Why I became a Green

[Umoja]

I'm gonna recieve my fair share of flame here, but at least I already know.

I've broken my association with the official United States Socialist party, but this time I have a reason. I'm still a Socialist through and through, but the problem with many third parties is that their views are much to ridgid. The Green Party (US) seems to be a much better solution, a party by definition is for a group of like minded people, and lets face it, the other Socialist Parties in the United States have dramatically gone downhill since either the 40's or the fall of the Soviet Union.

It's time us "party socialist" realize that if we want they change we preach it can only be achieved in a party and that strong leftist party is the Green Party if you ask me.

Let the fires of hell began.

[antieverything]

I've been having the same sort of thoughts lately. The SP-USA seems to be sort of hollow and vigorless.

The Green Party, on the other hand, has a definite plan for the future. The one thing that really draws me to the GP, though, is their emphasis on local control of the economy...I think this is the idea that we need to get out to the people: An alternative to big government and big business.

[Akbar]

What is green and a green party? Is it like a music and dance party? Is it like a secret like a rave party?

[IHP]

Akbar, you are a dickhead.

I am associated with the Greens party in Aus. The leader Bob Brown is a very good man.

--IHP

[Kehoe]

"Any communist party that participates in petty bourgeois elections cannot be accounted as truly revolutionary". - Che

[Akbar]

you are very rude and unnice, your greens party sounds snobish and I dont want to know about your party.

[vox]

While it's true that the SPUSA is rather "vigorless," I can't say that the Greens are any better. I've looked long and hard at the Greens and they, as an organization, don't seem to know what the hell they're doing. They complained in one state because they didn't file the proper papers in time for an election (all the other parties did) and in Minnesota this year they ran a candidate for the Senate who was less suited to Green ideology than Paul Wellstone was (which caused the Greens up there considerable shame).

These examples are indicative of an extreme carelessness and lack of organization at best, total ineptitude at worst. Hell, when Nader ran there were TWO DIFFERENT GREEN PLATFORMS!!!! One from the States Greens and one from the National Greens. There was a Green site that had them both side by side (and the National platform was much further to the Left).

Perhaps if they ever get their act together, but not now.

vox

[Sol]

Kehoe- If you want change, you attack on all fronts. You use everything you have. You don't hide in the bushes hugging a rifle while other people dictate policy for the sake of being a "true revolutionary".

Christ, for communists people seem pretty dogmatic around here.

[Akbar]

yes, attack on all fronts and rears as well!

And this word "dogmatic" what does it mean?

[SonofRage]

Quote: from Umoja on 8:32 pm on Nov. 13, 2002
I'm gonna recieve my fair share of flame here, but at least I already know.

I've broken my association with the official United States Socialist party, but this time I have a reason. I'm still a Socialist through and through, but the problem with many third parties is that their views are much to ridgid. The Green Party (US) seems to be a much better solution, a party by definition is for a group of like minded people, and lets face it, the other Socialist Parties in the United States have dramatically gone downhill since either the 40's or the fall of the Soviet Union.

It's time us "party socialist" realize that if we want they change we preach it can only be achieved in a party and that strong leftist party is the Green Party if you ask me.

Let the fires of hell began.


I agree (just like I did on here (http://www.gp-us.org/committees/platform2/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=78))

[truthaddict11]

in my opinion the green party is only trying to reform the democratic party. this has failed in the past. i am a member of the SP-USA and i know a few greens i am surprised some of these people havent joined the socialist party. we agree on many of the same things. Ralph Nader and Jello Biafra are about the only Greens I like. as for the socialist party we need to be more active in the party run for public office.

[SonofRage]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 7:56 am on Nov. 14, 2002
in my opinion the green party is only trying to reform the democratic party.


What gives you that idea? The Greens have often used the term "Republicrat" to describe the fact that there is no real difference between the two major parties.

[RedCeltic]

I see some people are confused about us greens. Maybe I can clear some of that up....

First off... Ralph Nader did run for President in 2000. However, Ralph Nader doesn't represent the Green party, he has his own agenda, and basicly is focused around a particular issue, corperate responsibility.

The actual Green Party, is much more radical than Ralph Nader.

Also, State level Green Parties are much more independant than State level Democrat & Republican Parties.

