Shades of Grey -- A Left Chapter look at strategy, tactics and endorsements in the 2015 election

With just under two weeks to go until election day, anti-capitalist leftists are in something of a quandary.

There is, simply put, no anti-capitalist party that has any chance of electing even a single MP in the upcoming election. Even worse, while the NDP has made it perfectly clear that it accepts capitalism as an economic system not just in the short-term but in perpetuity, it has also run the most craven, reactionary, bankrupt and meaningless campaign in its history.

From its terrible "small business" tax cut plan, to its disastrous tactically, absurdly reactionary and backward "balanced budget" pledge, to its leader's praising of Margaret Thatcher, to its plan to increase police funding, to its arbitrary blocking and banning of certain candidates while allowing the candidacies of others to proceed, and on and on and on, the NDP has run a terrible, right-wing campaign even by its own standards and even within its own self-imposed limitations.

While the notion that the Greens are somehow "conservatives with composters" is an absurd NDP hack myth (in fact, by today's standards they have a very progressive platform -- more so than the NDP's) and while Elizabeth May has been the most principled and interesting progressive leader all year (standing up for the repeal of Bill C-51 long before Mulcair for example), the Greens are also, ultimately, at best mildly social democratic.

The Liberals are the Liberals. While it is simply asinine to claim, especially now and especially after a campaign like this one, that the Liberals and Conservatives are "the same", as some dim-witted partisans of the NDP frequently do, they are an inherently Bay St. party and represent simply the socially, and to a very small degree economically, more progressive wing of the bourgeois capitalist elite.

But make no mistake, the Liberals are very different from the Conservatives. On fundamentally important social, justice and foreign policy issues the differences are profound. Again, while some NDP hacks will attempt to point to Ontario as an example of how the Liberals govern like Conservatives, after allegedly running to the "left", due to Wynne's wrong-headed moves to privatize Hydro, they disgracefully leave out the many other profoundly reactionary plans the Conservatives had in store for the province  had they won as well as the vast gulf that separates the parties on social issues.

It is, especially in light of just how reactionary and dangerous the Harper Conservatives are, totally and shamefully wrong to try to paint the Liberals as identical to them. It is not simply delusional. It is stupid and harmful.

Never before has there been less of a difference between the Liberals and the NDP ideologically. Never before has there been more of a difference between them both and the staggeringly right-wing foe they face.

It is not, ultimately that the Liberals have changed that much. But the NDP certainly has. To see it as being anymore likely to run a left government than the Liberals strikes me as both utopian and flying in the face of all evidence and logic.

This leads us to the reality of just how bad the Harper government is. We all know it. It has done great harm over the last four years.

If re-elected it will do a great deal more harm.

So, apologies to Lenin, what is to be done?

To me this needs to be broken down into three categories.

Endorsements of Individual Candidates

There are a handful of candidates who, in my opinion, deserve to be supported irrespective of other considerations to come.

Elizabeth May is needed in Ottawa. Full stop. She is easily the most interesting of the three bourgeois progressive leaders, has been very principled and is, also, the "strategic" choice in her riding as the incumbent. Why would anyone on the left want to see her voice no longer present in parliament?

Dan Harris deserves support in Scarborough Southwest due to his opponent -- the odious former Toronto police chief  Bill Blair. A staunch defender of carding and one of the architects of the G-20 Toronto human rights debacle and outrage, his defeat would be a repudiation of this history. While it is true that, disgracefully, the NDP courted Blair as a potential candidate, the fact remains that only NDP incumbent Harris can defeat Blair and here is hoping that he does.

Jacob Kearey-Moreland, who was disgracefully barred from running for the NDP for the most absurd and Orwellian reasons, deserves support in Simcoe North if only to send a message that the undemocratic practices of the mainstream parties internally are wrong. He also has a terrific set of new and interesting ideas that should be heard and considered.

Vote Strategically

For all of the reasons outlined above in the introduction, if your primary electoral goal is, honestly, to Stop Harper, then there is no logical or moral alternative to strategic voting.

If you genuinely believe that the differences between the tweedle-dees and tweedle-dums of the progressive parties are so significant that you must vote for one of them in any riding no matter what, that is fine. But do not then claim to be trying to stop Harper as you are not.

We all know there are ridings where one of the mainstream progressive parties cannot win.

If stopping Harper is what you want to do, and it is a perfectly understandable and reasonable objective for a leftist of any stripe, then by now you likely know exactly who is the most likely candidate to win between the Liberals, NDP and Greens where you live and you should vote accordingly.

In the many ridings where the races are between two of these progressive parties, vote however you want.

