What's your opinion on the green party

[billydan225]

What do you guys think of the Green Party?

[Fourth Internationalist]

They're okay. I don't really have a problem with them. They aren't as left as I would hope, but for America, they're probably our best hope for now. I might vote for them in 2016 if they run Jill Stein again.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

They're social-democrats.
If reformism is your thing they're great. If not, as with most people on this site, they're just another liberal party.

[The Jay]

What do you guys think of the Green Party?

They are capitalists but they are a lesser evil if such a thing exists. Their intentions are good and they can be reasoned with. That said, I would not vote for them in the future.

[piet11111]

The greens are probably more anti worker then the social democrats.
They believe that by driving down our consumption of goods the environment will be under less pressure.

[Lensky]

Idealists whose political objectives go against reality and thus cannot effectively combat the contradictions of capitalism.

[billydan225]

i will be able to vote in 2016 so i might vote for them idk

[The Intransigent Faction]

It's not whether a car runs on gas or electricity (although this is important), it's whether it is built under a capitalist or socialist mode of production.
A green party victory would not change this, nor would it be a step toward it. "Green jobs" are still capitalist jobs in their plans.

[Ostrinski]

It is a liberal party. Calling them social-democrats or reformists is a bit of a stretch. I voted for them so I could get extra credit in english class for voting.

[Le Socialiste]

They can be useful as a temporary wedge between workers and the Democrats, but only within periods in which said 'support' (and I use that in a strictly strategical sense) can yield significant voter turnover. Of course, they remain a liberal party oriented around electoral gains; it just so happens that, rhetorically and policy-wise, they are habitually to the left of the Democratic party. This hasn't precluded the leadership from lending tacit and, at times, overt support or approval to their Democratic counterparts however. In the absence of any significant, organic groundswells of popular opposition against the two-party system they aren't worth more than the occasional 'symbolic' vote. It should be noted, though, that a sizable amount of their members identify as left-leaning, if not as socialists. Many of these are individuals who have yet to refine their politics to the point of breaking with the Greens as an organization, but quite a few go on to join revolutionary socialist groups upon radicalizing.

[Fourth Internationalist]

They can be useful as a temporary wedge between workers and the Democrats, but only within periods in which said 'support' (and I use that in a strictly strategical sense) can yield significant voter turnover. Of course, they remain a liberal party oriented around electoral gains; it just so happens that, rhetorically and policy-wise, they are habitually to the left of the Democratic party. This hasn't precluded the leadership from lending tacit and, at times, overt support or approval to their Democratic counterparts however. In the absence of any significant, organic groundswells of popular opposition against the two-party system they aren't worth more than the occasional 'symbolic' vote. It should be noted, though, that a sizable amount of their members identify as left-leaning, if not as socialists. Many of these are individuals who have yet to refine their politics to the point of breaking with the Greens as an organization, but quite a few go on to join revolutionary socialist groups upon radicalizing.

Yeah I think many Greens have the potential of becoming socialists, like how I did. Of course, they have been fed capitalist/anti-communist propaganda all their lives, so I can understand why many of them aren't socialists yet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you guys think of the Green Party?

I think in general any emergence of a challenge to the Democrats from the left would be at least somewhat valuable and maybe even a step forward.

The Green party had a shot at coalessing the left-of-democrat frustration (their supporters ranging from liberals/progressives upset at the neoliberal direction of the Democratic party to social-democrats generally) and got to a certain point, but then retreated undre pressure of Bush-era lesser-evilism.

There was a debate in the party over if they should present a hard challenge to the Democrats at the risk of "spoiling" or if they should have a "safe state" strategy where they will only challenge the Democrats where the Democrats do not risk loosing to a Republican. This strategy may have helped them keep liberal supporters in local elections, but it made the entire appeal and reason for the party's existance redundant. A left-populist challenge to the Democrats that only challenges the Dems where there is no threat of their loosing the election is a little like some of the lifestyle anarchists and utopian socialists whose plan for communism will work perfectly as long as the ruling class doesn't try and maintain its rule.

[shantaram]

It's not whether a car runs on gas or electricity (although this is important), it's whether it is built under a capitalist or socialist mode of production.
A green party victory would not change this, nor would it be a step toward it. "Green jobs" are still capitalist jobs in their plans.

Pretty much sums it up for me, once they figure capitalism is the enemy they might make a more serious threat.

[redblood_blackflag]

What do you guys think of the Green Party?


The Green Party, as all "political parties," necessarily have a platform based upon coercion, oppression, and force of the state.
Their propositions amount to the same thing every other "state regulation" amounts to: a written command imposed and meant to be obeyed under threat of force by the state, which claims authority to regulate such matters in the name of "safety, security, protecting the environment, etc."
They also seem to have blind faith in "government," as they believe that some "law" will protect the environment, and as all state worshipers, seem believe in the inherent righteousness of (their) "politicians" to be free from corruption.
What is ever to stop a "politician" from taking a bribe? Nothing but hope.
They fall victim to the same contraction the "Libertarian Party" does, though they have different reasons they'd like to be "government."
Here is an excerpt regarding that contradiction from The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose:
The Libertarian Contradiction


Perhaps the best illustration of how the belief in "authority" warps thinking and gets in the way of achieving freedom is the fact that there is a "Libertarian" political party. The heart and soul of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: the idea that initiating force or fraud against another is always wrong, and that force is justified only if used in defense against aggression. The principle is perfectly sound, but trying to make it a reality via any political process is completely self-contradictory, because "government" and non-aggression are utterly incompatible. If the organization called 'government" stopped using any threats of violence, except to defend against aggressor, it would cease to be "government." It would have no right right to rule, no right to "legislate," no monopoly on protection, and no right to do anything which any other human being does not have the right to do.

One excuse for libertarianb political activism is the claim that society can transform from its current authoritarian arrangement into a truly free society only if it does so slowly and gradually. However, that has never happened, and it never wll happen, for a very simple reason: either there is such a thing as "authority," or there is not. Either there is a legitimate ruling class with the right to rule everyone, or each individual owns himself and is beholden only to his own conscience. The two are mutually exclusive paradigms. It is impossible for there to be an in-between, because whenever there is a conflict between what "authority" commands and what one's individua judgement dictates, it is impossible to obey both. One must outrank the other. If "authority" outranks conscience, then the common folk are all the rightful property of the ruling class, in which case freedom cannot and should not exist. If, on the other hand, conscience outranks "authority," then each person owns himself, and each much always follow his own judgment of right and wrong, no matter what any self-proclaimed "authority" or "law" may command. There cannot be a "gradual shift" between the two, nor can there be a compromise.

Trying to convert libertarian into a political movement requires a mangled, perverted hybrid of the two options: the idea that a system of domination ("government") can be used to achieve individual freedom. Whenever a "libertarian" lobbies for legislation or runs for office, he is, by his own actions, conceding that "authority" and man-made "law" is legitimate. But if one actually believed in the non-aggression principle, he would understand that the commands of politicians ("laws") cannot trump that principle, and any "law" that is contrary to the principle is illegitimate. This goes for the idea of "unalienable rights" as well. If an individual has an inherent right to do something, then, by definition, he does not need any permission from tyrants to do it. He does not need to lobby for a change in "legislation," and does not need to try to elect some master who will choose to respect his rights.

Anyone who actually believes in the principle of non-aggression- the underlying premise of libertarianism- mustbe an anarchist, as it is logically impossible to oppose the initiation of violence while supporting any form of "government," which is nothing but violence. And libertarians cannot be constitutionalists, and the constitution quite plainly (in Article I, Section 8) claims to bestow upon some people theright to initiate violence, via "taxation" and "regulation," among other things. The principle of libertarianism logically rules out all "government," even a constitutional republic. (Anyone who tries to describe a "government" which commits no acts of aggression will describe, at best, a private security company.) Nonetheless, so many people have been so thoroughly trained into the authoriarian mindset that even when they can see the obvious moral superiority of living by the non-aggression principle (the basis of libertarianism), they still refuse to give up the absurd notion that the right to rule ("authority") can be used as a tool for freedom and justice.

