Why a stronger Green Party is positive

[RGacky3]

Over the last 20 years the Democratic part has gone right, why? Because they are still to the left of the Republicans, and as long as they are that there is only one factor, we all know what that is, its money.

The Democratic progressive ideals are much more popular than the right wing, so the democrats will always win that section. When they turn further left what they loose is money, they don't loose votes, but what they DO loose is voter turnout, progressives don't turnout, but as long as the republicans are bat shit insane, voter turnout can happen.

The Republicans have a solid base and have corporate support, they do well with low voter turnout, and they actually benefit the more the government fails.

A strong green party or some other party from the left has a progressive pull, and stops the democrats from thinking thet'll juts get votes by being slightly left of the republicans.

A Democratic corporatist president with no left opposition is WORSE than a republican corporatist president with a real left opposition, the former is what we have now.

[Dimentio]

Abolish First-Past-the-Post.

That would destroy the Republican strategy of getting votes from low-inhabitated rural wastelands.

Also, instead of 2 senators for every state, have like 1-10 senators from states dependent on their population size.

[RGacky3]

I would love that, all of those, the number one problem is campain finance, campain finance reform would change EVERYTHING, pass that and watch politics in the US race to the left.

[Broletariat]

Left Capitalism is still Capitalism, who's in control of the bourgeoisie state doesn't matter too much, it's still a bourgeoisie state.

[RGacky3]

... yes ... So what ... What are you gonna do, hide in your basement until a full on socialist revolution?

[Broletariat]

... yes ... So what ... What are you gonna do, hide in your basement until a full on socialist revolution?

No, just not cheerlead for Capitalist parties.

[Lord Testicles]

I don't know what they are like in America but in Britain the green party is the one that keeps telling me that my standard of living is too high and I need to cut down on my consumption. Just for that they can fuck off, they are no better than any other party which wants to launch extensive attacks against the working class.

[bailey_187]

fuck the Green Party. They want to "learn from" war time rationing. So much for our dream of a world of abundance.

[RGacky3]

They arn't that in the US, they are not a european style green party, they are much more into community organizing, grass roots democracy, bottom up economics and so on.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Abolish First-Past-the-Post.

That would destroy the Republican strategy of getting votes from low-inhabitated rural wastelands.

Also, instead of 2 senators for every state, have like 1-10 senators from states dependent on their population size.

We already have proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The point of the Senate is to give states equal representation, which I find utterly ridiculous. If you are saying both the lower and the upper houses should be based on proportional representation, I could get behind that. Or we might as well just move to a unicameral legislature.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I should I add that by "proportional representation" I mean based on population size, but still "first-past-the-post". Not multiple-winner proportional representation. Are you saying the House of Representatives should be based on multiple winner proportional representation and the Senate should be based on population size like the House is right now? I could get behind that too. Or are you saying that both houses should be based on actual multiple-winner proportionality with no first-past-the-post? I could get behind that as well.

[Ocean Seal]

I personally think we need stronger labour, social democratic, and genuine socialist parties. If say a socialist party were to cause the defeat of the Democrats in an election they would have to listen to us more.
We need to welcome the defeat of the democrats to the Republicans because it would be a victory in the long run. Defeat the democrats and they have to move their party line to the left, and not forget about the radical left. After we succeed in doing that we can make sure that the people get social services.
More social democrats means
More union organization
More free time for workers
More control over their lives
More education
This leads to a more aggressive and more demanding proletariat which is always welcome.

[RATM-Eubie]

I agree with all of this.
The US Greens are a lot different from the European Greens.
Much more generally to the left, i would call them on the border line of social dems and democratic socialists but they definably are in for the movement. I know many socialists who are in the Greens but i also know just many ultra liberals who are in the movement. But all in all they are defiantly a positive for our movement.

[Tim Finnegan]

Left Capitalism is still Capitalism, who's in control of the bourgeoisie state doesn't matter too much, it's still a bourgeoisie state.
"It doesn't matter if I'm receiving publicly-funded healthcare or beaten round the head with a truncheon- it's still capitalism!"

