The American Green Party

[Yuppie Grinder]

I understand that they are social liberals, which isn't great, but they seem to be the only authentically leftist party to have any relevance at all. I generally agree with them except the whole abolition of capitalism thing which is pretty important to me. What does revleft think of the Green Party?

[Sankara1983]

I think it is too disorganized, factionalized, and low-profile to have much influence either way.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Pro-capitalist petite-bourgeoisie.

I wouldn't ever associate with them (as in join their organization).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I understand that they are social liberals, which isn't great, but they seem to be the only authentically leftist party to have any relevance at all. I generally agree with them except the whole abolition of capitalism thing which is pretty important to me. What does revleft think of the Green Party?

They'd be a lot more relevant if they joined forces with other groups to become a larger Progressive Green Labor Party (like the old Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota and regular Farmer-Labor parties elsewhere), that's for sure.

[wunderbar]

They're a social-democratic party. They seemed to have slowly growing influence in the early 2000s, but they appeared to shrink after 2004, for a few reasons. Democrats whipped liberals and progressives back into submission by blaming Greens for Republican electoral victories and the Greens themselves had internal conflicts among Ralph Nader supporters and members who wanted to go easier against Democrats.

There's still a couple Greens holding elected office (Richmond CA being the largest US city with a Green mayor) but I don't expect any real growth from this party, nor do I particularly care.

FWIW, there's another Green Party in the US called Greens/Green Party USA and they claim to be the true successor to the correspondence committee in the 1980s that eventually formed as the more well-known Green Party. I know very little about these Greens except that they're not particularly concerned with electoral politics and I've heard them described as eco-socialist, but I haven't seen evidence pointing to that.

[DaringMehring]

I generally agree with them except the whole abolition of capitalism thing which is pretty important to me.

You answered your own question.

For non-Marxists, non-socialists, they're among the more agreeable. But their analysis, methods, and class orientation put them in the camp of the bourgeoisie.

We need the abolition of capitalism and the Greens don't even register on that issue.

Not to mention, that on their pet issue -- environment -- they can be played into the hands of the reactionaries with ease. An example is the Solyndra scandal. In general, capitalists use "green" as a screen to get public approval for grants and subsidies and tax breaks for supposedly environmentally responsible companies. Solyndra and others prove the failure of that approach -- of trusting the capitalists to save the environment, and throwing money at them to do it -- but the greens and everyone else without a class analysis can't see the fakeness and insufficiency of this capitalist "green economy."

As a result the capitalists profit and the environment bleeds.

Real greens are people like the socialist environmentalist Judy Bari, who said up front that the only way to save the environment, is to remake the society that is destroying it.

[graymouser]

They're a social-democratic party.
The Green Party is not a social democratic party in either program or composition. It is a petty bourgeois party with a program reflecting the interests of the extreme liberal end of the petty bourgeoisie. "Social democratic" is not an epithet to be used for reformists we don't like; it's a description of the parties, and the programs of these parties, that came out of the Second International and embraced a revisionist course. Social democracy implies roots in the trade union movement, and a reformism that at least nominally aims beyond the capitalist system. The Green Party has neither.

It's an important distinction to make. Supporting Green Party candidates means supporting the program and organization of the radical wing of the petty bourgeoisie, not of the "tamed" section of the working class as it does when revolutionary socialists occasionally give critical support to social democratic parties.

We work in our local antiwar coalition with the local Green Party. They epitomize this sort of petty bourgeois attitude, although some like to talk about the working class, it's mostly the "middle class." Our party (Socialist Action) does not support Green candidates, and it's a question where I took a while to come around to the party's side. But I really think it's an important one, our class independence cannot be supported for a group as tiny as the Greens, and if it were a larger party it would be as bought-off and compromised as its German equivalent.

It's a question of what kind of movement do you want to build. There are socialists in the Green Party but you won't build a revolutionary socialist party by building it.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I largely agree with Graymouser but there can be times when it can be productive to support a Green candidate such as Jill Stein in Massachusetts or Howie Hawkins in NY as a way of opening up discussion to the left of the Dems and to break their monopoly on discussion.

Having said this I would not "join" the Greens of pursue activism though them, they are not socialists or even really socdems and they have sharp limits to their politics.

[socialistjustin]

Ralph Nader wrote a book about how the rich need to save us or some garbage like that. Not sure why anybody who considers themself a revolutionary would support shit like that and their politics.