There is a fundamental difference between arguing about what the master should do- which is what all "politics" consists of- and declaring that the master has no right to rule at all. To be a libertarian candidate is to try to do both of these conflicting things. It obviously legitimizes the office the candidate seeks to hold, even while the candidate is claiming to believe in the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership, which completely rule out the possibility of any legitimate "public office." In short, if the goal is individual freedom, "political action" is not only worthless, it is hugely counter-productive, because the main thing it accomplishes is to legitimize the ruling class's power. The only way to achieve freedom is to first achieve mental freedom, by realizing tat no one has any right to rule another, which means that "government" is never legitimate, it is never moral, it is never even real. Those who have not yet realized that, and continue to try to petition "the system" to make them free, are playing right into the hands of the tyrants. Even petitioning for lowers levels of "taxation" or "government" spending, or asking for things to be "legalized" or "deregulated," or begging for other reductions in "government" control over the people, still do nothing to address the real problem, and in fact add to the real problem, by unwittingly repeating and reinforcing the idea that if the people want freedom, they need to have freedom "legalized." Political action, by it's very nature, always empowers the ruling class and disempowers the people.

If enough people recognizde and let go of the "authority" myth, there is no need for any election, any political action, or any revolution. If the people did not imagine themselves to have an obligation to obey the politicians, the politicians would literally be ignored into irrelevance. In fact, the belief in "democracy" dramatically reduces the ability of the people to resist tyranny, by limiting the ways in which they can resist it. For example, if 49% of the population wanted lower levels of "taxation," but maintained their belief in "authority," they could accomplish exactly nothing via "democracy." On the other hand, if even 10% of the population wanted no "taxation" at all and had escaped the myth of "authority" (including the "democratic" kind), they could achieve their easily by simple non-compliance. Using the U.S. as an example, if twenty million people, less than 10% of American "taxpayers"- openly refused to cooperate with attempts by the IRS to extort them, the ruling class would be powerless to do anything about it, and the infamous Internal Revenue Service, along with the massive extortion racket it administers, would grind to a halt. It would be utterly impossible for 100,000 IRS employees to continually rob millions of Americans who felt no obligation to pay. In fact, it would be impossible for any agency to enforce any "law" which even afraction of the public could disobey with no feeling of shame or guilt. Brute force alone could not achieve compliance.

Any large population of people that did not perceive obedience, in and of itself, to be a virtue, and felt no inherent duty to obey the commands of those claiming the right to rule, would be utterly impossible to oppress. Wars occur only because people feel obliged to go into battle when "authority" tells them to. (As the saying goes, "what if they had a war, and nobody came?") As long as the people can be duped into perpetually begging for freedom to be "legalized," they wlil be easy to subjugate and control. As long as a person's perceived duty to obey "authority" outranks his own personal beliefs and individual judgment, his beliefs and opinions are, as a pricatical matter, irrelevant. Unless and until a freedom advocate is willing to disobey the master- to "break the law"- his supposed love of freedom is a lie, and will accomplish nothing.

Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition, pgs 144-146
.


Ultimately, the "green party" believes the same thing as every other "political party" to some extent or another: "the government needs to order everybody around and do violence to those who disobey."

[redblood_blackflag]

i will be able to vote in 2016 so i might vote for them idk
\
Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in 'government,' thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A.' The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B'- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B,' he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A,' the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A,' while actually attempting to delegate right 'B,' he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A,' voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.
There's No Government Like No Government, Jackney Sneeb

[Jimmie Higgins]

\
Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in 'government,' thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A.' The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B'- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B,' he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A,' the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A,' while actually attempting to delegate right 'B,' he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A,' voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.
There's No Government Like No Government, Jackney Sneeb


Maybe rather than calling a fellow poster (especially one who is appearently under 16-17 years old) an "authoritarian" and making assumptions about their viewpoint, you can explain why you don't think voting is a useful strategy.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing FOR electorialism, rather than about any stratigic value of 3rd parties and whatnot. If you think it has no stratigic value then that's a valid argument and you should make it, but the above seems like a cut-and-paste argument, not organic discussion.

[B5C]

The Green Party is liberal and Social Democrat, but they are much more left than the Democrats. I see the green party as a tool to wedge the power out of the Democrats in the political process. I don't mind some of their environmental ideals for green tech. I do have a problem with their anti-science denials of fluoride and GMOs.

They are a good protest vote when you know your vote doesn't count in state or national elections. I do suggest voting for them in local elections if you want to help move your local community more left if you have no Socialist candidates around to vote for.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

They ran a Trotskyist for Senator of California in 2006 and got over 130,000 votes (almost 2%).
Other than that, meh. Another electoral party. May be able to mount a tangible electoral influence if an already-existing movement decided to support it, but that would likely be to the detriment of that movement.

[LeonJWilliams]

Which Green Party? This is an international forum.

The Green Party of England & Wales is the most left-wing out of the main political parties, the German Green Party is more like centre-right.

[Riveraxis]

The Green party has it's faults like any political party, but it's probably, at least, the most in touch with the citizens. At least the kind of citizens it represents.
I'd rather see the nation ran by hippie activists than bourgeois suits.
Since a worker's state doesn't seem to be an immediate alternative.

[billydan225]

Yeah I'll be graduating in 2015

[Lucretia]

I think in general any emergence of a challenge to the Democrats from the left would be at least somewhat valuable and maybe even a step forward.

The Green party had a shot at coalessing the left-of-democrat frustration (their supporters ranging from liberals/progressives upset at the neoliberal direction of the Democratic party to social-democrats generally) and got to a certain point, but then retreated undre pressure of Bush-era lesser-evilism.

There was a debate in the party over if they should present a hard challenge to the Democrats at the risk of "spoiling" or if they should have a "safe state" strategy where they will only challenge the Democrats where the Democrats do not risk loosing to a Republican. This strategy may have helped them keep liberal supporters in local elections, but it made the entire appeal and reason for the party's existance redundant. A left-populist challenge to the Democrats that only challenges the Dems where there is no threat of their loosing the election is a little like some of the lifestyle anarchists and utopian socialists whose plan for communism will work perfectly as long as the ruling class doesn't try and maintain its rule.

If the primary goal of a socialist organization is simply to weaken the Democratic party, then this might make sense. If it is to advance workers revolution, the idea of weakening the Democrats in order to empower a petty-bourgeois reformist social-democratic party is just re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. You'll be as closer to revolution as Europe is compared to the United States. What an accomplishment to spend years of activist manpower fighting for as a goal unto itself.

The whole premise of creating a non-revolutionary "alternative" to the democrats as a serious revolutionary strategy actually indicates a conflation of class and non-class politics. And what I mean by that is that democrats are economic liberals wedded to capitalism every bit as much, if not moreso, than republicans. They combine this with more tolerant positions on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Does this place them to the "left" of the Republicans, thereby rendering them a lesser evil? I suppose so from the perspective of non-class issues. Does it place them on the left in terms of class issues? Absolutely not. Objectively they are equally pro-capitalist, but have a different understanding of how best to save capitalism. Some adherents to democratic party ideology may manifest discomfort over the way capitalism currently functions, thus creating an illusion that they can be won over more easily to revolutionary socialism. But this is just an illusion. They still think that these problems within capitalism can be overcome within the confines of capitalism. To repeat: they are as pro-capitalist as the supposed "right-wing" of the Republican party is, just in a different way.

I actually think it's just as easy for a rev. socialist party to recruit people from the right of the mainstream political spectrum as it is to recruit people from the "left." The *only* exception to this trend are the religious fanatics on the right.

[redblood_blackflag]

Maybe rather than calling a fellow poster (especially one who is appearently under 16-17 years old) an "authoritarian" and making assumptions about their viewpoint, you can explain why you don't think voting is a useful strategy.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing FOR electorialism, rather than about any stratigic value of 3rd parties and whatnot. If you think it has no stratigic value then that's a valid argument and you should make it, but the above seems like a cut-and-paste argument, not organic discussion.

