Green Party and the Libertarian Party

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is the Green Party which is run by or which Ralph Nader runs for is the Green Party like the Democrats or the Democratic Party just like the Republican Party is like the Libertarian Party which Ron Paul/Rand Paul ran and runs for and with they run and have ran for both political parties ?

[hatzel]

...this makes no sense...I can usually figure out what you're trying to say, but here, you're surpassed yourself...

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im asking if these political parties are similar to each other.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[PhoenixAsh]

Im asking if these political parties are similar to each other.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

ah...in that case...no.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im asking if the Libertarian Party is similar to the Republican Party and if the Green Party is similar to the Democratic Party ?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Im asking if the Libertarian Party is similar to the Republican Party and if the Green Party is similar to the Democratic Party ?

On social issues like gay marriage and weed legalization the greens and libs are similar.

Economically the libs are far right and greens centre left.

Comparativally, the greens and dems would be considered left and the repubs and libs right.

[Revolution starts with U]

He is asking: are the Greens to the Dems what the Libs are to the Reps?
Yes, you could make that comparison. You're talking wildly varying causes and platforms here. But yes. The greens are considered the far left (lol) of the democratic wing, like the libertarians are the far right.

[Drosophila]

Most Libertarian candidates run on the bullshit "free market" platform. The Green Party, of which I actively support, runs environmentally and economically left candidates. However, I do believe that both Libertarian and Green candidates need to have more of a voice in American politics. We need someone to challenge the two party duopoly.

And Ralph Nader isn't a member of the GP anymore.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Green Party is a social democractic, enviornmentalist party. They stand for gay rights, gender equality, abortion rights, and public social programs to alleviate poverty. Out of all the political parties in the U.S. that have any sort of mainstream appeal the green party is definantly the best, although I'm unsure of my feelings of social democracy.

[graymouser]

Green Party is a social democractic, enviornmentalist party. They stand for gay rights, gender equality, abortion rights, and public social programs to alleviate poverty. Out of all the political parties in the U.S. that have any sort of mainstream appeal the green party is definantly the best, although I'm unsure of my feelings of social democracy.

The Green Party is not social democratic, it is left-liberal. Their program is not based on the working class but the "middle class" (American usage, including higher income workers as well as the petite bourgeoisie) and does not have as its ostensible goal the public ownership of at least large sections of the economy as a social democratic party can be properly understood.

Both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party really function somewhat as pressure groups on the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. I don't think revolutionaries should support either, and I consider it a line of class independence.

[Sword and Shield]

The libertarian party is filled with neocons and other scumbag trolls that should never receive our support. Libertarians who at least have good foreign policy (Ron Paul for example) are rather marginalized within the party.

As for the Green Party, I think we should certainly support it as a viable progressive option. They aren't exactly great, but they are a helluva lot better than any other significant force. Just as the social democrats in Russia created the conditions for the Bolshevik revolution, electing the Green Party in America will result in significantly better (or less worse) conditions for the working class and an environment more conducive to revolution.

[#FF0000]

As for the Green Party, I think we should certainly support it as a viable progressive option. They aren't exactly great, but they are a helluva lot better than any other significant force. Just as the social democrats in Russia created the conditions for the Bolshevik revolution, electing the Green Party in America will result in significantly better (or less worse) conditions for the working class and an environment more conducive to revolution.

Social democracy in 1917 is a world away from what Social Democracy means in a modern context. They are not comparable.

And secondly, reforms in and of themselves are not conducive to revolution without a conscious and militant working class, which you will not get through election campaigns.

[Drosophila]

Their program is not based on the working class but the "middle class" (American usage, including higher income workers as well as the petite bourgeoisie) and does not have as its ostensible goal the public ownership of at least large sections of the economy as a social democratic party can be properly understood.

I don't know where you got this information from. Almost all GP candidates I know of run a platform to protect the lower and middle classes.

And secondly, reforms in and of themselves are not conducive to revolution without a conscious and militant working class, which you will not get through election campaigns.

I still don't understand why there must be a violent revolution. That doesn't seem to have worked very well in the past, whereas campaigns have.

[graymouser]

I don't know where you got this information from. Almost all GP candidates I know of run a platform to protect the lower and middle classes.

Program is based on what you are demanding. The Green Party does not run on the basis of the socialization of the economy, even of the "commanding heights" demanded by the social democrats of yesteryear, but on the basis of a utopian, reformist, local, small business-oriented capitalism. That is as much of a petit-bourgeois program as you can get.

The Greens have never been a party of the working class, and since they don't pretend to be one it is impossible for revolutionaries to offer the kind of principled critical support Lenin described in Left-Wing Communism as a way to work within circles where social democratic politics were at the center of working class life. Even if the Greens measured up to their program, it wouldn't be what revolutionary socialists want. So - even if they're "better" than the Democrats - why vote for them? If I'm going to throw my vote away, it had better be for something I actually want.

[Gorilla]

Im asking if these political parties are similar to each other.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Despite different slogans etc. they are both essentially hobby clubs for petty bourgeois lunatics with no real connection to the main currents of class struggle and political life, so in that sense yes they are not merely similar but practically indistinguishable.

