Leftist Opinion of The Green Party

[vijaya]

Here I'm referring to the noticeably left-wing Green Party of England & Wales who fanatically oppose the privatisation of the NHS, support abolition of prescriptions and re-introduction of free dental care and eye tests, re-nationalisation of energy, utilities and rail networks, scrapping of Trident, withdrawal from Afghanistan, and are probably the most anti-austerity party in the UK that has any chance of gaining seat in Parliament etc.

However, Green parties of many (or, at least most Western) nations probably have similar socialist principles. Why then, do the British and European Left ignore them? Obviously they aren't revolutionary being a political party, but they're the most left libertarian choice that could gain ground with the adequate support.

There was an article in The Guardian (that I can't post 'cause I haven't done enough posts on the forum) titled 'Why Does The Left Ignore The True Progressive Party - The Greens?' that questions the left's neglect of the Greens, when there is a very tenacious leftist division within the Party.

Opinions on here?

[Remus Bleys]

If by leftists you mean Communists, then I guess I can answer. The green party isn't a revolutionary party, its interested in giving reforms and making capitalism nicer. Communists would only pursue a reform if it helped the Revolution, and this is the only way Communists frame that debate. Communists, unlike greens, are not for a better life under capitalism, we are for communism.
You mentioned austerity, but many of liberals are also opposed to austerity, because they see the state as the mediator which can help bring about the abstract man and generalize it within capitalism, they see the state as something which can allow all the different classes (which they annoyingly ascribe to income) and try and make that as their way of saying that capitalism is not so bad. You mentioned nationalization, but the truth of the matter is that a nationalized economy does not socialism make. The bourgeois state managing and directing capital doesn't change the nature of capitalism in one iota, and in many cases this nationalization is actually necessary for capitalism to function; by supporting nationalization many so called "socialists" are in a sense doing nothing but helping capitalism. There is nothing revolutionary or communist about a political party joining the state apparatus for the purpose of trying to destroy class struggle and instead have complete class collaboration (an impossibility within any class society). There is nothing revolutionary about worshiping the state as if capitalism would become benign if only the almighty state was in charge. The Green party is simply another bourgeois party, and through its supposed "socialism" it may even present itself a greater threat to socialist demands then the conservatives. As the Origin and Function of the Party Form states, "We can show our task by this following comparison: Jesus chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, we must chase away all those who sell their theoretical goods calling them Marxism." This is why communists hate and ignore the Green Party: they are our enemy, they are those who try to infiltrate our camp, and they must be the first to go when the Revolution comes.

[helot]

Wait, isn't their only MP a scab?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It seems like the overall strategy for greens is to just tail the major center left party of their county while making empty critiques of that party's policy. I say empty because when elections comes around they will still tell their supporters to vote for the center left party anyhow. They're like a holding pen for people who are too irritating to have in the main parties, this way they can just call them up for elections and then go back to avoiding them for another couple of years until the next one.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Wait, isn't their only MP a scab?
And in Brighton and Hove, and in Bristol their councillors have voted through cuts for workers' wages and services, so even on a vague social democratic reformist level they're shit. In Brighton and Hove the recycling and rubbish workers called them 'tories on bikes' after they were hit with £5000 wage cuts.

[Bosco Louis]

If by leftists you mean Communists, then I guess I can answer. The green party isn't a revolutionary party, its interested in giving reforms and making capitalism nicer. Communists would only pursue a reform if it helped the Revolution, and this is the only way Communists frame that debate. Communists, unlike greens, are not for a better life under capitalism, we are for communism.
You mentioned austerity, but many of liberals are also opposed to austerity, because they see the state as the mediator which can help bring about the abstract man and generalize it within capitalism, they see the state as something which can allow all the different classes (which they annoyingly ascribe to income) and try and make that as their way of saying that capitalism is not so bad. You mentioned nationalization, but the truth of the matter is that a nationalized economy does not socialism make. The bourgeois state managing and directing capital doesn't change the nature of capitalism in one iota, and in many cases this nationalization is actually necessary for capitalism to function; by supporting nationalization many so called "socialists" are in a sense doing nothing but helping capitalism. There is nothing revolutionary or communist about a political party joining the state apparatus for the purpose of trying to destroy class struggle and instead have complete class collaboration (an impossibility within any class society). There is nothing revolutionary about worshiping the state as if capitalism would become benign if only the almighty state was in charge. The Green party is simply another bourgeois party, and through its supposed "socialism" it may even present itself a greater threat to socialist demands then the conservatives. As the Origin and Function of the Party Form states, "We can show our task by this following comparison: Jesus chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, we must chase away all those who sell their theoretical goods calling them Marxism." This is why communists hate and ignore the Green Party: they are our enemy, they are those who try to infiltrate our camp, and they must be the first to go when the Revolution comes.
I agree with you that the Greens are absolutely not a method of achieving communism, but in the US they are definitely not our enemies like the Republicans or Democrats. Jill Stein helped out getting Kshama Sawant of Socialist Alternative (CWI) onto the Seattle City Council. It is true that Marxist revolution isn't going to come from getting people elected into small or even large offices in a capitalist state; power never lets go of power without a show of force, what the Greens can do though is help put us into public view a little more. But lets be honest, we are pretty far from Revolution in the US, most people still think of communists as the people who we were on the edge of exchanging nukes with for 40 years.

There aren't a lot of us and we need to attract more people. The Green party is pretty fluid, a lot of people in there are close to agreeing with us, they just see the environment as the priority and capitalism as less of a threat to achieving their goals than it really is. Their view is that, if we don't first focus on the environment, we are all going to die, and to be fair, is a pretty reasonable thing to be afraid of. They have also had some minor victories within capitalism, and we haven't done a lot to make them believe in our ability to establish revolutionary change. Environmentalism can only be truly empowered under socialism, and a lot of environmentalists just want us to show that we are a better method for achieving their priorities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

However, Green parties of many (or, at least most Western) nations probably have similar socialist principles. Why then, do the British and European Left ignore them? Obviously they aren't revolutionary being a political party, but they're the most left libertarian choice that could gain ground with the adequate support.

