Green Left launched
- Thread starter Matt S
- Start date
Matt S said:
Which? Surely these statements can't *both* be true?
Can you give me some examples of a "libertarian left" economic policy?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea of nationalising the economy, taking everything into public ownership and having every single aspect of life governed by bureaucrats is what I think of by "socialism" and is maybe the best way to completely fuck up a country. There is actually a good reason why the British public do not want to vote for "the left" as we would call it. They might vote Green but if the GPEW labels itself as "left wing" as opposed to the "neither left or right but green" approach it is going to set itself back 20 years IMO.
How about not bothering to define the GPEW in terms of a "Green Lib Dems", "Green Left", "Green Right" or "Green Monster Raving Loonies". How about just sticking with "Green"?
Because most of them are not living in the real world. To actually run a country you need more pragmatism, cynicism and realism. Leave the idealistic "lets replace capitalism" stuff to dreamers and poets - at least until you have shown you can win control of a large number of councils and run them successfully for a few years, until you have won a significant block of seats in westminster, on regional assemblies and in the european parliament, and until you start setting the agenda in the political life of your nation.
At that point you might actually have a serious basis for suggesting how you are going to "replace capitalism", although realistically you need an international strategy not just a few isolated parties who decide they are somehow going to rock the global system.
Wonderful turn of phrase that means precisely nothing IMO. For as many people who vote Green that want to smash capitalism there are as many who do not. What they are all interested in however are the current Green party policies, which are not about smashing capitalism - they are reformist and perhaps look forward to a "post-capitalist" system through evolution, not through some socialist throw-back.
(edited for typos)
TeeJay said:Can you give me some examples of a "libertarian left" economic policy?
A libertarian socialist/libertarian left economic approach would emphasise democratic control rather than simply state ownership, whilst state ownership might still be the most appropriate in some cases (eg Rail transport, public utilities) - a libertarian socialist approach would therefore support forms like co-operatives, mutuals, local community owned ventures etc. Some libertarian socialists would see worker control being co-ordinated by unions or other workplace based organisations. Planning, where necessary, does not have to be over centralised or undemocratic. Bureaucracy is not the inevitable consequence of any attempt to run things in a non-corporate manner. We need to begin to throw off the mental chains that 30 odd years of Thatcherism has imposed on us and that lead some to bark "MARKET MARKET MARKET" at any problem you care to mention. Look for example at some of the experiments in popular planning and involvement in South America - compromised and under constant attack as they may have been.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea of nationalising the economy, taking everything into public ownership and having every single aspect of life governed by bureaucrats is what I think of by "socialism" and is maybe the best way to completely fuck up a country.
It may be "what you think of as socialism" but that is because you are unaware (as the establishment and ruling class have constantly striven to make you unaware) of any other forms of socialism other than Leninist/Stalinist state capitalism or bureaucratic social democracy. Look up , just as preliminary examples, Guild Socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, co-operativism, workers' self management, participatory economics, economic democracy, inclusive democracy, market socialism etc etc - some of these models and strategies are mutually exclusice, but their existence gives the lie to the only socialist options being Leninist autocracy or stodgy social democratic bureaucracy
There is actually a good reason why the British public do not want to vote for "the left" as we would call it. They might vote Green but if the GPEW labels itself as "left wing" as opposed to the "neither left or right but green" approach it is going to set itself back 20 years IMO.How about not bothering to define the GPEW in terms of a "Green Lib Dems", "Green Left", "Green Right" or "Green Monster Raving Loonies". How about just sticking with "Green"?
Because we can see, from Germany and elsewhere, where this leads (Leeds!
