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.