Bourgeois parties may not offer a fundamental change to society, but to pretend that there is no discernible difference Republican class warriors and left-wing Democrats is simply ridiculous. Didn't Lenin defend Connolly's alliance with bourgeois anti-imperialists? Why would he do that, if Pearse was just as bad as Lloyd George?


fuck the Green Party. They want to "learn from" war time rationing. So much for our dream of a world of abundance.
I don't believe that a post-scarcity society was ever supposed to be something just round the corner. It's something to build towards, not something to achieve in an instant- Marx drew a distinction between the "lower" and "higher" stage of communism for a reason.


I don't know what they are like in America but in Britain the green party is the one that keeps telling me that my standard of living is too high and I need to cut down on my consumption. Just for that they can fuck off, they are no better than any other party which wants to launch extensive attacks against the working class.
Marxist-Consumerist? I smell a tendency in the works... :rolleyes:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I like the US green party, one doesn't have to wonder what any members position on things like the death penalty or foreign wars is because they're built around issues like these, as well as the grass roots democracy Gacky points out.

Unlike winning elections to reward themselves and most well to do supporters, which is the one guiding principle the Democrats are built on.

[RATM-Eubie]

Just warning everyone to watch out because you might get restricted like i did for supporting the green party....

[RGacky3]

Just warning everyone to watch out because you might get restricted like i did for supporting the green party....


Which is kind of stupid, imo, as if someone can not support a political party while wanting revolutionary change.

[eric922]

The Green Party may not bring about a socialist revolution, but if they can pass universal health care so that no more people die from being too poor to pay for healthcare, or help address any of the other ills of our society then I will gladly form an alliance with them.

[B5C]

The problem with the Green Party it is a a third party. 3rd parties don't have a chance winning in Federal office.

I remember 20 years ago when we had 3 candidates in the debate hour. Now it's only two.

[eric922]

That is why we need proportional representation. I think it should be set up to where you vote for parties and not candidates. The party should have a clear concise platform that party members adhered to so you know what your getting when you vote for a party. Any party that gains at least 5% of the vote should gain that many seats in Congress.

[Dimentio]

I should I add that by "proportional representation" I mean based on population size, but still "first-past-the-post". Not multiple-winner proportional representation. Are you saying the House of Representatives should be based on multiple winner proportional representation and the Senate should be based on population size like the House is right now? I could get behind that too. Or are you saying that both houses should be based on actual multiple-winner proportionality with no first-past-the-post? I could get behind that as well.

Whatever is slightly less discriminating against urban regions.

[bailey_187]

Marxist-Consumerist? I smell a tendency in the works... :rolleyes:

Nope, just good old fashioned socialism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/socialism.htm

[graymouser]

There's a kind of consensus in the US that the stranglehold on power by the Republican and Democratic Parties is a bad thing, and that's broadly correct. But third parties aren't automatically good - I mean, I wouldn't prefer a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate to the standard D or R. For me, the Greens fall into more or less the same spectrum. They're vaguely "lefty" liberals who are disaffected with the Democrats. That's fine and I do work with Green Party members in anti-war activism, but that doesn't mean I support them electorally. When you come right down to it, their program is a middle class utopian program of reformed capitalism. It's a question of class independence - can you yoke the working class to a bunch of middle class reformists? I don't think that's too much of an upgrade from them being tied hand and foot to the Democrats. We need actual socialists in elections, or at least some kind of labor party that is class independent. Not middle class Greens.

[Tim Finnegan]

Nope, just good old fashioned socialism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/socialism.htm
There's your problem.

[Skooma Addict]

Green Party

ElJFYwRtrH4

[Tim Finnegan]

Green Party

ElJFYwRtrH4
Yes, the Green Party and Earth First! are exactly the same thing. Not one shred of difference there, no siree bob.