) If people really believe that neo-liberalism, with a bit of tinkering with the market, can deliver ecological sustainablility and social justice, then they should not really be in the Greens, but in one of the three "realistic" neo-liberal parties
Because most of them are not living in the real world. To actually run a country you need more pragmaticsm, cynicism and realism. Again - like the German Greens you mean? Now electorally overtaken by the Left Party, and in dire need of a re-evaluation of their trajectory Leave the idealistic "lets replace capitalism" stuff to dreamers and poets - at least until you have shown you can win control of a large number of councils and run them successfully for a few years, until you have won a significant block of seats in westeminster, on regional assemblies and in the euroipean parliament,The problem being, that as has been shown time and again, if you follow that strategy - "leave anything radical until we have proved loyal faithful servants of a slightly more liberal version of the current status quo" you end up with, predictably, the system changing you, rather than you changing the system. Why do you think the vast majority of the British population have such a low opinion of politics and politicians? I would suggest that at least one reason is that those politicians, in many cases starting out as starry eyed idealists of whatever political colour, are transformed by incorporation into the power structures into "pragmatists, cynics and realists". The question is - who frames the "reality", who sets the boundaries of what is "realistic"? I think we know who. and until you start setting the agenda in the political life of your nation. We will not "set the agenda" by offering more of the same
At that point you might actually have a serious basis for suggesting how you are going to "replace capitalism", although realistically you need an international strategy If you read the statement it contains the recognition of just that pointnot just a few isolated parties who decide they are somehow going to rock the global system.WEonderful turn of phrase that means prescisely nothing IMO. For as many people who vote GRen that want to smash capitalism Capitalism is not a "thing" to be "smashed" - it is a complex set of social and economic relationships to be superceded, evolved beyond and outgrownthere are as many who do not. What they are alol interested in however are the current Green party policies, which are not about smashing capitalism - they are reformist and perhaps look forward to a "post-capitalist" system through evolution, not through some socialist throw-back.The main problem with this is that a) Most Green voters do not vote Green with a full awareness of the full policy platform, b) A rigid choice between "evolution" and "revolution" is something that both doctrinaire Leninists and liberal capitalists are both keen to promote for their own ends - in fact, no "revolution", (as in major change of economic and political circumstances ) is possible without "evolution" (of consciousness, of methods and organisation of struggle, of alternative structures) The idea that liberal capitalism will somehow *naturally* evolve towards a stateless utopia is as ridiculous (particularly given the current trajectory of this country as well as many others) as the idea that dogmatic Leninist regimes would *naturally* evolve towards anarchist utopia as posited by Lenin in "State and Revolution". Without resistance, struggle, continuous renewal of theory and practice and the development of a truly pluralist movement for social and economic change on a global scale the trajectory of liberal capitalism is towards ecological devastation and the ultimate technically advanced totalitarian state. These are the recognitions of REALITY that have driven us to create Green Left, not some journalistic appraisal of the political views of that tiny section of the population for whom the Westminster charade still has any credibility whatever. In the long term, Green representatives will only have credibility if they stand as the angry voice of the disengaged populace, and the voice of principle (as Caroline Lucas appears to do), not if they play the silly power politics games of coalitions with Tories, free market liberals and right-wing-welfare-cutting-social democrats. The long term is about movement rather than party, about coalitions of the people, not coalitions of politicians
Good discussion, p/p back on track? but the rightwards shift of TJ continues apace...
Anyway, i have a copy of a (short) book written by libertarian left/red pepperites/socialist movement and greens: entitled 'What Is To Be Done About The Earth?' with contibutions from Hilary Wainwright, Derek Wall, etc. it tries to synthesise a red/green politics with some success. It's not very well known, the guy who published it died a few years ago (Roger Simons, a lovely man, ex CP ,i think) and he gave me about twenty copies which I have given to young activists over the years. I've based a lot of my ideas on it, and in the late 90's set up a red/green network, successful for a while, but imo, this period was the political dark ages.It's easy to read and would be great to track down a few more.
I'll try and post a few bits here
Anyway, i have a copy of a (short) book written by libertarian left/red pepperites/socialist movement and greens: entitled 'What Is To Be Done About The Earth?' with contibutions from Hilary Wainwright, Derek Wall, etc. it tries to synthesise a red/green politics with some success. It's not very well known, the guy who published it died a few years ago (Roger Simons, a lovely man, ex CP ,i think) and he gave me about twenty copies which I have given to young activists over the years. I've based a lot of my ideas on it, and in the late 90's set up a red/green network, successful for a while, but imo, this period was the political dark ages.It's easy to read and would be great to track down a few more.
I'll try and post a few bits here
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Also...
Derek Wall's 'Getting There' is useful strategically. And for me there is much of value both in some Rudolf Bahro & the 1983 German Green Manifesto 'Purpose in Work Solidarity in Life'.
Re the stereotyped views some have about the Left, I draw a distinction between the statist top-down failed politics of the 'Last Century Left' and those valuable traditions submerged within it. For instance: Karl Korsch in his council communist phase, Rosa Luxemburg, & even aspects of the ideas today of Toni Negri.
