union were promoting in Canada than 'nationalists' would see this as 'deeper integration'. That's a little off the mark, if you work for UPS then you are a member of the AFL-CIO, which doesn't have much more clout than a canadian union, but not too many have made a big deal about it and american union in canada. A 'formalized' international party is a pretty huge undertaking, so I think the ILO may be a better bet. Again, hate to tread the same tire, but from my point of view, the best way to combat aggregious corporate activity is with the group that shares many of the same values-namely canadians. I still think that's why many 'third party' groups miss the boat by not supporting direct democracy, they think THEY know what is best and don't really trust canadians to agree with them. Most people want the same things, by increasing the amount of democracy, you increase the ability to deal with globalization. To again dust off my old example, Maine towns had referenda on whether they wanted a gas terminal, almost all turned it down. In New Brunswick, not only did the people not have a choice, but the 'global' Irvings (now based in Bermuda) demanded a 100 million dollar property tax cut and got it from both the city and the province. Now there will be a dangerous gas terminal, and it will only create 20 permanent jobs and the people of NB, and specifically St.John, bear all the risks and a good percentage of the costs. So when you're battling globalization, don't look to spaniards for allies, look to your next door neighbour. The problem is perhaps the site itself, which tries to make lobby groups out of Canadians, where they have the least amount of impact-in the federal arena. It's far more beneficial to look locally for such groups, even activity in something like a referendum on proportional representation deals with globalization issues, a few such groups in PEI might have worked wonders. You can go to www.fairvote.ca or any of another multitude of organizations. Heck, joining the NDP or Green party is a more proactive route than trying to battle such things internationally.

I had something a lot less mainstream than the ILO in mind. Something that corporations would hate and try to destroy from day one.

"Think globally, act locally", someone once said. With the Net (&new medias), it is act everywhere now! Locals groups need to figure out how to better interoperate. Someone said that too before. And then there is this d.mn apathy. Ditto.

I don't know what else to say but reiterate what I already said. If you don't think that corporations (at least multinationals) don't hate organized labour and democracy then I think you should rethink history. Take a look at virtually every country and their operations and virtually all the emphasis of goverment is to keep the PEOPLE from having any real power in their own countries. This is true of africa, south america, asia and of course canada. Representative democracy is the new weapon of choice and Canada's is perfect. Canadians have literally NO power to effect change, just as Columbians don't. As for labour I don't know what 'mainstream' means, the ILO certainly doens't have much 'power', yet there's no doubt multi nationals would LOVE it if they'd go away. The only other option I can see is some sort of 'anti corporate' party, however, if you look at the success of fringe parties in Canada, that's kind of a long shot.

All it takes is a party starting to negotiate with another party in another country. Creating an action plan. At this stage, information exchange and planning ahead is pretty much all that can be done. In the long run it would make a difference.

A party stating what exactly? This is pretty much the central theme of the Canadian Action Party and of course the marxist leninists and communists party's who are essentially branches of an international movement. Socialist parties are far more advanced in european countries and virtually all of those political groups, such as the Council of Canadians, have extensive links with other countries. Likewise the 'co-op' movement has international links with both organizations AND political parties. These things are already in existence, and they do more than 'plan ahead', they lobby, they meet with politicians, they negotiate, they effect changes at many levels of government in many countries. I'd suggest joining the council of canadians and at there website there are extensive links to all kinds of other organizations. I used to be much the same as you, I had all these ideas and thought 'if only..' then I found out that other people have had these ideas for a long time, don't waste energy on re-inventing the wheel-simply spend some time online finding the organizations which are already there. The Marxist-Leninists don't have a very big party, but it's certainly bigger than the number you'll find at this website. If you are in a city I'd suggest you find a 'food not bombs' organization, which essentially shares all those beliefs, and if there is none-then start one.

True. On the other hand, the marxist-leninist ideas turned out to be flawed as well. The assumption was that in communism everyone would be happy to be "equal". Some people are more productive than others and they don't want to be equal. The system that worked best so far is a blend of both ideas. A regulated market economy with strong social fundations. As long as governments are in control and corporations are scared, the system works just fine. I think the World would be a much better place if communism in Russia returned. All of a sudden, our governments would "find" money to fund out social programs, retirement pensions would make a comeback, the jobs would come back here from unstable Third World countries, wages would go up and out beloved political leaders would have to change their underwear every time there was a protest. The World needs communism to some degree.