By the way, have you seen the photos from the recent Labour Party conference?

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/communist-rally.jpg

Thrilling stuff! :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, the Green Party and Earth First! are exactly the same thing. Not one shred of difference there, no siree bob.

They aren't the same. The green party is a little more "out there."

[Broletariat]

"It doesn't matter if I'm receiving publicly-funded healthcare or beaten round the head with a truncheon- it's still capitalism!"

This misses the point. If it's in the Capitalists interests to publicly fund healthcare, they will do it, if it's in their interests to beat us on the heads with truncheons, they'll do it.


Bourgeois parties may not offer a fundamental change to society, but to pretend that there is no discernible difference Republican class warriors and left-wing Democrats is simply ridiculous.

Regardless of any perceived differences, the Capitalists will elect who they want in power.


Didn't Lenin defend Connolly's alliance with bourgeois anti-imperialists? Why would he do that, if Pearse was just as bad as Lloyd George?

My knowledge of history is non-existent so I'll be forced to concede here.

[Tim Finnegan]

This misses the point. If it's in the Capitalists interests to publicly fund healthcare, they will do it, if it's in their interests to beat us on the heads with truncheons, they'll do it.
Of course, but those are two vastly different experiences from the perspective of the worker. To ignore that is to toss out all class struggle short of revolution- which, in effect, is to toss out revolution itself!


Regardless of any perceived differences, the Capitalists will elect who they want in power.So the capitalists wanted Allende in power? That makes their coup against him seem rather schizophrenic...

Observing, quite accurately, that the bourgeois state acts in the interest of the bourgeoisie is not to say that it cannot also act in the interest of the proletariat, insofar as the bourgeoisie, faced with a militant and concious proletariat, often find it in their immediate interests to make certain concessions. Why would we have even the limited democracy and social welfare that we have today, were that not the case? Bourgeois generosity?

[Lord Testicles]

Marxist-Consumerist? I smell a tendency in the works... :rolleyes:

As far as I'm aware anarchists and socialists have always championed higher standards of living for the working class.

Are you suggesting that we should fight a revolution so that we can be materially worse off?

[Broletariat]

Of course, but those are two vastly different experiences from the perspective of the worker. To ignore that is to toss out all class struggle short of revolution- which, in effect, is to toss out revolution itself!

My point is that we should be working on building revolution, not reforms. In times of great revolutionary potential, the bourgeoisie are going to dress in red and try to alleviate pressure (social democracy), do not be fooled by these illusions.


So the capitalists wanted Allende in power? That makes their coup against him seem rather schizophrenic...

The Capitalists aren't a homogenous entity.


Observing, quite accurately, that the bourgeois state acts in the interest of the bourgeoisie is not to say that it cannot also act in the interest of the proletariat, insofar as the bourgeoisie, faced with a militant and concious proletariat, often find it in their immediate interests to make certain concessions. Why would we have even the limited democracy and social welfare that we have today, were that not the case? Bourgeois generosity?

Oh of course, I don't deny this.

[RGacky3]

This thread was intended for people that ACTUALLY care about bettering things for workers, and not those who just want to allow things to get worse and worse just waiting for some glorious storming of the gates.

[RGacky3]

BTW as far is it being the Capitalists "interest" to have public healthcare, yeah, if it stops a revolution, just as it was in there interest to allow unions, and how it was in the interest of Mubarak to leave the country.

[Broletariat]

This thread was intended for people that ACTUALLY care about bettering things for workers, and not those who just want to allow things to get worse and worse just waiting for some glorious storming of the gates.

The Revolution comes with reforms, as we fight more and more for Communism the bourgeoisie will start to make more and more concessions in attempts to appease the working class.

The alternative is to simply fight for reforms, in which case I guess we're in the right forum.

[RGacky3]

The Revolution comes with reforms, as we fight more and more for Communism the bourgeoisie will start to make more and more concessions in attempts to appease the working class.

