What the Future Brings
The Consequences of the Liberal-NDP Split and the Threat of a Poilievre Premiership
Pour lire cet article en français, cliquez ici.
On the classical Marxian view, the seeds of the future already exist within the present and must be conceptually disengaged from it, both through analysis and political praxis [...]. In place of the temptation either to denounce the complacencies of postmodernism as some final symptom of decadence or to salute the new forms as the harbingers of a new technological and technocratic Utopia, it seems more appropriate to assess the new cultural production within the working hypothesis of a general modification of culture itself with the social restructuring of late capitalism as a system.
—Fredric Jameson, Theories of the Postmodern
I started writing this article a week ago, when I learned of Trudeau's decision to step down in March. A lot has happened in those seven days. Between Meta abandoning any sense of moderation and freely allowing the most horrid examples of hate and bigotry, and Trump seemingly serious about the threat of raising tariffs, we have seen a rapid intensification of the assault on workers by the forces of reaction. There’s also the matter of Trump’s rhetoric about Canadian Annexation, which is made more urgent with the open expression of a member of a provincial parliament to willingly join the US.
We are currently witnessing the acceleration of what Fredric Jameson described as the “restructuring of late capitalism”1 not only in the form of new capitalist cultural production but also a simultaneous re-entrenchment of capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange brought about by a continued pursuit of neoliberal policies.
So what is to be done?
In their fourth edition, Unity in Separation, the Endnotes Collective tries to give us answers by first asking: “What should we be doing today, if we are “for” the revolution?”2 I can’t say I’ve answered that question to any satisfactory degree, but I can at least say that I’ve presented a picture of the situation as it currently presents itself to us.
What are we to do if we are “for” the revolution, especially when conditions aren’t yet conducive to such a course? Do we wait? Do we bring about those conditions? I believe we should take a measured approach and look at all the options before us. Of all of them, I trust that the immediate goal of improving the general conditions of the working class in Canada is the best option for the time being. It will allow us to build a broad and united base of support that can stand a chance against the mounting forces of reaction threatening to drag us down the same bloody path taken by the world in the 1920s and 30s.
To this end, I have prepared this brief analysis which should serve as a primer on the events that led to the political situation present before us. It is by no means an exhaustive account of everything that happened up to Trudeau’s resignation, but rather an overview of those aspects I have deemed important to the conversation around his resignation and the consequences of it, as well as the rupture with the NDP that proved to be the final nail in the coffin for the Liberal Party. It’s important that we socialists inform ourselves of the political and economic conditions around us, and so, I therefore present this analysis for this very goal.
Introduction: Where We're At
After facing considerable pressure from across the political spectrum, Justin Trudeau has finally decided to resign from his post as Prime Minister of Canada. From clashes with indigenous communities to failing to meet the promises it made to refugees, the last few years of Trudeau’s government have left a bad impression on us all, and are no doubt contributing to the general shift away from the Liberal Party that we are currently seeing. With NDP leader Jagmeet Singh saying he’s ready to bring down the Liberal Party it seems like renewed talks about a coalition government is off the table, at least until the ballots are in. So what are the consequences of this split? Are the NDP justified in going their own way and opposing their former allies of convenience? Or have they just handed the government to the Conservatives? And, more importantly, why should Canadian socialists care?
