If the left wants to move beyond managing its own discourse and begin shaping the world around it, it will have to log off, take risks, and organize, writes James Adair. Photo by Live Once Live Wild/Flickr.

Historian and lecturer Anton Jäger, author of the recently published pamphlet Hyperpolitics, wrote in a recent New York Times column that the current political era is defined by “intense [individual] political activity,” and, “on the other [hand], continued institutional sclerosis.”

Jäger’s book is, at least in part, about the contemporary decline of formal political institutions and how this has unfolded alongside a concurrent eruption of individual politicization. The rise of slacktivism,”—those ubiquitous, low-effort online actions that signal engagement but lack tangible real-world impact—is one obvious expression of this shift. But slacktivism is no longer just an individual habit. This phenomenon has, almost without notice, been absorbed by nearly every left-wing political institution in Canada. Individual slacktivism has now given way to institutional ‘statement socialism.’

Unable to meaningfully shape events, the NDP and organizations like it increasingly fall back on reacting to them. A crisis emerges, and a statement follows. Instagram posts—often built from the same Canva templates—condemn injustice, assert solidarity with whatever the affected group is, and issue demands that remain entirely abstract. Supporters dutifully repost them. Critics argue over wording in the replies. Within days, the cycle moves on.

This logic now extends far beyond any one party. Across the Canadian left, politics is increasingly reduced to a familiar routine. Open Canva, draft a statement on the issue of the day, post, and repeat. Yet these statements share a defining feature: they offer no plausible path to changing the conditions they describe.

It feels like meaningful political action, but it isn’t.

‘Statement socialism’

If you have spent any time organizing, some part of this likely resonates with you. Increasingly valuable time is spent deciding whether statements should go out, when, and what they should contain. I have seen it in student unions, where editorial work was done by committee, word by word, and in the youth wing of the NDP, where statements were often one of the few structured forms of advocacy available. “Should we condemn the party?” would be asked, and the question would spiral from there, drawing energy away from organizing around the issue at hand and toward an inward-looking editorial process.

I remember one particular moment, in the run-up to the 2025 provincial election, when the Ontario New Democratic Youth debated putting out a statement critiquing a party decision. Without getting into particulars, the energy spent on this debate exhausted everyone and ultimately resulted in a consensus that left no one satisfied. There were no phone banks or canvasses organized, nor was there any serious attempt to apply........

© Canadian Dimension