The alternative is to simply fight for reforms, in which case I guess we're in the right forum.

Absolutely, changes happen when they are forced, not when they are asked for.

What I'm talking about here is juts an electoral strategy.

[Broletariat]

Absolutely, changes happen when they are forced, not when they are asked for.

What I'm talking about here is juts an electoral strategy.


Joining the borugeoisie game isn't going to work for us. We're poor working class people, we don't have the money for "electoral strategy." What we do have is numbers, I advise we use them.

[Tim Finnegan]

As far as I'm aware anarchists and socialists have always championed higher standards of living for the working class.

Are you suggesting that we should fight a revolution so that we can be materially worse off?
I'm suggesting that a post-scarcity society does not permit unbridled consumption in the manner advocated by bourgeois consumerists, as Skinz seemed to assume.

[RGacky3]

Joining the borugeoisie game isn't going to work for us. We're poor working class people, we don't have the money for "electoral strategy." What we do have is numbers, I advise we use them.

Sure, and one of the ways you can use them (amung many others), is not voting for democrats juts because they arn't republicans.

[Broletariat]

Sure, and one of the ways you can use them (amung many others), is not voting for democrats juts because they arn't republicans.


If this is an advocation to not vote, how could I disagree.

[graymouser]

Sure, and one of the ways you can use them (amung many others), is not voting for democrats juts because they arn't republicans.
But does it then follow that you should vote for the Greens just because they aren't Democrats?

[RGacky3]

You should vore for people that will push for things that benefit you ....

Not voting as a strategy is stupid.

[Broletariat]

You should vore for people that will push for things that benefit you ....

And they push Capitalism which does not benefit me.


Not voting as a strategy is stupid.

It's quite an important theoretical point to make, that we know change of any valuable sort cannot come from the bourgeoisie.

[ComradeMan]

For once I am agreeing, critically, with Gacky! :lol: FFS- what's with this Green hatred going on here? There is nothing so fundamentally bad about the Greens and there is a lot worse about other so-called leftists.

Hey, let's shit on the Greens whilst some form apologetics for Pol Pot- or even have said they support him, along with Stalinists and other nutcases.

[Tim Finnegan]

My point is that we should be working on building revolution, not reforms. In times of great revolutionary potential, the bourgeoisie are going to dress in red and try to alleviate pressure (social democracy), do not be fooled by these illusions.
I don't think that it's accurate to pose the pursuit of reforms and the building of a revolutionary movement as mutually exclusive. Revolution demands a strong and concious working class, and that is something is built by political success, not by reducing the working class to misery. Take Britain- was the working class more militant before Thatcher, in the days of the strong welfare state and with the Labour Party as a working class party (albeit a greatly flawed one), or after, with a decimated welfare state and no significant working class party in sight?


The Capitalists aren't a homogenous entity.
They were near enough so in 1960s Chile.

[Broletariat]

For once I am agreeing, critically, with Gacky! :lol: FFS- what's with this Green hatred going on here? There is nothing so fundamentally bad about the Greens and there is a lot worse about other so-called leftists.

Hey, let's shit on the Greens whilst some form apologetics for Pol Pot- or even have said they support him, along with Stalinists and other nutcases.

Honestly, I don't know shit about the Greens. But if they're on a ballot, that's enough reason for me to recognise them as Capitalist and not worth the time of day.

I tend to identify as a left com so the latter criticism does not apply to me.

[ComradeMan]

Honestly, I don't know shit about the Greens. But if they're on a ballot, that's enough reason for me to recognise them as Capitalist and not worth the time of day.

I tend to identify as a left com so the latter criticism does not apply to me.

But... but.... the Communist parties also appear on the ballot- I don't know where you are but the Communists are voted for in Europe. In Chile, Allende was also elected. I think you are taking a bit of an unrealistic hard line.