It's a meaningless superstitious ritual. I would have thought that was obvious.
And I didn't call anyone an authoritarian specifically- but, yes, I'd say they believe in authority and support it if they are thinking about "voting" in some "political election."
That isn't meant to be a personal attack specifically against this individual, just an argument against "political authority." I made the post so the individual thinking about "voting" could read it and think about it themselves.

Really, though, if you werent an authoritarian, why would you vote?
If you didnt believe in authority, why would you even vote against?
The state imposes regardless of how an individual votes. It's meaningless superstition. It's a trick.

[redblood_blackflag]

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing FOR electorialism**, rather than about any stratigic value of 3rd parties and whatnot.

strategic value in what regard?
the strategic value of NOT electing** "third parties" ?
not trying to sound rude. but, seems contradictory. the entire thing is absed on "electoralism."

political parties are necessarily based on and dependent on state power. they have no "strategic value" in anything other than trying to get people to believe they are the state, the "government," whatever, and then imposing "law."

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The greens are probably more anti worker then the social democrats.
They believe that by driving down our consumption of goods the environment will be under less pressure.

And this is incorrect how? The natural Science profession basically reaches a conses that resource depletion is real, that it's happening right now and will drive commodity prices (most crucially oil) up the next two decades as natural resources become more laborious to find and production developes below humankind's' needs for energy. The year 1970 globally is seen as generally "resource sustainable" consumption. But in 1970 even more people than now were starving in the third world, and some living in poverty the first world for that matter.

So, if natural resources are not to be depleted (besides the obvious issues today of pollution) we must implement an internationally planned alliance of economies, a socialist bloc, to stop Capital accumulation, growth, and necessarily lower consumption in the west. However Comrade, the richest 5% of the US population consume 37% of all US consumer goods. To put it more globally: 20% of the world's population consume 86% of the world's resources.

The solution to the capitalist environmental crisis is Class War, and the inevitable depression of the western capitalist economies, as we are seeing in Greece where industrial production has crashed by 30% since 2010.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I would like to point out that the Green Party is just another sign of the contradiction of Capitalism. A small part of the Bourgeoisie see that climate change is real, a danger to the Capitalist system, and fund the Green Party. It is the tiny sprout of inter-bourgeois division that spells times of crisis and revolutionary periods.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aim so low, that you can't miss your mark.

Really though, given that your country is a two-party deadlock forever, why bother with parlimentarianism? Uh, unless you're going to reform the Democrats :lol: lulz.

[thethinveil]

I come from one of the only areas where the Green Party has a majority. And they are pretty bad when it comes down to it. In fact, the area had a problem, that they were often disconnected from the surrounding community. The area was a college town that had high property values and made it harder for others to join. So it was kinda a way for middle class lefties to exclude the laborers of the community. They suffered from either being seen as latte drinking, local organic co-op eating, tree hungers who are snobbish about their lifestyle choices.

They also have trouble getting their act together like most left organizations, they can't seem to agree on much because in the US the green party acts as a sponge for everybody left of the Democrats which leaves a wide variety.

So if you can get past who they are, and their general lack of organizing muscle, you can eventually come away liking some of their policies like a living wage and maximum wage.

I like them enough to vote for them as a small protest to the two party system since they are the most organized of the unorganized left in America.

[Goblin]

A lesser evil bourgeoisie party that will never win an election.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If the primary goal of a socialist organization is simply to weaken the Democratic party, then this might make sense.What would a goal of "to weaken the Democrats" look like - weaken them to what ends? Sabotage and trickery could weaken the Democrats, however it is doubtful that a wedge into the corporate consensus or help physically organize and mobilize people disatisfied by the Democrats and neo-liberalism.

A party or popular or protest campaign can actually help mobilize some more general sentiments and a structrual break from the Democrats (even when not explicitly or fully articulated as socialist in nature as was the case with the anti-globalization movent, some of the more popular 3rd party challenges, and of course Occupy).


If it is to advance workers revolution, the idea of weakening the Democrats in order to empower a petty-bourgeois reformist social-democratic party is just re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.That would be true, but it's also a straw-man in this case because I do not know of any revolutionary groups with this goal and in the case witht he ISO and the Green party, the argument on our side was that we relate to this as a social movement, our goal is to help create this official break from the Democrats, not to help build the Green Party for the sake of building it (hence supporting the "not build the party" side in the Debates about "spoilerism" after 2000 and the hence not supporting the Green party, but Nader, in 2004).

And it is also a straw man because this was not a strategy purly of choice, but one based on trying to figure out how working class dissatisfaction with the Democrats after Bill Clinton would manifest itself. Our decision to support this campagin was largely based not on the professed politics of the group, but of the potential to galvanize and organize on what we saw an insurgant mood (lacking organization) towards the end of the 1990s.


You'll be as closer to revolution as Europe is compared to the United States. What an accomplishment to spend years of activist manpower fighting for as a goal unto itself.Except the ISO has sucessfully participated in such a campaign and we are not "tainted" by the smallpox of electoralism and repating this strategy mechanically. In fact our assessment was that it was wishful thinking to believe Nader in 2004, could have helped refocus the flailing anti-war movement. Some believed local campaigns could have done the same thing in spontaniously reviving the ailing Occupy movement, but we disagreed with that viewpoint, in part from our experience in the past in Nader and the anti-war vote.


The whole premise of creating a non-revolutionary "alternative" to the democrats as a serious revolutionary strategy actually indicates a conflation of class and non-class politics.No because again this was not the goal - just as we might support some limited reform demands that we think may have the potential for organizng and mobilizing some of the class anger. The goal is not to settle at this wage or that or this benifit or that, but to build the capacity of workers to fight. The "revolutionary strategy" comes into into it on the level of trying to help create poltical space outside of the ruling class parties, "a Left", supporting a campagin we thought had the potential to begin to mobilize these elements is a "tactic" not some principle or mechanical strategy.

You speak as if the ISO created the Green party and their increase in popularity in 2000, but this was not the case. How are revolutionary politics going to resonate with people, what will cause them to maybe begin to adopt our strategies and political understanding? One by one through propaganda? Well this is certaintly important, but it is inherently limited. Struggle produces the larger movements and questions and potential for radicalization and sharpening of the class struggle. But the low-level of class struggle in the US means that most of the time when people mobilize it will be like Occupy and have a mix of liberal and radical poltics with radicals generally being a small minority.

So the "class confused" nature of such movements is unavoidable for any emerging movement in the US.


And what I mean by that is that democrats are economic liberals wedded to capitalism every bit as much, if not moreso, than republicans. They combine this with more tolerant positions on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Does this place them to the "left" of the Republicans, thereby rendering them a lesser evil? I suppose so from the perspective of non-class issues. Does it place them on the left in terms of class issues? Absolutely not. Objectively they are equally pro-capitalist, but have a different understanding of how best to save capitalism. Some adherents to democratic party ideology may manifest discomfort over the way capitalism currently functions, thus creating an illusion that they can be won over more easily to revolutionary socialism. But this is just an illusion. They still think that these problems within capitalism can be overcome within the confines of capitalism. To repeat: they are as pro-capitalist as the supposed "right-wing" of the Republican party is, just in a different way.I'm not sure what you are arguing here. The Democrats are a ruling class party of capitalism - yes.


I actually think it's just as easy for a rev. socialist party to recruit people from the right of the mainstream political spectrum as it is to recruit people from the "left." The *only* exception to this trend are the religious fanatics on the right.I disagree because I think we see "recruitment" totally differenty: while it is posible and necissary to recruit people on the basis of logical and reasoned argument and propaganda, this will not create a socialist movement in the US - it may in a nickle-and-dime way help increase the numbers of organized radicals, but it will not build a movement. It has been necissary in a time of declining union struggle and working class confidence and expectations to recruit people in this fashion - but people tend to get discourged from the left in such an atomosphere almost as fast as all the left groups can organize them. As a result is the radical left we all know - small, inward looking, and working on modest projects trying to build small bases in workplaces, schools, and communities.