There are a number of angles we can approach this question from. If we see it in terms of a zero-sum game then we have already lost to the Conservatives. I don’t believe such an approach is useful to us, however, and I’d like to explore other perspectives on the turn the NDP is taking. Firstly, it seems obvious that we are heading towards a Poilievre premiership (the ramifications of which I will elaborate on further in the text), and at this point there isn’t a great deal that even the most intense campaigning and organizing will do to reverse the balance. That is not to say, though, that campaigning and organizing are a waste of time; quite the contrary, they are more necessary now than ever. Secondly, the shift away from the Liberal Party means there is a pool of disaffected voters who will be swayed one way or another during the next few months. Convincing these voters will be absolutely essential if the NDP hopes to gain from the situation. Finally, if we want to achieve anything of value then we cannot rely exclusively on parliamentary politics and policymaking. Parliamentary tactics must be used in conjunction with direct action and grassroots activism that can unite broad sectors of the Left to form a mass movement capable of bringing the people’s voices to government. The best hope we have to achieve this is currently through careful and measured support of the NDP. Though far from perfect as an organization, it will be the goal of this article to convince indecisive or anti-electoralist Canadian socialists that they stand the best chance at advancing the goals of the working class in Canada, but also that it cannot be done without the ability to hold their leadership accountable. With the threat of global instability that another Trump presidency will bring it becomes more important than ever to unite as a bloc to defend against the forces of capital and reaction. Even the most advanced vanguard cannot hope to accomplish anything without an accompanying mass movement. As Lenin writes in Left Wing Communism:
History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes.2
I will begin by briefly reviewing the Trudeau premiership and his recent resignation. I will show that the consequences of his resignation will likely lead to a Conservative victory, but also that we can use the opportunity to grow a solid progressive bloc in place of the Liberal Party by encouraging these disaffected voters to turn to the NDP, as well as other organizations that can help stave off the worst excesses of neoliberal capitalism. I will also explore the predicted impacts of the looming trade war with the US and the harm it’s going to cause. Finally, I’m going to conclude with some of my own prescriptions for the future of the Canadian Left, as well as shine some light on progressive voices involved in the contemporary class struggle.
It would be naïve to think that tailing the NDP alone is a sound strategy to advance the goals of socialism in Canada, however, and we should always keep in mind that any support should always be conditional to the wider class struggle. We have all seen the opportunistic slide that supporters of the Democratic Party and apologists for the American electoral system have taken and it’s important that we resist such a tendency here at home. We also cannot forget that the NDP, like the American DSA, is a reformist organization, and as such we cannot rely on it as a means to enact meaningful social and economic change, but only the mitigations of the worst horrors of capitalism. In Social Reform or Revolution?, Rosa Luxemburg explains that:
The relations between capitalist property and the capitalist State develop in entirely opposite directions, so that the daily practical activity of the present Social Democracy loses, in the last analysis, all connection with work for socialism. From the viewpoint of a movement for socialism, the trade-union struggle and our parliamentary practice are vastly important in so far as they make socialistic the awareness, the consciousness, of the proletariat and help to organise it as a class. But once they are considered as instruments of the direct socialisation of capitalist economy, they lose out not only their usual effectiveness but also cease being means of preparing the working class for the conquest of power.3
This conflict between the dual tendencies towards reform on one end and revolution on the other lies at the heart of the famous polemics between Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein, and has come to crop its head once again in our contemporary discussions about the future of capitalism and socialism. I will not go at lengths about the discourse over reform or revolution in this article, firstly because it would take too long, and secondly because I’m more interested in exploring the immediate possibilities in the face of a looming election that could win important concessions for working class Canadians. As of now, we do not expect a revolution, only an improvement in our standards of living.
Revolution or not, however, the coming days are going to usher in some dramatic changes for us all. Whether those changes translate to victories for the working class remains to be seen. Any good general knows the importance of logistics despite its unglamorous nature, and it’s time we socialist do the unglamorous labour of building a mass movement. Diverse voices from across the Left are already mobilizing to this end. It’s time we join them. Before we do, however, we need to understand the conditions as they present themselves before us.
To that order, let us begin with a general archeology of our current political situation.
Defining An Era
Opposition parties are already eyeing the Liberals like vultures circling over a corpse. Outside of parliament, at least one commentator expressed his desire to outright abolish it altogether. Despite what the frothing-at-the-mouth reactionaries at the National Post might wish, however, it’s unlikely we’ll see the party be down for too long. The only question is how long will it take, and will they be down long enough for the other parties to capitalize on the power vacuum? The NDP, the Conservatives, and the Bloc Quebecois have wasted no time capitalizing on Trudeau’s resignation. With Trump talking about Canada becoming the “51st state”, Israël’s ongoing campaign of genocide in Gaza and Russia’s near decade-long war with Ukraine, as well as the continued and persistent attacks on sexual and reproductive rights from right-wing actors being our current political realities, the coming elections are sure to have consequences that will stretch far beyond our borders.
(Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
I will begin my analysis with a brief overview of Justin Trudeau’s terms in office up to his resignation and highlight the ways the Liberal Party has too often taken the side of capital over its constituents, and that every meager concession to Canadian workers was countered by an act which either benefited our own ruling class or advanced the interests of large multinational corporations. I will also be clear about the complicity of Jagmeet Singh and the NDP in maintaining and defending the Liberal government for as long as it did.
So how did we get here?
The proper work of defining the ages we live through is the job of a historian, which I want to be clear I am not. My goal is only to give a brief overview of the particular historical context in which the Liberal Party has been in power, and its consequences for the Canadian working class. I hope to show that, in Trudeau’s repeated involvement in scandals that reveal his true loyalty to the ruling class, that the Liberals (and Trudeau especially) have consistently opposed the interests of ordinary Canadians.
We will begin with the immediate results of the election that brought the Liberals in power in 2015.
It might be hard for some readers to remember the political climate that existed before the Trudeau Era. Over a decade ago we were all subjected to the austerity campaigns of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government. Finally overturned in the 2015 elections, the Conservatives have ceded their place to a new Liberal hegemony that promised tax breaks for the middle-class, legalizing cannabis, improving relations with indigenous peoples and senate reforms, among others. We will see later on how well they’ve kept these promises (some should be obvious already). For now, however, the future looks bright and people are hopeful for a new age of political and social liberalization, and, even more importantly, we are done with Harper, which is cause enough to celebrate. To make things better, the new government hits the ground running by passing motions fulfilling at least some of their promises. We see the implementation of the Canada Child Benefit and the legalization (and subsequent commercialization) of marijuana, among other things, and we also see more promises to indigenous peoples. But we soon run into our first bump.
In 2017 the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found Trudeau guilty of violating the Federal Conflict of Interest Act after accepting a visit to Ismaili leader Karim “Aga Khan” Al-Husseini’s private island in exchange for a 15 million dollar grant to Al-Husseini’s personal foundation. As far as offenses by politicians go, I can say that this is neither surprising nor dramatic. What it does show in hindsight, however, is that this was the start of a trend that would define much of Trudeau’s time in government; that trend would be one of undermining his commitments to working class Canadians in favour of placating corporate interests. I want to stress again that it really should not be surprising that the pampered son of a Canadian political aristocracy would engage in the same kinds of vulgar behaviors exhibited by the bloated bourgeoisie of the French Third Republic. À la Belle Époque!
Moving on from cavorting with wealthy philanthropists who own private islands, our soon-to-be former prime minister subsequently found himself in more, this time far-juicier, trouble with the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
If the Aga Khan affair was an appetizer, then the SNC-Lavalin scandal was the full course meal. The roots of it can be traced back to backroom deals between Canada’s leading engineering firm and former Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi’s son, Al-Saadi. In order to keep this overview brief and concise, I will not go over every detail in this article (though I encourage you to read the articles I have linked if you want a fuller picture of the way the interests of capital worm their way into politics), I will only say that SNC-Lavalin, a leading engineering firm, has been caught lobbying the government for policy changes that would allow them to sweep corruption charges related to their dealings with Gaddafi under the rug. As if this blatant example of the dangers of corporate lobbying wasn’t bad enough by itself, Trudeau’s response to the affair highlights the hollowness of his promises to Canadians. Once the scheme was discovered by members of the government, Trudeau, as well as 11 other members of his cabinet, forced the resignation of Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould (who I must stress is indigenous as a member of the Kwakwaka'wakw people) and former president of the Treasury Board, Jane Philpott. Such a gross abuse of power couldn’t go unnoticed, however, and in August of 2019, Federal Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, released his report on the scandal, accusing Trudeau of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. What this reveals is nothing less than a willingness to placate corporate interest to a degree where they can influence our political and legal systems for their own ends.
