At Green Party Convention, Labor-Green Coalition is Invisible

[In These Times]

BALTIMORE—If the Green Party presidential nominating convention that ended here on July 15 is any indication, movement toward political cooperation between organized labor and the environmental movement is still weak, with no sign of gathering strength.
The convention—which nominated physician Jill Stein as the party’s presidential candidate —did not feature official participation by any labor union, or any labor-affiliated organization. No elected labor leaders spoke to the delegates during the two-day official proceedings, and party activists aren’t expecting any help from organized labor in the campaign this fall.
Not even the BlueGreen Alliance bothered to send a representative. Formed in 2006 by unions and major environmental lobbying organizations specifically to foster cooperation between the two groups, the BlueGreen Alliance appears badly wounded by the political fight over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. That controversy resulted in the highly public withdrawal of Laborers International Union from the Alliance early this year, and feelings are still raw.


More...

[blindpig]

These Greens would be the tail which wags the dog. Their program, if stripped of the idealistic folderol and put on a scientific basis would be implicit in any pro-people program. Of course, such would be hardly recognisable to the Greens.
Yet clean air and water, stable climate, freedom from exposure to toxins, even preservation of biodiversity are all human needs. By focusing upon the symptoms of capital without examining the cause they are doomed to futility and are actually detrimental, a distraction from the problem.

I'm having a hard time with the contention that most Greens are working class, the leadership doesn't seem to be.

[Comrade]

In many ways, the US Green Party epitomizes all that is wrong with the “Western Left.” For example, its obsession with “the environment,” gay marriage, “animal rights,” and “gun control” (i.e. it wages bourgeois liberal culture war, rather than proletarian class war). The GPUS also supports Keynesian capitalism with a “welfare state” rather than socialism. Basically, its like the New Deal combined with the contemporary Democratic Party’s bourgeois liberal culture warring.

That being said, the Green Party (and even the Libertarian and Constitution parties) play a helpful role by challenging the anti-democratic ballot access restrictions that were put in place (beginning as far back as the 1930s) to prevent Communists from running for office. So for this reason, we should support the Greens' right to run candidates and have them actually printed on the ballot. Furthermore, in the absence of communist candidates, Green candidates provide an opportunity for workers to reject Wall Street’s wretched Democratic Party machine. Fighting the Democratic Party machine is a key task in this current period, because the reactionary, pro-imperialist, anti-communist labor aristocracy is married to it.

Cynthia McKinney, the Greens' 2008 presidential candidate, is also an excellent anti-imperialist fighter (she visited Tripoli last summer to document NATO war crimes as the bombs were falling down around her and earlier she went on a dangerous solidarity mission to Palestine). I'm glad that I voted for her. I think she did exactly what I wanted a presidential candidate to do: help lead the struggle against imperialism.

I'm having a hard time with the contention that most Greens are working class, the leadership doesn't seem to be.

Most supporters of all bourgeois parties (including the Republicans) are working class, because we’re the vast majority of the population. For whatever its worth, the real life Green Party supporters I've encountered (outside of the several times I went to the local branch's boring meetings) were fellow workers at my low wage job. Regarding bourgeois intellectuals and petty-bourgeois strata, I do remember there being one professor (of English), but she moved away somewhere.

[blindpig]

In many ways, the US Green Party epitomizes all that is wrong with the “Western Left.” For example, its obsession with “the environment,” gay marriage, “animal rights,” and “gun control” (i.e. it wages bourgeois liberal culture war, rather than proletarian class war). The GPUS also supports Keynesian capitalism with a “welfare state” rather than socialism. Basically, its like the New Deal combined with the contemporary Democratic Party’s bourgeois liberal culture warring.

That being said, the Green Party (and even the Libertarian and Constitution parties) play a helpful role by challenging the anti-democratic ballot access restrictions that were put in place (beginning as far back as the 1930s) to prevent Communists from running for office. So for this reason, we should support the Greens' right to run candidates and have them actually printed on the ballot. Furthermore, in the absence of communist candidates, Green candidates provide an opportunity for workers to reject Wall Street’s wretched Democratic Party machine. Fighting the Democratic Party machine is a key task in this current period, because the reactionary, pro-imperialist, anti-communist labor aristocracy is married to it.

Cynthia McKinney, the Greens' 2008 presidential candidate, is also an excellent anti-imperialist fighter (she visited Tripoli last summer to document NATO war crimes as the bombs were falling down around her and earlier she went on a dangerous solidarity mission to Palestine). I'm glad that I voted for her. I think she did exactly what I wanted a presidential candidate to do: help lead the struggle against imperialism.



Most supporters of all bourgeois parties (including the Republicans) are working class, because we’re the vast majority of the population. For whatever its worth, the real life Green Party supporters I've encountered (outside of the several times I went to the local branch's boring meetings) were fellow workers at my low wage job. Regarding bourgeois intellectuals and petty-bourgeois strata, I do remember there being one professor (of English), but she moved away somewhere.

