The Green Party of the United States

[leninfan]

The Green Party does not accept corporate dollars.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

...What's the point of this thread?
PS: Democrats with a different color.

[GPDP]

The Green Party does not accept corporate dollars.

O...k?

[leninfan]

Well, I liked Peter Miguel Camejo's ideology and so I joined the party he was running with.
I guess I know your opinion. Comparing Cynthia Mckinnie and Barack Obama shows me huge differences in ideology.
Greens are anti-war to the bone.
The California Greens are the only ones in favor of pushing Prop 19.

[leninfan]

Yeah, I'm sure that these brainwashed masses of the US are ready to delve straight into Communism or socialism... I guess revolutions have to happen overnight...
Well to me this was an upgrade from the Democrats. To me its a start.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It's just full of frustrated democrats: those who want social democracy, but without sucking up to corporate America. It's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the Maine Greens have over 30,000 active members but won't dare to run a candidate that harms a progressive Democrats chances. What a joke.

[Klaatu]

The Green Party does not accept corporate dollars.

This is good. Many environmental groups do not need blood money from trash-the-earth-let-them-eat-cake, shamelessly-polluting capitalists either. Personally, I belong to a small group in California which fights air pollution. It survives on donations from a few dedicated individuals.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, I'm sure that these brainwashed masses of the US are ready to delve straight into Communism or socialism... I guess revolutions have to happen overnight...
Well to me this was an upgrade from the Democrats. To me its a start.


The problem is that with a Green in office they wouldn't accomplish anything because it isn't 'the person in charge' making decisions its the system that edicts. The system would reject any progressive reform- and it would do so violently.

The public would see a failing president.. etc



We have to get rid of capitalism- and we need to alter current industry and levels of consumption.

[leninfan]

It's just full of frustrated democrats: those who want social democracy, but without sucking up to corporate America. It's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the Maine Greens have over 30,000 active members but won't dare to run a candidate that harms a progressive Democrats chances. What a joke.

Well I can see that. It doesn't mean that I will vote like that. I don't vote like that...Lesser of two evils is out...

Gradualism? At this point I don't care if the evil of the Republicans win over the house and senate in November... I see bigger changes in 2012.
The Green Party is far behind, but if I could grab some from the uber left to join, a gradual turn may come about.

[leninfan]

Did anyone hear of a lady named Cynthia Mckinnie? Did you know she was the one who put together the articles to impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rice?

[Zeus the Moose]

The California Greens are the only ones in favor of pushing Prop 19.

Not true; the Peace and Freedom Party is also supporting Prop 19.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The Green Party needs to adopt socialism. There are some honest hard-working greens out there seeking justice, but they need to see the bigger problem that causes all the problems in which they fight: capitalism. I know a few socialists who have joined in hopes to make a change in the party, I use to be one of them. I have no problem working with them either whenever they do anti-war efforts and such. Hell, I heard my states Greens a while back were having a college professor present a speech titled "Bringing socialism back to Nebraska" (whether he meant genuine socialism or social democracy, i don't know).

The thing is, they have potential, they need to improve and rid themselves of a few things too.

[leninfan]

I knew I would be caught up with that... I was being lazy and didn't write "Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans"...
Wonder if the Muslims are for Prop 19... ?

[JacobVardy]

What's the tendency composition like in the California and the USA Party? Many Anarchists and Marxists? Or is it all just social democrats and environmentalists?

[leninfan]

I have never met another Green to tell you the truth. The San Diego Greens are pretty small, but now with wastebook I can meet others.
I would guess though, that other than myself they are mostly Social Democrats and Environmentalist. I am somewhere between a socialist and an SD.
I was a Democrat until I woke up. I don't care about the American Dream anymore... I was conditioned to follow that path...I've escaped it.
I just want to build my own Kibbutz down on a point break in Mexico or on some South Pacific island.
One girl, lots of surf boards, probably some good seeds from Marc Emery, and no capitalist.

[ed miliband]

I knew I would be caught up with that... I was being lazy and didn't write "Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans"...
Wonder if the Muslims are for Prop 19... ?

What a bizarre question.

[Dimentio]

The problem with the Green Party is not what ideology it is having, but that it under FPTP is basically ensuring that the Democrats are losing votes to the Republicans.

[JacobVardy]

The differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties are so minuscule that they are not worth debating. Look at the 'Real Change' coming out of the last Yankee election. We do not participate in elections to take control of the bourgeois state. We participate in elections because that is the time that the most number of people are most receptive to political discussion. Even if we were allowed to win the results would be rendered meaningless. Real Change will only come from people taking control of their own lives, workplaces and communities.

[Dimentio]

The differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties are so minuscule that they are not worth debating. Look at the 'Real Change' coming out of the last Yankee election. We do not participate in elections to take control of the bourgeois state. We participate in elections because that is the time that the most number of people are most receptive to political discussion. Even if we were allowed to win the results would be rendered meaningless. Real Change will only come from people taking control of their own lives, workplaces and communities.

The Green Party? Uhh?

[AK]

The Green Party is not one that you should be supporting in any way.

http://www.gp.org/cover/rich-whitney-banner.jpg
http://www.whitneyforgov.org/why-true-conservatives-should-vote-for-me

[JacobVardy]

The Green Party? Uhh?

I am not advocating a vote for the Greens USA, i don't know shit about them. I am not advocating genuine participation in bourgeois elections. I was attacking the idea that the Dems are any better than the Reps.

[RadioRaheem84]

Green Party candidates have come from all stripes. From Ralph Nader to certain libertarian types. They're a mish mash of petit-bourgeoisie, environmentalists and soc dems. Not that they're bad. I remember campaigning for David Cobb in Texas a long time ago but I found the party to be unhinged, unorganized, and uneducated on a lot of things they disliked.

[Who?]

Doesn't the Green Party occasionally support openly socialist candidates?

[Zeus the Moose]

Doesn't the Green Party occasionally support openly socialist candidates?

It's hard to say how much they support openly socialist candidates, but they've accepting open socialists running on their ballot line before. A number of people in the Socialist Party of Michigan have run as socialists on the Green ballot line, and the PSL has run a few candidates with them as well (including one this year: (http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=voteansel)


The Green Party is not one that you should be supporting in any way.

http://www.whitneyforgov.org/why-true-conservatives-should-vote-for-me

Want to know what's even better? Rich Whitney used to be a member of the Socialist Labor Party.

[#FF0000]

I knew I would be caught up with that... I was being lazy and didn't write "Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans"...
Wonder if the Muslims are for Prop 19... ?

Why is this a question?

[Dimentio]

I don't support the US Green Party, I was simply talking it from their perspective.

[Axle]

The US Green Party itself still has a Capitalist economic platform. And the reason they don't get corporate money isn't because they're some shining political star with a shred of integrity, but because they don't get enough votes to make any corporation's donation worthwhile.

[Sam_b]

Why have the Muslims now become completely homogenised?