The one thing Greens should not do is retain the image of being 'nice' niche politicians, only concerned about narrowly-defined 'environmental' issues. One reason why I think the UK Green Party made a grave error in dropping opposition to the EU. The possible validity of the Peak Oil theory means that pretty soon all societies are going to have to make fundamental choices. Let an informed and direct democratic ecologically sustainable alternative politics be on offer--else the choices will be very limited & mostly authoritarian.
I am slightly concerned at a lot of discussion here being about which GP leaders support this or that perspective--as Tony Benn says, the crux is policies, not personalities. And as Tony didn't say, there is a rich strand of anti-parliamentarianism that can useful be conjoined with newer aspects of Green politics (thinking here of Lukacs 'Tactics & Ethics' for older readers).
Derek Wall's 'Getting There' is useful strategically. And for me there is much of value both in some Rudolf Bahro & the 1983 German Green Manifesto 'Purpose in Work Solidarity in Life'.
Re the stereotyped views some have about the Left, I draw a distinction between the statist top-down failed politics of the 'Last Century Left' and those valuable traditions submerged within it. For instance: Karl Korsch in his council communist phase, Rosa Luxemburg, & even aspects of the ideas today of Toni Negri.
The one thing Greens should not do is retain the image of being 'nice' niche politicians, only concerned about narrowly-defined 'environmental' issues. One reason why I think the UK Green Party made a grave error in dropping opposition to the EU. The possible validity of the Peak Oil theory means that pretty soon all societies are going to have to make fundamental choices. Let an informed and direct democratic ecologically sustainable alternative politics be on offer--else the choices will be very limited & mostly authoritarian.
I am slightly concerned at a lot of discussion here being about which GP leaders support this or that perspective--as Tony Benn says, the crux is policies, not personalities. And as Tony didn't say, there is a rich strand of anti-parliamentarianism that can useful be conjoined with newer aspects of Green politics (thinking here of Lukacs 'Tactics & Ethics' for older readers).
don't want to dislodge thread, but didnt Bahro move to the far right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bahro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bahro
I don't know why you think I was ever "left" in the first place.treelover said:
I also am sad to see that people are still living completely in the past - talking about left wing and right wing as if they have any real meaning when it comes to the whole range of policy debates that are important in the UK and the world today.
greenman, I asked you for some examples of a "libertarian left" economic policy, and you gave me a complete loaf of flannel and muttered something about South America.
What a joke. I can't think of any south american countries that the UK should be trying to emulate.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Green party should be dstanding on a platform of turning the UK economy over to co-operatives and local community owned ventures? That this is a realistic policy for sorting out the world's immediate problems? Maybe we should create some flying pigs as well?
Care to give me some real-life examples of these things in action? Frankly I don't care for nor do I have the time for swallowing a text-book or playing silly word games with you. If you know so much about all this then you will have no problem pointing to some concrete examples, rather than this useless barrage of content-free jargon.
I can here you now, self-righteouly wrapping yourself in the GReen flag and denouncing all others who disagree: "You are not true Greens - they must all be purged - smash the running dogs - expel them back to their mainstream parties".
Great!
Just the kind of thing that is going to persuade otherwise grown up and rational people that the Greens are not a bunch of irrelevant, fringe cranks and wierdos, just the kind of thing that is going to win votes away from the other three parties and see Green polcies as they currently are finally making an impact in the UK - not!
It's almost as if you see the Green Party as some kind of anarchist debating club that can prolong your removal from reality long aftyer youi have left your undergraduate days behind. You don't want anything as mundane and compromised as real life to intrude and you would prefer to remain ideological purity and sitting in your irrelevant ghetto with clean hands. Funniliy enough that is also exactly where the mainstream parties, the people who run the UK and the interest grioups who back them want you to remain. Well done!
Well it certainly isn;'t because if the lack of people burbling on about Marxist-Lennism or launching into heavy doses of content free ideological verbiage like you have done in your previous post, that's for sure.
The lizards?
So you are a reformist then. Make up your mind.
[qoute]The main problem with this is that a) Most Green voters do not vote Green with a full awareness of the full policy platform[/quote]I am sure people will be very happy to here this: "By the way, although you voted Green (thank you by the way), you are ignoramuses (ignoramii?) who really don't have the first clue about our highly compex and sophisticated political ideology. As such your votes mean nothing and the whole thing was a pointless waste of time."
How on earth are you able to predict this? Or is this all part of your clever theory that the public are just too stupid to understand?