[Broletariat]

I don't think that it's accurate to pose the pursuit of reforms and the building of a revolutionary movement as mutually exclusive. Revolution demands a strong and concious working class, and that is something is built by political success, not by reducing the working class to misery. Take Britain- was the working class more militant before Thatcher, in the days of the strong welfare state and with the Labour Party as a working class party (albeit a greatly flawed one), or after, with a decimated welfare state and no significant working class party in sight?

You're reading things backwards here. Things were better then BECAUSE the working class fought for them. You seem to imply that these reforms were just handed down to us from the bourgeoisie above.



They were near enough so in 1960s Chile.

I'll have to concede this point as my knowledge of history is non-existent.

[Broletariat]

But... but.... the Communist parties also appear on the ballot- I don't know where you are but the Communists are voted for in Europe. In Chile, Allende was also elected. I think you are taking a bit of an unrealistic hard line.


Again, my knowledge of history is rather trash, but I don't think the Paris Commune was voted into power, nor were the Bolsheviks. At least not parliamentarily.

[Tim Finnegan]

You're reading things backwards here. Things were better then BECAUSE the working class fought for them. You seem to imply that these reforms were just handed down to us from the bourgeoisie above.
The one enforces the other. The working class does not fight when success seems impossible, and success must be demonstrated through real change, not through untenable promises of a better world "after the revolution".

And, wait, weren't you just suggesting that bourgeois concessions are hand-outs intended to negate class struggle, and not class victories which emerged from it? It can't be both.

[Broletariat]

The one enforces the other. The working class does not fight when success seems impossible, and success must be demonstrated through real change, not through untenable promises of a better world "after the revolution".


This works both ways. Reforms serve to release revolutionary steam in favour of the bourgeoisie, and bread lines tend to start big movements.

Other times the opposite is true.

[Tim Finnegan]

This works both ways. Reforms serve to release revolutionary steam in favour of the bourgeoisie, and bread lines tend to start big movements.

Other times the opposite is true.
Revolution can only emerge when the proletariat is aware of itself and of it power, and that is something that can only be widely established through concrete political gains, not through theoretical proclamations. Bread lines without a class movement merely result in demands for the more efficient exploitation of the working class, not for the abolition of exploitation; the February Revolution was not the October Revolution.

[ComradeMan]

Again, my knowledge of history is rather trash, but I don't think the Paris Commune was voted into power, nor were the Bolsheviks. At least not parliamentarily.

Yeah, but that was a long time ago and they are not sooooooooo relevant to people alive here and now, are they?

You've also cited a heroic but tragic failure and a somewhat dubious "revolution" from certain points of view.

[Ele'ill]

Wait, Earth First is being compared to the Green Party?

[Broletariat]

Yeah, but that was a long time ago and they are not sooooooooo relevant to people alive here and now, are they?

I'd say Communism is still relevant.


Revolution can only emerge when the proletariat is aware of itself and of it power, and that is something that can only be widely established through concrete political gains, not through theoretical proclamations.

Sure, and I don't deny this, but we ALREADY have the experience to know that reforms do not lead to revolution and in fact are often times used to fight revolution. So fighting for reforms alone instead of revolution while realising reforms come along the way is not Communist behaviour at all.

[RGacky3]

Honestly, I don't know shit about the Greens. But if they're on a ballot, that's enough reason for me to recognise them as Capitalist and not worth the time of day.

I tend to identify as a left com so the latter criticism does not apply to me.

Ok, so let shit get really really really bad, people die (literally), and hole a revolution somehow comes out of it?

[Broletariat]

Ok, so let shit get really really really bad, people die (literally), and hole a revolution somehow comes out of it?


Not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that the Green Party and social democractic parties are not "good" to have stronger as opposed to neo-liberal groups, but that their strength is a SIGN of working class strength. These sorts of parties don't come about when the Capitalists are ruling unopposed. What parties are in power is a capitalist reaction to the strength of the working class movements.

What I'm saying is that as people fight for revolution, things will inevitably get better slowly but surely.