Vote Communist or Conscientiously Abstain

Certainly in any riding where the Conservatives are not going to win I would advocate for a vote for the Communist Party candidate if there is one or a vote for another anti-capitalist candidate or an abstention if there is not.

While I am not a Leninist, the Communist Party has run a terrific campaign with very limited resources and has done so on an excellent platform. Their candidates are dedicated and articulate anti-capitalists and supporting them would send a very clear, very unequivocal message of discontent and opposition to the mainstream capitalist discourse.

They deserve serious consideration.

If you have no Communist Party candidate, if there is another anti-capitalist candidate or an independent worthy of consideration, then by all means vote for them.

But it is also perfectly reasonable to conscientiously abstain from the whole process.

Despite absurd and reductionist arguments to the contrary, if you do not feel represented at the polls, and if you do not want to reward the craven emptiness of the mainstream parties with your vote, not voting is a totally logical response.

It is a rejection of the entire process. Of course, I do not suggest a passive abstention. Let people know exactly why you are staying home.

And be sure to let the candidates of the mainstream progressive parties know as well.

As to ridings where the Conservatives can win, then you have to make a choice. In my riding, for example, the only candidate who can defeat the Conservatives is a Liberal. The NDP and Greens have no chance at all. I personally cannot vote for the Liberals. So it is a choice we then have to personally make in that case and it is not necessarily an easy one.

No matter how, ultimately, you chose to cast -- or not cast -- your ballot, never has the need of a new, actually leftist electoral alternative alliance of anti-capitalists been more clear.

Despite all the obstacles, let us hope that we find a way to work to create one in the aftermath of 2015.

See also: Do we really want to Stop Harper? The year ahead in progressive partisanship

Co-operative Interdependence -- Jacob Kearey-Moreland brings a new vision to the federal election in Simcoe North

Jacob Kearey-Moreland

Back in April the powers-that-be within the NDP stepped in, at the last minute, to block the potential candidacy of Jacob Kearey-Moreland in the Ontario riding of Simcoe North.

This move on the part of the party was particularly Orwellian in this case -- a fact which I wrote about at the time -- and part of a broader pattern within both the NDP and mainstream party politics generally. The fixation on tightly scripted messaging and narrow appeals to certain groups of voters has been a major part of the overall shift of our political discourse to the right and away from constructive, but possibly controversial, solutions to the broad array of very serious problems facing us in Canada and globally.

Unlike many pushed out or blocked by the NDP, Kearey-Moreland decided to run in the election anyway and has been campaigning hard and working to get his message out in spite of all of the very real obstacles that are placed in the path of those who seek office but are not doing so under the banner of one of the major parties.

I reached out to Jacob to discuss these challenges, what he hopes to add to the discussion, his experience with the NDP and his interesting vision of what he calls "co-operative interdependence".

On the masthead of your Facebook page it says that people should vote for you "for co-operative interdependence". What do you mean by the term "co-operative interdependence"? 

We live in complex, interdependent networks. Co-operative interdependence I think better describes our shared state of existence and points to a new approach to politics, one that is based on respect and SOILidarity - ecological and social unity. Our campaign is about acknowledging our commonalities, and promoting cooperation among all people and parties within and beyond this election to address basic human needs - by rejuvenating the commons. As I am not representing a political party or any other private or corporate interest, I am often labelled as an "Independent" candidate. I have rejected this label in public and on the ballot, as it implies that I am by myself, on my own on the fringe. While we are all individuals in society, I prefer to emphasize and pay respect to our interdependence and interconnection, and to act cooperatively to further our shared needs, values and visions.

What do you feel are the biggest issues facing Canada and Simcoe North that need to be addressed in this election?

The biggest issue by far is the collapse and closure of the commons, as a result of free market fundamentalism i.e. capitalism and the privatization of everything. Whether it is our democratic commons, or our social and ecological commons, the living systems in which we live and depend, are experiencing a radical state of decline, resulting in unprecedented, interconnected and growing global crises.

Practically speaking people need access to housing that is clean, safe, adequate and available, and especially youth shelter and housing for seniors. I know what it's like to be a young person growing up and working in Simcoe North, and moving away in search of education and opportunity. I'd like to live and grow in this community. After years of engaging the community in critical discourse to determine priorities and to find common cause, I am convinced the challenges to our economic, ecological, and social problems can be addressed by focusing on core human life needs - starting specifically with healthy food access via regenerative local food production, clean water systems, ecological and cooperative energy projects, and other cooperative enterprises that address diverse community needs.

Are there any issues specific to Simcoe North that you feel need to be on the agenda? 