If you think that elections are fucking charade then why the fuck have you joined a political party who's main activity is standing in elections? It sounds like you need to go and join some south american guerilla group or some commune. If you don't think the voters are worth engaging with then piss off and leave them alone - don't try and trick them into voting Green if you have completely different intentions in reality, like some kind of front or con trick. Leave that to the SWP ffs!
You are more likely to find that down the pub shouting "oi! have it! larging it mate" etc etc
Yet again, more soundbite than substance, meaningless piffle.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
treelover said:
you make a fair point, though from what I recall of the book, Biehl's text is a classic 'Dead Left' hatchet-job. And I note on wikipedia there are some Leftists who defend him. Although I must confess I didn't follow his later writings, so the charge could be valid. I am referring to the ones I have read. Bahro and his ideas are only one element in an overall strategic synthesis.
I do agree, however, with those who think that Green politics on their own aren't necessarily Leftist--the writings of Darre & Anna Bramwell are testament to that. Which is exactly why we need a Green Left tendency, to draw together the best aspects of both.
I am sorry, Teejay, but that was just a rant. If you want to debate properly, as I and Matt have tried to do with you, you need to stop just chucking insults and engage with what people are saying.
Far from disengaging the Greens from the concerns of ordinary people, we want to do just the opposite - ensure that Greens do not make the poor and disposessed pay for the environmental crisis ("Bin Tax" anyone?) and do not jump in bed with any corporation or right wing political force that promises to erect more windmills. Far from retreating into hippydom, this is just the image and approach we want to leave behind (although it was always a stereotype) - along with middle class conservationism. Reforms can be introduced without compromise - the neo liberal parties can take or leave our proposals, but individual Green Councillors have been able to put things through councils without being in ruling coalitions. What the people want and the environment needs are honesty, principle and someone to voice their concerns and fight for their interests, not representatives who get full of their own self importance and become 'pragmatic', 'cynical', and 'realist' in Teejays words. We already have enough of that type of representative from the other parties. In the longer term, and in new social organisations and democratic forms we should favour direct and participatory democracy over representative forms anyway. Asking for "concrete examples" of alternatives that work under neo-liberalism is to miss the point, neo-liberalism and corporations and finance capital are the problem. The point of exploring new and alternative economic and political models is just that- they are new and alternative to the status quo. Suffice it to say that in history some of them have been tried and have been smashed with the utmost ferocity by the holders of power, as a real threat to their continued domination.
The key factor in politics for me has always been power - who has it, how it is used, what groups can challenge the holders of power and how (i.e. "the question of agency" although you seem to be averse to the language of political theory.) The history of politics of the last 100 years shows us the results of getting these questions wrong. People may not want to use the language of "class" - but at base, class is about relative levels of economic, social and political power. I can understand people being alienated by theoretical language (although this is a typically British philistine attitude which is incomprehensible in many parts of the world), but regardless, to throw out any proper analysis of power relations along with the language is fatal to any meaningful practice for those who would promote social and political change. It leaves you open, as ably demonstrated in Teejays post, to illusions about the nature of power in the modern world, to illusions about "free media" and "fair play" and "realism", to tacking to the lowest common denominator of mass media fuelled fears and prejudices. It leaves you with no analytical tools to get to the bottom of why these fears and prejudices are being manipulated, and what are their real basis in the distribution of economic and political power - in short it leaves you with no strategy for addressing popular concerns.
On Bahro, his political trajectory is interesting - I have read some of his work and find most of his conclusions questionable. His political practice tended to mirror his detached utopian theory and he led his followers into the political wilderness away from engagement with the concerns of ordinary people. By abandoning the political field to the "Realos", the German "Fundis" (though as I say, at least where Bahro is concerned their theory was completely misconceived) abandoned an important tool, just because some others were in the process of abusing it and being transformed into part of the problem. There is much to be learnt from the German experience - largely, how not to do it.