[Drosophila]

I continue to call both of your claims total BS. Green Party candidates always talk about the working classes. They promote eco and people-friendly business. If they are workers for the "petty bourgeois", then why do the "petty bourgeois" never buy out their campaigns?

In fact, this is a direct quote from Cynthia Mckinney's 2008 platform:

We want the definition of national security to include the general well-being of U.S. citizens and residents. No children in this rich country should be raised below the poverty line.
We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to implement an economic policy that provides an opportunity for every family to have gainful employment at a guaranteed income. No family should remain mired below the poverty level when the head of household works in a full-time job. We believe that workers must be free to organize unions wherever and whenever they choose. We believe that by setting a goal of carbon neutrality within the next 20 years, our country can begin the shifts in investment necessary to fuel an investment renaissance in jobs, energy independence from fossil fuels, and manufacturing.

A living wage and worker cooperatives? Surely the evil bourgeois in disguise.

[Gorilla]

I continue to call both of your claims total BS. Green Party candidates always talk about the working classes. They promote eco and people-friendly business. If they are workers for the "petty bourgeois", then why do the "petty bourgeois" never buy out their campaigns?

Democrats talk about workers too. Probably more. Anyway, see highlighted.

In fact, this is a direct quote from Cynthia Mckinney's 2008 platform:

We want the definition of national security to include the general well-being of U.S. citizens and residents. No children in this rich country should be raised below the poverty line.
We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to implement an economic policy that provides an opportunity for every family to have gainful employment at a guaranteed income. No family should remain mired below the poverty level when the head of household works in a full-time job. We believe that workers must be free to organize unions wherever and whenever they choose. We believe that by setting a goal of carbon neutrality within the next 20 years, our country can begin the shifts in investment necessary to fuel an investment renaissance in jobs, energy independence from fossil fuels, and manufacturing.

A living wage and worker cooperatives? Surely the evil bourgeois in disguise.

Those are good left-liberal demands. They are ones that socialists should support as well.

And then we segue to...........NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EXPANSION OF CAPITAL - government-subsidized at that.

[Ocean Seal]

Libertarians who at least have good foreign policy (Ron Paul for example) are rather marginalized within the party.

Ron Paul does not have good foreign policy. Libertarians oppose things like wars because they don't want the state to be involved. Now if a series of corporations were to hire some mercenaries to do their dirty business in Iraq and so on. They wouldn't be opposed because that would be violating the freedom of the corporations to violently exploits the world's workers. Furthermore, they take on a very ultra-nationalist policy, and while they will cut from the military and so on its only because they want the United States to pursue its interests in isolation from other countries. Back in the early 20th century the United States was isolationist much like libertarians advocate yet that didn't stop it from invading and causing genocide inside the Philippines or from colonizing a series of islands in the Pacific and the Caribbean.

[RGacky3]

Before Reagan the Democrats got a lot of money from Unions, and was a genuinely progressive party, although Capitalist and imperialist, back then they were also very much a petty-bourgiousie party, also supporting unions and keyensian economics.

Reagan, however, successfully hit the unions hard, so Around came Clinton and started the "new democrats," basically Clinton, being the smart guy he was (not sarcasm), realized that finance Capital was becoming more powerful than production and consumer based capital, at least in the United States, also finance Capital is not directly labor intensive, so it allows the democrats to keep their labor-friendly look, while still getting Capitalist support.

The Republicans already had financial capitalist support, but the new democrats successfully took a chunk of it, in the begining most progressive democrats were fine with the new democrats, because they could still pretend to be worker-friendly.

It was about that time that many in the left abandoned the democrats and moved on to the greens, who, although not socialists, were genuine social-democrats, you CANNOT compare social-democrats in the US to social-democrats in Europe, social-democracy in europe is the status quo, social-democrats in europe are many times like the new democrats (obviously far to the left), but they are getting support from certain sectors of Capital, and thus work for them, but want to keep their social-democrat credentials with the people.

The Greens, in my opinion, are genuine, and given the history in the US, are a real left alternative, they are not corporate funded, they are not socialists, but there are many socialists in the party, and they support some socialist policies, the fact that they support some petty-bourgiousie elements does'nt take away from the fact that they are moving in the right direction, and if THAT is the reason your not supporting them its a stupid reason.

I personally don't support them, unless there is a good reason too, or they have a chance at changing something.

[Drosophila]

Ron Paul does not have good foreign policy. Libertarians oppose things like wars because they don't want the state to be involved. Now if a series of corporations were to hire some mercenaries to do their dirty business in Iraq and so on.

Last I checked, Ron Paul was adamantly against mercenary companies.

Democrats talk about workers too. Probably more. Anyway, see highlighted.

Yet the Democrats are bought out by corporations, and there are almost no genuinely leftists Dems active.

Those are good left-liberal demands. They are ones that socialists should support as well.

And then we segue to...........NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EXPANSION OF CAPITAL - government-subsidized at that.

How is investing in green energy a bad thing?

From what I've seen from you and a few others here, is that you're so caught up in your own ideology that you shut out all others, even if they are mostly similar to your own.