I just want to build my own Kibbutz down on a point break in Mexico or on some South Pacific island.
One girl, lots of surf boards, probably some good seeds from Marc Emery, and no capitalist.

PS this doesn't stop or hurt capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

Wonder if the Muslims are for Prop 19... ?
Muslims aren't a homogeneous mass.

[the last donut of the night]

The Green Party is not one that you should be supporting in any way.

http://www.whitneyforgov.org/why-true-conservatives-should-vote-for-me

So true. Also, what the hell's a "true conservative"? It's such a meaningless term , I think. Right-winger is better.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I think they can be cool sometimes like when they let communist run on their established ticket as openly socialist. However I hate when "revolutionaries" try to make themselves feel better than people who vote democrats by touting that they voted green instead of democrat. At the end of the day they are still a bourgeois party and would probably still up hold capitalism if they ever took power. With that being said, they are the most revolutionary party out of the top four electoral parties.

[The Hong Se Sun]

The Green Party does not accept corporate dollars.


Question: Do they not ACCEPT corporate money or does no corporation offer them money? there is a huge difference. Do you have any proof/source of when they refused money from a corporation?

[leninfan]

I posed that question based on the fact that it has never come up before.

[leninfan]

I can agree on that.

[leninfan]

Question: Do they not ACCEPT corporate money or does no corporation offer them money? there is a huge difference. Do you have any proof/source of when they refused money from a corporation?

I cant, that is why I am here learning.

[leninfan]

I guess that would be my selfish way out of this mess.
For now I will stick around here to learn.

[The Red Next Door]

Green Party candidates have come from all stripes. From Ralph Nader to certain libertarian types. They're a mish mash of petit-bourgeoisie, environmentalists and soc dems. Not that they're bad. I remember campaigning for David Cobb in Texas a long time ago but I found the party to be unhinged, unorganized, and uneducated on a lot of things they disliked.
Don't forget communists.

[leninfan]

So If I were to take steps in moving forward with a "True" Socialist/Communist agenda, where would I start, or what would I do?

[#FF0000]

So If I were to take steps in moving forward with a "True" Socialist/Communist agenda, where would I start, or what would I do?

Join a party or something. Read their basic positions and join whichever you most agree with. It's probably going to be harder to decide on than I'm letting on, but you could also write to these parties with questions.

[Barry Lyndon]

I know this will get me bullshit from all sides, but I am working with Rich Whitney's campaign in Illinois. I agree that it is a bourgeois party that is only bent on reforming capitalism, not getting rid of it. But hear me out.

It is good to have principles, and I remain a Marxist in my political convictions. But I think we have to be realistic as well, and not sit on a purist cloud that all too often serves as an excuse for not doing anything. The United States is so terribly reactionary that the viable, tangible, success of any left alternative to the Democrats is absolutely essential at this historical juncture, to show people that the solution to the bankrupt Democrats is not to run back to the Republicans but instead support more progressive candidates.

And the Green Party in Illinois is capable of capturing such a victory. Rich Whitney got 10% in the gubernatorial elections in 2006(remarkable given that he has no money and endless legal roadblocks are thrown up to prevent any third party from competing seriously in local or national elctions). He is now polling 11%(in a race where 40% of the voters are still undecided), and there is a buzz in the mainstream media of him being allowed into the debates with the two major party candidates. There is widespread disatisfaction among the Illinois public with how the Democrats have run this state into the ground economically with their incompetence and endless corruption scandals. But I doubt that they will vote Republican, given that the last GOP governor George Ryan is still in prison for his own corruption.

If Illinois elected a governor who is unambiguously pro-environment, anti-war, opposed to the privatization of public schools, opposes the Taft-Hartley anti-union act, supports single-payer universal health care, among many other progressive policies, that would be a good thing and a beacon of hope in a pretty bleak political landscape that is the USA. Are you opposed to that? Even the entrance of center-left candidates into the American political scene would create considerable breathing space for radical leftists like ourselves.

I should add that a number of people that I work with who are active in the Rich Whitney campaign are Marxists or anarchists in their personal political convictions, a lot of people's assumptions about who work for the Green Party are wrong.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

Your action is affirmed by the Trotskyist transitional programme.

[leninfan]

I know this will get me bullshit from all sides, but I am working with Rich Whitney's campaign in Illinois. I agree that it is a bourgeois party that is only bent on reforming capitalism, not getting rid of it. But hear me out.

It is good to have principles, and I remain a Marxist in my political convictions. But I think we have to be realistic as well, and not sit on a purist cloud that all too often serves as an excuse for not doing anything. The United States is so terribly reactionary that the viable, tangible, success of any left alternative to the Democrats is absolutely essential at this historical juncture, to show people that the solution to the bankrupt Democrats is not to run back to the Republicans but instead support more progressive candidates.

And the Green Party in Illinois is capable of capturing such a victory. Rich Whitney got 10% in the gubernatorial elections in 2006(remarkable given that he has no money and endless legal roadblocks are thrown up to prevent any third party from competing seriously in local or national elctions). He is now polling 11%(in a race where 40% of the voters are still undecided), and there is a buzz in the mainstream media of him being allowed into the debates with the two major party candidates. There is widespread disatisfaction among the Illinois public with how the Democrats have run this state into the ground economically with their incompetence and endless corruption scandals. But I doubt that they will vote Republican, given that the last GOP governor George Ryan is still in prison for his own corruption.

If Illinois elected a governor who is unambiguously pro-environment, anti-war, opposed to the privatization of public schools, opposes the Taft-Hartley anti-union act, supports single-payer universal health care, among many other progressive policies, that would be a good thing and a beacon of hope in a pretty bleak political landscape that is the USA. Are you opposed to that? Even the entrance of center-left candidates into the American political scene would create considerable breathing space for radical leftists like ourselves.

I should add that a number of people that I work with who are active in the Rich Whitney campaign are Marxists or anarchists in their personal political convictions, a lot of people's assumptions about who work for the Green Party are wrong.

I do agree with your stance. I don't consider myself as a Marxist as much as I agree with his ideology. My family tree goes back to what is now known as Germany and the Bavarian territory at that. Our genealogist of the family showed me some documents that puts our relatives in close quarters with Karl. We haven't conclude that we aren't related. Our family remained Jewish, while we know Karl did not.

I will continue to learn. I like this site.

[leninfan]

^

Your action is affirmed by the Trotskyist transitional programme.

Can you explain what a Trotsyist transitional programme is?

As a former Government teacher I enjoy learning. I know I should do my own research like I once did before, but this info doesn't deal with the bullshit.

[chegitz guevara]

Danger: Quicksand

[AK]

Want to know what's even better? Rich Whitney used to be a member of the Socialist Labor Party.
Can't tell if this is meant to sound aggressive towards me or not :confused:

[Zeus the Moose]

Can't tell if this is meant to sound aggressive towards me or not :confused:

In my head, the "you know what's even better?" part sounded sarcastic, and was referring to Whitney rather than you. Mainly, I was just pointing out that Whitney used to be a socialist (a DeLeonist, even), but has since moved to the Green Party.