I could go on to talk of other such discretions, like the WE charity scandal or so-called “elbowgate”, but the point of this analysis isn’t to provide an exhaustive list of every infraction committed by the Liberal government, but rather to paint a broad picture of its lack of commitment to ordinary Canadians. I have also chosen to omit discussions about the so-called “trucker convoy” and the uses of emergency powers to disperse it in order to keep this article brief, and also because I believe that that specific event and its surrounding causes and consequences would be better explored in a separate article.
Now, I'm sure many readers understand the reason why I've stressed Wilson-Raybould’s indigenous background in the SNC-Lavalin affair. It's no secret that our government has an abysmal track record when it comes to its treatment of indigenous peoples, and the way Wilson-Raybould was callously dismissed in favour of kowtowing the interests of a large corporation should be understood as a reflection of that bloody history. From its inception, Canada has been marked by poor relations with its indigenous communities: the very first act out country has taken once it was given a modicum of autonomy was to engage in an armed conflict with the Métis in what is today southern Manitoba so that the transfer of territory from the purchase of Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company could happen peacefully. I hope the irony isn't lost here. This trend has extended all the way into the Trudeau Era, as we have all seen from recent conflicts over indigenous communities’ rights to decide what happens to their land. The willingness of the Canadian government to unleash the RCMP like attack dogs on communities merely trying to protect the independence and autonomy guaranteed to them, not only by the rule of law but by any sense of basic decency, by this country reveals the failure of the Liberal Party to commit to the ideals of democracy and multiculturalism it espouses, and the lie that is the vision of unity and reconciliation it ostensibly promotes. It’s no surprise then that the same RCMP units are deployed against student protesting the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
This last point is a good segue into a discussion of our government’s response (or lack thereof) to the ever-worsening situation in Gaza, as well as an opportunity to highlight some of its other failures in the realm of international relations. As we see leaders around the world unite in their vocal opposition to the genocide, the Canadian government has continued to help provide Netenyahu and the IDF with the weapons it uses against the people of Gaza, placing it resolutely in the pro-genocide camp. The crackdown on student protests is likewise an extension of their wider goal to maintain the imperialist project. Our continued exploitation of mineral resources in West Africa, for example, depends on our continued support for this project.
What all of the above shows us is nothing less than the Liberal’s continued and unwavering support for the forces of capital and reaction. Their cynical maneuvering of the reins of politics for their own gains, as well as those of the capitalist elite, cost ordinary Canadians greatly. It’s important we don’t put all blame on a single individual or organization. We have to remember that Liberals were only in power for as long as they were because of the support given to them by Jagmeet Singh and the NDP. While this allowed them to exert pressure on the government, and even gave us a new dental care plan which will help ordinary Canadians get free dentist appointments, it also means they played a decisive role in legitimizing the Liberals place in power, especially after the 2019 election. On a less critical note, I also want to stress that a lot of words have been wasted in trying to paint Trudeau and the Liberals in this particular light or another, but these often rely too much on a superficial critique that ignores the deeper structural issues the Liberals are simply a small expression of. Much can be done to put the blame for all this squarely on the shoulders, but, just like Marx said of Victor Hugo’s Napoleon le Petit, we risk instead of making him great, rather than little, by ascribing to him personally all agency in the matter.3 Ignoring that the actions of Trudeau and of his government were only a continued expression of the greater trend toward the removal of barriers to capitalist accumulation only serves to hide the real mechanisms of our oppression. These are the kinds of shallow and counterproductive critiques we have seen coming from people like Poilievre, who we will turn to now.
Poilievre le Petit
I have briefly mentioned that the words of the most vocal of Trudeau’s detractors only succeed in obfuscating the real problems at the heart of the Liberal government. This shouldn’t come as a surprise since examining the deeper relations that form the bedrock of our political and economic system takes work and forces us to confront uncomfortable facts about that system and our relationship to it. Perhaps the worst offenders, both in terms of the sheer volume of saliva wasted as well inability (or more likely unwillingness) to critically engage with that system, is undoubtedly Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
(Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
If Trudeau is but a little man subject to the whims of a system far greater than any individual can ever hope to be, then what does that make of Poilievre, a man so categorically submissive to the forces of capital that he might as well have come, perfectly moulded, from a corporate boarding room rather than a liberal arts background? I think the question answers itself.