Far from disengaging the Greens from the concerns of ordinary people, we want to do just the opposite - ensure that Greens do not make the poor and disposessed pay for the environmental crisis ("Bin Tax" anyone?) and do not jump in bed with any corporation or right wing political force that promises to erect more windmills. Far from retreating into hippydom, this is just the image and approach we want to leave behind (although it was always a stereotype) - along with middle class conservationism. Reforms can be introduced without compromise - the neo liberal parties can take or leave our proposals, but individual Green Councillors have been able to put things through councils without being in ruling coalitions. What the people want and the environment needs are honesty, principle and someone to voice their concerns and fight for their interests, not representatives who get full of their own self importance and become 'pragmatic', 'cynical', and 'realist' in Teejays words. We already have enough of that type of representative from the other parties. In the longer term, and in new social organisations and democratic forms we should favour direct and participatory democracy over representative forms anyway. Asking for "concrete examples" of alternatives that work under neo-liberalism is to miss the point, neo-liberalism and corporations and finance capital are the problem. The point of exploring new and alternative economic and political models is just that- they are new and alternative to the status quo. Suffice it to say that in history some of them have been tried and have been smashed with the utmost ferocity by the holders of power, as a real threat to their continued domination.
The key factor in politics for me has always been power - who has it, how it is used, what groups can challenge the holders of power and how (i.e. "the question of agency" although you seem to be averse to the language of political theory.) The history of politics of the last 100 years shows us the results of getting these questions wrong. People may not want to use the language of "class" - but at base, class is about relative levels of economic, social and political power. I can understand people being alienated by theoretical language (although this is a typically British philistine attitude which is incomprehensible in many parts of the world), but regardless, to throw out any proper analysis of power relations along with the language is fatal to any meaningful practice for those who would promote social and political change. It leaves you open, as ably demonstrated in Teejays post, to illusions about the nature of power in the modern world, to illusions about "free media" and "fair play" and "realism", to tacking to the lowest common denominator of mass media fuelled fears and prejudices. It leaves you with no analytical tools to get to the bottom of why these fears and prejudices are being manipulated, and what are their real basis in the distribution of economic and political power - in short it leaves you with no strategy for addressing popular concerns.
On Bahro, his political trajectory is interesting - I have read some of his work and find most of his conclusions questionable. His political practice tended to mirror his detached utopian theory and he led his followers into the political wilderness away from engagement with the concerns of ordinary people. By abandoning the political field to the "Realos", the German "Fundis" (though as I say, at least where Bahro is concerned their theory was completely misconceived) abandoned an important tool, just because some others were in the process of abusing it and being transformed into part of the problem. There is much to be learnt from the German experience - largely, how not to do it.
Equally - I could ask you why you don't go and join one of the 'socialist' parties or groups and why you have such a big problem with the approach the Green Party has been taking over the last 10 years? Do you honestly think that plastering the term 'left wing' or 'socialist' all over the GP is going to have any postive effect at all - as opposed to being the kiss of death at the ballot box?treelover said:
I have no intention of "engaging" with a load of theoretical nonsense about Leninism, anachist theory or the rest of it. It is completely irrelevant to 99% of the UK public and a complete waste of time. If you want to spend your energies doing this then go find some other little sect of 'class struggle anarchists' or 'revolutionary communists' rather than completely discredit and fuck up all the hard work the Green party has put into making itself credible with the general public. I have no interest in discussing this dribbling nonsense other than to tell you it is a pile of shite.greenman said:
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TJ, something I’m puzzled about, why are you in the Greens? As a realist wouldn’t it make more sense [for you] to join the Tories or LibDems, parties who have more chance of effecting reformist Green policy?
I am not in the Greens as I keep telling everyone.Kid_Eternity said:
I used to be a member, I still vote Green and I still help out occasionally.
Here on u75 I argue in favour of voting Green and support many (although not all) of their policies. I often get into big fights with the SWP/Respect posters ... but I have never said that I am currently GP member, and have made no secret of this fact.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
My mistake, I just thought you were by the way you were argueing for one section over the other in the party...
Just to follow up on the Realo v Pragmatist 'debate' - it is about as sterile IMO as the fluffy v spikey, left v. right and all the same tired, boring and reductive 'debates' that don't lead anywhere.
I support the Green Party (not the 'socialist green party', or the 'revolutionary anarchist green party' etc) because I like a lot (although not all) of its policies and because I feel that the impact of it getting more support will be to move the whole political debate in the UK in the direction I want to see it going.
As it happens most of the other parties have at least one or two policies of some sort that I like: having libertarian instincts I dislike the nanny mentality of both Labour and the Lib Dems and while I support wealth redistribution I am agnostic on how services are actually provided: For example Housing Benefit sees money given directly to a claimant who thens rents in the private sector, picking their own landlord and location etc. I don't see why this is inferior to direct provision of housing by government - in fact having seen both at first hand I'd prefer the former. This extends to my extperince of the NHS: I would prefer to be given the money and allowed to spend it on the trreatment and servioces I actually need rather than have bureacrats pouring vast amounts of resources into services that are completely shit and also not want I need. I have ended up having to spend a lot of my own money getting the treatment and therapy I need while billions are pissed away on the NHS.