[eric922]

Ralph Nader wrote a book about how the rich need to save us or some garbage like that. Not sure why anybody who considers themself a revolutionary would support shit like that and their politics.
On this topic, I heard him speak recently and he mentioned that his new book was a work of fiction and that that the title "Only the super rich can save us" was meant sarcastically.

[Smyg]

I've yet to see a green party that isn't, as TheGodlessUtopian says, pro-capitalist petite-bourgeoisie.

[CornetJoyce]

there's another Green Party in the US called Greens/Green Party USA and they claim to be the true successor to the correspondence committee in the 1980s that eventually formed as the more well-known Green Party. I know very little about these Greens except that they're not particularly concerned with electoral politics and I've heard them described as eco-socialist, but I haven't seen evidence pointing to that.

They are indeed the original American greens. The present green party grew from the right wing of the original organization, That the remains of the old greens still "exist" is a testament to the durability of sectarian dreams.

[graymouser]

I largely agree with Graymouser but there can be times when it can be productive to support a Green candidate such as Jill Stein in Massachusetts or Howie Hawkins in NY as a way of opening up discussion to the left of the Dems and to break their monopoly on discussion.
This is a debate that's been going on in the left since Ralph Nader's run in 2000, which was one where our organizations had different takes. Socialist Alternative supported Nader (critically but quite enthusiastically), and Socialist Action gave critical support to the Socialist Workers Party.

In general I don't think it's useful to support any Green Party candidates. The question is not whether you're breaking with the Democrats, but of creating an independent working-class party worthy of the name. That isn't going to happen through a formation where you're basically working to build a tiny petty bourgeois party. It isn't even motion in the right direction - workers are already in class collaboration with the big bourgeoisie in the Democratic Party, why add the petty bourgeois of the Greens into the mix? It lets the initiative in the third party debate go over to the petty bourgeoisie and not in the direction of a labor party, which both of our groups see as a positive goal.

The other thing about this tactic is, generally when you do critical support you are trying to recruit out of it. If we agree that the social composition of the Green Party is largely petty bourgeois, why orient toward them? There aren't generally masses of workers teeming into Green Party meetings.

[graymouser]

They'd be a lot more relevant if they joined forces with other groups to become a larger Progressive Green Labor Party (like the old Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota and regular Farmer-Labor parties elsewhere), that's for sure.
For some reason this awkward formulation makes me imagine not old Farmer-Labor and the Greens but the hyper-sectarian and ultraleft Progressive Labor Party merging with the Green Party. Green anarcho-Stalinism would be a frightful thing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why? :confused:

I didn't have in mind the PLP, though I know their program. Besides, it placates left-liberals' desire for a Progressive Party and stillborn attempts at a United States Labor Party.

Also, I would imagine that a Progressive Green Labor Party would emulate Continental Social Democracy and not British Labour re. ties with trade unions. There's a reason why "Labor" is last amongst the three labels.


The Green Party is not a social democratic party in either program or composition. It is a petty bourgeois party with a program reflecting the interests of the extreme liberal end of the petty bourgeoisie. "Social democratic" is not an epithet to be used for reformists we don't like; it's a description of the parties, and the programs of these parties, that came out of the Second International and embraced a revisionist course. Social democracy implies roots in the trade union movement, and a reformism that at least nominally aims beyond the capitalist system. The Green Party has neither.

You're confusing British Labourism with Continental Social Democracy. Only the former has "roots in the trade union movement."

Also, why here do you address "program or composition" when on the subject of more class-strugglist parties you downplay composition (i.e., for allowing those not among the workforce or pensioners to join)?

[graymouser]

You're confusing British Labourism with Continental Social Democracy. Only the former has "roots in the trade union movement."
The specific relationship may have varied but what I was stressing is the ties between the social democratic parties and the trade unions, which are a deep and historic link. This is not confusion, just a brush that is slightly too broad.


Also, why here do you address "program or composition" when on the subject of more class-strugglist parties you downplay composition (i.e., for allowing those not among the workforce or pensioners to join)?
If you were familiar with the internal debates of the Trotskyist movement in the late 1930s/early 1940s (see Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism and Cannon, The Struggle for a Proletarian Party) you'd understand that party composition is actually quite important to the Trotskyist movement, it simply isn't something enforced by statute. Program is primary but the party should struggle to be primarily a party of proletarians, while not excluding the layer of petty bourgeoisie who come over to the side of the working class.