There was an article in The Guardian (that I can't post 'cause I haven't done enough posts on the forum) titled 'Why Does The Left Ignore The True Progressive Party - The Greens?' that questions the left's neglect of the Greens, when there is a very tenacious leftist division within the Party.

Opinions on here?what's the leftist division in the party?

In the u.s. Where there has never been a real social democratic or labor party, the greens for a short time were able to attract democratic socialist types after years of Clinton in power. So there were left-leaning liberals and democratic socialists in coalition, but after bush's election and then in the conservative atmosphere after 9/11 the liberals basically closed ranks on anything "too left" on a national level and made a conscious decision to not only not challenge, but to support the Democrats where they didn't have greens running... And to only challenge democrats where democrats couldn't loose. This just made them basically an outsourced version of a progressive caucus for the Democrats and aside from a couple of local offices (the green mayor of a working class town near me is supporting efforts to stop evictions) the party doesn't really exist in any meaningful way at the moment. Their active members here (I'm sure they have many thousand passive voting supporters) seem to be a smaller grouping than the local RCP, for example.

But in the u.s. If people broke from the Democrats to a party decidedly to the left - even if a coalition of leftists, social dems, and left-liberals - then I think it would be a mistake for revolutionaries to dismiss or ignore it. It would be an electoral version of occupy in the sense of who is being drawn together (and in the sense that it would be a hot mess) but it would also be an important shit for u.s. Politics and a chance to develop networks between revolutionaries and labor militants and community activists, anti racists, etc.

If people in Europe do ignore the greens, I'd guess that it's probably because such formations do more or less exist or have existed and so if the greens grew, it wouldn't represent a change in overall political dynamics, but maybe just progressives and dem-doc moving from labor or socialist parties to a different party.

[Comrade Jacob]

It's social-democratic as all hell. 'Left'-leaning but in no way leftist.

[BITW434]

When it comes down to it, the green parties tend to be just like all the other bourgeois parties. For instance, the German Green Party supported the war in Afghanistan while they were part of the coalition government over there.

Anyway, in my opinion, the only way you can be green is by being red...

[Rosa Partizan]

well, here in Germany, they turned into quite an upper class-(pseudo)ecofreak-teachers in NorthFace-coats party. They still have some "leftist" principles, but it's not worth mentioning. In my federal state, they even accepted a coalition with the CDU, which is a christian conservative party. If you ask me, they aren't that far away from each other. They've become kind of bourgeois during the last decade or so, otherwise they wouldn't gain double figured votes.

[vijaya]

Some interesting views and replies guys, cheers. :)

[blake 3:17]

In Canada they go back and forth between left and right and wiggle around in the middle.

I voted Green a few years, partly as a protest, but also for the candidate.

[RedAnarchist]

The left of capitalism is still capitalist, and that left is a long way away from revolutionary leftism, and any support we give them is no better than giving Labour, the US Democrats etc support.

[Diirez]

The green party is capitalist. It's a nicer version of capitalism, but it's still capitalist, and capitalism is flawed and detrimental to society.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Here I'm referring to the noticeably left-wing Green Party of England & Wales who fanatically oppose the privatisation of the NHS, support abolition of prescriptions and re-introduction of free dental care and eye tests, re-nationalisation of energy, utilities and rail networks, scrapping of Trident, withdrawal from Afghanistan, and are probably the most anti-austerity party in the UK that has any chance of gaining seat in Parliament etc.

How is that any different from SuperMac's Tories in their day? It's a bit worrying that people conceive as "left" or "socialist" programmes that would have seemed boringly milquetoast to conservatives and liberals a few decades ago.


However, Green parties of many (or, at least most Western) nations probably have similar socialist principles. Why then, do the British and European Left ignore them? Obviously they aren't revolutionary being a political party, but they're the most left libertarian choice that could gain ground with the adequate support.

Because socialists want to smash capitalism, not enact a nicer capitalism.

[radiocaroline]

Totally agree with a lot of the points made already..

ultimately a reformist party and don't understand why they are considered particularly leftist party when their policies are no more leftist than the Tories in the heyday of consensus politics (i.e. Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath)

They just focus more on the ecological problems that face us. Which I do think is a defining factor from them and the other parties as the Tory Environment Secretary struggles to actually consider the possibility of climate change being a real concept. Hopelessly inept, to be holding that sort of position..

However, I personally believe that capitalists hinder the prevention of climate change and ultimately restricting their power would be the easiest way to stop climate change on an international scale - so reformist politics are not necessarily the way forward for a "Green Party"

[Axiomasher]

In my experience greens as a group are the most easily persuaded to reject capitalism, though their primary concern is environmental and not radical political and economic democracy. Once the connection between rampant consumerism and capitalism is made, the former having become a central driver of the latter, it's hard for greens to defend an ideology which is exhausting, denuding, destroying and negatively transforming the natural world.

[mindsword]

i agree on the social democracy thing. but what is the closest thing to a revolutionary green party? cant have communism without trees.

[Cheese Guevara]

I know many in the UK green party. Many identify as "communist", but of course the party itself simply espouses a "kinder, greener form of capitalism". Does anyone know how strong the Communist Party of Britain and the Socialist Party of Britain are? The terms "communist" and "socialist" have been so stigmatized, that the Greens seem to have more chance of picking up votes than the other two.

EDIT - wow, the green party's manifesto actually specifically states it wants a "zero or negative growth economy", which has pretty radical ramifications.