This is one example of where the left-right dictomy is utterly outdated - there are others...
What is more, I don't believe that we need to abolish capitalism before we address climate change and CO2. The issue of ozone depletion was addressed and you rarely hear it mentioned today - yet this happened under capitalism. The fact is that even if the UK became a 'green socialist republic' in the next five years or whatever pipe-dream people want to dream up, the UK popultion is only 1% of the global population and the UK is irreversibly plugged into the global economy: the current system has to be made greener. This will be hard but do-able. Transforming global capitalism into localised communes and co-ops is uterrly utopian and a waste of everyone's time - we need to get on with achieveable short and medium term aims, and leave the sci-fi utopian dreaming to the long term - ie 100 years or so from now. If we can achieve the short and medium term goals then we will build up the credibility of any long-term ideals, but frankly I am not convinced by the argument that "there is only one way of saving the world, ie [insert pet project here]".
I support the Green Party (not the 'socialist green party', or the 'revolutionary anarchist green party' etc) because I like a lot (although not all) of its policies and because I feel that the impact of it getting more support will be to move the whole political debate in the UK in the direction I want to see it going.
As it happens most of the other parties have at least one or two policies of some sort that I like: having libertarian instincts I dislike the nanny mentality of both Labour and the Lib Dems and while I support wealth redistribution I am agnostic on how services are actually provided: For example Housing Benefit sees money given directly to a claimant who thens rents in the private sector, picking their own landlord and location etc. I don't see why this is inferior to direct provision of housing by government - in fact having seen both at first hand I'd prefer the former. This extends to my extperince of the NHS: I would prefer to be given the money and allowed to spend it on the trreatment and servioces I actually need rather than have bureacrats pouring vast amounts of resources into services that are completely shit and also not want I need. I have ended up having to spend a lot of my own money getting the treatment and therapy I need while billions are pissed away on the NHS.
This is one example of where the left-right dictomy is utterly outdated - there are others...
What is more, I don't believe that we need to abolish capitalism before we address climate change and CO2. The issue of ozone depletion was addressed and you rarely hear it mentioned today - yet this happened under capitalism. The fact is that even if the UK became a 'green socialist republic' in the next five years or whatever pipe-dream people want to dream up, the UK popultion is only 1% of the global population and the UK is irreversibly plugged into the global economy: the current system has to be made greener. This will be hard but do-able. Transforming global capitalism into localised communes and co-ops is uterrly utopian and a waste of everyone's time - we need to get on with achieveable short and medium term aims, and leave the sci-fi utopian dreaming to the long term - ie 100 years or so from now. If we can achieve the short and medium term goals then we will build up the credibility of any long-term ideals, but frankly I am not convinced by the argument that "there is only one way of saving the world, ie [insert pet project here]".
Great! The GP is now divided into 'sections' is it? How constructive!Kid_Eternity said:
As someone who likes to vote Green and support it because of its current policies I have an interest in expressing an opinion about whether it calls itself 'socialist' or 'left wing'. I do not need to be a member to have an opinion about this and don't understand why you think I do.
...
I am mystified as to why people think this is a good idea, almost as if people are picking a massive fight and trying to wreck the GPEW.
My impression was that up till now (at least over the last ten years) the GPEW has become more professional, created a modern attractive and distinct image of its own, managed to start to get across the "not left or right but green" message and has seen its support grow around the UK.
Why on earth people within the GP now want to start banging on about 'socialism', start throwing around accusations of their supporters being 'green lib dems', demand purges and start belittling the very people who have started voting for them in increasing numbers?
I can only conclude that for some people it is all about their own lifestyle, self image and their own little green ghetto - that they in fact have never really wanted to get elected or take part in running the UK, as opposed to making wish-lists, lists of criticisms and shouting from the sidelines. I am guessing that some people want to keep the GPEW as a unelected fringe party, with pure hands not soiled by actually having to take tough decisions, and who don't want to be flanked by other fringe/radical parties which might have been doing well recently. Sorry but this to me is a silly and childish game and the wrong thing to do when so much is at stake in the world.
TeeJay,
You seem to be engaging with a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the Green Left project - largely driven by your contempt for 'utopian sci-fi' ideas of social change. That's fine, but I wouldn't expect to change anyones mind when you make such sweeping generalisations.