There is no real 'marxist leninist' ideal and ALL markets are regulated-by somebody. Lenin quickly abandoned all tenets of Marxism. Your ideas are interesting and I agree somewhat but that is the central problem that I see with the occasional poster here who wants to start a new political party. In essence it always comes down to their political ideas and wanting a 'bad sector party', or 'my belief party'. Personally, this is why I like 'democracy', because it is the only system that attempts to reflect all the individuals needs rather than impose a system. When democracy is extended onto the marketplace, it becomes socialism, so the two are intimately linked. It was the 'us vs. them' that had people thinking the ideals are contradictory-'us' are not a democracy, and 'them' were not communists. 'Us' was the US, which has more democratic tools, but certainly not in the marketplace, and Canada, which has almost no democratic tools at all. 'THem' was Russia and its satellites, which were essentially a fascist oligarchy, much as the US and most states are, just with a different market system. All that is irrelevant of course, good luck if starting such a party based on your views is how you wish to proceed, in effect that is exactly what I am doing, so I can't throw stones.

Well, what is democracy? Do you think by replacing a major party with another one actually makes a difference? Government policies are determined by non-elected business interests. The people who really run things chose to be invisible. They hire or sponsor politicians who they think can win elections, then serve their financial interests. "There is no real 'marxist leninist' ideal.." Marx and Engels seeked solution to the unequality of the classes by designing a "classless" society, where all property would be owned by the state and everyone would have equal access to this common wealth. Lenin adopted Marx's theory and applied it in feudalist Russia. In the communist block countries that tried to follow Marx's blueprint to the perfect society became economic basket cases (see Albania, Romania). Countries that were more open and incorporated capitalism in their systems were able to provide much better lives to their citizens. Likewise, Western countries that incorporated some socialism (Germany, Switzerland, Sweden) created the best living standards mankind ever lived in. The opposite example is the US which is now heading towards economic meltdown and social unrest, as a result of right wing extremism and the destruction of their social safety net. Left leaning parties of the World should discard their differences and start organizing against the common enemy. The current extreme right movement will destroy our World and create an opportunity to change the system. By now there really should be a serious international movement.

There IS a serious worldwide movement, you're just missing it by arguing semantics online. I'm of course doing the same but at least I'm AWARE of it's existence. It's happening all over the world, like I said, just go to Council of Canadians and you'll at least get an introduction to it. If you think Romania was a 'classless' society you're utterly, utterly mistaken. Romania was a dictatorship pure and simple, if you also think that Switzerland incorporated some 'socialism', again, you are utterly utterly mistaken. Switzerland is a corporate run society, their banks and multinational corporations run the country-but only to an extent. They don't COMPLETELY run it because the people have tools to challenge authitarian rule. They have citizens initiatives, they have recalls, they have mandatory referenda on certain issues, they also have these tools at the canton level and again at the village or city level. That's hardly socialism. But we an argue points of view all day, the important thing for readers to realize is that the first part of the above post is not completely accurate. Politicians are human beings like everyone else and they act in different ways depending on circumstances. If it were true that they simply do as their corporate masters dictate then Martin certainly wouldn't be throwing money around like a drunken sailor. He wants to be elected, and due to circumstances, these pennies he tosses are imperative. Likewise the idea that 'all parties are alike' is completely wrong, they are radically different, even the two large parties have pretty clear distinctions and then you can go look at the NDP or CAP or Green websites and find out that it DOES make a HUGE difference which party is elected. My theory is known quite well by most here, in that DEMOCRACY is so lacking in Canada that canadians issues are not even addressed. This is true at ALL three levels of government. Try to find a municipal politician who thinks growth is a bad thing. Even the losers of those elections don't dare say that. Here in Waterloo a woman is being sued for millions because she was doing the government's job for them and taking pictures of developer's breaking the law. Now I know people here think such things need to be tackled on a national level, but the exact same conditions exist locally. That's why you don't see columbians coming to Canada and trying to change legislation here. The fight is right at your door, you don't need to go looking for it, you don't need to start a worldwide workers party to address it. I've said before that we can't even address these problems at a federal level, the website simply doesn't have the numbers and the numbers are all spread out, meaning that we can have no affect on policy. But there are HUNDREDS of organizations affecting policy. Without democracy though I don't see how any of these issues can even be CONSIDERED let alone solved. There may come a time when things are SO bad that people line up, but that's not the case. With democracy at least people have mechanisms to deal with ANY government. However, Canada has NO history of democracy except for three referenda. THink how different things would be if every piece of legislation that came out of Ottawa had to be considered in the face of a citizens initiative, where if enough canadians oppose it, it is put to a vote. That SHOULD also be the case provincially and locally, government SHOULD be 'by the people, for the people'. Again, that's why I am running locally, because people simply have no experience with democracy, it is an alien concept. If people don't want democracy, well, to a certain extent you get the democracy you deserve. When people start making political decisions then things will perhaps turn around. This is why I advocate a 'direct democracy' party, simply because there is no 'agenda' and no one group claiming that it has all the answers for everybody. In fact, all the bureaucratic mechanisms are already there, all that is required is a citizens initiative bill. However, until we have democracy, we will always be fighting from the fringe.

