A socialist platform in the Green Party?
Anyone who encountered the Green Party during the recent local elections will be aware of their incoherent and even janus-like politics, claiming to transcend “traditional” left-right divisions and appealing to everyone from Labour voters disillusioned with Blairism to Tories with a “social conscience”. Where they have gained local influence, the Greens’ record has been far from radical, sustaining right-wing townhall coalitions (Lib Dem in Oxford, Lib Dem-Tory in Leeds) which have carried out cuts and privatisations with at least as much zeal as New Labour.
On the other hand, the Green Party has attracted some respect-worthy left-wingers such as gay rights activist Peter Tatchell. It is therefore interesting to note that a group of left-wing Green activists are attempting to launch an explicitly “socialist” platform in the party under the name Green Revolution.
This enterprise is still, evidently, at an embryonic stage, since GR does not even have a website yet. However, its founding statement, signed by a handful of Green Party notables, can be found on the Socialist Unity Network website. It is worth a look, if only to consider the problems.
According to the statement, GR is a “network for socialists and other radicals” in the Green Party, which will also “act as an outreach body that will communicate the Party’s radical policies to socialists and other anti-capitalists outside the Party”. It also sets itself the aim of “building links with radical greens and ecosocialists across the planet”.
It “encourages transparency, accountability and engagement in all organs of the party”, arguing for a “political organisation where the principles of the membership are paramount and not a ‘top down’ one where a self-designated political elite decide on policies and principles”. Similarly it argues that the structures of the European Green Party “must be democratised”.
According to GR, “Green politics needs to be based on dynamic campaigning and hard intellectual ground work to create workable alternatives.” At the same time, the group will work for “coherent alignments and open discussion with progressive anti-capitalists” and seek to “enhance Green Party contributions to demonstrations, marches and other solidarity events.”
The political basis of GR is “the assumption that capitalism is a system that wrecks the planet and promotes war. A green society must be based on social justice. GR in short works to promote ecosocialism as a solution to our planetary ills.” To its immense credit, GR “will not compromise on of human rights including issues of gay and lesbian rights and women’s liberation”.
The main problem is obviously that the statement is so vague. None of the political terms used are clearly defined; no clear goals are set either in relation to the Green Party itself or wider social struggles. No doubt it could and will be rewritten to add more detail and sharpen things up phraseologically. But the real problem is political. Those involved are clearly sincere in their opposition to capitalism and their desire for a better world, but they seem to have no real conception of what “socialism” might mean.
The working class, exploitation, the labour movement, trade unions etc do not figure at all. Neither does collective ownership or even social provision. All this suggests that for Green Revolution “socialism” is more a catchphrase for good causes in general than a vision of the democratic transformation of society, by workers, from below.
The closing paragraph of the GR statement claims their “ecosocialist” tradition stretches back to the pioneering work of William Morris in Britain’s first socialist organisations. But in fact Morris was not a “green”, but a Marxist fighting to build a working-class socialist party. I hope that the AWL and other Marxists will be able to establish a real, friendly dialogue with GR — but to do so we must be open about our criticisms.
• For the full statement, see:
www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/greenplatform.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Labor Party in the US and the Greens
“ ‘History in the Making’ was emblazoned on delegates’ badges at the founding convention of the Labor Party, on June 6-9, 1996 in Cleveland, Ohio where some 1400 mostly-union delegates formed a new independent working class party. A constitution was created, an elementary national structure was formed, and an unusually progressive platform was hammered out by this first national union-based ‘labor party’ since the 19th Century. For about three years the challenge of a labor party spread widely and enticed many unions and individuals to it. At its peak in 1998-9 the party had some 15,000 members, 50 local chapters, and several hundred endorsing or affiliated unions that represented two million workers (some 13 percent of the unionized).” The Labor Party:Past and Possible Future, Robert H. Mast
The Labor Party was a profound and focused effort within the ranks of organized labor to build a political party that represented its interests. In spite of its optimistic beginning, it was unable to fulfill its original mandate. Instead, it acquiesced to the larger and more powerful Democratic Party. It never ran candidates, but continued to make noises as if it was going to at any time. When Ralph Nader ran in 2000, an internal momentum developed in which much of the Labor Party’s base supported his Green Party candidacy. This destroyed the prior rationale of not running until victory was assured. It also broke the ability of the union leadership to demonstrate any form of political leadership or concrete victories through the Democratic Party. Questions remain as to the original intent of the Labor party. Was it an effort to deny labor support for the emerging Green Party? Or was it simply a party that went astray from its original mission? In spite of Tony Mazzocchi’s long relationship with Ralph Nader, he clearly stopped short of endorsing Nader at the Green Party’s presidential nominating convention.