For a start, Green Left is supported by the only two voting members of the Executive who are actually elected to something - and belong to the very local parties that you praise for being modern and effective. Being on the left and being competent aren't mutually contradictory - I'm sorry that you seem to think that they are.
Matt
You seem to be engaging with a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the Green Left project - largely driven by your contempt for 'utopian sci-fi' ideas of social change. That's fine, but I wouldn't expect to change anyones mind when you make such sweeping generalisations.
For a start, Green Left is supported by the only two voting members of the Executive who are actually elected to something - and belong to the very local parties that you praise for being modern and effective. Being on the left and being competent aren't mutually contradictory - I'm sorry that you seem to think that they are.
Matt
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TJ, there's no need to be so fucking defensive mate, I only used the term sections to ID the different tendencies within the party and it's supporters. Matt S is clearly from one tendency and you are clearly from another. There are obviosly more like both of you hence differing schools or thought/sections etc within the Greens. I did not mean to imply some kind of sectarianism...
(oh yeah seriously dude, you need to give up using the rolly eyes all the time, its beginning to make you look like a right wanker).
(oh yeah seriously dude, you need to give up using the rolly eyes all the time, its beginning to make you look like a right wanker).
Well you could start be reformatting your blog so that it wasn't full of seemingly random line-breaks:
eg:
A new initative was launched on the 4th June by members of the Green Party, when
36
members including Green Party of England and Wales Executive members and
councilors
came together to agree the launch statement of Green Left, a socialist current
within the Green Party. The declaration (full version attached) states that
‘Green
Left’ hopes “to raise Green Party politics to meet the demands of its radical
policies. Green politics needs to be based on dynamic campaigning and hard
intellectual groundwork to create workable alternatives.
etc
Matt S said:
eg:
A new initative was launched on the 4th June by members of the Green Party, when
36
members including Green Party of England and Wales Executive members and
councilors
came together to agree the launch statement of Green Left, a socialist current
within the Green Party. The declaration (full version attached) states that
‘Green
Left’ hopes “to raise Green Party politics to meet the demands of its radical
policies. Green politics needs to be based on dynamic campaigning and hard
intellectual groundwork to create workable alternatives.
etc
I'm feeing fine, but after reading your post I am wondering if you actually have anything to contribute to this discussion - which is about the Green Party not about me. or you.
Just to get things back on track:
Is the Green Party really an "ecosocialist" party? What specific policies make it eco-socialist as opposed to eco-liberal?
Just to get things back on track:
Is the Green Party really an "ecosocialist" party? What specific policies make it eco-socialist as opposed to eco-liberal?
TeeJay said:
The Green Party of England and Wales is neither an ecosocialist or an "eco-liberal" party - it is a Green party. However, with the current Manifesto for a Sustainable Society an ecosocialist would feel happier with party policy (though there is still much room for improvement) than an "eco-liberal".
I would suggest that there is little that a majority of GPEW activists, and a good proportion of members, would find to disagree with in either of these statements :
German Left Party Founding Statement
SSP United Left Founding Statement
Not something that could be said of every Green Party in the world at the moment. Incidentally good to see a move towards democratic, participatory and libertarian forms of socialism in both these statements - though a statement is just that until put into practice.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
"Not something that could be said of every Green Party in the world..."
Although it is probably the most internationally present party which differs little from a simple philosophy centred on earth and life on it.
This is the "core value" utterly missing from the alienating mainstream, but they search for the whole time. It is applicable internationally, and more importantly - it is being applied.
Sorry, this is tangental rant really, but I find the internationalism of the Greens more inspiring than anything the factionalised left can offer.
I believe the green movement the successr to the labour movement which either sold out or was too growth / industry obsessed - often both.
As such, its almost that I take some degree of socialism as give in the Greens anyhow, but we dont need to obsess too much about it.
But I can very much see the sense in doing more to court the left vote - we've had some success but can get more. I expect there'll be something at conference and i'll certainly come along ;-)
Although it is probably the most internationally present party which differs little from a simple philosophy centred on earth and life on it.
This is the "core value" utterly missing from the alienating mainstream, but they search for the whole time. It is applicable internationally, and more importantly - it is being applied.
Sorry, this is tangental rant really, but I find the internationalism of the Greens more inspiring than anything the factionalised left can offer.