Personally, I was a member of the SP-USA, but they don't have ballot status in New York State so SP members in New York run on the Green ticket... that's what Howie Hawkins did this election. He ran as a Green for the Controler's office, even though he's a member of the SP-USA.... but his agenda for encouraging people to establish co-ops rather than corperations is in line with the New York State Green Parties platform.

[munkey soup]

The fact that each State Green platform is different shows their push for localization. It is not condradictory or confused or muddled at all.

[RedCeltic]

That's right MS!

That's one of the key values:

"5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental
destruction, and militarization. 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. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the
individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens."

[antieverything]

And the focus on local hegemony issue is what we need to get out to the people. The everyday guy on the street is distrustful of big government and socialism is almost always presented as a "big goverment" idea. I think that the Green Party's platform will really strike a chord with people who are looking for an alternative to "big government" and "big business."

[munkey soup]

Exactly! The U.S., despite its large amount of big cities, is still basically made up of small communities, 'specially here in the southwest.

[Umoja]

Suddenly I feel more confident about my conversion to the Green Party. It just seems that Sp-us had it's good times. I mean Pasons (SP-USA)ran in New Jersey, but he wasn't going to win, so I would have voted Glick (GP-USA) on the Jersey ballot. The thing I like about the Greens is that they are largerly local showing that they are true to the purpose of grassroots democracy.

I personally think they'd gain more power if they marketed more to the Black, and Latino communities though, because as my mother told me "I don't know anything about the Greens, why should I vote for them?"

[antieverything]

That problem isn't hard to remedy. www.greenpartyus.org

[I think that is the address.]

[Umoja]

Sure, but they don't put themselves out their is what my mother claims, she tells me why don't you vote for them but I don't know anything about them. I really think their party needs to use publicity campaigns to show what they are all about, and prove that they are more then just an average "third party".

[Som]

I think it would probably be best if the greens, socialist and other left parties would form some coalitions and support the same candidate in the elections, to give a much better chance in the elections, one of the biggest problems is all the different parties with similiar ideas that dont work with each other.

[RedCeltic]

Well, publicity is expensive which is why the republicrats are able to get their name out all the time, but not small grass roots third parties.

We are trying to get out name out however by getting mentioned in the press and media.

For example, next week any of you who are in the US should tune in to "Hardball" Hillary Clinton is going to be on it... and it's being aired live from right here in Albany NY, about two blocks from me in fact.... We plan on interupting the show at some point by chanting some anti war slogans.

I suppose our name would only get in it if they catch us.. lol....

We where also in the press fairly recently up here in Albany when one of us dressed up as the Toxic Avenger and caused a scene on the steps of the capital building here in Albany (capital of New York State) protesting the Governer's stance on toxic waste dumping.

[RedCeltic]

I think it would probably be best if the greens, socialist and other left parties would form some coalitions and support the same candidate in the elections, to give a much better chance in the elections, one of the biggest problems is all the different parties with similiar ideas that dont work with each other.

Here in New York, the Democrats and repulbicans both have about three ballot lines they can get their names on.. Repubican, Conservitive, Right to Live...... and Democrat, Liberal, and Working Families.... even though I just listed six parties... there are acutally only two.

While the Socialists don't have ballot status in New York, I think that the Socialist Party and Green Party should work together by putting the same candidate on both ballots.

[redstar2000]

As a communist, I don't think it's all that helpful to "flame" other lefties, even when I think they're wrong.

I think the people who started the Green Party and who support it now are wrong--not because they're "not radical enough" (whatever that might mean), but because they're STARTING from an incorrect assumption.

To assume that political power in a CLASS sense has anything to do with the outcome of capitalist elections is a MISTAKE. The only election in U.S. history that actually involved a meaningful transfer of power from one class to another was that of 1860...and it took a civil war to make the results of the voting stick.

It is POSSIBLE that the Green Party will become the left-center party in the U.S.--similar in outlook to German Social Democracy, French Socialist, English Labour, etc. But I would caution everyone involved that it will NOT under any forseeable circumstances evolve into any kind of revolutionary party nor will it mount any kind of serious threat to capitalist state power. The very structure of capitalist elections is intended to KEEP that from happening...and it WORKS just as it was designed to do.