Polemics aside (at least for now), it’s important that we examine the potential consequences of the Conservatives achieving power in the next election. In a recent discussion with disgraced former academic and far-right figurehead Jordan Peterson, Poilievre has compared his opposition to communists and socialists and has spoken of a “massive crackdown”, the details of which he remains silent on thus far. However, he also talks at length about the housing crisis and other issues that actually are important to everyday Canadians. What this shows us is that the tactics employed are the same used by right-wing populist around the world.
We could waste several paragraphs on so-called lumpenproletarians and accused traitors to the working class, but none of it would be helpful in describing the actual phenomenon at hand. The fact remains that our material conditions have markedly deteriorated in recent decades, largely (if not almost exclusively) as the result of neoliberal policies and the politicians that support them: politicians like Pierre Poilievre. This deterioration is exactly what supporters of neoliberalism point to when they try to make the case that government interventions are responsible for our worsening economic conditions: interventions which, I remind you, were put in place by right-wing politicians at the behest of neoliberal economists to begin with (regardless of if these policies were drafted by ostensibly liberal parties). Like a snake eating its own tail and suddenly realizing it’s choking, supporters of neoliberal capitalism have had to consider their reliance on showing the apparent benefits of laissez-faire economics and free markets. This translates into them desperately trying to show that the real problem is lingering elements of government oversight in the economy, and that, were these elements finally expunged, everything would balance itself out and the laws of the market would reassert themselves, i.e., the snake trying to convince itself it's not actually eating its own tail as it helplessly keeps choking on it. Nothing about this, however, should distract from the very real fact that our conditions have worsened and that people are entirely justified in their anger. This anger can translate into class consciousness and radicalization in ideal cases, but it also inevitably leads to tremendous outpourings of revisionist sentimentality and Romantic ideals about a prelapsarian return, where all the insecurities of our current society are swept away with the iron certainty of a well curated and finely polished past: a past that stands, like a marble statue in a museum, as a remote but tangible thing that can be experienced away from its messy context, a context some might find too uncomfortable to engage with. This sentimental outpouring, when indulged in uncritically, becomes the font of reaction. Hence, unscrupulous politicians willing to tap into the wellspring of reactionary sentiment current to our present political climate need only extend an open palm and give the appearance of catering to that desire to receive its full bounty. This explains the turn towards populism taken by conservative and reactionary leaders around the world. It also shows that the resurgence of far-right and neo-fascist sentiments that have wormed their way into the rhetoric of ostensibly pro-democratic and populist organizations in Europe and America, such as the Republican Party in the US, Rassemblement national in France and the AfD in Germany, is nothing less than an expression of the economic failures of neoliberalism cynically masquerading itself to pander to that sentiment. The goal, however, isn’t to replace neoliberalism, hence why there’s no use speaking of an “end of neoliberalism”, despite its many, many failures, but merely to shift the focus away from those failures so that the underlying social relations can be maintained. In other words: right-wing populism is neoliberalism trying to rescue itself from conditions it itself created so that it can go on unscathed.
So what does all this mean for Canadians?
To begin with, a Conservative victory would no doubt spell disaster for our environmental commitments as well as assuring continued support for the genocide in Gaza, among other things. Mostly it would benefit corporate interests to a further degree than the worst excesses of Liberal compromise. Furthermore, the increased efforts at privatization promised by Poilievre will only widen the already immense gulf between working class Canadians and the tiny few who stand to benefit from those changes. If the experience of neoliberalism has taught us one thing it’s that only the top-most part of the ruling class stands to gain from deregulation and austerity (a fact even so-called “bourgeois” economists acknowledge), people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos but also media magnate and professional twat David Thomson, so-called “3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet” and the richest man in Canada. Do we really want more money to go to an overgrown trust fund baby who still thinks using medieval titles is a good look in this day and age?
