He also increased annual fossil fuel subsidies from $550 000 000 a year to $1 500 000 000 after taking over from the right-wing BC Liberals
Oh and he lawfared a climate activist (Anjali Appadurai) to prevent her from running as his replacement, after she has a hugely successful membership drive, registering a ton of new members to the party.
Brace noise
That mod is actually pretty based tbf. They relentlessly go long form against the libs in several Canadian subs on all sorts of topics up to and including Ukraine and Xinjiang.
Edit: this is them in the Xinjiang thread for example
Those replies are bleak
Canadians don't really do that
That's probably the most helpful simple-language interpretation I've heard, and it satisfies my feeling that a lot of these idealist aspects of nationalism, others, rebirth, defense all feel downstream to the more material concerns of violently protecting capital.
Furthermore, it explains the continuity with liberalism - liberalism is what you get when overt violence is not required to protect capital.
:sankara-salute: thanks for helping me with my brainworms comrade!
I mean that's basically why she won, so many Canadians don't have politics at all, and just wanted identitarian representation so they can feel like good libs
I feel like the problem with trying to unite all these thread (the Eco approach) is that they don't all apply in some of the most important cases. Like you don't need scapegoating all the time, a lot of right-wing paramilitary death squads don't need a mythology, they just suit up to kill leftists for capital, often for material reward.
Contrast this with a racist, homophobic or transphobic movement that doesn't use violence against leftists directly but will use terrorism (state or otherwise) against targeted, othered groups.
Are both of these fascism? I'm more inclined to call the first fascism, as in theory social-reactionary violence is possible and we have seen it in left governments before.
I did too.
FWIW I don't think the communications guy blew up the party, it was that Paul stuck by him. Paul blew up the party, Lascaris might have as well but would at least have forced some good and needed conversations.
This is unrelated, but Dmitri Lascaris delivered a really powerful polemical point in a debate a few years ago that I have never heard anyone else since, so I wanted to share it:
In response to a lib he was debating identifying a moderate:
Try to focus on the positives of Trots - they are often more seriously dedicated to reading theory, they have had actual electoral success putting actual socialists in office in the US, etc.
If you really believe in left unity, give Trots a chance, a lot of them are good leftists and as interested in leaving historical beefs in the past as you are.
Happy New Year you filthy animals
Just walked past a T-shirt store and they had Mao shirts right next to the Che ones on display where even am I
.9 Pigs can also be led and bred
:is-this: Is this manmade horrors beyond comprehension?
The fat one balances out the two skinny ones
Andreas Malm's How to Blow Up a Pipeline
The debt book is the best book I've read in years, the pipeline book is the only one that comes close but it's still not as good
You deserve that love
IDK I think they have a point and we should hear them out