“The definition of a ‘party’ ranges widely, from being simply a pressure group, to directing the policies of a government. A political party struggles for power, and in a democracy that struggle supposedly is expressed at the ballot box. Whether or not to be an active electoral party has been a burning issue throughout the short life of the LP. This widely debated question has been the source of unease and rancor throughout the LP system. Being close to organized labor and desiring labor’s support, the founding leadership strongly discouraged early electoral activity. Shortly after the 1996 founding convention, the energized Buffalo, NY chapter went into an electoral mode, causing the National to revoke the chapter’s charter. This had a decided impact on the electoral ambitions of other chapters. It still is unclear whether leaders like Tony Mazzocchi and Bob Wages ever envisioned the LP being anything but an agitation-propaganda vehicle. Critics say that the closeness of LP founders to the organized labor bureaucracy and its pro-Democratic Party policy tarnished their political judgment and induced inactivity on the independent electoral front. Adding further complexity, unionists have not been solid Democrat: nearly four in 10 voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election.” Mast, Robert H.
“LP supporters who wanted an electoral policy undoubtedly numbered in the thousands and came mostly from left and union democracy backgrounds. Many were spunky and free-spoken delegates to the 1996 founding convention who co-mingled with representatives of the more electoral-leaning founding unions – ILWU (west coast) and United Electrical Workers. Though this convention turned down an electoral resolution, the ground was laid for the formation of an electoral commission that came up with a draft of an Electoral Strategy. This was hotly debated, then accepted, at the 1998 founding convention (http://www.thelaborparty.org/a_electo.html) and is in many respects a very advanced ‘third party’ electoral approach. It declares the LP’s independence of the corporations and their Democrat and Republican political representatives, and it aspires to the working class majority taking political power. LP candidates for office and LP elected officials would be strictly accountable to the party membership and platform - before, during, and between elections. They would run solely as LP candidates (no fusion with other parties), and the LP would not endorse any non-LP candidates. Also very advanced was the strategy of “building solidarity in our communities, workplaces and unions.” In effect, the electoral process would cast an LP unit into a bridging role between various constituent entities and perhaps as a catalyst for their interaction and unity.” Mast, Robert H.
6
“But then, along came Ralph Nader who altered the ‘third party’ balance. Nader, who had a long relationship with Tony Mazzocchi on common progressive causes, had addressed both the 1996 and 1998 conventions of the LP. He counseled the LP to run candidates in the 90 percent of congressional districts where there is little or no opposition. Then Mazzocchi, already impressed by Jesse Ventura’s win of the Minnesota governorship, was a keynoter at the 2000 Green Party national convention in Denver where Nader was nominated as presidential candidate. This reportedly further alienated the LP from organized labor which disliked the Greens for their alleged spoiling of Democratic candidates that labor supported. A further complication resulted from the endorsement of Nader by two LP founding unions - United Electrical Workers and the California Nurses Association. The LP was further weakened by an exodus of many staunch activists to work on the Nader campaign. Many of them never returned to the LP – another nail in the coffin.” Mast, Robert H.
“Many loyal but critical LP activists claim the lack of electoral activity to be one of the main causes of the party’s decline. They look back with awe to earlier times when local labor organizations across the country were forming parties independent of their national unions and the two major parties. These labor parties were fielding candidates and often winning office. With some good cause, the loyal LP critics believed that the very act of running candidates would bring many new members into the party and help it grow. Some loyal critics pointed to the various electoral successes of the Green Party at the local level (city councils, school boards, etc.) as evidence that a dedicated body of ‘third party’ volunteers could win elections. Many in the pro-electoral camp advocated running LP candidates only in those districts that would not compete with a candidate endorsed by organized labor. Opponents of electoralism, also with good cause, worried that the LP would lose complete credibility if a candidate won only the two or three percent of the vote of the ‘typical’ third party. The debate never was resolved since no LP body ever developed the wherewithal to become electoral.” Mast, Robert H.
In the end the Labor Party lost its raison d’etre, its rationale and reason for being. If it wasn’t running candidates, then what was its purpose? Unions already had Political Action Committees and labor education and leadership programs. The AFL-CIO had demonstrated its own official subservience to the Democratic Party. The rank-and-file were increasingly voting Republican since the Reagan era. Fusion was once again the death knell of another third party effort.
The conclusion? There is in truth no conclusion except what people accept as the final verdict. If there is no restoration of the Labor Party as a viable political party, then there is no voice upon which workers can assert their own political demands through independent political struggle. Can the Green Party ever replace the role of a Labor Party? Clearly there are inherent contradictions that will always exist and limit the potential of Greens to fully represent the working class as a "class for itself". There are no guarantees that a viable political workers' party is on the horizon. There is no vision that is currently moving people together to concretely move in the direction of a Labor Party that can be reconstructed from the ashes of the old. There is only the consciousness that previous efforts have fallen short.
Interesting Post
The above post should be a sobering thought for those in Britain that have the delusion that it is likely that the TRade Unions will create some alternative to the Labour Party. It also is a warning of the danger of being drawn into alliances with the Greens.
In Britain the Trade Unions like their US counterparts are unlikely to break with Labour as the US ujnions remain attached to the Democrats. There are far too many synergies and vested interests for that to change radically without many intervening stages. The experiecne of those unions that have broken from Labour is not inspiring. The likelihood rather than a new party would be a collapse into syndicalism at best, or an attempt to play off different parties for favours at worst.
The post I gave here gives further warning of the kind of politics that these unprincipled blocs can lead to.
The Reality of US Politics
Arthur Bough