[ZeroNowhere]

I tend to think that if one wishes for the Green Party to retain any of the popularity that they now have, the worst possible action would be to vote them in.

[JacobVardy]

The US Green Party itself still has a Capitalist economic platform. And the reason they don't get corporate money isn't because they're some shining political star with a shred of integrity, but because they don't get enough votes to make any corporation's donation worthwhile.

I checked their platform when this thread started. http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf They endorse a "Community-based economics [that] constitutes an alternative to both corporate capitalism and state socialism." A commitment to direct democracy, social justice and environment sustainability means an end to capitalism. They might get no money because they have a small vote but more likely is that their platform is hostile to any organisation (except unions) that might donate.

[NGNM85]

The Green Party is not one that you should be supporting in any way.

http://www.whitneyforgov.org/why-true-conservatives-should-vote-for-me

I can't fathom what your point is.

[AK]

I can't fathom what your point is.
http://aejjabaad.webs.com/cant%20tell%20if%20trolling%20or%20just%20very%20s tupid.jpg

[Commiechu]

There are many good people with good ideas in the Green Party USA, but they are largely a Left-Liberal/Social-Democratic movement who seem to be afraid that any move they make will put Republicans in the white house. I would vote for Greens in local elections (Or Peace and Freedom) but they are are far from revolutionary and we must keep this in mind... Although I must admit I am kinda curious about the claims Jello Biafra may run for President on the Green and Socialist tickets, he has shown himself to be quite Left of the majority of people in those parties and so he may actually be able to build a nice little campaign and highlight some issues.

[leninfan]

I checked their platform when this thread started. http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf They endorse a "Community-based economics [that] constitutes an alternative to both corporate capitalism and state socialism." A commitment to direct democracy, social justice and environment sustainability means an end to capitalism. They might get no money because they have a small vote but more likely is that their platform is hostile to any organisation (except unions) that might donate.
Isn't that a good thing? Unions?

[leninfan]

there are many good people with good ideas in the green party usa, but they are largely a left-liberal/social-democratic movement who seem to be afraid that any move they make will put republicans in the white house. I would vote for greens in local elections (or peace and freedom) but they are are far from revolutionary and we must keep this in mind... Although i must admit i am kinda curious about the claims jello biafra may run for president on the green and socialist tickets, he has shown himself to be quite left of the majority of people in those parties and so he may actually be able to build a nice little campaign and highlight some issues.

holiday in calibodia!

[Commiechu]

holiday in calibodia!

California Über Alles?

[leninfan]

California Über Alles?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quLqEu4mUOU

[NGNM85]

http://aejjabaad.webs.com/cant%20tell%20if%20trolling%20or%20just%20very%20s tupid.jpg

In the article you linked to the official website of Rich Whitney, apparently a candidate for Governor of Illinois, that outlines his policies; progressive taxation, increasing funding for education and social welfare programs, banning soft-money contributions and enacting stricter campaign finance laws, he's pro-choice, and he wants more expansive legislation to protect the environment and reduce pollution. I'm just puzzled as to what it is, in particular, about this guy's platform that you find so offensive.

[anticap]

[The Greens] are the most revolutionary party out of the top four electoral parties.

Progressive, yes; revolutionary, no.

If I were playing lesser-evilism with the five parties in the US that have the ballot access necessary to make a presidential win even theoretically possible (Democratic; Republican; Libertarian; Constitution; Green), then I'd go Green.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Green Party is probably the only party that is in any way genuinely reformist in the US at the moment, thus the only party that Marxists can partially co-operate with.

[chegitz guevara]

Given how weak the GP is, I see no point in socialists giving them any support, since such support would take away from building the socialist movement. If we have to build the GP from basically scratch or the rebuild the socialist movement from scratch, the choice i clear. We'd still have to build the socialist movement after building the Greens, so why bother doing the work twice? Socialists can, however, use the GP, in order to build the socialist movement, running on their ticket where they are unable to run on their own.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As long as Cindy Sheehan doesn't turn Green:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cindy-sheehan-sp-t141176/index.html

[The Hong Se Sun]

Given how weak the GP is, I see no point in socialists giving them any support, since such support would take away from building the socialist movement. If we have to build the GP from basically scratch or the rebuild the socialist movement from scratch, the choice i clear. We'd still have to build the socialist movement after building the Greens, so why bother doing the work twice? Socialists can, however, use the GP, in order to build the socialist movement, running on their ticket where they are unable to run on their own.



This, this, this, this. Like you once said to some one championing the greens: "I vote socialist because I am a socialist"

[Queercommie Girl]

Given how weak the GP is, I see no point in socialists giving them any support, since such support would take away from building the socialist movement. If we have to build the GP from basically scratch or the rebuild the socialist movement from scratch, the choice i clear. We'd still have to build the socialist movement after building the Greens, so why bother doing the work twice? Socialists can, however, use the GP, in order to build the socialist movement, running on their ticket where they are unable to run on their own.

I'm not saying we help the greens to build their party, but to co-operate on issues where both sides would benefit.

[Obzervi]

You fail to mention the racist elements within the green party, which focus on population control in third world countries and stopping all immigration. All in the name of the "environment" of course.

[Queercommie Girl]

You fail to mention the racist elements within the green party, which focus on population control in third world countries and stopping all immigration. All in the name of the "environment" of course.

Anti-immigration is reactionary, but population control isn't necessarily so. There is no reason to think that "the higher the population growth, the better" is actually true anywhere, either in the 1st world or the 3rd.

Of course it would be reactionary if they only focus on "population control" in the 3rd world but not the 1st. That would almost be like an indirect form of racist "eugenics".

[anticap]

The only way to slow population growth without forfeiting our humanity is to increase the standard of living for as many people as possible, and the best way to do that is to abolish capitalism and adopt socialism.

[leninfan]

Anti-immigration is reactionary, but population control isn't necessarily so. There is no reason to think that "the higher the population growth, the better" is actually true anywhere, either in the 1st world or the 3rd.

Of course it would be reactionary if they only focus on "population control" in the 3rd world but not the 1st. That would almost be like an indirect form of racist "eugenics".

I am not against immigration, but I do wish that people who can't feed themselves would slow down on having children.
I am in no way a racist or a fascist, but due to the plight that Imperialist and capitalist have shoved down this planet's throat, it seems like something should be done... I think I will rethink my stance on this now.
This is why I wasn't 100 percent behind what James Jay Lee did in Maryland earlier this week.

[Obzervi]

The only way to slow population growth without forfeiting our humanity is to increase the standard of living for as many people as possible, and the best way to do that is to abolish capitalism and adopt socialism.
Higher standard of living = less children? That makes no sense.. if you increase the food supply and healthcare it increases the population as well. The reason why so many places are experiencing a population crisis is because of a drastic increase in food supply thanks to oil.