My point with the Greens is they have neither a working class party nor a working class program. If they had any elements of either it would be a question of how to approach them. They don't, so there is no principled way nor good reason to orient toward the Green Party even for electoral support.

[EvilRedGuy]

I've yet to see a green party that isn't, as TheGodlessUtopian says, pro-capitalist petite-bourgeoisie.

The Danish Unity List (Red-Green Alliance) is anti-capitalist.

[Smyg]

Enhetslistan isn't a green party. They're socialist, with environmental factors. I'm more talking entirely environmental parties, such as Miljöpartiet in Sweden and De Grønne in Denmark.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Enhetslistan isn't a green party. They're socialist, with environmental factors. I'm more talking entirely environmental parties, such as Miljöpartiet in Sweden and De Grønne in Denmark.

The Swedish ones are sneakily trying to become a collaborator with the right-wing government and has conveniently abandoned its past alignment with the social-democrats, which is hardly unique and a inevitable result from the petit-bourgeois nature of such parties in most cases and the limited scope of their political agenda.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you were familiar with the internal debates of the Trotskyist movement in the late 1930s/early 1940s (see Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism and Cannon, The Struggle for a Proletarian Party) you'd understand that party composition is actually quite important to the Trotskyist movement, it simply isn't something enforced by statute. Program is primary but the party should struggle to be primarily a party of proletarians, while not excluding the layer of petty bourgeoisie who come over to the side of the working class.

It's the typical non-worker vacillating on party composition, specifically designed to allow room for non-workers into party leadership positions; this, as opposed to leaving them as non-voting members.


My point with the Greens is they have neither a working class party nor a working class program. If they had any elements of either it would be a question of how to approach them. They don't, so there is no principled way nor good reason to orient toward the Green Party even for electoral support.

I didn't imply that at all. I was implying that left-populist radicalism of a petit-bourgeois type is much better than any iteration of British Labourism. A Progressive Green Labor Party is appropriate for making the practically irreformable yellow unions know their place.

[graymouser]

It's the typical non-worker vacillating on party composition, specifically designed to allow room for non-workers into party leadership positions; this, as opposed to leaving them as non-voting members.
Actually, the SWP pulled a good chunk of its leadership from the working class, particularly during the 50s and 60s when it wound up with Dobbs and Kerry, activists who rose up from the trade union ranks, as the main leaders of the party. Hell, Cannon alternated between being a worker and agitator before his days in the CP when he became a full-timer for the party. If anything it suffered from pulling some of its best union militants into working for the party.

I'll admit that the leadership model went haywire when Jack Barnes was thrust into it. He had gone straight from being a student to being a full-time organizer, and fucked the party up royally. But that was related to a lot of factors, mainly the SWP's orientation at the time to the mass student movement and the generation gap caused by McCarthyism leading someone who had no business running that party.


I didn't imply that at all. I was implying that left-populist radicalism of a petit-bourgeois type is much better than any iteration of British Labourism. A Progressive Green Labor Party is appropriate for making the practically irreformable yellow unions know their place.
You have really strange ideas, dude. There isn't a stable left-populist ideology, and if there was one it wouldn't be a step above anything if it had a party. There is a qualitative difference between a working class party and a petty bourgeois one.

[Threetune]

It's the typical non-worker vacillating on party composition, specifically designed to allow room for non-workers into party leadership positions; this, as opposed to leaving them as non-voting members.



I didn't imply that at all. I was implying that left-populist radicalism of a petit-bourgeois type is much better than any iteration of British Labourism. A Progressive Green Labor Party is appropriate for making the practically irreformable yellow unions know their place.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You are acadenic disengaged sados.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, the SWP pulled a good chunk of its leadership from the working class, particularly during the 50s and 60s when it wound up with Dobbs and Kerry, activists who rose up from the trade union ranks, as the main leaders of the party. Hell, Cannon alternated between being a worker and agitator before his days in the CP when he became a full-timer for the party. If anything it suffered from pulling some of its best union militants into working for the party.

I'll admit that the leadership model went haywire when Jack Barnes was thrust into it. He had gone straight from being a student to being a full-time organizer, and fucked the party up royally. But that was related to a lot of factors, mainly the SWP's orientation at the time to the mass student movement and the generation gap caused by McCarthyism leading someone who had no business running that party.