Trying to organize a vanguard presupposes a larger movement from which the most revolutionary elements can come together to coordinate their efforts. So what does it mean to be in the Bolshevik view, the Leninist, Trotskyist traddition today when there is not a mass reformist movement that has been established in decades of fighting the Tsar? How do we counterpose the real revolutionary path to the reformist path when the working class is bedridden and shoeless? Without struggle, then we can not convince people: it's a contradiction to overcome the "ruling ideas of the age" through a battle of ideas alone. Things like Occupy or the Civil Rights Movement or past reform struggles did more to open things up for radical ideas and organizing than any hard dedicated work (in isolation of a larger shift among workers) by groups of socialists could have done alone.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a meaningless superstitious ritual. I would have thought that was obvious.It's not a superstition because I have actually seen people vote once or twice, so it's empirically "real". What you may mean is that the idea that voting can make the kinds of changes workers need is a myth, then yes I'd agree that the "democratic" naturure of capitalism and of capitalist governments is an absolute deception.

Do elections "matter"? Maybe not in the way they are supposed to matter (popular input in governance of society) but they do matter - even if only in the negative. If they didn't matter, in fact, you wouldn't make any arguments or quote libertarian books and whatnot about it. If it only matter in wedding working class consiousness to the limits of the capitalist parties consensus--- then it matters. I think in a limited way is can also matter in the posititive in that it can shed light into where class consiousness is at - are people willing to settle, are people voting for protest candidates out of anger at the system, etc.

Because the fact is while elections don't matter for actual politics or who runs society ultimately, about half of workers are still pulled into that orbit meaning that even if we are dennouncing voting, we are still orienting towards where a chunck of working class attention is and trying to make some kind of appeal. I think therefore protest candidates and whatnot can have a role to play - many just outright reject any orientation on elections at all. I think this is a mistake, but I also agree that elections are not a way for workers to actually gain power, it is not a field in which we have any power or can ever really make meaningful change. But, again, it can be a platform or a way to counterpose capitalist poltics with working class demands.

[Lucretia]

What would a goal of "to weaken the Democrats" look like - weaken them to what ends? Sabotage and trickery could weaken the Democrats, however it is doubtful that a wedge into the corporate consensus or help physically organize and mobilize people disatisfied by the Democrats and neo-liberalism.

A party or popular or protest campaign can actually help mobilize some more general sentiments and a structrual break from the Democrats (even when not explicitly or fully articulated as socialist in nature as was the case with the anti-globalization movent, some of the more popular 3rd party challenges, and of course Occupy).

That would be true, but it's also a straw-man in this case because I do not know of any revolutionary groups with this goal and in the case witht he ISO and the Green party, the argument on our side was that we relate to this as a social movement, our goal is to help create this official break from the Democrats, not to help build the Green Party for the sake of building it (hence supporting the "not build the party" side in the Debates about "spoilerism" after 2000 and the hence not supporting the Green party, but Nader, in 2004).

And it is also a straw man because this was not a strategy purly of choice, but one based on trying to figure out how working class dissatisfaction with the Democrats after Bill Clinton would manifest itself. Our decision to support this campagin was largely based not on the professed politics of the group, but of the potential to galvanize and organize on what we saw an insurgant mood (lacking organization) towards the end of the 1990s.

Except the ISO has sucessfully participated in such a campaign and we are not "tainted" by the smallpox of electoralism and repating this strategy mechanically. In fact our assessment was that it was wishful thinking to believe Nader in 2004, could have helped refocus the flailing anti-war movement. Some believed local campaigns could have done the same thing in spontaniously reviving the ailing Occupy movement, but we disagreed with that viewpoint, in part from our experience in the past in Nader and the anti-war vote.

No because again this was not the goal - just as we might support some limited reform demands that we think may have the potential for organizng and mobilizing some of the class anger. The goal is not to settle at this wage or that or this benifit or that, but to build the capacity of workers to fight. The "revolutionary strategy" comes into into it on the level of trying to help create poltical space outside of the ruling class parties, "a Left", supporting a campagin we thought had the potential to begin to mobilize these elements is a "tactic" not some principle or mechanical strategy.

You speak as if the ISO created the Green party and their increase in popularity in 2000, but this was not the case. How are revolutionary politics going to resonate with people, what will cause them to maybe begin to adopt our strategies and political understanding? One by one through propaganda? Well this is certaintly important, but it is inherently limited. Struggle produces the larger movements and questions and potential for radicalization and sharpening of the class struggle. But the low-level of class struggle in the US means that most of the time when people mobilize it will be like Occupy and have a mix of liberal and radical poltics with radicals generally being a small minority.

So the "class confused" nature of such movements is unavoidable for any emerging movement in the US.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. The Democrats are a ruling class party of capitalism - yes.

I disagree because I think we see "recruitment" totally differenty: while it is posible and necissary to recruit people on the basis of logical and reasoned argument and propaganda, this will not create a socialist movement in the US - it may in a nickle-and-dime way help increase the numbers of organized radicals, but it will not build a movement. It has been necissary in a time of declining union struggle and working class confidence and expectations to recruit people in this fashion - but people tend to get discourged from the left in such an atomosphere almost as fast as all the left groups can organize them. As a result is the radical left we all know - small, inward looking, and working on modest projects trying to build small bases in workplaces, schools, and communities.

Trying to organize a vanguard presupposes a larger movement from which the most revolutionary elements can come together to coordinate their efforts. So what does it mean to be in the Bolshevik view, the Leninist, Trotskyist traddition today when there is not a mass reformist movement that has been established in decades of fighting the Tsar? How do we counterpose the real revolutionary path to the reformist path when the working class is bedridden and shoeless? Without struggle, then we can not convince people: it's a contradiction to overcome the "ruling ideas of the age" through a battle of ideas alone. Things like Occupy or the Civil Rights Movement or past reform struggles did more to open things up for radical ideas and organizing than any hard dedicated work (in isolation of a larger shift among workers) by groups of socialists could have done alone.

Jimmie, we've had this discussion many times before, so I'm not really going to rehash the details. The root of our disagreement lies in what you misleadingly call a "strawman." The primary goal of the ISO right now is to build a broad left that acts as a "wedge in the corporate consensus." You stand by this goal and defend it on this forum and in this thread. As envisioned by your party, it is a discrete stage in the goal of trying to create a revolutionary party. If it weren't, you could easily dispense with all this talk of "weakening Democrats," "building wedges," and so forth, and just state that the goal is building a revolutionary party-- since, after all, they are supposedly the exact same thing. You can't do this, because they aren't the same thing. The first series of euphemisms are a process that you and your party hope will militate in the long-term goal of the second. It's stageism, stageism, stageism, 100%.

If anybody here wants to see the truth behind these motivations, I advise readers to consult the thread "Lev Bronsteinovich: A Call-Out" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lev-bronsteinovich-call-t166763/index.html), wherein you openly defend the creation of social-democratic reformist parties. To quote you directly about ISO involvement in the Nader campaign, "So the goal was not party-building (other than the hope that some good people who were convinced of our politics might join) but trying to help develop an independent left in the US." Notice here that your intervention in the GP's electoral activities is counterposed to building a revolutionary party, not synonymous with it. You also defend the goal of creating European-style social-democratic parties explicitly, saying "But in many of these countries the existence of these other reformist parties allows a greater audience for revolutionary ideas and consequentially there is more of a revolutionary left in many of these places." How can anybody read this as other than you defending the creation of these parties as a conduit, or stage, to revolutionary growth and as important goals in their own right? You can scream strawman all you want, but I'm stating nothing but facts here.

[MarxSchmarx]

Which Green Party? This is an international forum.

The Green Party of England & Wales is the most left-wing out of the main political parties, the German Green Party is more like centre-right.

You think the German Green Party is bad, the Mexican "Green Party" has made quite a name for itself as being the only party in congress that has called for restoring the death penalty, even for kidnappers.

[Skyhilist]

My opinion on the green party: meh.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie, we've had this discussion many times before, so I'm not really going to rehash the details.And if you continue to say that the goal was to get the Green party elected or that we see whatever left-formations as some kind of mechanical and required step, then I will have to continue to refute these misunderstandings or misrepresntations. If our goal was to build a reform party, then we would have stuck with the Green party, no? But this was not our goal and so we initially switched to Nader in an over-hopful attempt to rally anti-war activists who might have been pulled away from pro-Kerry lesser-evilism. We underestimated that pull and so we didn't rush to make the same mistake in thinking a protest campaign would do the same for vague anti-austerity sentiment in the last election.