[Queercommie Girl]

Higher standard of living = less children? That makes no sense.. if you increase the food supply and healthcare it increases the population as well. The reason why so many places are experiencing a population crisis is because of a drastic increase in food supply thanks to oil.

All I'm saying is that "high population" isn't always a positive thing.

Of course, the reverse isn't necessarily true either.

But too much focus on "high population" can lead to reductionist arguments against LGBT rights - since LGBT people supposedly cannot contribute as much to population growth, which frankly as a radical LGBT activist, I completely reject.

Maybe we should focus more on the democratic will of the people rather than treating human beings like some kind of farm animal to be population-managed.

[chegitz guevara]

Higher standard of living = less children? That makes no sense.. if you increase the food supply and healthcare it increases the population as well. The reason why so many places are experiencing a population crisis is because of a drastic increase in food supply thanks to oil.

Throughout the world, as living standards increase, the population rate slows. This, however, is tied to an urban life. Once economic life becomes more secure, once child mortality drops, the more children you have, the more they are a drain on your economic resources.

In a rural setting, children are set to work, so more children, while they also equal more mouths to feed, also equal more hands in the fields.

[Adi Shankara]

The Green Party does not accept corporate dollars.

...Yet they accept a capitalist agenda for the economy that doesn't really differ from the left section of the Democrats? what difference would it make in the end? they aren't anti-capitalist...they just want to practice it in a different way.


The Private Sector: Greens support a maximum of free initiative for individuals, small companies, and cooperatives, enabling all people to earn a decent living in useful, meaningful vocations within a democratically regulated economy that meets human needs and sustains the environment. We support private enterprises that are democratic, especially cooperatives. http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/economics.html#241928

a few differences from Democrats that are quite notable, but mostly they still support the private enterprise structure.

I however, am opposed to private enterprise and private ownership of economic means of production on all levels.

[Adi Shankara]

Did anyone hear of a lady named Cynthia Mckinnie? Did you know she was the one who put together the articles to impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rice?

She was also a member of the democratic party, and remained one ONLY until she lost an election for her Texas district. Why wasn't she a green while a representative for Texas?

PS: anyone who claims association with that pseudo-left, (actually) right-centrist party that is the Democratic Party is no friend of the left.

[chegitz guevara]

Georgia, actually. She was ganged up on by the GOP and the Democratic leadership to oust her from her seat.

Don't demonize people for where they are from but where they are and where they are going. If we refuse to accept people because of their former association with bourgeois parties, we need to give up now, since we'll never break out of the 1% ghetto.

[Adi Shankara]

Georgia, actually.

My bad, I thought it was Texas ><


Don't demonize people for where they are from but where they are and where they are going. If we refuse to accept people because of their former association with bourgeois parties, we need to give up now, since we'll never break out of the 1% ghetto.

but my problem is she only ended her association with the Democratic party AFTER she lost an election for her district, so it shows she has no backbone to stand for what she believes in while she's actually in power.

[chegitz guevara]

but my problem is she only ended her association with the Democratic party AFTER she lost an election for her district, so it shows she has no backbone to stand for what she believes in while she's actually in power.

Perhaps it was how the Dems threw her under the bus that opened her eyes?

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize McKinney ... like her association with Holocaust deniers or her claim that 5,000 prisoners were taken out and executed in the Louisiana swamps after Katrina, but her former Democratic Party status shouldn't be one of them.

[leninfan]

Perhaps it was how the Dems threw her under the bus that opened her eyes?

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize McKinney ... like her association with Holocaust deniers or her claim that 5,000 prisoners were taken out and executed in the Louisiana swamps after Katrina, but her former Democratic Party status shouldn't be one of them.

I didn't know she was hanging out with Holocaust deniers. I thought she was just on the side of the Palestinians. The Green Party as a whole doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened...

[chegitz guevara]

I didn't know she was hanging out with Holocaust deniers. I thought she was just on the side of the Palestinians. The Green Party as a whole doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened...

No, they don't, and to be fair, I'm not sure she understood these people she was hanging out with, in Europe, were deniers. On the other hand, as far as I know, she's never explained it.

As for the Greens, there have been charges that certain Green Parties are anti-Semitic, such as the Boston Greens, etc. However, that comes from someone who tends to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. I, myself, have seen nothing other than legitimate criticism of Israel.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm


Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.



The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.
One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence.
For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.


Fuck the bourgeois Greens.


Also, fuck environmentalism.





“The environment is an industrial challenge.”


Ecology is the discovery of the decade. For the last thirty years we’ve left it up to the environmentalists, joking about it on Sunday so that we can act concerned again on Monday. And now it’s caught up to us, invading the airwaves like a hit song in summertime, because it’s 68 degrees in December.


One quarter of the fish species have disappeared from the ocean. The rest won’t last much longer.


Bird flu alert: we are given assurances that hundreds of thousands of migrating birds will be shot from the sky.


Mercury levels in human breast milk are ten times higher than the legal level for cows. And these lips which swell up after I bite the apple – but it came from the farmer’s market. The simplest gestures have become toxic. One dies at the age of 35 from “a prolonged illness” that’s to be managed just like one manages everything else. We should’ve seen it coming before we got to this place, to pavilion B of the palliative care center.


You have to admit: this whole “catastrophe,” which they so noisily inform us about, it doesn’t really touch us. At least not until we are hit by one of its foreseeable consequences. It may concern us, but it doesn’t touch us. And that is the real catastrophe.


There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what’s left to man after he’s lost everything. Those who live in a neighborhood, a street, a valley, a war zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment;” they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It’s only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment. And there’s no one but us to witness our own annihilation, as if it were just a simple change of scenery, to get indignant about the latest progress of the disaster, to patiently compile its encyclopedia.


What has congealed as an environment is a relationship to the world based on management, which is to say, on estrangement. A relationship to the world wherein we’re not made up just as much of the rustling trees, the smell of frying oil in the building, running water, the hubbub of schoolrooms, the mugginess of summer evenings. A relationship to the world where there is me and then my environment, surrounding me but never really constituting me. We have become neighbors in a planetary co-op owners’ board meeting. It’s difficult to imagine a more complete hell.


No material habitat has ever deserved the name “environment,” except perhaps the metropolis of today. The digitized voices making announcements, tramways with such a 21st century whistle, bluish streetlamps shaped like giant matchsticks, pedestrians done up like failed fashion models, the silent rotation of a video surveillance camera, the lucid clicking of the subway turnstyles supermarket checkouts, office time-clocks, the electronic ambiance of the cyber café, the profusion of plasma screens, express lanes and latex. Never has a setting been so able to do without the souls traversing it. Never has a surrounding been more automatic. Never has a context been so indifferent, and demanded in return – as the price of survival – such equal indifference from us. Ultimately the environment is nothing more than the relationship to the world that is proper to the metropolis, and that projects itself onto everything that would escape it.