Just two quick notes: Communism always evolves into dictatorship. Heck, they have to run the country somehow. Someone has to be in charge. The idea of classless society is just as unrealistic as the idea of globalism. Workers in countries such as Switzerland enjoy much better benefits than us. Ask someone from there how much they make, how much paid vacation they have and what kind of retirement pension they are getting. Now wouldn't that be an idea to follow? A system with all the opportunities of a free market economy, but tightly regulated. Anyway, it's not my intention to pick a fight here, jsut voicing my opinion. I am happy that you guys exist and happy to discover the Council of Canadians site as well. Thanks for the info.

There has never BEEN a communist state, therefore it's crazy to say that it 'always evolves into a dictatorship'. You can say that about ALL forms of government, it's equally untrue. There is no one formula about political entities, there are as many as there are countries, empires, tribes, etc. As for the swiss, a high standard of living doesn't make a country socialist. A dictator can give professionals wonderful perks and benefits (and usually does), that doesn't mean socialism. Not ALL swiss enjoy these benefits at the same level however. The swiss are virtually at the other end of the spectrum from socialism, the government is EXTREMELY minimal because it doesn't require a massive bureaucracy to maintain itself, the PEOPLE do that with the myriad democratic tools it possesses. In our society we have a massive government because it literally plans and regulates virtually every facet of our existence, however, THAT doesn't mean socialism either. I don't really mind arguing at all, I type fast and don't edit, so I'll continue and say that YOUR opinion that a leaderless society is implausible is just that - YOUR opinion. The entire premise behind democracy is just that-that the people we elect are supposed to REPRESENT us. Of course there have been civilizations that exist and existed without leaders all the time. In fact, just consider your own life. In my life and work nobody 'leads' me. Nobody needs to tell me what to do or how to do, a leader is unnecessary. Even in the corporate world when I worked for a computer networking firm there was a 'manager', who ironically not only didn't lead, but was a hindrance to the entire process. We'd have an installation planned, we all knew what we had to do, then he'd show up from God knows where and rehash the entire process which wasted a good lot of time. The same goes in the political field. Take a look at most legislation at various levels of government, the vast majority of them are 'managerial decisions', decisions about the budget, about how to process certain regulations, etc. This doesn't take 'leadership' at all. In fact, it would be quite easy to set up the governments vast resources where referenda could be held on virtually every issue the government faces. A 'democracy store' could be set up in local neighbourhoods, or even current government facilities could be used. Its been long known that most legislation is voted on party lines, MP's often don't even read the bills. Yet most come down to simple idea s-do you think we should do such and such. How much money should be given for such and such, etc, etc. American states do this ALL the time, which shows how much more politically mature their society is. In our society we play NO part in such decisions. We COULD, which is why I am running for direct democracy. If people HAVE the opportunity to play an active role they may take it. THey may not, I don't know til I try. But a leaderless society is what virtually everybody who argues for democracy takes for granted. I really have to say that its a messed up political ideal that thinks a leader is a must have. Not even close. In fact, as Switzerland proves, a leader is COMPLETELY unnecessary. This is a country which has SEVEN Presidents. Virtually ALL of our political decisions can be made at the local level, just go look at a mennonite community or a native community. They functioned for hundreds of years without leadership, far longer than Canada has existed with our 'leaders'. So if anything I'd suggest people really rethink what they mean by 'leader'. Things get done in our society, and they get done because people do them out of necessity, not because some leader suddenly thought up the idea.

Well... your ideas about a leaderless society are either absurd or you're much younger than you claim. How about 12? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> "There has never BEEN a communist state, therefore it's crazy to say that it 'always evolves into a dictatorship'." What's a communist state? In the West they labelled all Warsaw Pact states communist, based on their ideology, not system. They had to call them something... Commmunist states naturally evolve into dictatorship because their rulers don't have competition. Power corrupts. Sooner or later the relatives of the rulers get rich and abuse their power. It's happened in every communist (sorry, socialist) state so far. In fact, in most Eastern European countries, the old communist leaders are still in power, with the assistance of the United States. The US government keeps them on power, in exchange the commies sell their countries to US business interests, for very low price and also serve US political interests, see Iraq war. They own the media and during the last days of communism (sorry, socialism) they were smart enough to sell themselves enough government property to be the ruling class after communism. They used to be dictators during communism (sorry, socialism) and are still dictators. Back then they reported to Moscow, now they take instructions from Washington. Nothing much changed... "In fact, as Switzerland proves, a leader is COMPLETELY unnecessary." How does Switzerland prove that? "This is a country which has SEVEN Presidents." Nope. They have roughly the same political system we do. In Canada the provinces enjoy a great deal of independance. That's more trouble than joy (see Ralph Klein getting away with private healthcare). "Virtually ALL of our political decisions can be made at the local level, just go look at a mennonite community or a native community." You mean, they have LEADERS? Geez... doesn't it defeat your argument? "They functioned for hundreds of years without leadership, far longer than Canada has existed with our 'leaders'." You are pretty confused. I am still not sure what your argument is supposed to prove. The topic here is international labour organization. Could we discuss that? Thanks.