Thus far, the history of neoliberalism has been a history of an unimaginable accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. The gap between the rich and poor widens everyday and there’s no telling how bad it’s going to get when the Conservatives unleash the full, unmitigated force of the so-called “free” market upon unsuspecting Canadians. Everyone expecting the cost of living crisis to be alleviated by a Poilievre government is in for a rude awakening. Prices have already been rising under the Liberals’ lackluster approach to regulate inflation and its impact on regular Canadians, but this pales in comparison to the surge we will witness under the Conservatives if they do decide to pursue further rounds of deregulations. The other, equally worrying, face of neoliberalism is that of economic austerity. The clarion call for “responsible” spending is nothing less than an open threat to cut off millions of Canadians from institutions they rely on for their survival. It’s essential to remember that efforts to dehumanize these people by calling them “welfare queens” and disparaging about the challenges they pose to our economy (while also completely ignoring the impact of the impossibly vast quantities of wealth siphoned by the capitalist class daily) are crude attempts to shift blame away from corporate interests and the politicians that advance them so they can be put soundly on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians who already suffer enough at the hands of our economic system, to say nothing of the treatment of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, who are already facing assaults from right-wing politicians across Canada.
I don't know how else to end this section but with a quote from Jordan Peterson’s interview with Poilievre. I believe it highlights both the extent of his delusions as well as the mental gymnastics reactionary politicians like him have to engage in in order to warp reality so that it fits those delusions. Keep in mind that he's talking about Jagmeet Singh here.
So it is classic for socialists, what they try to do is change their names, move on, and try to forget—try to have everyone forget their past. When I say that he—socialists changed their names, I mean, you know, first they were communists, and then they became socialists, and then they became social democrats, and then they became—they stole the word liberal, and they ruined that word so they changed their name to progressives, and then they changed their name to woke and now they claim they don’t want to be called woke anymore.5
The intellectual poverty on display is almost impressive. It would all be a massive joke if it weren't for recent developments south of the border.
Canadian Anschluss?
No one seriously believes that Canada will become the 51st state. A very real concern, however, is what the looming trade war and a breakdown of friendly relations with the US will mean for ordinary Canadians. Too many are already buckling under the weight of inflation and the rising cost of living and the tariffs threatened by Trump will only serve to aggravate those hardships.
(Brandon Bell/Pool via Reuters)
There's no telling just how bad things will get if we do end up being squeezed between American economic pressure on one end and neoliberal austerity on the other. Though not a perfect solution, the implementation of robust social safety networks like universal basic income and rent control policies would go a long way to protect Canadians from the worst of the incoming deluge. It's obvious the Conservatives won't pursue these policies, especially after Poilievre’s incendiary rhetoric about other conservative parties “becoming woke” to chase votes, a trend he promises to resist. Charming.
Moving on, the response from Canadians to the rhetoric unleashed by Trump has been almost universal. NDP minister Charlie Angus has caused a minor furor on social media after expressing outrage at the president-elect’s threats. Minor gripes about nationalistic sentiments aside, I think the message, and its resonance with Canadians, makes the point clear: we don’t want to be part of the US. That point was made all the more clearer with a recent poll by Leger showing that 87% of Canadians are opposed to the idea. This still leaves us with the matter of the 13% who are in favour: people like Ontario MPP Randy Hillier.
I’m not going to entertain the idea of us joining the US. I could very well write a paragraph or two about “what would life under Trump be like for Canadians?”, but I’m not going to waste my time or yours with petty speculations. I do, however, want to stress some anxieties I have on the subject of a trade conflict and the possible repercussions on the Canadian economy and, more importantly, on working class Canadians. To begin with, it’s helpful to remember the extent to which our two economies are tied to one another. With nearly $3.6 billion (US$2.7 billion) in trade accounted for in 2023, Canada and the US are by far each other's most important trade partners. Upsetting this tightly-knit relationship could spell disaster for everyone involved, yet Trump pursues the idea with a worrying degree of seriousness, announcing a whopping 25% tariff on all trade with Canada and Mexico, effective the moment he takes office. The impacts of such a move are hard to predict at the moment but they surely won't pan out as well as the president-elect imagines. His Bonapartist aspirations are clear but so far he only manages to be a farce.