It goes like this: they hired our parents to destroy this world, now they’d like to put us to work rebuilding it, and – to top it all off – at a profit. The morbid excitement that animates journalists and advertisers these days as they report each new proof of global warming reveals the steely smile of the new green capitalism, in the making since the 70s, which we waited for at the turn of the century but which never came. Well, here it is! It’s sustainability! Alternative solutions, that’s it too! The health of the planet demands it! No doubt about it anymore, it’s a green scene; the environment will be the crux of the political economy of the 21st century. A new volley of “industrial solutions” comes with each new catastrophic possibility.


The inventor of the H-bomb, Edward Teller, proposes shooting millions of tons of metallic dust into the stratosphere to stop global warming. NASA, frustrated at having to shelve its idea of an anti-missile shield in the museum of cold war horrors, suggests installing a gigantic mirror beyond the moon’s orbit to protect us from the sun’s now-fatal rays. Another vision of the future: a motorized humanity, driving on bio-ethanol from Sao Paulo to Stockholm; the dream of cereal growers the world over, for it only means converting all of the planet’s arable lands into soy and sugar beet fields. Eco-friendly cars, clean energy, and environmental consulting coexist painlessly with the latest Chanel ad in the pages of glossy magazines.


We are told that the environment has the incomparable merit of being the first truly global problem presented to humanity. A global problem, which is to say a problem that only those who are organized on a global level will be able to solve. And we know who they are. These are the very same groups that for close to a century have been the vanguard of disaster, and certainly intend to remain as such, for the small price of a change of logo. That EDF had the impudence to bring back its nuclear program as the new solution to the global energy crisis says plenty about how much the new solutions resemble the old problems.


From Secretaries of State to the back rooms of alternative cafés, concerns are always expressed in the same words, the same as they’ve always been. We have to get mobilized. This time it’s not to rebuild the country like in the post-war era, not for the Ethiopians like in the 1980s, not for employment like in the 1990s. No, this time it’s for the environment. It will thank you for it. Al Gore and degrowth movement stand side by side with the eternal great souls of the Republic to do their part in resuscitating the little people of the Left and the well-known idealism of youth. Voluntary austerity writ large on their banner, they work benevolently to make us compliant with the “coming ecological state of emergency.” The round and sticky mass of their guilt lands on our tired shoulders, coddling us to cultivate our garden, sort out our trash, and eco-compost the leftovers of this macabre feast.


Managing the phasing out of nuclear power, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, melting glaciers, hurricanes, epidemics, global over-population, erosion of the soil, mass extinction of living species… this will be our burden. They tell us, “everyone must do their part,” if we want to save our beautiful model of civilization. We have to consume a little less in order to be able to keep consuming. We have to produce organically in order to keep producing. We have to control ourselves in order to go on controlling. This is the logic of a world straining to maintain itself whilst giving itself an air of historical rupture. This is how they would like to convince us to participate in the great industrial challenges of this century. And in our bewilderment we’re ready to leap into the arms of the very same ones who presided over the devastation, in the hope that they will get us out of it.


Ecology isn’t simply the logic of a total economy; it’s the new morality of capital. The system’s internal state of crisis and the rigorous screening that’s underway demand a new criterion in the name of which this screening and selection will be carried out. From one era to the next, the idea of virtue has never been anything but an invention of vice. Without ecology, how could we justify the existence of two different food regimes, one “healthy and organic” for the rich and their children, and the other notoriously toxic for the plebes, whose offspring are damned to obesity. The planetary hyper-bourgeoisie wouldn’t be able to make their normal lifestyle seem respectable if its latest caprices weren’t so scrupulously “respectful of the environment.” Without ecology, nothing would have enough authority to gag any and all objections to the exorbitant progress of control.


Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental excellence, and the policing of water, all give us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything is permitted to a power structure that bases its authority in Nature, in health and in well-being.


“Once the new economic and behavioral culture has become common practice, coercive measures will doubtless fall into disuse of their own accord.” You’d have to have all the ridiculous aplomb of a TV crusader to maintain such a frozen perspective and in the same breath incite us to feel sufficiently “sorry for the planet” to get mobilized, whilst remaining anesthetized enough to watch the whole thing with restraint and civility. The new green-asceticism is precisely the self-control that is required of us all in order to negotiate a rescue operation where the system has taken itself hostage. From now on, it’s in the name of environmentalism that we must all tighten our belts, just as we did yesterday in the name of the economy. The roads could certainly be transformed into bicycle paths, we ourselves could perhaps, to a certain degree, be grateful one day for a guaranteed income, but only at the price of an entirely therapeutic existence. Those who claim that generalized self-control will spare us from an environmental dictatorship are lying: the one will prepare the way for the other, and we’ll end up with both.


As long as there is Man and Environment, the police will be there between them.


Everything about the environmentalist’s discourse must be turned upside-down. Where they talk of “catastrophes” to label the present system’s mismanagement of beings and things, we only see the catastrophe of its all too perfect operation. The greatest wave of famine ever known in the tropics (1876-1879) coincided with a global drought, but more significantly, it also coincided with the apogee of colonization. The destruction of the peasant’s world and of local alimentary practices meant the disappearance of the means for dealing with scarcity. More than the lack of water, it was the effect of the rapidly expanding colonial economy that littered the Tropics with millions of emaciated corpses. What presents itself everywhere as an ecological catastrophe has never stopped being, above all, the manifestation of a disastrous relationship to the world. Inhabiting a nowhere makes us vulnerable to the slightest jolt in the system, to the slightest climactic risk. As the latest tsunami approached and the tourists continued to frolic in the waves, the islands’ hunter-gatherers hastened to flee the coast, following the birds. Environmentalism’s present paradox is that under the pretext of saving the planet from desolation it merely saves the causes of its desolation.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

All I'm saying is that "high population" isn't always a positive thing.

Of course, the reverse isn't necessarily true either.

But too much focus on "high population" can lead to reductionist arguments against LGBT rights - since LGBT people supposedly cannot contribute as much to population growth, which frankly as a radical LGBT activist, I completely reject.

Maybe we should focus more on the democratic will of the people rather than treating human beings like some kind of farm animal to be population-managed.

Thank you for stating my beliefs.I get so sick of hearing people talk as though population is the only thing that matters.That if people aren't comfy enough then we would loose all desire to follow our natural instincts and persue our carnal desires.

Seriously there is over six billion people on this planet!Why would concern of underpopulation matter in a communist world?

