Thoughts on the Green Party of the USA?

[empireofred]

Here's their "10 Key Values"
(Apparently I can't post links)

And here's what they say the differences are between them and the two major parties: (Apparently I can't post links)


In case you don't feel like reading the whole thing, I'm quoting some parts:

"We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law."

"Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system."

"[We] Refuse Corporate Campaign Contributions [and] Oppose Corporations as Persons."

"Demand real universal health care: Single-payer national health insurance, with guaranteed treatment and medicine regardless of age, ability to pay, employment, prior medical condition, including choice of doctors and hospitals."

Anyway, I'm thinking it's better to vote for these guys rather than the other two. But I'm not sure whether all their "principles" will vanish if they ever have power or if at least they'll install a Scandinavian-like social-democratic system, which is much better than what it is now. What do you think? Also, why isn't there wider support for the party?

P.S Since it doesn't seem that Americans will ever support complete equality, I'm trying to figure out a realistic compromise. I'm not sure if this is considered a "bourgeois thread" and if I'm gonna get banned. I hope not.

[sixdollarchampagne]

In terms of the distorted, totally one-sided "choices" that voters in the US are offered every Election Day, I think it is a good thing that the Greens, for all their non-revolutionary politics, are on the ballot. It gives some of us someone to vote for. My household is one retired worker and one unemployed worker, and we both went for Dr. Jill Stein in the last presidential election, as the least toxic alternative.

In response to what the original poster wrote, I think there is no danger that the Greens will ever "have power." I am certain the Democrats and the GOP will see to that, just as those two pro-war, imperialist parties have acted to make it just about impossible for genuine far left groups in the US ever to get ballot status. In a way, in terms of the Tweedledum/Tweedledee (sp?) choices that we are offered by the two big parties in every election (e.g., the "choice" between a Democratic Party warmonger and an obscurantist troglodyte [i.e. GOP] warmonger), makes it clear to a lot of people that elections in the US are a joke.

[tachosomoza]

Also, why isn't there wider support for the party?



Because most Americans have probably never heard of it, and even if they had, keep in mind that this is the country where people think social democrats are "communists" who want to turn the USA into the USSR. We have the least class conscious and the most reactionary proletariat in the West.

[Prometeo liberado]

The very fact that Jill Stein is associated with the Greens should tell you enough. An unrepentant Zionist she chose to torpedo her campaign, and in the process drive many members out of the party, by refusing to denounce Israeli aggression. It's a shite product and I ain't buying it and they shouldn't be selling it.

[Sea]

The greens think that they're what the democrats think the democrats are. They are bourgeois. I don't give even one fifth of a shit whether greens or blackshirts get in the white house. They all represent the same mode of production. They all are against, and violently if need be, those who advocate its replacement by a more advanced mode of production. That means you, RevLeft. They're against you.

"I don't care if I'm voting for an anti-working-class, social-fascist, openly opportunist, representative of the class that keeps me down, because they're totally not gonna keep me down!" Yeah, right.
Dr. Jill Stein in the last presidential election, as the least toxic alternative.This reminds me of all that twaddle about Dr. Ron Paul! You're not helping give Dr. Jill or yourself any credibility. Pray tell, by what method do you rank the toxicity of your oppressors?
Because most Americans have probably never heard of it, and even if they had, keep in mind that this is the country where people think social democrats are "communists" who want to turn the USA into the USSR. We have the least class conscious and the most reactionary proletariat in the West.No, we have the most class conscious and least reactionary proletariat in the West and East. We have the least class conscious and the most reactionary proletariat in the Midwest and South. :glare:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The greens think that they're what the democrats think the democrats are. They are bourgeois. I don't give even one fifth of a shit whether greens or blackshirts get in the white house. They all represent the same mode of production. They all are against, and violently if need be, those who advocate its replacement by a more advanced mode of production. That means you, RevLeft. They're against you.

That's an extremely optimistic view of RevLeft...

[Sea]

That's an extremely optimistic view of RevLeft...Perhaps. After all, the only reason the lesser-evilists play eenie-meenie-miney-moe with the pawns of capital is so they can pick one to side with against the working class. That they would admit this is a completely different matter.

[Prometeo liberado]

The greens think that they're what the democrats think the democrats are. They are bourgeois. I don't give even one fifth of a shit whether greens or blackshirts get in the white house. They all represent the same mode of production. They all are against, and violently if need be, those who advocate its replacement by a more advanced mode of production. That means you, RevLeft. They're against you.

"I don't care if I'm voting for an anti-working-class, social-fascist, openly opportunist, This reminds me of all that twaddle about Dr. Ron Paul! You're not helping give Dr. Jill or yourself any credibility. Pray tell, by what method do you rank the toxicity of your oppressors?No, we have the most class conscious and least reactionary proletariat in the West and East. We have the least class conscious and the most reactionary proletariat in the Midwest and South. :glare:

I was just about to post basically that by knowingly accepting that which actively boasts itself as not socialist you willingly advocate anything but socialism. If you're willing to settle for that then why bother?
Good post comrade.

[empireofred]

In terms of the distorted, totally one-sided "choices" that voters in the US are offered every Election Day, I think it is a good thing that the Greens, for all their non-revolutionary politics, are on the ballot. It gives some of us someone to vote for. My household is one retired worker and one unemployed worker, and we both went for Dr. Jill Stein in the last presidential election, as the least toxic alternative.

In response to what the original poster wrote, I think there is no danger that the Greens will ever "have power." I am certain the Democrats and the GOP will see to that, just as those two pro-war, imperialist parties have acted to make it just about impossible for genuine far left groups in the US ever to get ballot status. In a way, in terms of the Tweedledum/Tweedledee (sp?) choices that we are offered by the two big parties in every election (e.g., the "choice" between a Democratic Party warmonger and an obscurantist troglodyte [i.e. GOP] warmonger), makes it clear to a lot of people that elections in the US are a joke.