The fact remains, however, that economic chaos will hurt the ones among us who already suffer most under capitalism. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians already live under conditions of poverty, and their ranks will only swell if Trump makes serious his threats.
Where Do We Go From Here?
All this talk of consequences and ramifications begs a response: what should we do about all this? To begin with, there’s not much any of us can hope to accomplish alone. The odds before us are monumental, and it sometimes feels like defeat is assured, but the examples of the Russian, Chinese and Cuban Revolutions show us that, with the support of broad swathes of the working class, even seemingly insurmountable odds can be reversed.
(Pitasanna Shanmugathas/JURIST)
So what should the NDP do? First off it’s obvious they won’t lead us to revolution, so there's no use in entertaining that idea, but I do believe they are heading in the right direction with their decision to rescind support for the Liberal Party, decisively breaking the coalition that had kept the government going, or rather limping, for as long as it did.
We can't fool ourselves into thinking that the NDP will bring about anything resembling socialism, however. The history of social democracy makes it clear that we cannot rely on it alone to accomplish the goals of the working class.7 To this end I'd like to turn away from the NDP for a moment to underline how they are far from the only organization positioning itself as an important voice in the Canadian labour movement. We also have to speak of the work done by grassroots activists in organizing protest movements against the genocide in Gaza and the assault on reproductive rights, as well as those of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals. As far as political organizations, the newly rebranded Revolutionary Communist Party, as well as both our older, more established communist parties (despite their flaws), are already heavily involved in the class struggle. Their tireless extra-parliamentary work in supporting unions and labour rights is essential to the advancement of the interest of our class in ways a larger, less radical political organization can never hope to achieve, unbound as they are by the confines of the system they operate outside of. Of particular note is the incredible work student groups aligned with the RCP has done in helping to organize militant sections of the Canadian Left to aid in the campaign against genocide. All of those groups’ activities show the usefulness of working outside of the parliamentary framework.
Beyond the immediate struggle, however, we need to always remember our ultimate goals of establishing socialism. To that end, it's essential we focus on the relations of production and the economic compulsions that bind us to them, as well as the reciprocating impact both have on our lives.
Laying bare the unequal relationship at the heart of our economic system has been the project of Marxists since the days of Marx and Engels themselves. Danish scholar Søren Mau’s analysis in his excellent work Mute Compulsion: A Marxist Theory of the Economic Power of Capital shows us how these bare economic relations don’t need to rely on direct violence to reproduce themselves. The violence inflicted daily upon the working class doesn’t have to reflect any direct acts of physical violence (even though it often does for the most oppressed among us), neither is it just the “soft” violence of ideology, but instead presents itself as the economic violence of blind compulsion. The mere fact that we have to sell our labour-power in order to survive is violence enough to compel us into perpetuating the means of our own oppression.8
Now, I would love to end this analysis on a hopeful note. I would like to share in Marx’s optimism that capitalism contains within itself the means of its own abolition,9 but I believe the many years since the publication of Capital have shown us that our dominant economic system has proven itself to be more resilient than anyone alive then could have expected. Far from an inevitability, the overthrow of capitalism is a mountainous task that needs to be actively taken by a vast section of the population if it hopes to succeed. The tremendous upsurge in social unrest we have seen over the past two decades was an encouraging display of class consciousness bubbling up at the surface of our society, but by itself will never be enough. The failure of the radical social movements of the past decade to enact lasting change is proof of this fact.
This is why movements need strong leadership, and why politicians who shirk their commitments to the people in favour of placating their richest constituents and the multinational business interests they promote will always be an obstacle to meaningful social change. It’s therefore essential that the NDP show themselves to be on the side of Canadian workers. This might be hopelessly naïve, especially given the general history of social democracy, but, at least for the time being, it's the only hope we have at staving off the gathering forces of reaction.