[freepalestine]

who were the 'anti-jewish/racist groups cynthia mckenna was "hanging out with in europe"?
Also altho ive been surprised by amount of left-ists+marxists from u.s. on here,to support liberals such as the greens seems pointless.in europe,there are so-called socialist partys,none of whom are worthy of any marxists support

[MarxSchmarx]

As long as Cindy Sheehan doesn't turn Green:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cindy-sheehan-sp-t141176/index.html

She is now with the Peace and Freedom Party in California:

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/component/content/article/12-general/752-cindy-sheehan-joins-peace-and-freedom

[leninfan]

She is now with the Peace and Freedom Party in California:

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/component/content/article/12-general/752-cindy-sheehan-joins-peace-and-freedom

I will do the research, but what is the platform for the Peace and Freedom party?

[leninfan]

WOW... very similar to the Green Party, but they start with the term - "Socialism"
Just another vote allowing the Republican Party to gain on the Democratic Party.

The Greens and the PFD cancel each others' votes out.

The two party system in the US will continue for another few decades if not more.

What to do?

What is the Socialist stance on the black market??? Say - selling hemp with thc?
Marxist views on the matter? Capitalism in another form?
Grow your own sell your own? Seems like a monopoly in a way.

[leninfan]

Their symbol encompasses the red and black which is kind of synonymous with Socialism or Communism. The DOVE...Duh... and the Green letters in the middle to symbolize the environment.
I still have two months to figure out who I will vote for.

For now - Yes on Prop 19.
No on Jerry Brown, no on Meg Whitman, and no on Carly Fiornia.
No on Nick Popaditch.

[Adi Shankara]

Their symbol encompasses the red and black which is kind of synonymous with Socialism or Communism.

Red and black is anarchism.

[anticap]

Just another vote allowing the Republican Party to gain on the Democratic Party.

This assumes that you would have otherwise voted Democratic. Is that the case? If not, then it's just another piece of common 'wisdom' that isn't true. Assuming you have no vested interest in DP vs RP contests, it makes no difference whether you vote Green, or P&F, or not at all, because the DP has no default claim to your vote.

[chegitz guevara]

Peace and Freedom is a California socialist party for the purpose of getting socialists on the ballot. Ballot access in CA is very difficult, and so back in the 60s, a bunch of different socialists built the PFP, so at least one socialist candidate could get on the ballot. From there, PFP spread across the country, but during the 70s, pretty much all died out, except CA. They tried to spread again in 2008, but failed. It's really only necessary in states like Texas, New York, etc. where it's almost impossible for non-capitalist parties to get on the ballot.

[chegitz guevara]

who were the 'anti-jewish/racist groups cynthia mckenna was "hanging out with in europe"?

Holocaust deniers.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/winter/crossing-the-line

[Crux]

Peace and Freedom is a California socialist party for the purpose of getting socialists on the ballot. Ballot access in CA is very difficult, and so back in the 60s, a bunch of different socialists built the PFP, so at least one socialist candidate could get on the ballot. From there, PFP spread across the country, but during the 70s, pretty much all died out, except CA. They tried to spread again in 2008, but failed. It's really only necessary in states like Texas, New York, etc. where it's almost impossible for non-capitalist parties to get on the ballot.
Isn't the liberty union in vermont affiliated to PFP in some way?

[chegitz guevara]

Isn't the liberty union in vermont affiliated to PFP in some way?

Nope. LU is very closely aligned with the SPUSA, but independent of it. I don't know the history of LU, so it might have come out of that whole PFP impulse in the late 60s early 70s.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Green Party is not one that you should be supporting in any way.

http://www.whitneyforgov.org/why-true-conservatives-should-vote-for-me

Did you read your link?



In my view, there is nothing “conservative” about destroying our public schools, making higher education more and more unaffordable to lower and middle-income working families, kicking people with physical and mental disabilities out of assisted living facilities and onto the streets (which will end up costing more money), compromising care for veterans, children and family services, daycare (which helps people get off welfare and into work), natural resources, parks and recreation, and public safety.

Cutting spending that represents real waste – the waste of purchases, practices and positions that are intended as political favors and that do not serve a legitimate public purpose – is one thing. That’s why, while Bill Brady has waffled on the issue, I support a thorough forensic audit of our state budget, overseen by a commission of independent citizens. But the systematic dismantling of the public sector, through deep across the board cuts to the core functions of government, is something else again. That is not conserving; it is destroying – destroying human lives and the very fabric of our society. It is not a conservative position; it is a radical position, representing the radical right wing of the corporate and banking interests that would like to destroy the public sector altogether, use taxpayer money for private profiteering, sell off or give away public assets, and create a new generation of workers who are uneducated, ignorant, desperate and accepting of poverty wages.

In sharp contrast, my platform is one of fiscal responsibility, of both spending cuts carefully targeted at real waste, and raising the revenue needed to restore health to the core functions of government – education, health, infrastructure, public safety and social services for those unable to fully care for themselves. I support the concept of investing in people, to enable them to be more productive members of society; the kinds of public policies that can help the private sector to flourish and create more employment opportunities. I support raising this revenue through a fair system of taxation, a system that places more of the tax burden on those more able to pay, and less of the tax burden on those least able to pay – a basic principle that goes back to Adam Smith. My plan also includes a dedicated stream of funding for education, along with real property tax relief provided by the state. Mine is the more true conservative position.


He then goes on to bash creationism. It's clear he's making an ideological argument for conservatives, but he's not a modern American conservative and probably not getting any of their votes anyway.

[Aesop]

Red and black is anarchism.

Black is anarchism.
Although the red and black flag is used by anarcho-communist, the colours red and black is quite often more than not used to signify unity between the two or to represent far left politics.

[NGNM85]

This assumes that you would have otherwise voted Democratic. Is that the case? If not, then it's just another piece of common 'wisdom' that isn't true. Assuming you have no vested interest in DP vs RP contests, it makes no difference whether you vote Green, or P&F, or not at all, because the DP has no default claim to your vote.

I think anybody who has to live in this country has a vested interest. This does bring up a valid tactical issue. My personal take is, because I live in a blue state, to vote Green/Socialist when the Republican candidate is expected to lose. However, this could be easily remedied by adopting a 'Transfer' or STV voting system, whereby if ones' first choice was disqualified, votes would be transferred to ones' second choice. This system is widely adopted in the West, England, Ireland, etc., it would also probably be a substantial boon to third parties like the Socialists and the Greens.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

destroying our public schools

ie: The Green party will side with principals, truant officers, and other parasitic bureaucrats against the rabble of "juvenile delinquents" who resist compulsory education as an instrument of proletarian exploitation.


making higher education more and more unaffordable to lower and middle-income working familiesHow about freeing education from the wage system and greedy faculty administrators, through the abolition of the university as a capitalist institution?


kicking people with physical and mental disabilities out of assisted living facilities and onto the streetsAnd anyone who works in those "assisted living facilities" will tell you that they are squalid quasi-labor camps for infirm proles. Obviously "the streets" are no better, but it's a false dichotomy that reinforces the logic of capital.