Well, sorry to say but if you state that Switzerland has 'roughly' the same system WE have then you simply have no idea what you are talking about. If anybody is in any doubt of this simply go to wikipedia or pick up a book on Switzerland. The only thing remotely similar is that Switzerland is the only european country that can remotely be called a federation. Apart from that, well, there are simply too many differences to count, in fact they are far closer to what the americans had just after the war of independance than Canada's british parliamentary system. I could list the differences, but they are simply too vast to be listed here. Communism has everything shared together equally, hence the word 'commune'. Early christian 'communities' functioned this way when they could avoid Rome. Likewise mennonite communities do it to a certain extent when they can avoid our federal government, which they do through barter and community work rather than use of money. That 'local decisions' means "they have leaders" is just bizarre, that's a leap of logic that comes from nowhere. Local political decisions are made democratically, which means that each person has a vote in the decision that is being made. I have no idea where the idea comes from that this entails leadership. People look at the information, make a decision and vote on it. Local councils function this way to an extent, in fact almost all our political officers are considered 'representatives' by most people. A single MP has no real power to 'lead'. They can pick an issue and yell and scream and hope that the PMO listens but thats it. Even at the federal level you just need to go to 'howdtheyvote.com' to see how little 'leading' they do. They DO some leading, but typically by setting up more bureaucratic offices in the various provinces which once again influences provincial independance (as they recently did in Quebec with 3 pieces of legislation). It certainly isn't NECESSARY that they do this, in fact in most cases it isn't even desirable. So it certainly isn't necessary to have leaders, as I said, if you look at the twenty pieces of legislation the feds passed last year they could quite easily have been decided by canadians through referenda. In fact three pieces of legislation simply involved the name change of ridings, which is something the feds wouldn't even need to be involved in. Switzerland SHOWS that a leader is unnecessary because like I said, the swiss have SEVEN presidents. ONE of whom is elected by the others and functions essentially as a dignitary at public events. This symbolic role is exchanged each year. The standing joke is that at any given time no Swiss can even tell you who the president is. The swiss have representatives, and these representatives formulate policy, however, they do it with the full knowledge that anything they propose can be challenged by the swiss population through a citizens initiative. This means they are far more likely to make the policy favour the swiss people, and means that they often call the referenda themselves to see what the people's opinion is. Likewise, mohawks and other native groups functioned without leaders, in times of war one individual was 'elected' to be war chief. Yet even they had no real powers of enforcement, they were simply more respected in their field. In mohawk territory the tradition of the longhouse had a political system far different, 'chiefs' had no real powers of enforcment, they were simply spokespeople. In the past if decisions needed to be made they were made communally, those who 'opted out' were free to do so. With our latest federal child care proposals we see how this is relevant, the province of New Brunswick wanted the money to be given to them and distributed by the province. The feds said no way and attached numerous strings. The province finally gave in just before the election as it was clear they would get nothing. The gas tax rebate is the same story. The Israeli kibbutsim in the sixties and early seventies functioned vaguely along these lines as well, as did the basque region of Spain before Franco, which is one of the reasons so many international figures fought in their civil war. That provinces have a great deal of independance is completely untrue. The majority of provinces are 'have not' provinces which rely on the federal government's largesse. Even provinces like Ontario barely operate with a surplus so we saw just how necessary the federal government is as Paul Martin personally went to Toyota to sell them on setting up in Ontario-with massive federal funds. There are also considerable powers built into the NAFTA regulations which gives the feds complete control over international trade. Alberta is only one province, and even it hasn't been able to simply do as it wants. Constitutionally, provinces have even fewer powers than independant states do. The federal supreme court can overide most provincial court decisions, and the federal notwithstanding clause supercedes all provincial ones except Quebec. That's hardly confusing, but if anything shows the difficulty in trying to set up organizations-no two people share the same opinions. This is why its better to simply accept that not every organization is going to run the way we'd like it to and not every decision is one we'd support. It's a far better use of our time to say, volunteer with Fairvote.ca to try to make an improvement where we can, than to attempt to set up a huge NGO.