The Waffle Manifesto: https://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/Waffle/WaffleManifesto.htm

Two key points that are often in opposition to each other:

– “socialists must strive for democracy at those levels that most directly affect us all — in our neighborhoods, our schools, and our places of work. Tenants’ unions, consumers’ and producers’ cooperatives are examples”

– “extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the essential resources industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy.”

What these have in common is a reduction of, or elimination of (depending on your preference) the importance of private ownership of core elements of society – it’s not the elimination of private property on itself, but it is a limitation (or elimination) of the power of ownership to control communities at the local and national level.

In place of private ownership we have democratic control of these elements, either directly (at the local level) or through government (at the national level). However, as we have often seen, the interests at the local level collide with interests at the national level. For example, locally, people may support forestry as a means of employment. Nationally, environmental concerns may take precedence.

From the perspective of those impacted, it doesn’t matter who is wielding power. If I am being prevented from earning a livelihood, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a private company or an elected government that’s doing it to me. I don’t think the Waffle ever reconciled this contradiction, just as I think the authors of the LEAP Manifesto have not reconciled it in the present day.

At the core of the socialists’ mission must be an understanding of *why* democracy and public ownership are good and worth working for. I find this understanding in the value and dignity of life itself, which defines a society where each person is able to rise to his or her fullest potential without social or financial encumbrance and where they may express themselves fully and without reservation.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with this specific understanding, but I see no value in supporting any movement or candidate who advocates for socialism without an understanding of why.