I believe the green movement the successr to the labour movement which either sold out or was too growth / industry obsessed - often both.
As such, its almost that I take some degree of socialism as give in the Greens anyhow, but we dont need to obsess too much about it.
But I can very much see the sense in doing more to court the left vote - we've had some success but can get more. I expect there'll be something at conference and i'll certainly come along ;-)
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
greenman said:
I don't think I've met many greens who agree with:
It's classic marxism.
Well you've met one
Seriously though, I said GPEW, not SGP, and said "little to disagree with" , not completely agree with - but bear in mind that SGP is in favour of an independent Scotland and is part of the convention thing with SSP and SNP. And I have not met many Royalist Greens
Seriously though, I said GPEW, not SGP, and said "little to disagree with" , not completely agree with - but bear in mind that SGP is in favour of an independent Scotland and is part of the convention thing with SSP and SNP. And I have not met many Royalist Greens
You don't have to be a "royalist" to support the current status quo (a consititional monarchy) over a whole list of proposed altrenatives (various presidential systems for example). For example Australians voted against a Republic and in favour of keeping the Queen as head of state, not because they are "Royalists" but because they didn't trust the motives of their own politicians or like the proposed alternative. "Royalist" implies a support for 'monarchy' (and in many places this isn't democratic) whereas our current 'consitutional monarchy' *is* in fact an elected democracy and no worse IMO than any other democracy anywhere in the world - the imrovements that could be made (for example PR) could be made without changing the role of the head of state, the devision of powers, the current two houses plus cabinet and PM as 'first among equals' as oppsed to an American or French style Presidential one.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
greenman said:Well you've met one
Seriously though, I said GPEW, not SGP, and said "little to disagree with" , not completely agree with - but bear in mind that SGP is in favour of an independent Scotland and is part of the convention thing with SSP and SNP. And I have not met many Royalist Greens
I was thinking more about the "workers democratic control of the means of production" bit ...
I think, Teejay , you would find more British republicans favouring an Irish style, "figurehead" presidency - or no presidency at all, than an American or French style political leader president. The unwritten (i.e flexible) British "constitution" and the Royal prerogative powers that can be exercised by Mr Blair, together with his Political-Presidential style mean that we are currently closer to the unpleasant states of affairs in France and America than we are to a modern European republic like Ireland, let alone a radical progressive republic. Though this thread is not really the place for that discussion. (It could be argued that the Australians might have voted differently if given the option of something closer to the Irish model, or something radically different- rather than something explicitly party-political and flawed in the French/American sense.)
On worker's democracy F_G, you will find that the Green Left statement specifically mentions "ecosocialism" and, what is more "libertarian and democratic" expressions of it. If you look at work on ecosocialism, and certainly on libertarian socialism and social ecology, you will find that democratic workplaces are very much part of these ideas.
On worker's democracy F_G, you will find that the Green Left statement specifically mentions "ecosocialism" and, what is more "libertarian and democratic" expressions of it. If you look at work on ecosocialism, and certainly on libertarian socialism and social ecology, you will find that democratic workplaces are very much part of these ideas.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Like I said, I'll take a look at Green Left at conference, but then I thought "well, screw - why not a current of anarchist thinking too
I guess its politically theres more sense courting the left that are more likely to vote than
many anarchists, so I back what Green Left is doing strategically.
What I wouldnt want is for the GP to be seen as overtly going left. I dont have a problem us being a left party if we are, but I think there can be a lot of baggage come with it, and it could lose as many votes as it gains. Baggage for example around a fetish for industrialism and unsustainable growth. But hey, lets Green these guys...
IMO Green politics superceeds left politics, we are a new fresher part of the political dynamic. I guess I am a kind of eco anarcho communist but know about the party system to use it as well as the Greens do. I'm not atypical in that in the GP either I dont think.
I guess its politically theres more sense courting the left that are more likely to vote than
many anarchists, so I back what Green Left is doing strategically.
What I wouldnt want is for the GP to be seen as overtly going left. I dont have a problem us being a left party if we are, but I think there can be a lot of baggage come with it, and it could lose as many votes as it gains. Baggage for example around a fetish for industrialism and unsustainable growth. But hey, lets Green these guys...
IMO Green politics superceeds left politics, we are a new fresher part of the political dynamic. I guess I am a kind of eco anarcho communist but know about the party system to use it as well as the Greens do. I'm not atypical in that in the GP either I dont think.
Similar threads