The root of our disagreement lies in what you misleadingly call a "strawman." The primary goal of the ISO right now is to build a broad left that acts as a "wedge in the corporate consensus." You stand by this goal and defend it on this forum and in this thread.OK, yes, in the near-term what is necissary for a revolutionary movement in the US is class struggle which could devleop through a rank and file upsurge or in a more general upsurge in social struggle. The pull of the Democratic Party is a big immediate barrier to this.

So in the short-term there are many various movements and strategies which may help the situation in any number of ways from workplace struggle, to social movements, to new political formations and so these kind of have to be judged for support on what the possible outcomes from struggle might be, if it will increase consiosuness and struggle and so on. In the medim-term, we need resistance in the US, we need people to be mobilized and begin to struggle so that revolutionary politics are even relevant to people. This is what I mean by "the Left". It's a basic understanding of "party" vs. "class" that more people in the class are going to be drawn to struggle than are going to immediately draw revolutionary conclusions. But through these struggles it is possible for a new wave of revolutionary workers to develop.

All these claims of "we have a goal to build a reform party" are based in an understanding that reformists will betray the struggle. This is true, but this is also not where things are at right now - the question is not reform or revolution, but passivity/Democrats or general struggles.


As envisioned by your party, it is a discrete stage in the goal of trying to create a revolutionary party. No, this is where you strech your argument. There is no "stage" and this is not a mechanical requirement. Again, the Green party in 2000 was already begining to appeal to people who were angry at the Democrats and unionists tiered of seeing their unions support New Democratic politicians. Was it mixed and imperfect and pretty low in political consiousness, yes. But that is the condition generally in the working class and in struggle right now. So it is not that we see a labor party or any kind of formation as "The Step" or the thing that will rebuild conditions for possible mass radicalization, we just attempt to relate to the actual existing movements that we think might be able to tap into that. We try and support the left-wing side and argue for what we think will push the movement forward which is informed by an understanding that the more a movement can hit at the fundamental issues of US capitalism, the more class consious it might become, the more effective it will be.


If it weren't, you could easily dispense with all this talk of "weakening Democrats," "building wedges," and so forth, and just state that the goal is building a revolutionary party-- since, after all, they are supposedly the exact same thing. Yes how is a revolutionary party of any meaning built? It isn't just on the basis of the correct analysis, and besides a correct analysis is practically impossible to develop without real roots in class struggle.

The narrowness of "official" poltical debate (even at the grassroots), the sway of the Democrats (on union leaders, urban churches, and activist groups, specifically), are all barriers to struggle in the US and help reinforce passivity. Things like Occupy or a 3rd party mobilizing the left against the Democrats could be able to explode that situation which would create many more opportunities for class struggle and political propaganda and agitation for marxists. Honestly, I think the most the ISO strategy can be criticized for in 2000 is being overly optiomistic and over-estimating popular frustrations with neo-liberalism. However, that's retrospect and there was also no way to anticipate something like 9/11 and the way it was able to disorient all of the little stirrings of a left that had emerged at the end of the 1990s.


You can't do this, because they aren't the same thing. The first series of euphemisms are a process that you and your party hope will militate in the long-term goal of the second. It's stageism, stageism, stageism, 100%.How is it stagism. I have argued that the ISO didn't zero-in and create a campaign around the Green Party out of nothing, we saw this as possibly a way that the emerging globalization movement might make an organizational break away from dominent politics and we thought that would help create better conditons for struggle and political possibilities. But we do not believe that some labor party is a NECISSARY or inevitable or even the BEST way a new left in the US might develop.

No group on the US left is really able to initiate a meaningful movement - it might happen accidentially, like if PSL had organized the first Occupy or something, but they would have then been over-run by the movement just as Adbusters really didn't have much influence once the organic movement developed.


If anybody here wants to see the truth behind these motivations, I advise readers to consult the thread "Lev Bronsteinovich: A Call-Out" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lev-bronsteinovich-call-t166763/index.html), wherein you openly defend the creation of social-democratic reformist parties.AS you say, I argue in that thread what I also argue above in this thread... so I really really don't appreciate the implications and suggestions that I am not being forthright or honest.


To quote you directly about ISO involvement in the Nader campaign, "So the goal was not party-building (other than the hope that some good people who were convinced of our politics might join) but trying to help develop an independent left in the US." Notice here that your intervention in the GP's electoral activities is counterposed to building a revolutionary party, not synonymous with it.Wow, I am honored and flattered to be taken out of context. Now I know how Lenin feels when he surfs the internet.;)1

I suppose I should have said "the stratigic goal" wan not party-building. I go on in that quote to talk about how the ISO was not trying to "caputure" the party organization or enter into the Green Party in order to transform it into some kind of electoral vehical for the ISO.

But the goal was also not "building a refomist party" for the sake of a refomist party as you imply.


You also defend the goal of creating European-style social-democratic parties explicitly, saying "But in many of these countries the existence of these other reformist parties allows a greater audience for revolutionary ideas and consequentially there is more of a revolutionary left in many of these places." How can anybody read this as other than you defending the creation of these parties as a conduit, or stage, to revolutionary growth and as important goals in their own right? You can scream strawman all you want, but I'm stating nothing but facts here.Yes and I stand by the observable fact that in countries where these kinds of parties were established (which came out of bigger movements and are sometimes the sort of beurocratic husk remining from past periods of struggle) there is more political space for radical politics and militantcy. It is just as true that these same reformists are proabably the biggest barriers to struggle in their own countries and are often the ones pushing austerity. This is why I don't think these forms can be seen in some mechanical way, they have different effects depending on the circumstances: is there a movement, what is the level of class consiousness and militancy, etc. In the US where struggles are confused and people are sort of passive and beaten down and the people who might fight are politically tied to the Democrats, an anti-Democratic party challenge would be a step forward.

But I do not argue is that this is a necissary step or stage or some kind of required "goal". Concretely, I do not support the idea of a Labor party in the abstract, however, if the left and rank and file groups in the labor movement created a political challenge to business-union practices and support for the Democratic Party, then I think it would potentially be benficial for radicals to support this development, even though it would obviously be incomplete.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It is a liberal party. Calling them social-democrats or reformists is a bit of a stretch. I voted for them so I could get extra credit in english class for voting.
If I had to do this I would for sure vote for the Prohibitionist party.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever voted for the Green Party while not on drugs.

[Lucretia]

And if you continue to say that the goal was to get the Green party elected or that we see whatever left-formations as some kind of mechanical and required step, then I will have to continue to refute these misunderstandings or misrepresntations. If our goal was to build a reform party, then we would have stuck with the Green party, no? But this was not our goal and so we initially switched to Nader in an over-hopful attempt to rally anti-war activists who might have been pulled away from pro-Kerry lesser-evilism. We underestimated that pull and so we didn't rush to make the same mistake in thinking a protest campaign would do the same for vague anti-austerity sentiment in the last election.

OK, yes, in the near-term what is necissary for a revolutionary movement in the US is class struggle which could devleop through a rank and file upsurge or in a more general upsurge in social struggle. The pull of the Democratic Party is a big immediate barrier to this.

So in the short-term there are many various movements and strategies which may help the situation in any number of ways from workplace struggle, to social movements, to new political formations and so these kind of have to be judged for support on what the possible outcomes from struggle might be, if it will increase consiosuness and struggle and so on. In the medim-term, we need resistance in the US, we need people to be mobilized and begin to struggle so that revolutionary politics are even relevant to people. This is what I mean by "the Left". It's a basic understanding of "party" vs. "class" that more people in the class are going to be drawn to struggle than are going to immediately draw revolutionary conclusions. But through these struggles it is possible for a new wave of revolutionary workers to develop.

All these claims of "we have a goal to build a reform party" are based in an understanding that reformists will betray the struggle. This is true, but this is also not where things are at right now - the question is not reform or revolution, but passivity/Democrats or general struggles.