Poverty, lack of living wage jobs, and affordable housing are major challenges for people in Simcoe North, especially for young people, many of whom, my peers, are struggling to afford rent and are moving away from their families and communities looking for opportunities else where.

How do you feel that as an independent, not affiliated with any of the "mainstream" political parties, you are able to tackle and confront these issues in ways their candidates cannot? In other words, what has motivated you to run despite the obstacles faced by independent candidates? 

Because I am not representing a political party, or any other private or corporate interest, I do not possess any of the negative baggage associated with politics as usual. Given a third of the electorate did not vote in the last federal election locally, and many voted reluctantly against their least favorite option, people are willing to engage me on the streets as an equal, someone who truly cares and represents the community. People are tired of partisan politics, which is divisive and combative, yet are still passionate and concerned about many issues. Our campaign is providing those people with an additional choice that is real and refreshing, something they can take ownership over and be a part of.

You were originally planning to run for the NDP nomination in the riding, but at the last moment, after you had been campaigning for weeks, the party told you you were not going to be allowed to. Can you tell us about that and why they, in your opinion, did that? 

Their given reason for disqualifying me was because I had not disclosed a private campaign organizing facebook group, in which the description noted I was rallying supporters from all parties and no parties to cooperate and support my NDP campaign. After I was approved to seek the nomination I made the group public so supporters could find and join the group and campaign. During the vetting process I had agreed to not promote the Leadnow.ca "vote together" or "Cooperate for Canada" campaign, or other strategic voting initiatives (other than strategically voting NDP, of course) which encourages progressive voters to vote for the best positioned candidate to defeat the Conservatives in swing ridings. Given several members of the local Green Party had requested me to represent them, and they even desired to not run a candidate against me, the federal NDP was afraid that my campaign would disrupt or undermine their national campaign for a majority government. Their facebook spy "Fred Checkers" then found the group and accused me of 'secretly promoting cooperation' and being untrustworthy and therefore disqualified me and disenfranchised the membership hours before the nomination meeting, following that they denied me a fair appeal and a majority of members walked out, many now supporting my campaign.

What do you think this experience of yours says about the NDP specifically as well as the nature of how scripted "mainstream" politics in Canada is generally? 

Many long time and new NDP members were surprised to learn that the nomination process was neither open, fair or democratic, and shocked to learn of the growing concentration of power at the top of the NDP, something traditionally associated with the Liberal and Conservative parties. People are feeling increasingly powerless with the rise of these multi-million dollar political machines. Personally once I accepted my role as a nomination contestant, I found myself self-censuring as the pressure of representing a political party is dehumanizing, as one must curate a particular public image that is electable and attractive to the 'average voter' which is not the same as the average person in society. I found the experience alienating and uncomfortable. As a partisan, one must place the interests of the political party above the interests of the individual and the society at large.

You seem to want the community to be directly involved in the evolution of your campaign. How are you trying to engage the community and why is this process important to you? 

I have a cardboard sign that says Vote Jacob. I stand on popular intersections in my community at all hours of the day and night, in the sun and rain, engaging with people from all ages and backgrounds. I spend a lot of time talking with people who are either not allowed to vote (youth under 18), or unlikely to vote, youth under 35, homeless populations, others living on the streets. We hold campaign meetings and strategy discussions in public, encouraging potlucks and food sharing, live music and a festive friendly atmosphere. I have a facebook group, page and twitter which I use to keep the community up to date about my public appearances, news and public events. I was active in the Occupy movement, especially Occupy Gardens, and believe in the power of popular people's assemblies, (Gardeners Assemblies / "GA's" ) organizing in circles, where everyone is equal and has a say in the direct actions of the group. The idea is to educate and empower the community, to the point where ordinary people feel confident in one day running and representing themselves through their active participation in decision making processes, the new economy and society. I am imagining 100 "Cooperative Interdependents" on the ballot in Simcoe North in the next election.

You are also, at age, 26 the youngest candidate running in Simcoe North. How do you think this effects your perspectives on the issues and are there any advantages or disadvantages to it?

All the other candidates are at least twice my age, some close to 3 times my age. I am the only one who will actually live with the long term consequences of decisions being debated and determined today. I represent the 21st century, having lived most of my life to date in this century, I am uniquely qualified to address the major challenges of this century, given close to half the world's population is under 25. We are experiencing multifaceted global crisis', that require 'glocal' responses - that is , local actions, coordinated at a global scale. I live my life online and off, in massive collaborative communities that span the globe involving millions of people. I am a proponent of open source technology and organizing, using the power of mass participation and collaboration to drive innovation and social change. During the last federal election I initiated a project called Youth Vote Canada - www.youthvote.ca and this time around have joined with the new Canadian Youth Vote Alliance www.cyva.ca , to promote the youth vote and more importantly youth participation.  As a youth, I can connect directly with the demographic least likely to vote - the youth - so that is a considerable advantage, especially winning them over at a young age. We have the most to gain and lose. It is our future we are talking about.