Also, as a communist, I realize that people have to try a lot of different ways of opposing the system; people have to fail at a lot of moderate things before they are ready for extreme measures.

So, not only will I not "flame" anyone who joins and works for the Green Party, I wish you well. And when you get pissed off at the sellouts, corruption, etc. that always emerges in electoral politics...I hope that you will have the chance to talk things over with a good communst.

PS: There are not many non-communists that I have much respect for, but I do rather admire Ralph Nader.
I love his line on Gore & Bush: "The only difference I see between them is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when a CEO walks in the room." Yeah!

[antieverything]

redstar2000, the thing about the world-wide Green movement is that it isn't like anything else. To compare it to the UK Labour Party is ridiculous. The Green movement is a leftist movement for today based on modern thinking...not on the writings of some dead guy (a genious though he may be). The Green movement is Socialism without the authoritarianism and without the 19th Century viewpoint.

[redstar2000]

Actually, AE, I said it might BECOME in the U.S. LIKE the Labour Party in England.

The most "successful" Green Party in the world (that I know of) is in Germany...where they more or less happily co-exist in a coalition with the Social Democratic Party government. I am not any kind of "authority" on modern German politics, but I can't imagine ANYONE who would argue that there is ANYTHING "socialist" about the present German government.

If you want to consider the greens "socialist", AE, that's up to you. But if you want people to accept your characterization of the greens as "socialists"...THEN you must provide evidence. Frankly, I think none exists.

As to the ideas of "dead guys" from the 19th century...well, there was Darwin, Faraday, Mendeleev, and a fair number of others, and their ideas have stood the test of time rather well. An idea may be good or bad or in between...the mortality of the thinker really doesn't have much relevance that I can see.

[antieverything]

Those old guys' ideas were good they were actually wrong on a few things...why? Their theories needed to be developed and improved upon.

I'm not saying that the Greens call themselves socialists, but here in the US they are WAY outside the dominant spectrum and very (libertarian)socialist in their beliefs.

[vox]

"...not on the writings of some dead guy (a genious though he may be)."

Yes, because death, of course, makes everything a person wrote invalid, right? Right?

vox

[SonofRage]

I've said it before but compare the two platforms:

http://www.gp-us.org/platform/2000/index.html
http://sp-usa.org/principles.htm

They are very similar. I agree that they should work together when possible, it can only be to our benefit.

[redstar2000]

I agree, AE, that IN the U.S., the greens are far to the left of mainstream political opinion. They are ALSO very small and weak.

The history of "radical" third parties in the U.S. and other capitalist countries is that AS they grow and become more politically significant in the context of capitalist elections, they move RIGHTWARDS. This has even happened to "Communist" parties.

This is NOT because this or that leader has become "corrupted" or has consciously decided to "betray" the working class. It is because corruption and betrayal and hyprocrisy is BUILT IN to the capitalist electoral process. (The capitalists don't call it "corruption" of course--they call it "becoming a mature and responsible part of the democratic process".) A MAJOR political party in a capitalist country that was NOT corrupt is as flatly impossible as a Pope proclaiming atheism from the Vatican steps.

But don't misunderstand me, AE, if you want to try it, go ahead and good luck to you. Experience really is, as often as not, the best teacher.

[antieverything]

Vox, I'm not saying that death invalidates someone, I'm saying that something written over one-hundred years ago isn't going to be the most accurate source on the socio-political and economic state of modern society.

Redstar, I believe that the Green ideal--the very backbone of the party; their vision for a new society, and one that is realistic--will keep them from drifting towards the center. Of course, you may be right...but should that stop us from strengthening the Left-wing of the Greens right now?

[Umoja]

And in a multi-party system getting votes isn't as do or Die. With the American system of Republicrats it's a matter of getting votes not actual policy, even though the two, Trunk (Repuli's) and the Ass of the Ass(Crats), have some different policy, it shows that another parties agenda could be even more different then theirs, and electoral politics are a must most people wouldn't just become Communist because some people claim it but don't do anything for society. Greens have gotten some results.

[antieverything]

Redstar2000, I've heard alot of people talk about "The Capitalist Electoral Process™" but I've never had it actually explained to me. Are you refering to money corrupting the process? If we implemented publically funded campaigns, would it still be considered "Capitalist"?