No, this is where you strech your argument. There is no "stage" and this is not a mechanical requirement. Again, the Green party in 2000 was already begining to appeal to people who were angry at the Democrats and unionists tiered of seeing their unions support New Democratic politicians. Was it mixed and imperfect and pretty low in political consiousness, yes. But that is the condition generally in the working class and in struggle right now. So it is not that we see a labor party or any kind of formation as "The Step" or the thing that will rebuild conditions for possible mass radicalization, we just attempt to relate to the actual existing movements that we think might be able to tap into that. We try and support the left-wing side and argue for what we think will push the movement forward which is informed by an understanding that the more a movement can hit at the fundamental issues of US capitalism, the more class consious it might become, the more effective it will be.

Yes how is a revolutionary party of any meaning built? It isn't just on the basis of the correct analysis, and besides a correct analysis is practically impossible to develop without real roots in class struggle.

The narrowness of "official" poltical debate (even at the grassroots), the sway of the Democrats (on union leaders, urban churches, and activist groups, specifically), are all barriers to struggle in the US and help reinforce passivity. Things like Occupy or a 3rd party mobilizing the left against the Democrats could be able to explode that situation which would create many more opportunities for class struggle and political propaganda and agitation for marxists. Honestly, I think the most the ISO strategy can be criticized for in 2000 is being overly optiomistic and over-estimating popular frustrations with neo-liberalism. However, that's retrospect and there was also no way to anticipate something like 9/11 and the way it was able to disorient all of the little stirrings of a left that had emerged at the end of the 1990s.

How is it stagism. I have argued that the ISO didn't zero-in and create a campaign around the Green Party out of nothing, we saw this as possibly a way that the emerging globalization movement might make an organizational break away from dominent politics and we thought that would help create better conditons for struggle and political possibilities. But we do not believe that some labor party is a NECISSARY or inevitable or even the BEST way a new left in the US might develop.

No group on the US left is really able to initiate a meaningful movement - it might happen accidentially, like if PSL had organized the first Occupy or something, but they would have then been over-run by the movement just as Adbusters really didn't have much influence once the organic movement developed.

AS you say, I argue in that thread what I also argue above in this thread... so I really really don't appreciate the implications and suggestions that I am not being forthright or honest.

Wow, I am honored and flattered to be taken out of context. Now I know how Lenin feels when he surfs the internet.;)1

I suppose I should have said "the stratigic goal" wan not party-building. I go on in that quote to talk about how the ISO was not trying to "caputure" the party organization or enter into the Green Party in order to transform it into some kind of electoral vehical for the ISO.

But the goal was also not "building a refomist party" for the sake of a refomist party as you imply.

Yes and I stand by the observable fact that in countries where these kinds of parties were established (which came out of bigger movements and are sometimes the sort of beurocratic husk remining from past periods of struggle) there is more political space for radical politics and militantcy. It is just as true that these same reformists are proabably the biggest barriers to struggle in their own countries and are often the ones pushing austerity. This is why I don't think these forms can be seen in some mechanical way, they have different effects depending on the circumstances: is there a movement, what is the level of class consiousness and militancy, etc. In the US where struggles are confused and people are sort of passive and beaten down and the people who might fight are politically tied to the Democrats, an anti-Democratic party challenge would be a step forward.

But I do not argue is that this is a necissary step or stage or some kind of required "goal". Concretely, I do not support the idea of a Labor party in the abstract, however, if the left and rank and file groups in the labor movement created a political challenge to business-union practices and support for the Democratic Party, then I think it would potentially be benficial for radicals to support this development, even though it would obviously be incomplete.

Jimmie, there's little new here to respond to, and what "response" you've provided doesn't directly address the substance of my post. You invariably have to spend paragraph after paragraph spinning rhetorical webs because you don't have an argument to directly refute the things I am saying. Instead you pile on euphemism after euphemism to pretty up (and defend) what we both agree your vision is -- creating a "broad left" as a conduit to, at a later point, creating a broad revolutionary left. One happens first, then the other. Notice this doesn't mean that you don't, incidentally, recruit people to your revolutionary party every now and then. Nor does it mean you don't occasionally say revolutionary-sounding things when you're engaged in building your "broad left." These are straw men you have invented on your own. It means that organizing an explicitly revolutionary left is not the immediate primary focus/goal of your present activities. Your reply basically amounts to trying to slap new labels, through introducing all sorts of tortured discussions on "lesser-evilism" and the like, on what we both agree, functionally, you and your party are doing. It's a waste of everybody's time here.

I think the way to proceed here is by asking a simple question that requires a simple answer of no more than single sentence. Does this "broad left" you're creating contain people who are liberal, social-democrat, or otherwise pro-capitalist?

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

The Greens are only marginally better than the democrats, but in the U.S.A. they're considered socialists and commies by lumieres such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
:laugh:

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I would vote for them for change but we need a new system to improve a better tomorrow!

[Jimmie Higgins]

It means that organizing an explicitly revolutionary left is not the immediate primary focus/goal of your present activities. Your reply basically amounts to trying to slap new labels, through introducing all sorts of tortured discussions on "lesser-evilism" and the like, on what we both agree, functionally, you and your party are doing. It's a waste of everybody's time here.What does it mean to "organize" an irrelevant and practically NON-EXISTANT revolutionary left? IMO under current conditions, views counterposing the ability to build up revolutionary socialist forces to the development of a more general resistance to attacks on the working class, only compound sectarian and insular tendencies on the revolutionary Left. A pure working class movement won't materialize out of nothing, so a working class movement will develop probably out of more general struggles of trade unions, anti-oppression movements, and so on. Trying to help build such movements is not counterposed to building up revolutionary groups and politics within these braoder developments and the ISO specifically maintains its own views and identity in these movements - hence why we get called "sectarians" or "just trying to steal people from the movement to join our group". But really our understanding is that the more people are confident enough to struggle, the more we think that it is likely that revolutionary politics and strategy will become relevant to them. We also think class and radical politics and strategies are necissary for even the broad movement to get anywhere, so the more we can try and convince people that racism isn't just about some "bad apple cops", the more an anti-police brutality movement will be able to actually make some ground. In turn this would bring more credibility to a class anyalysis of oppression and fight-back.

So really it's not about "saying radical-sounding things" but of trying to figure out what is potentially possible in a movement that will both help that movement make gains and develop it in a politically healthier direction. We don't always suceede at this, sometimes we might accidentally marginalize outselves or not present a strong enough independant strategy by misjudging the mood of a coalition or movement; but we try and learn from this and devlop our practices and members.

I think your criticisms are abstract as you've preseted them here. If you do not think that a more general struggle, a "new Left", would be a development with much more favorable conditions for greater class radicalization, then what? What is your immediate view of what radicals should do subjectivly, have you a concrete alternative? How do we get from here to there with the modest revolutionary groupings that exist today?

The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In periods of low struggle, most people are not going to be revolutionaries? So therefore an increase even in general struggles will produce conditions much more favorable to class radicalization than an absense of struggle. Because radical politics are marginal currently, most struggles which arise are going to be mixed and politically confused - this is everything from the Immigrant Rights movement which was quickly co-opted by Democrats to Occupy which was simply repressed and not politically organized enough to mitigate that. But, these struggles will raise the questions and possibilities for revolutionary ideas to gain a hearing and organic resonance with workers and the oppressed and activists. Within these struggles there are also battles over tactics and politics in which revolutionaries can argue for and potentially begin to win.

Obviously not any struggle has the potential to develop in a favorable way. There are pleanty of liberal campaigns that really have no value despite how popular they might be currently and are moralistic and indvidualistic. But other struggles might have some modest initial demands but a potential to develop a stronger radical core and I think it's important for revolutionaries to try and develop these and support and develop that radical edge or sentiments within the movement.


I think the way to proceed here is by asking a simple question that requires a simple answer of no more than single sentence. Does this "broad left" you're creating contain people who are liberal, social-democrat, or otherwise pro-capitalist?Yes, most workers and the oppressed are one of or a variation of these currently.