So why are you hostile to the idea of a workers-only voting membership policy? I admit comrade Miles is a bit of a bad cop in this regard, so I'll come across as the good cop: the pre-war SPD maintained this such that Kautsky had to sell Die Neue Zeit to the party.



You have really strange ideas, dude. There isn't a stable left-populist ideology, and if there was one it wouldn't be a step above anything if it had a party. There is a qualitative difference between a working class party and a petty bourgeois one.
You have really strange ideas, dude. There isn't a stable left-populist ideology, and if there was one it wouldn't be a step above anything if it had a party. There is a qualitative difference between a working class party and a petty bourgeois one.

I'm just contrasting the history of British Labourism with Continental Social Democracy, particular the latter outside Germany. In modern times, it's like comparing the former with the PSUV or the Bolivian MAS.

[Smyg]

The Swedish ones are sneakily trying to become a collaborator with the right-wing government and has conveniently abandoned its past alignment with the social-democrats, which is hardly unique and a inevitable result from the petit-bourgeois nature of such parties in most cases and the limited scope of their political agenda.

Exactly. The new leadership has essentially decided to jump ship in the riksdag, the only place where they haven't gone with the right-wing parties so far. On the municipal level it's rather common - in my home as well as others.

[x359594]

One characteristic of the US Green Party is that in the few cases where its candidates were elected to some office or other they soon disaffiliated with the party and declared themselves to be independents with the excuse that they needed to rely on their Democratic colleagues to get anything done.

That happened when Audie Bock was elected to the State Assembly in California. She soon discovered it was a wrong move since she didn't get Democratic support and she had no party behind her when she went up for re-election.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

The Green Party here in Georgia is kinda funny. It's disaffected bourgeois white liberals and former Black Panthers in the same party. Some of the members including at least one of the State Executive members are socialists, if kinda vague on the question of revolution. We tried to do some work with them around the prison strike but it fell through.

[Mr. Natural]

Taco and Others,

I identify myself as a red-green revolutionary. My "red-green" is a synthesis of Marxism and the new sciences that investigate of organization, patterns and processes of life (thus society).

You may also label me as politically naive, for I was one of those who changed registration in California in 1991 to get the Green Party on the ballot. I looked at the Ten Key Values and thought, "This is great stuff; I can work with this!"

Well, I'd still love to work with others and develop the key values into various forms of red-green praxis, but I have yet to run into an American green who will even discuss capitalism, much less oppose it. American greens are a grab bag of conservative, hackneyed politics and are ultimately as committed to The System as any hedge fund manager. I understand the situation is a bit better in the UK and Europe, but ....

We are now playing the human end game. This appalling situation can be changed, but where are any changers? We are running out of time.

Here are the Ten Key Values of the Green Party of California, circa 1992:
Ecological Wisdom
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice and Personal Responsibility
Nonviolence
Decentralization
Community-Based Economics
Feminism
Respect For Diversity
Global Responsibility
Sustainability

Capitalism systemically violates the foregoing values, which are broadly those of anarchism/socialism/ecosocialism/communism. However, nothing resembling a red-green theory has been developed from these values, and that this is so is yet another accurate measure of the poverty of American politics, whether red or green.

I insist that red (communism) and green (life and its organization) are a natural unity. Marx and Engels were rooted in this realization and revered science. Most current Marxists, however, are stuck in a time warp and are blind to the new sciences of life's organization, while greens refuse to engage either capitalism or the new science(s). This is beyond woeful.

The alien system of capitalism has enveloped all forms of life on Earth and captured humanity in mind as well as body. We had better do something about this.

My red-green best.

[smk]

Here's a table comparing republicans, democrats, and greens:

http://www.greens.org/ri/compare.html

They are unabashedly capitalist and decidedly petty bourgeois liberals, but given the choice between the 3 (which is the only realistic choice available in the US right now), I would choose the green candidate if I was voting for someone to win. If I was voting to make a point, I would choose whichever candidate is a true socialist.

[Angry Young and Red]

If I'm not mistaken, the protest singer David Rovics is/was in the Green Party? If so, why? He seems to be very anarchistic in his views...

[Bardo]

I generally agree with them except the whole abolition of capitalism thing which is pretty important to me.

What does that matter? Unless you think you're going to vote in a communist party to abolish capitalism. Voting isn't exactly a revolutionary action, especially in the US.

I'm registered with my state Green Party, and I vote for them from time to time in local elections.