Closing Remarks
In summary, I believe the Liberal-NDP split will allow the New Democrats to move in their own direction and prepare them to better stand on their own against the Conservatives. However, the party faces considerable challenges and it will be up to Jagmeet Singh and the party leadership to either reach out to ordinary Canadians and do more than just promise to hold the government accountable, or succumb completely to the compulsions of capital and reaction (as we have seen too many social democrats do). We need strong leadership on the part of the NDP, as well as a broad front of grassroots activists, union organizers and everyday Canadians who demand meaningful change. Every action to support the party must be balanced with one capable of holding it accountable.
So, in the end, where does this leave us on the matter of revolution? Marx helpfully reminds us that “one form of wage labour may correct the abuses of another, but no form of wage labour can correct the abuses of wage labour itself”,10 but as it stands with our particular situation, we would temporarily settle with at least a form of wage labour that allows us to not have to choose between buying groceries and paying rent for the month. In fact, even if we are to completely give in to the opportunisms of reformism and social democracy (to the absolute horror of any decent socialist) then at the very least a greater portion of the surplus value generated by members of the working class should be returned to said class. As such, redistributive programs that take wealth from the wealthiest Canadians and reinvests it in social programs that help everyday Canadians stay afloat in our worsening economic climate is the bare minimum we should expect. If, however, we consider ourselves to be serious revolutionaries (if such a term can even be used at this stage) then it’s essential we first take full account of the situation as it presents itself before us. There’s no sense in talking of a revolutionary movement, or even of revolutionary consciousness, unless we take active steps in a two front assault towards building a mass movement on the one hand and radicalizing a significant enough section of that movement towards truly revolutionary ends on the other.
So where do we go from here?
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, we need to seriously ask ourselves what it means to be “for” the revolution. Endnotes reminds us of the importance of looking at the past to help us better situate ourselves in our relations to the current struggle against capitalism. However I want to come out with a more optimistic position than theirs, and I want to see the utility employing the traditional tactics of the Left, such as participation in parliament and building a broad progressive coalition (while also avoiding the shortfalls of past popular fronts). But if the experience of such coalitions teaches us one thing, it’s that the coming days will test those hopes greatly.
I will close with the final paragraph from Søren Mau’s article Communism is Freedom, because I think it perfectly encapsulates the vision of the future we fight for. Mau begins by asking:
So, what would life under communism look like? Above all, a communist society would be free, classless, and diverse. Communism would give everyone the freedom to shape their own lives as they wish. Communism would be synonymous with more democratic decision-making, fewer working hours, better housing, better food, and a stable biosphere, as well as with something capitalism can never offer—economic security. Under capitalism, you never know when layoffs, inflation, or an economic crisis will rip the rug out from under you; under communism, no one would ever need to fear being cut off from access to basic life necessities. A communist life will, in other words, be free, secure, and good—for all.11
As socialists we have a responsibility to act in every way we can to improve the immediate conditions of the working class, but we cannot lose track of our ultimate goals, that is: the establishment of a movement capable of bringing forth the democratic organization of society and realizing the oft repeated slogan: From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!12
—M.
Sources
Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press, 1991, p. 62.
Endnotes, Endnotes 4 - Unity in Separation. Endnotes Collective, 2015, p. 73
Vladimir Lenin, Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Marxist Internet Archive, Uploaded 1999, retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Rosa Luxemburg, Social Reform or Revolution? Marxist Internet Archive, Uploaded 1999, retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm
Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marxist Internet Archive, uploaded 1999, retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/preface.htm
Jordan B Peterson, Canada's Next Prime Minister | Pierre Poilievre | EP 511. YouTube, uploaded 2025, retrieved from:
Endnotes, Endnotes 4 - Unity in Separation. Endnotes Collective, 2015.
Søren Mau, Mute Compulsion: A Marxist Theory of the Economic Power of Capital. Verso Books, 2023.
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I. Penguin Classics, 1990, p. 930.
Karl Marx, Grundrisse. Penguin Classics, 1993, p. 123.
Søren Mau, Communism is Freedom. Verso Books Blog, 2023, retrieved from: https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/blogs/news/communism-is-freedom?srsltid=AfmBOopYhP2YCWbx4P2Dh8Lz2LRsicOOg0MyhebMAUNp9JcZOkgwippZ
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program. PM Press, 2023, p. 59.