How do they become revolutionaries, how do they become convinced that these politics are correct? Through polemics no one reads? Through one-on-one argument and recruitment?

What subjectivly is possible for revolutionaries right now and in what ways might these small and scattered forces with little hearing among workers? What can we do when class anger is high, but consiousness, organization, and confidence are low?

If not through the development and maturing of revolutionary class forces within struggles of a more general left, where is mass radicalization going to come from?

[Lucretia]

What does it mean to "organize" an irrelevant and practically NON-EXISTANT revolutionary left? IMO under current conditions, views counterposing the ability to build up revolutionary socialist forces to the development of a more general resistance to attacks on the working class, only compound sectarian and insular tendencies on the revolutionary Left. A pure working class movement won't materialize out of nothing, so a working class movement will develop probably out of more general struggles of trade unions, anti-oppression movements, and so on. Trying to help build such movements is not counterposed to building up revolutionary groups and politics within these braoder developments and the ISO specifically maintains its own views and identity in these movements - hence why we get called "sectarians" or "just trying to steal people from the movement to join our group". But really our understanding is that the more people are confident enough to struggle, the more we think that it is likely that revolutionary politics and strategy will become relevant to them. We also think class and radical politics and strategies are necissary for even the broad movement to get anywhere, so the more we can try and convince people that racism isn't just about some "bad apple cops", the more an anti-police brutality movement will be able to actually make some ground. In turn this would bring more credibility to a class anyalysis of oppression and fight-back.

So really it's not about "saying radical-sounding things" but of trying to figure out what is potentially possible in a movement that will both help that movement make gains and develop it in a politically healthier direction. We don't always suceede at this, sometimes we might accidentally marginalize outselves or not present a strong enough independant strategy by misjudging the mood of a coalition or movement; but we try and learn from this and devlop our practices and members.

I think your criticisms are abstract as you've preseted them here. If you do not think that a more general struggle, a "new Left", would be a development with much more favorable conditions for greater class radicalization, then what? What is your immediate view of what radicals should do subjectivly, have you a concrete alternative? How do we get from here to there with the modest revolutionary groupings that exist today?

The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In periods of low struggle, most people are not going to be revolutionaries? So therefore an increase even in general struggles will produce conditions much more favorable to class radicalization than an absense of struggle. Because radical politics are marginal currently, most struggles which arise are going to be mixed and politically confused - this is everything from the Immigrant Rights movement which was quickly co-opted by Democrats to Occupy which was simply repressed and not politically organized enough to mitigate that. But, these struggles will raise the questions and possibilities for revolutionary ideas to gain a hearing and organic resonance with workers and the oppressed and activists. Within these struggles there are also battles over tactics and politics in which revolutionaries can argue for and potentially begin to win.

Obviously not any struggle has the potential to develop in a favorable way. There are pleanty of liberal campaigns that really have no value despite how popular they might be currently and are moralistic and indvidualistic. But other struggles might have some modest initial demands but a potential to develop a stronger radical core and I think it's important for revolutionaries to try and develop these and support and develop that radical edge or sentiments within the movement.

Yes, most workers and the oppressed are one of or a variation of these currently.

How do they become revolutionaries, how do they become convinced that these politics are correct? Through polemics no one reads? Through one-on-one argument and recruitment?

What subjectivly is possible for revolutionaries right now and in what ways might these small and scattered forces with little hearing among workers? What can we do when class anger is high, but consiousness, organization, and confidence are low?

If not through the development and maturing of revolutionary class forces within struggles of a more general left, where is mass radicalization going to come from?

Once we've cleared away all the smoke being blown in your response, we see that -- yes -- the broad left you are building is one that contains people who are not necessarily anti-capitalist. You are deliberately trying to strengthen, and are making arguments to expand, an entity that is in no way revolutionary. Or as you put it, you attract people into the broad left first, then presumably later make them revolutionary after they work with you for a period of time by springing on them all the narrower more divisive and "sectarian" arguments about the need for revolution (I'm guessing this is somehow supposed to be different than stageism, but I fail to see how).

In light of this, I have a follow-up question. How do you claim you are building a revolutionary movement and party if your primary political task right now is building a political entity -- an "alternative to the Democrats," to use your phrase -- that is not revolutionary, in a way that makes it perfectly acceptable and welcoming to those who are not anti-capitalist?

How, on a practical level, is that possible? What kind of arguments are you using to attract people to this "broad left"? Revolutionary arguments? That just makes no sense at all. To repeat: you claim that the ISO is fighting to build a party/entity/grouping that is explicitly revolutionary and socialist, but at the same time you admit that your goal is to build a "broad left" that appeals to people who aren't anti-capitalist, and is therefore NOT explicitly revolutionary. There's a massive tension here you aren't reconciling on a practical level, and instead are dancing around it by issuing long, meandering posts that try to address it on a theoretical level.

If you put forth explicitly socialist analyses in your propaganda and agitation at the movement activities you participate in, in what sense are you "building a broad left' rather than attempting to build a revolutionary left? On the other hand, if you are putting forth generic arguments like "tax the rich" and "ditch the democrats," I fail to see how you are trying to build revolutionary consciousness in the movements you're working in.

[JAC0BIN]

Another reformist party, sad part is they look good compared to the democrats and republicans.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Once we've cleared away all the smoke being blown in your response, we see that -- yes -- the broad left you are building is one that contains people who are not necessarily anti-capitalist. You are deliberately trying to strengthen, and are making arguments to expand, an entity that is in no way revolutionary.Not in opposition to or counterposed to building revolutionary politics, but a broad left as opposed to pasivity and cynacism and demoralization and lack of struggle. Not counterposed to rebuilding a revolutionary left in the US, but as part of the dynamic process in which an organic revolutionary left can emerge. Given that in non-revolutionary times only a minority of people engaged in movements will probably become radicals, healthy movements that can connect to the class struggle and potentially head in a radical direction (though most likely initially confused) are the forum out of which a more generalized revolutionary current will develop.


Or as you put it, you attract people into the broad left first, then presumably later make them revolutionary after they work with you for a period of time by springing on them all the narrower more divisive and "sectarian" arguments about the need for revolution (I'm guessing this is somehow supposed to be different than stageism, but I fail to see how).I guess that would be stage-ism, but it's also comically far away from how we operate and a strange and mechanical view of consiousness. You present it here as though we recruit people to reformism and then try and recruit them to revolutionary marxism; you are confusing building on an induvidual level and building a more general struggle in which marxism and other revolutionary ideas contend for the way forward for struggle. It's a process in which revolutionaries can begin to connect with workers and people struggling against oppression and build some organic credibility and connections.

We try and support things that will help develop a "broad left" because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization - or at least the development of a revolutionary current. We don't argue for people to be convinced of refomrist ideas and then "spring" revolutionary ideas onto them. That's a silly view. Of course we'd like to convince everyone to be revolutionaries, but it's just not going to happen with everyone at this point - so then what? Not try and contend for the influence of class-based ideas in movements, leave everyone who sincerly wants to fight austerity to only reformist arguments and strategies on offer?

Again you provide no alternative. Should we relate to movements by going to where workers are struggling, trying to recruit as many as we can and then leave? So people already accuse us of this, but they are just as mistaken as you arguing the exact opposite. The reality is inbetween. We do try and build our own group while also trying to popularize radical arguments inside movements. But we also realize in non-revolutionary times, only a fraction of those workers angry enough to want to fight will actually become revolutionaries. What will help create conditions for more radicalization? More struggle, more sucessful and politically deepening struggle.



In light of this, I have a follow-up question. How do you claim you are building a revolutionary movement and party if your primary political task right now is building a political entity -- an "alternative to the Democrats," to use your phrase -- that is not revolutionary, in a way that makes it perfectly acceptable and welcoming to those who are not anti-capitalist?
What? First, you never answer any of my questions to you and you're asking me a follow up question? Please.