[IndependentCitizen]

... yes ... So what ... What are you gonna do, hide in your basement until a full on socialist revolution?

Working with and in capitalist parties won't get you anywhere...

[ComradeMan]

Working with and in capitalist parties won't get you anywhere...

The trouble is that the World is predominantly capitalist and even the most left groups, other than the fringes, in some way or another could be accused of collaborating with capitalism. FFS YOU and I collaborate with capitalism every time we buy something.... get it? You see the parties as the be-all end-all, but the parties are actually secondary to the lobbies and the influence of big business.

The Greens in Europe tend to be anti-capitalist as capitalism doesn't really fit with eco-socialism and/or sustainable development green policies.

[Drosophila]

In my opinion, hatred for the Green Party on this site is generated from dreaming leftists. We're not going to just wake up one morning and start a worker's revolt. That's unrealistic. What we can do, however, is modify our current system. That will make way for a future anarchy.

[Ele'ill]

In my opinion, hatred for the Green Party on this site is generated from dreaming leftists. We're not going to just wake up one morning and start a worker's revolt. That's unrealistic. What we can do, however, is modify our current system. That will make way for a future anarchy.

I'm not really interested in reform.

[Drosophila]

I'm not really interested in reform.

Then what are you interested in? Just smashing the system and starting from scratch? What a horribly stupid strategy.

[RATM-Eubie]

I dont know about you guys but i see this as a much better alternative a way more to the left than any of the 2 main parties...
Their ten key values seem to be a lot more better for society and the working class than either of the 2 major parties:


Grassroots democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots_democracy)
Social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice) and equal opportunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity)
Ecological wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_wisdom)
Nonviolence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence)
Decentralization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization)
Community-based economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-based_economics)
Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism) and gender equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality)
Respect for diversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_diversity)
Personal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-help) and global responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)
Future focus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting) and sustainability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability)

Seem like a good alternative rather than the repubs or dems.
And their are many socialists in the Green Party.

[ComradeMan]

Then what are you interested in? Just smashing the system and starting from scratch? What a horribly stupid strategy.

She's an anarchist- so yeah.

Don't think that because people defended you on principle means you ought to try to convince us all to vote Green either. :lol:

Try Eco-Socialism....

[apawllo]

I don't have an issue with voting for Green or Socialist parties personally, in fact I've done it, but making a strategy of it is a waste of time and resources imo. If they're going to spend their money and time to run against the capitalist parties, I'll respect the work they put in and take 5 minutes out of my day to vote for them. Making a strategy out of it is something else completely though; not only is there no way to accomplish anything substantive from it within our current electoral system, things will likely look even more bleak with corporate election reforms in place in 2012.

And for the record, I'm not sure how things are in other places, but I looked into reforms in Ohio a couple years ago to change the electoral system to IRV, and it would require an amendment to the state constitution for it to even take place in the town I live in. To get a referendum on the ballot, I would have been required to collect a certain number of signatures (a percentage of how many voted in the last election), within certain counties, in a certain time frame, then it would be placed on the ballot. If it got that far, I'd guess corporate funded ads would be all over TV and radio with sinister music in the background discussing how election reform is bad for Ohio.

[Tim Finnegan]

Sure, and I don't deny this, but we ALREADY have the experience to know that reforms do not lead to revolution and in fact are often times used to fight revolution. So fighting for reforms alone instead of revolution while realising reforms come along the way is not Communist behaviour at all.
Yes, and that's why I've been advocating the latter and not the former, in opposition to the third, unmentioned strategy of fighting for revolution and revolution alone. Purist revolutionary sects have never achieved any more than bourgeois parties have, and a good deal less than working class parliamentarian ones.

[Broletariat]

Yes, and that's why I've been advocating the latter and not the former, in opposition to the third, unmentioned strategy of fighting for revolution and revolution alone.

That's just the thing, you can't fight for revolution and revolution alone. If you fight for revolution, reforms WILL come along the way.