Of what good is ballot access when we have no party in contention? This will change(sooner or later) and could be a matter of convenience though when the numbers are there that weight will be made to be felt, one way or the other. In the meantime you have the Greens making myriad proposals to mitigate the disastrous effects of capitalism, essentially environmental Keynesianism. Either has the same limited effect and both are based on the idea that the ruling class will act in 'it's own best interest'. Fat chance of that, given the necessities of capital and the anarchic nature of the ruling class itself. It is terribly counterproductive to contend that our planet might be managed in a rational manner with capital in place. This is an idea which should be put out of people's minds entirely, it is observably false, a massive distraction which retards our advancement. If the Greens were serious they would be stridently anti-capitalist. That would be a good start.

As much as we despise the Dems their demise, at this point anyway, can only be accomplished by themselves. The current administration has been working at this hammer and tong, once the electoral farce is past and Obama is reinstated I expect them to double down on their anti-people policies. Hopefully this will bury the last of the New Deal illusions. Go Obama!

Your point about party composition is certainly valid, we are the vast majority. As per personal experience, my view from the Deep South may be jaundiced, only 'greens' in these parts are the artsy and university types. Still, just as there are surely some good commies left in the ranks of CPUSA and many decent people count themselves Democrats, I'm sure your observations are valid concerning Green Party membership. Yet if the leadership and policy are wrongheaded, well that is the party, deeds not words.

[Dhalgren]

To Comrade:

(The Green Party) wages bourgeois liberal culture war, rather than proletarian class war

Fighting the Democratic Party machine is a key task in this current period, because the reactionary, pro-imperialist, anti-communist labor aristocracy is married to it.

Cynthia McKinney, the Greens' 2008 presidential candidate, is also an excellent anti-imperialist fighter

I agree with all of these statements. If it can be shown to be advantageous to working class interests to vote for the Greens, or the Republicans or the Constitutionalists, then I would certainly entertain the idea. I would give no support to any of the bourgeois parties except to vote, as a tactic, in support for the working class.

To blindpig:

In the meantime you have the Greens making myriad proposals to mitigate the disastrous effects of capitalism, essentially environmental Keynesianism. Either has the same limited effect and both are based on the idea that the ruling class will act in 'it's own best interest'. Fat chance of that, given the necessities of capital and the anarchic nature of the ruling class itself.

Granted that no bourgeois political party will ever espouse anything but pro-bourgeois sentiment (even when advocating improvements for working class folks lives). There can be no acquiescing to bourgeois ideology (besides what we are forced to do in living), but if we can do damage to the stronger bourgeois party by voting for the weaker - as a tactic - then I am not sure that it is necessarily a "bad" move.
Also granted that we do not have a communist political presence worth the name and that makes "tactics" difficult to rationalize, implement, or justify. Independent, small groupings of leftists trying to effect national, bourgeois party politics by tactical voting is beyond ineffective, it is pointless. That being said, it is worth discussing for the benefit of practical action. This may not be the thing to do, but it is worthwhile talking about doing...

[blindpig]

To Comrade:







I agree with all of these statements. If it can be shown to be advantageous to working class interests to vote for the Greens, or the Republicans or the Constitutionalists, then I would certainly entertain the idea. I would give no support to any of the bourgeois parties except to vote, as a tactic, in support for the working class.

To blindpig:


Granted that no bourgeois political party will ever espouse anything but pro-bourgeois sentiment (even when advocating improvements for working class folks lives). There can be no acquiescing to bourgeois ideology (besides what we are forced to do in living), but if we can do damage to the stronger bourgeois party by voting for the weaker - as a tactic - then I am not sure that it is necessarily a "bad" move.
Also granted that we do not have a communist political presence worth the name and that makes "tactics" difficult to rationalize, implement, or justify. Independent, small groupings of leftists trying to effect national, bourgeois party politics by tactical voting is beyond ineffective, it is pointless. That being said, it is worth discussing for the benefit of practical action. This may not be the thing to do, but it is worthwhile talking about doing...

But which party is stronger, which is weaker? I can't tell, both seem to be tottering on the verge of irrelevance. As far as I can tell the medieval program of the Republicans is less damaging to the advancement of the socialist agenda than the mealy-mouthed lies of the Democrats which only paint a smiley face on ruling class deprivations. Should we laud the Dems because the wretched health care bill does improve the condition of a handful, don't think so. It is the condition of these times that there are no potential allies, except in the most limited circumstances. These of course should be grasped but such opportunities are thin on the ground, or perhaps I'm missing something.

[Dhalgren]

But which party is stronger, which is weaker? I can't tell, both seem to be tottering on the verge of irrelevance. As far as I can tell the medieval program of the Republicans is less damaging to the advancement of the socialist agenda than the mealy-mouthed lies of the Democrats which only paint a smiley face on ruling class deprivations. Should we laud the Dems because the wretched health care bill does improve the condition of a handful, don't think so. It is the condition of these times that there are no potential allies, except in the most limited circumstances. These of course should be grasped but such opportunities are thin on the ground, or perhaps I'm missing something.

Yeah, not saying anything about "lauding". And I think that choosing sides between the "two" neo-liberal parties is worse than useless. I would not even advocate the support of any current political party, but (that was "but") the idea of advocating for the placement of multiple parties on ballots, nationwide, may be useful. If there ever is a communist party in this country that advocates for working class power, then having access to the ballot might (might) be a good thing. You can't gain power through voting, but you can demonstrate working class power and working class ideas on a national level (see KKE).
Now, again, how this applies to a group of free-floating materialists. looking for a way...I don't know...