(which will end up costing more money)On what, policemen to beat the "people with physical and mental disabilities"? Why can't "people with disabilities" assert themselves as a group and take control of their own lives? Obviously more subtle reinforcement of capitalist reality as the only option. (I would even argue that "people with disabilities" is as much a social construct as race, and the goal of communists is to abolish such distinctions, not reinforce them with paternalistic authoritarianism)


compromising care for veteransAgain, veterans are exploited by their veteran status, despite whatever meager handouts they get by the state. Obviously we need hand-outs to survive but more important is addressing the roots of the psychological trauma created by one's exploitation at the hands of the capitalist military, and to sabotage recruitment efforts and encourage rebellion among enlisted soldiers.


children and family servicesHow about the self-liberation of women and youth via the abolition of the family as an economic institution?


daycareAlso abusive capitalist institutions that detain 'unproductive' sectors of the working-class.


which helps people get off welfare and into workI would rather be on welfare, personally. I'd rather control the means of production than either presented option, though...


natural resources, parks and recreationa.k.a. Monopoly of natural resources by state bureaucrats at the expense of the material conditions of the workers. (Observe how the rural working-class, many of whom lived in communities somewhat autonomous from capitalist law, were brutally dispossessed by the creation of the park services in Cascadia and Appalachia)


and public safety.a.k.a. More pigs on the street, higher wages for pigs, etc.


But the systematic dismantling of the public sector, through deep across the board cuts to the core functions of government, is something else again.The potential (but somewhat unlikely) destruction of the bourgeois "public sector" by its anti-Keynesian rivals, "cuts to the core functions of government", or in other words, is a threat to the capitalist state, and thus white Christian civilization. Hence morally conservative citizens should support the Greens. Nothing a communist should feel anything for but disgust.


It is not a conservative position; it is a radical position, representing the radical right wingTrying to associate mainstream political rivals with "radicals", this is so useful for the communist left. :rolleyes:


the corporate and banking interests that would like to destroy the public sector altogether"Corporate and banking interests" are threatening the "public sector" of capital, vaguely similar to the fascist delusion that "finance capital" is parasitical to "real" industrial capital.


public safety [...] fair system of taxation, [...] Adam Smith.The bourgeois lies go on and on. Fuck the Greens coming straight from the underground.

[leninfan]

ie: The Green party will side with principals, truant officers, and other parasitic bureaucrats against the rabble of "juvenile delinquents" who resist compulsory education as an instrument of proletarian exploitation.

How about freeing education from the wage system and greedy faculty administrators, through the abolition of the university as a capitalist institution?

And anyone who works in those "assisted living facilities" will tell you that they are squalid quasi-labor camps for infirm proles. Obviously "the streets" are no better, but it's a false dichotomy that reinforces the logic of capital.

On what, policemen to beat the "people with physical and mental disabilities"? Why can't "people with disabilities" assert themselves as a group and take control of their own lives? Obviously more subtle reinforcement of capitalist reality as the only option. (I would even argue that "people with disabilities" is as much a social construct as race, and the goal of communists is to abolish such distinctions, not reinforce them with paternalistic authoritarianism)

Again, veterans are exploited by their veteran status, despite whatever meager handouts they get by the state. Obviously we need hand-outs to survive but more important is addressing the roots of the psychological trauma created by one's exploitation at the hands of the capitalist military, and to sabotage recruitment efforts and encourage rebellion among enlisted soldiers.

How about the self-liberation of women and youth via the abolition of the family as an economic institution?

Also abusive capitalist institutions that detain 'unproductive' sectors of the working-class.

I would rather be on welfare, personally. I'd rather control the means of production than either presented option, though...

a.k.a. Monopoly of natural resources by state bureaucrats at the expense of the material conditions of the workers. (Observe how the rural working-class, many of whom lived in communities somewhat autonomous from capitalist law, were brutally dispossessed by the creation of the park services in Cascadia and Appalachia)

a.k.a. More pigs on the street, higher wages for pigs, etc.

The potential (but somewhat unlikely) destruction of the bourgeois "public sector" by its anti-Keynesian rivals, "cuts to the core functions of government", or in other words, is a threat to the capitalist state, and thus white Christian civilization. Hence morally conservative citizens should support the Greens. Nothing a communist should feel anything for but disgust.

Trying to associate mainstream political rivals with "radicals", this is so useful for the communist left. :rolleyes:

"Corporate and banking interests" are threatening the "public sector" of capital, vaguely similar to the fascist delusion that "finance capital" is parasitical to "real" industrial capital.

The bourgeois lies go on and on. Fuck the Greens coming straight from the underground.

I'm starting to understand the Greens more than ever. I also have learned more about Mckinnie.

[Rusty Shackleford]

my problem wit greens is this:

the greens in europe became militarist/hawkish.
the greens in USA will become militarist/hawkish if elected.

the greens cant possibly bring about enough change and then hold on to them. that is the core problem of hoveroing around liberalism and social democracy.

[anticap]

I think anybody who has to live in this country has a vested interest.

Personally, I agree. There is empirical evidence (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf) [PDF] that the working class has suffered less, financially, under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones since WWII. (Unsurprisingly, and contrary to their narratives, the ruling class does about about the same, regardless.) I'm not afraid to admit this, because it's a case of a deliberate false dichotomy, where I'm asked to choose between only two parties even though there are many other possible choices; and false dichotomies should not necessarily be dodged or dismissed by simply declaring them false and refusing to respond to them on that basis. Sometimes a false dichotomy is not being used fallaciously, but takes the form of a hypothetical question.

These exercises serve a purpose. In this case it's to force us to be more nuanced in our observations (which is generally a good thing), rather than simply declare with irritation that the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same (as I've often done) when in fact they are not. (They can't be: since no two humans are the same, no two human organizations can be -- not even if they adopt identical platforms. It will still be possible to set aside the similarities until we've distilled them down to the differences; and however insignificant those may be, we'll still be able to answer the hypothetical, unless we're being stubborn.)

None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Democrats: as we zoom out from the hypothetical and let more choices into the picture, our response will likely change.

Moreover, and back to the point of my last post, arguments such as those against Nader voters on the basis that he allegedly cost Gore the 2000 election are absurd. (In that particular case, the common 'wisdom' is false not only because Gore didn't 'own' those votes [the voters did], so they weren't 'stolen' from him; but because more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader -- something that was omitted from the media narrative at the time and is still rarely conceded by Gore voters.)


My personal take is, because I live in a blue state, to vote Green/Socialist when the Republican candidate is expected to lose.

And despite the howls of indignation from the Left, Chomsky and Zinn were right to suggest voting that way, given the electoral system we live under in the US. I don't bother, because I know that my vote will never be the tie-breaker (among other reasons); but when family and friends who are decent people but would never vote for a non-viable party ask me for advice, that's what I suggest they do. Responding to their false dichotomy in a nuanced manner after taking the evidence into consideration doesn't make me a liberal.

[NGNM85]

Personally, I agree. There is empirical evidence (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf) [PDF] that the working class has suffered less, financially, under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones since WWII.