Our primary immediate task is not specifically "building an organizational alternative" to the Democrats. This is the potential we saw that might have developed out of the Green party in 2000 because in 1996 and 2000 they ran Nader basically on a platform of opposition to Democratic betrayals. We saw it as something that might help a "new Left" to solidify, but we do not have a speficic goal of some electoral platform - our position is that such formations need to always be judged against the specific circumstances and potential at a given time. The US ALWAYS needs a political alternative to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that any and all alternatives are worth trying to build or support at all times. I think that's why, in retrospect, it was a mistake and mis-estimate of the anti-war movement to think Nader would be able to rally an anti-war opposition to Bush and Kerry. Likewise it would have been a mistake to think that a protest campaign could rally vauge disatisfaction with Obama and opposition to austerity. A healthy Occupy movement maybe could have pulled something like that off because they would have had a wide hearing and a wide grassroots organizing potential. But I think the lack of enthusiasm around the 3rd parties who ran against Obama show that outside of a more organized opposition, such leapfrogging in consiousness is unlikely under present conditions.


How, on a practical level, is that possible? What kind of arguments are you using to attract people to this "broad left"?We are not "trying to attract people to the broad left", our understanding is that most workers who are angry and want to fight will probably be attracted to the broad left, but that revolutionaries have a role to play in arguing both for the ultimate aims, but also for immediate aims and tactics within these movements which will grow the movements in size and influence the more they tap into class anger. In addition, the more people struggle, the more expectations are raised and the more people have direct experience in struggles, the more there is a large base for revolutionary ideas beyond what induvidual or small groups of radicals can convince through propaganda and agitiation on a one-on-one sort of level.


If you put forth explicitly socialist analyses in your propaganda and agitation at the movement activities you participate in, in what sense are you "building a broad left' rather than attempting to build a revolutionary left? On the other hand, if you are putting forth generic arguments like "tax the rich" and "ditch the democrats," I fail to see how you are trying to build revolutionary consciousness in the movements you're working in.So you are using slogans to argue against the poltical arguments we make in movements? Sure we can have a sign that says "All power to the worker's councils" and we would agree with that - but that is not the point of a slogan. "All power to the Soviets" only works when the question of power is a popular question. Slogans are simple rallying points. The arguments we make in movements however are things like: in anti-racist struggles, arguing for a class rather than post-modern/I.D. politics view of oppression because this will not only further a class understanding, but a movement on this basis IMO would become stronger, more effective, and have a higher likely hood of radicalizing further. In the anti-war movement generally a lot of the general arguments we had in the movement were over supporting Democrats, imperialism, and supporting resistance in Iraq. These are the general political arguments and in addition, one-on-one we try and convince people of the need for socialism, invite people to our study groups and meetings etc.

But my question remains... how do we help conditions to build a revolutionary left, how does this develop in the absense of struggles? What does it mean to have a theory of organizing the vanguard when no real vanguard can develop out of a demoralized class? Studying and propaganda activities and so on are of course always possible and always essential, but beyond the one on one things how can we link revolutionary ideas and tradditions to the class if struggle and consiousness are starting at a low level? If not through a more general struggle, how does a vanguard drawing revolutionary conclusions emerge?

[TheEmancipator]

Depends on the type.

The progressive greens are those who wish to invest in technology, in green energy, look towards a fairer economy. They are social democrats with the added objective against fighting against climate change. They also tend to to be of upper-middle class. They will no doubt be criticized by most of the violent revolutionaries here as a result.

The conservative greens are those who want us to to live like cavemen in order to save the planet. They are nutters and go fundamentally against any Marxist/Revolutionary thought of progress. And yet these are the hippy folk a lot of the Che Guevara lovers living in the 60s like to court.

The epicuran greens are just lazy, minimalist dudes who like throwing barbecues and eating biological food. All that "live healthy" stuff. Pretty boring to be honest.

[Lucretia]

We are not "trying to attract people to the broad left", our understanding is that most workers who are angry and want to fight will probably be attracted to the broad left, but that revolutionaries have a role to play in arguing both for the ultimate aims, but also for immediate aims and tactics within these movements which will grow the movements in size and influence the more they tap into class anger. In addition, the more people struggle, the more expectations are raised and the more people have direct experience in struggles, the more there is a large base for revolutionary ideas beyond what induvidual or small groups of radicals can convince through propaganda and agitiation on a one-on-one sort of level.

My goodness you are slippery. We now see you proclaiming that you are “not trying to attract to people to the broad left,” yet earlier on this very same page we see you claiming, “We try and support things that will help develop a 'broad left' because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization.” Which is it? Are you trying specifically to develop a broad left or aren't you? No wonder every one of your responses has been filled with long, meandering paragraphs. It's tough to be concise when you're not arguing a logically consistent position. And it's frustrating for me, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion with somebody who is on opposing sides of every issue, then gets angry when you try to pin him down on one of the sides. By the way, I am not trying to single you out personally for not being able to reconcile these issues. I think they are systemic problems the ISO has as a result of effectively abandoning the Leninist party-building model, including the existence of formal political program. The result is reflected in frequent strategic confusion about what the long- and short-term goals are, and we see these issues manifest in your posts here.

By the way, before I'm accused of taking your quote of context, we clearly see your rationale for building a “broad left” in the paragraph I quoted from: "Of course we'd like to convince everyone to be revolutionaries, but it's just not going to happen with everyone at this point - so then what? Not try and contend for the influence of class-based ideas in movements, leave everyone who sincerly wants to fight austerity to only reformist arguments and strategies on offer?"

There are a few things in this larger quote that need to be unpacked here. “So then what?” you ask after noting that the masses of workers aren't revolutionary and aren't likely to become revolutionary anytime in the near future. Well, gee, I guess we have to stop trying to promote revolutionary class consciousness in our propaganda lest we sound – to use your word – “utopian” by “calling for all power to the soviets” (which is, of course, an idiotic caricature that confuses revolutionary agitation with revolutionary propaganda). What do we do instead? Well, here's where the indirect and euphemistic description of “building a broad left” comes in: You “contend for influence of class-based ideas.” Well, what class-based ideas? The idea that the interests of the ruling class are objectively antagonistic to the the interests of the working class, and that workers therefore should work to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Well, I doubt that. Because earlier you disparaged such propaganda by conflating it with making a agitational calls for giving power to non-existent “soviets.” So again, one is left wondering what these “class-based” ideas are, if not ideas that are directed at reflecting back to workers their reformist political views about working within the confines of capitalism to rescue it from itself.

How is this supposed to be anything other than a justification for jettisoning revolutionary party-building in favor of “unifying” people around struggling for reforms in the hope that this will at some later point grow over into a miraculous birth of revolutionary class consciousness? Again, you can try to employ euphemisms here, but what you're arguing is obvious to any leftist who is paying attention to what you're saying (and what you're trying to avoid saying explicitly).

[Jimmie Higgins]

My goodness you are slippery. We now see you proclaiming that you are “not trying to attract to people to the broad left,” yet earlier on this very same page we see you claiming, “We try and support things that will help develop a 'broad left' because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization.” Which is it?

If someone says: "we are not trying to go for a swim, but we need to swim across a lake to get where we are going", you'd accuse that person of wanting to drown people. If someone tilled soil you must think they are playing in the dirt in OPPOSITION to harvesting crops. Yeah these analogies are inexact because those are defined parts of a larger set process and there is no such formula or specific order for revolutions.

At any rate, we are "not trying to build a broad left" AS OPPOSED OR COUNTERPOSED to building a revolutionary party. You keep making these things counterposed and I am arguing that without a broad left there will be NO REVOLUTIONARY LEFT.

So our ultimate goal is NOT a "broad left" but we recognize in this time of LOW struggle, that those who will not be instantly won to revolutionary ideas will have taken a step forward if brought into action. This broad left is the atmosphere out of which a mass revolutionary current can develop. Radical sects can attract induviduals whereas mass struggle can produce much more widespread consiousness and action.

Again: a braod left in our context is a postive move counterposed to inaction and demoralization, not in opposition to building a revolutionary current.

Beyond that, I am done with you. I do not think you are serious about a genuine discussion, you have repetedly insinuated that I have lied and not ONCE have you answered any of my questions. This is not a real debate or discussion or exchange, you have nothing to offer.