"least toxic alternative." That's exactly what I'm looking for. Don't you think some of the blame should go to the American people? Being ignorant and following the propaganda-filled media isn't really an excuse. Technically, there are choices, of course nobody votes for the other parties. But it seems to me that it's sort of like a tradition to only have two parties. I've even encountered low income people who support the GOP for some reason. Mostly however it's the usual "I don't care about politics" response, as if politics is an abstract idea that will never affect you.

[empireofred]

The greens think that they're what the democrats think the democrats are. They are bourgeois. I don't give even one fifth of a shit whether greens or blackshirts get in the white house. They all represent the same mode of production. They all are against, and violently if need be, those who advocate its replacement by a more advanced mode of production. That means you, RevLeft.[I] They're against you.

Well, my philosophy is a little different. If the green party (or any party for that matter) can offer even a slightly better life to the working class than the other two parties, then I will support it. Maybe we can take one step at a time to a better society. I wish things were different, but since they're not, there's so much you can do. The alternative is to do nothing (practical), and I'm not comfortable with that. Maybe we should "support" the GOP and its extreme measures restricting civil rights, driving the working class into poverty and hurting the middle class in order to wake the people up, but that's an unlikely scenario.

[Captain Red]

They are capitalist and bourgeois. I don't really see how you can save the environment when you still have capitalism, for instance you will still have things like planned obsolescence and its one of the things that hurt the environment the most. If you want a "Scandinavian-like social-democratic system" why not just vote for a social democratic party like SDUSA

[G4b3n]

I keep arguing that we all need to vote for Emma Goldman en Mass, but no one is willing to listen. Fuck the Green Party and their quasi-socialist liberal bullshit.

[empireofred]

If you want a "Scandinavian-like social-democratic system" why not just vote for a social democratic party like SDUSA

Well, in that case why not just vote for the Communist Party USA?
It's because those parties have an almost zero chance of getting significant votes, whereas the Greens are a little more established.

Edit: established and accepted*

[d3crypt]

I used to think they were good, but i have come to realize that they are basically just a less corrupt version of the democrats. The are fake socialists.

[empireofred]

The greens also have zero chance in getting into parliament. There is however a social democratic senator called Bernie Sanders

What a coincidence, I just watched a video of him asking questions about Walmart. He calls himself an independent though.

[tachosomoza]

The greens also have zero chance in getting into parliament.

There is no parliamentary system in the United States. We've a bicameral national legislature, and 50 individual state legislatures that are also bicameral, and a presidential system. Be thankful you don't have this.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The greens also have zero chance in getting into parliament. There is however a social democratic senator called Bernie Sanders

Sanders isn't even a social-democrat, the notion is an insult to old social-democrats. He's a populist who blames the faults and crises of capitalism on "corporations", champions "the middle class" etc.

[tachosomoza]

The Congress is your parliament, just because you don't have parliamentary system doesn't mean you don't have a parliament e.g. both China and Brazil has a parliament but neither has a parliamentary system

The Congress is a congress. A parliament is a parliament. The two aren't the same.

[empireofred]

The Congress is a congress. A parliament is a parliament. The two aren't the same.

This is why I didn't correct him in the first place, I thought it might escalate into a meaningless debate.
Let's just call them house of morons and get it over with.

[RedCornFlakes]

I support them on the grounds that they're the least of evils compared to the, republocrats and other third parties. I would rather vote For the ICP but they're not even on the ballots and nobodies even heard of them.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Just mild reformist bullshit, we're better off focusing on creating actual change.

[Bostana]

The Congress is a congress. A parliament is a parliament. The two aren't the same.

honest question. Whats the difference?

[tachosomoza]

honest question. Whats the difference?

A Congress is an assembly of representatives from different states/nations/etc. In the American congressional system, states send their own people to Congress to represent their interests, while also maintaining their own legislatures to handle local and state affairs. The head of government of the US, the President, is elected separately from Congress, isn't a member, and can't be removed without committing a crime that would warrant impeachment or losing an election. A Parliament is a legislative body, just like a congress, but it can cast a vote of no confidence and remove the head of government, the Prime Minister, who is also a member of Parliament and the leader of the majority party in the lower house. If the US had a Parliamentary system, Eric Cantor (R-VA) would be Prime Minister, as he's the leader of the majority party in the lower house.

[Skyhilist]

The very fact that Jill Stein is associated with the Greens should tell you enough. An unrepentant Zionist she chose to torpedo her campaign, and in the process drive many members out of the party, by refusing to denounce Israeli aggression. It's a shite product and I ain't buying it and they shouldn't be selling it.

I have plenty of criticisms of the Green Party, but this really isn't true at all. In fact, here is a quote from Jill Stein:

"United States policy regarding Israel and Palestine must be revised to make international law, peace and human rights for all people, no matter their religion or nationality, the central priorities. While the U.S. government sometimes voices support for this principle in name, in practice U.S policy towards Palestine and Israel has violated this principle more often than not.
In particular, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace within Israel and Palestine, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights."

[sixdollarchampagne]

Thanks so much to cde Skyhilist for offering an illuminating quotation from Dr. Stein to set the record straight. I really appreciate Skyhilist's contribution to the discussion. Facts are valuable.

–– $6 champagne


... here is a quote from Jill Stein:

"United States policy regarding Israel and Palestine must be revised to make international law, peace and human rights for all people, no matter their religion or nationality, the central priorities….
In particular, the United States has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Israeli government as it pursues policies of occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law. Instead of allying with the courageous proponents of peace within Israel and Palestine, our government has rewarded consistent abusers of human rights."