[comrade leoski]

We have the green party in Australia, they are i think the third strongest one, after liberal and labor. They never really had a great chance of winning, just maybe tip the balance. I told my parents to vote for the greens, once i saw something on the political compass that said the greens are actually the party that have the closest ideology to me.(leftist libertarian, i am a more left and a bit more authoritarian though)

[Tim Finnegan]

That's just the thing, you can't fight for revolution and revolution alone. If you fight for revolution, reforms WILL come along the way.
But, equally, you can't treat these reforms as incidental. They are how class power is realised, and so must be pursued consciously; what's important is to address them as part of a greater program of class struggle with revolution as its end goal, rather as an end in themselves.

[Ele'ill]

Then what are you interested in? Just smashing the system and starting from scratch? What a horribly stupid strategy.

About the Green Party's shift into anarchy- where's the part of their website about abolishing the state?

[Skooma Addict]

The green party needs to understand that not everyone wants to live their life like peter rabbit.

[Ele'ill]

The green party needs to understand that not everyone wants to live their life like peter rabbit.

I don't understand.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't understand.
He means that most people don't feel comfortable walking around without pants on.

[Lord Testicles]

I'm suggesting that a post-scarcity society does not permit unbridled consumption in the manner advocated by bourgeois consumerists, as Skinz seemed to assume.

I don't see how the bourgeoisie are advocating unbridled consumption when there are homeless and starving people, not to mention when they pay you a meagre wage so you can't consume as much as you need or want. Am I misreading you?

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see how the bourgeoisie are advocating unbridled consumption when there are homeless and starving people, not to mention when they pay you a meagre wage so you can't consume as much as you need or want. Am I misreading you?
I meant generally, not individually. Capitalist accumulation demands that consumption of natural resources be limitless, but that is obviously not say that it will actually be infinite, so I am not suggesting that they advocate some sort of post-scarcity consumerism. (Which, of course, their class interests would necessarily prevent them from doing even if it was possible.)

Environmentalism, the preservation of the environmental commons against capitalist appropriation, is a form of class struggle. The red must be green, and the green red, or neither can offer a feasible program.

[RGacky3]

What parties are in power is a capitalist reaction to the strength of the working class movements.

What I'm saying is that as people fight for revolution, things will inevitably get better slowly but surely.

Fair point but I dissagree somewhat, you need a working class movement always to force a reaction, but what party is in power does make a difference, just look at Hoovers reaction as opposed to FDRs.

[masty]

I thought the example of the libdems jumping in bed with the conservatives to push through Thatcher-level cuts to social services and education would convince people once and for all that superficially 'left' third parties in a liberal democracy are worth less than the paper their platform's printed on, but I guess not.

[RGacky3]

Since when have the british LibDebs been a leftist, or even social-democratic party? Even superficially?

[masty]

well never of course, but some people were clearly under that impression. I'm talking about the debate among some on the left before the last election- some people were saying 'we should vote libdem, they're left of labour and doing so well that they might be able to form a government' or something. it wasn't some widespread delusion but there was enough discussion that I read about it to make me remember it.

[bailey_187]

Since when have the british LibDebs been a leftist, or even social-democratic party? Even superficially?

well the lib-dems are a product of a merger with the Social Democrat party. Before the coalition they were more social democratic and left than labour in rhetoric

[Demogorgon]

Honestly, I don't know shit about the Greens. But if they're on a ballot, that's enough reason for me to recognise them as Capitalist and not worth the time of day.

I tend to identify as a left com so the latter criticism does not apply to me.
"Not knowing shit" seems to sum up this post in general. In this country if I get ten signatures and am willing to pay a five hundred pound deposit, I am on the ballot, in what way does that suddenly make me capitalist? This absurd kind of reasoning strikes me as having been made in a complete vacuum without any relevance to the real world.