Absolutely. They serve different elite constituencies. I assume you're referring to the Princeton study? I had to remove my PDF reader and I haven't installed a new one, yet. I've read it, I've even posted fragments of it, here, to no avail.


(Unsurprisingly, and contrary to their narratives, the ruling class does about about the same, regardless.) I'm not afraid to admit this, because it's a case of a deliberate false dichotomy, where I'm asked to choose between only two parties even though there are many other possible choices; and false dichotomies should not necessarily be dodged or dismissed by simply declaring them false and refusing to respond to them on that basis. Sometimes a false dichotomy is not being used fallaciously, but takes the form of a hypothetical question.

These exercises serve a purpose. In this case it's to force us to be more nuanced in our observations (which is generally a good thing), rather than simply declare with irritation that the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same (as I've often done) when in fact they are not. (They can't be: since no two humans are the same, no two human organizations can be -- not even if they adopt identical platforms. It will still be possible to set aside the similarities until we've distilled them down to the differences; and however insignificant those may be, we'll still be able to answer the hypothetical, unless we're being stubborn.)

None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the Democrats: as we zoom out from the hypothetical and let more choices into the picture, our response will likely change.

Moreover, and back to the point of my last post, arguments such as those against Nader voters on the basis that he allegedly cost Gore the 2000 election are absurd. (In that particular case, the common 'wisdom' is false not only because Gore didn't 'own' those votes [the voters did], so they weren't 'stolen' from him; but because more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader -- something that was omitted from the media narrative at the time and is still rarely conceded by Gore voters.)

True, but it certainly didn't help. The 2000, and 2004 elections are great arguments for transfer voting.


And despite the howls of indignation from the Left, Chomsky and Zinn were right to suggest voting that way, given the electoral system we live under in the US. I don't bother, because I know that my vote will never be the tie-breaker (among other reasons); but when family and friends who are decent people but would never vote for a non-viable party ask me for advice, that's what I suggest they do. Responding to their false dichotomy in a nuanced manner after taking the evidence into consideration doesn't make me a liberal.

Yes. We're essentially on the same page.

[anticap]

Absolutely. They serve different elite constituencies.

Yep. Ferguson's investment theory of party competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition) examines that. YouTuber "mr1001nights (http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights)" has distilled the theory down to a 78-minute documentary (http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/).


I assume you're referring to the Princeton study?

Bartels (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/), of Princeton, yes.

[JacobVardy]

my problem wit greens is this:

the greens in europe became militarist/hawkish.
the greens in USA will become militarist/hawkish if elected.

the greens cant possibly bring about enough change and then hold on to them. that is the core problem of hoveroing around liberalism and social democracy.

The German Greens became hawkish when they were sucked into a minority Cabinet with the SPD. If a Greens Party states that they are willing to enter a minority position in government, forget them. Already reformist, they will be sucked into a parlimentarianist position. And like Chegitz said, if there is a comparable anarchist/communist/socialist organisation, forget the Greens. If there is a revolutionary group, why join a reformist one?

[bailey_187]

Anti-immigration is reactionary, but population control isn't necessarily so. There is no reason to think that "the higher the population growth, the better" is actually true anywhere, either in the 1st world or the 3rd.

Of course it would be reactionary if they only focus on "population control" in the 3rd world but not the 1st. That would almost be like an indirect form of racist "eugenics".


No one is saying we need more population growth, but the Green Party is saying we need less. This is reactinary and Malthusian. The problems in the world are not caused by poor people having too many children.

[bailey_187]

I am not against immigration, but I do wish that people who can't feed themselves would slow down on having children.

But these people cant feed themselves because there is a lack of food, but because our economic system denies them access to it. Whether they have 1, 10 or 20 kids, they will not have access to the food that exists.

[NGNM85]

Yep. Ferguson's investment theory of party competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition) examines that. YouTuber "mr1001nights (http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights)" has distilled the theory down to a 78-minute documentary (http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/).

Chomsky says about the same thing.


Bartels (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/), of Princeton, yes.

Yup, that's the one.

[leninfan]

But these people cant feed themselves because there is a lack of food, but because our economic system denies them access to it. Whether they have 1, 10 or 20 kids, they will not have access to the food that exists.
So why bring in children to a hungry world?
Evil capitalist don't give a darn, so why keep feeding them slaves?
I guess eliminating the poor by these means is how the capitalist would get their way I guess.

There are simple solutions to hunger, but no one really gives a damn.
Well I take that back, I do.

[Klaatu]

Fuck the bourgeois Greens.

Whatever.



Also, fuck environmentalism.

That is just a cheap shot. Some enviros are dickheads, therefore the entire idea of protecting nature is bad?
Is this what you mean, or did I misinterpret your post?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Whatever.

One prominant Green hangs out with Holocaust deniers, another is a union-busting exploiter who embezzles money to invest in the stock market, a third appeals to "conservative voters" over issues of "public safety" and "fair taxation". Also, since the discussion started, a scandal broke out in Arizona in which the Republicans were paying homeless workers to run on a Green platform to siphon votes away from the Dems. (Not that I give a fuck about the Dems, but this is a perfect example of how the Greens are just another player in the gossipy spectacle of bourgeois elections) Fuck the bourgeois Greens.


Some enviros are dickheads, therefore the entire idea of protecting nature is bad?
Is this what you mean, or did I misinterpret your post?I am very pro-ecology and pro-nature but anti-"environmentalist". I do not want the bourgeoisie to hire me to "rebuild" the Earth they hired my parents to destroy.

[bailey_187]

So why bring in children to a hungry world?
Evil capitalist don't give a darn, so why keep feeding them slaves?
I guess eliminating the poor by these means is how the capitalist would get their way I guess.

There are simple solutions to hunger, but no one really gives a damn.
Well I take that back, I do.


Why do they have children still? A number of reasons. Most of the people starving in the world live in agricultural societies, so there are more potential hands, as someone already said. There is also more to send to cities to work to atleast try to provide an income etc. There is also the issue of lack of access to contraception.

But why is not important. Having less kids wont lead to anyone having more food. Maybe it is unwise to bring kids into a starving world, but the only other option is for you to force people in the Third World to stop having kids. That basicaly puts the blame for there suffering on them. You are essentially punishing people for a situation they did not create.

[leninfan]

Got ya.

[Aesop]

So why bring in children to a hungry world?
Evil capitalist don't give a darn, so why keep feeding them slaves?
I guess eliminating the poor by these means is how the capitalist would get their way I guess.

There are simple solutions to hunger, but no one really gives a damn.
Well I take that back, I do.

:confused:
Please read up. Humans will have children no matter what the economic and political structures they might find themselves in.
It is widely recognised that across all societies in general that the wealthier people get they generally have smaller families and actively pursue better education and life chances for their children. In short if you want people in the periphery world to have fewer children, then promoting a more redistributive system is required. Otherwise all you are doing is eating soup with a fork.