If you are refering to compromise corrupting socialist visions, I will say that is the price we pay for democracy.

[redstar2000]

"The capitalist electoral process" -- yeah, it's about the money! Publicly-funded elections wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference--you need an enormous amount of money to even get as far as BEING a "serious" candidate in the first place.

But it's also about the corruption of purpose; the point of being an electoral party is, ultimately, to win elections. In pursuit of that goal, you will "compromise" with the ruling class...because, if for no other reason, they'll ruin your ass if you don't...or even just kill you.

You think capitalist "democracy" is some kind of civilized contest of party and principle...and it is, as long as there are no serious anti-capitalist challengers. When such challengers exist (for example, the KPD in Germany in 1930-33), the mask comes off and the real fascist identity of capitalist politics is naked for all to see.

Remember Allende in Chile and what happened to him? Remember what almost happened (and may yet happen) to Chavez in Venezuela? And those guys weren't even real communists!

Don't puff up your American soul and say "it can't happen here" or "we're a lot more civilized than those places" or any of that chauvinistic crap! Go read about the Palmer raids after World War I or McCarthyism after World War II or Kent State in May of 1970...that's how our ruling class behaves when it feels even a little threatened, even a little scared.

If a really principled and genuinely radical Green Party emerged with the prospect of actually winning a major election, there's be a big front-page ad in the Wall Street Journal: FUHRER WANTED! Immediate Employment! No Experience Necessary!

When Upton Sinclair ran a credible campaign for Governor of California in 1932, there were big full-page ads in all the newspapers during the days right before the election. They all said the same thing (to people who were terrified of losing their jobs): IF SINCLAIR WINS, DON'T REPORT FOR WORK WEDNESDAY.

See, AE, they don't PLAY FAIR. They are not honorable, well-meaning people. They are a RULING CLASS...and they will do ANYTHING to remain one.

But, as I said earlier, if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and give it a try. Was it Ben Franklin who said it?: "Experience is a hard school, but a fool will have no other." Millions of lefties of all kinds have tried the road of electoral politics and have universally come to grief...you will forgive me if I remain sceptical of the Greens' ability to break that streak.

[RGacky3]

Do you wan't to know why the socialist party is not doing well, becouse socialists don't believe in it, becouse hypocrites like Umoja decide to go for a party that they don't believe in, becouse the socilist party is'nt doing well, is that loyalty, devotion, no it is crap. thats why the party is'nt doing well, becouse people arn't loyal, and they don't followe what they believe in, STICK WITH THE SOCIALIST PARTY.

[SonofRage]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 7:29 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
Do you wan't to know why the socialist party is not doing well, becouse socialists don't believe in it, becouse hypocrites like Umoja decide to go for a party that they don't believe in, becouse the socilist party is'nt doing well, is that loyalty, devotion, no it is crap. thats why the party is'nt doing well, becouse people arn't loyal, and they don't followe what they believe in, STICK WITH THE SOCIALIST PARTY.

To me, the two platforms really aren't any different. I'm curious though, what differences idealogically do you see between the Green Party of the US (http://www.gp-us.org/) and the Socialist Party of the US (http://www.sp-usa.org/)?

[Umoja]

I'll be a hypocrite, but if many people are being hypocrites to the Socialist Party, that says that the party isn't connecting to the people well enough. An idea isn't practical if people can't find a reason to follow it. SP-USA had it's glory days, but the Capitalist have weakend it significantly.

The Greens are a party advocating voting reform, along with almost every other third party. Many of them would rather have debates then commericials, in the interest of being able to get elected despite money. Even many Libretarians endorse this, which shows the even other Capitalist parties realize money is what's keeping them out, so they wish to change that.

[RGacky3]

it may be weak but your making it weaker by leaving it, and not trusting it.

[antieverything]

I can only speak for myself here, but I find myself strattling the divide between the SP and the GP. One is anti-capitalist but advocates national control of the economy while the other isn't openly anti-capitalist but advocates local control of the economy.

[SonofRage]

I'm in the same situation AE. I'm staying with the Green Party but I will still support the SP-USA. I'm considering trying for an internship with the SP-USA this summer. I believe that in this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.