What do you hope your campaign will accomplish in the community and how do you hope it will influence the overall debate? 

We have already accomplished so much, in particular inspiring hope in democracy, raising awareness about how and when to vote, building community, directing people to other progressive local initiatives, raising critical issues that are rarely spoken of in public circles, and challenging established political parties and the electorate by presenting a compelling, creative and refreshing alternative to support and vote for. The last federal election I rejected the partisanship and predicted the outcome of the election in a letter to the editor published in the first week of the election. The editors said at that time, it raised the level of the debate and then offered me a weekly column which I wrote for about 200 weeks in a row - until it was suspended when I became a nomination contestant for the NDP in March. I have already generated front page news and editorials, and people around the riding and beyond are talking and engaging in the political process. This is more of a movement than a campaign, and after the election I will continue to be a strong voice for the people, promoting people to find their own voices, and to hold the powerful to account while demonstrating another way, which I like to call - Cooperative Interdependence.

To find more information about the Jacob Kearey-Moreland campaign  you can visit his website - www.votejacob.ca,. You can contact them via email at jacobkm4mp@gmail.com or by phone at 705-325-1261. The campaign also has a Facebook page and is on twitter.

See also: Fred Checkers and the state of democracy in the NDP

See also: Morgan Wheeldon, Israel and the triumph of neo-conservative dogma

Fred Checkers and the state of democracy in the NDP

It has long been apparent (as I have written about at some length before) that the drift away from any meaningful internal democracy within the NDP is a very pronounced one. The party is highly centralized, member resolutions are only symbolic and are totally ignored by the leadership and its clique come election time (frankly, it is not even clear to me why they bother with resolutions at their conventions at all anymore), the party will disregard its own constitution at will and invalidate internal elections or nominations it does not like (or seemingly stack them as the ONDP seems to have in the case of the disgraceful Adam Giambrone nomination) and the NDP will sometimes prevent members from even running for a nomination in the first place!

There are a few examples of this last phenomenon, whereby the party disallows potential candidates who the powers-that-be deem will be somehow "problematic" or likely to go off-message. Stuart Parker and Paul Manly come to mind.

The latest example, and the most Orwellian I am aware of to date, involves Jacob Kearey-Moreland who was seeking the nomination in Simcoe North.

Keary-Moreland was barred, at the last minute and after weeks of campaigning, for running for the nomination not for anything he had said or done, but because of the perception on the part of some cabal within the leader's office (accountable to no one other than themselves) that he might be problematic in the future.

What were his transgressions from orthodoxy? It seems the party elite did not like the settings on his Facebook group page (as they were unable to monitor him to the extent of their liking) and:

"The party had told me they had reservations about my nomination from the get-go. Not only was my hair long and my attire unsuited, but my reputation of anti-authoritarianism gave them pause, and then more pause for concern." 

He said the party head office had concerns about whether it could trust him to stay on message and "now they believed they had uncovered evidence that I was not trustworthy."

Seriously.

While, of course, the Liberals and Conservatives use similar internal tactics, the NDP has always branded itself and the party membership  has believed itself to be different -- though in actuality from the expulsion of the Waffle on it has trended towards today's reality.

It is also profoundly and sadly ironic that a party with the once proud tradition of principled anti-authoritarian instincts would repudiate this so hypocritically in its own internal practices.

How did the party apparently discover that he had a "closed" member's only Facebook group?

It turns out they (in violation, I  might add, of Facebook's policies) have a federal party Facebook troll (for lack of a better word) named Fred Checkers who is the eyes of the head office's orthodoxy enforcers in that specific social media forum.

Fred Checkers, of course, is not a real person, (despite the heart-warming profile picture of Tom Mulcair getting licked in the face by a large dog that they sport) but Fred takes, apparently, great interest in what the real people who are running for or want to run for the NDP are doing.

This farcical, creepy and very juvenile surveillance tactic really can only have flowed from a mind or hive mind with a profoundly totalitarian instinct.

Sadly, it is also indicative of so much of what is wrong with mainstream bourgeois politics.  Tightly scripted, poll-driven, messaging aimed at ever smaller groups of "wedge" voters, run entirely by the leader and their staff and inner circle, largely fatuous and specious rhetoric and with ever smaller differences of any meaning between the lot of them.

These are the narrow-minded, unimaginative, pandering and intellectually empty circumstances that give rise to "Fred Checkers".