If simply getting on a ballot paper makes one capitalist, I take it you believe Universal Suffrage was a complete waste of time and the left should never have pursued it?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't think that it's accurate to pose the pursuit of reforms and the building of a revolutionary movement as mutually exclusive. Revolution demands a strong and concious working class, and that is something is built by political success, not by reducing the working class to misery. Take Britain- was the working class more militant before Thatcher, in the days of the strong welfare state and with the Labour Party as a working class party (albeit a greatly flawed one), or after, with a decimated welfare state and no significant working class party in sight?

That's the best argument against revolutionary do-nothingism (or call it "building working class revolutionary movement." Whatever.) that seems to have infected some members. The fact that being in the street for reform is OK simply because it puts people in the street should be emphasized. The whole notion that reform mills workers to sleep and whatnot is simply not held up by historical observation, and can be accounted for by remembering that theoreticians are the only people defending do-nothing ideology.

Also, there's been a great amount of questioning the RevLeft doublespeak, and I can't get enough of it. For example, all reform was paid for by the lower class, like all struggles have been. However, Reform is actually just a tool to buy off the labor movement, like union membership. So really we souldn't be complaining when unions go away.



Revolution can only emerge when the proletariat is aware of itself and of it power, and that is something that can only be widely established through concrete political gains, not through theoretical proclamations.


Good quote!

And I would add that anyone who doesn't wish to help with those political gains -- who doesn't want to hasten the time for the proletariat to realize it's power, needs to explain what makes them a Revolutionary and not someone waiting for change.

[Tim Finnegan]

I thought the example of the libdems jumping in bed with the conservatives to push through Thatcher-level cuts to social services and education would convince people once and for all that superficially 'left' third parties in a liberal democracy are worth less than the paper their platform's printed on, but I guess not.
Key word. A genuine left-reformist party would be a different story.


well the lib-dems are a product of a merger with the Social Democrat party. Before the coalition they were more social democratic and left than labour in rhetoric
That's really more a comment on the magnitude of Labour's right-ward shift than anything else. The Liberal Democrats were already firmly to the right of the originally Liberal-Social Democrat Alliance, so it can't even be said that they made a particularly enthusiastic attempt to pose themselves as a left-alternative.

What must be remembered about the LibDems is that, amid all their posturing, they remained very much a bourgeois party, and not a working class alternative. They were bright enough to see that that portion of the self-concious working class that still bothered to vote was near-unanimously- if not always cheerfully- behind Labour, and so challenging that from the centre would be a waste of time and energy. Instead, their goal was to draw the support of the liberal middle class (http://www.rantsnraves.org/images/smilies/fromgunner/emot-airquote.gif) who were beginning to feel alienated by the unpleasant Blairite cocktail of state paternalism and neoliberalism (that is to say, neo-Thatcherism)- that this involved a declared support for public services simply reflects the fact that the British middle class has been, since the Thatcher government, artificially bloated to the point were a good portion of the working class no mistakenly identify themselves as amongst its ranks.

[eric922]

I don't know much about British politics, but am I correct in assuming that Thatcher is England's Reagan, AKA God of the conservative movement over there?

[Drosophila]

She's an anarchist- so yeah.

Don't think that because people defended you on principle means you ought to try to convince us all to vote Green either. :lol:

Try Eco-Socialism....

I'm not going to make you vote against your conscience. However, I think that if you agree with most of the Green Party's message then you should vote for them. The only way that we can bring down the two party duopoly is by spreading the word about alternative parties.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't know much about British politics, but am I correct in assuming that Thatcher is England's Reagan, AKA God of the conservative movement over there?
Not to quite the same extent- while she certainly receives a similar level of reverence from the right, her legacy doesn't have quite the same grip on the centre, mostly, I would say, because she has the burden of a personal involvement in the decline of British industry due to then-high levels of nationalisation, and because she lacks the boost provided to Regan by his false claims to have "beaten" the Soviet Union. She's turned out to be a far more controversial figure than Reagan, which is perhaps not unexpected, given that she never even achieved the genuine electoral majority that he did.