Thursday, February 16, 2006

Red, Blue and Green.

When I started this blog, I did wonder if I were the only one thinking about the fact that many of the most vocal Greens define the party as "of the left." I am happy to report that I am finding others whose view is very much in line with mine. The most recent is from another blog hosted here: SoCalGreen. I have just added it to my template. Roger has got it right.

The big split between leftists Greens and Green Greens may be on their attitudes toward Corporations. Again, I find myself in agreement with Roger in the way that we should treat corporate behaviour. Roger says:

Corporations are not per se bad. They're just a collection of people doing business under a group name. People have been doing that for a very long time, and nothing about doing business mandates poor community citizenship or moral corruption.

But the legal structure surrounding corporations both requires and permits them to do what are essentially evil things without personal responsibility for the individuals doing the bad acts, and remove any need to look beyond beyond short-term profit, and foolishly selfish motives.

This is in conrast to the Forrest Hill / Todd Chretien assertion that "Green politics will not work without a left critique of capitalism, both in terms of its dependence on the perpetual destruction of the natural resource base and its exploitation of workers." This is essentially a socialist / Marxist view and that is not where I think this party should be.

I hope that this plays out in the Senatorial Primary. All three candidates have similar view on the Iraq War. Their viewpoints as to what else this party should be doing should make a difference in who we select. From what I have seen so far, the one who most closely matches what I think is Kent Mesplay.


Lisa said...

This may be off topic somewhat, but for lack of a better place to put it, and to follow up on the thread we had going a few days ago:

Wes was talking about Greens not working on local issues. Well i disagree with that and I used the example of Greens working in coalition with many enviro groups for 14 yrs to save part of Ballona Wetlands and trying to save last of West Bluffs (in Los Angeles).

The way I see it, Greens do work, often as individuals in these other enviro orgs; however the party is not big enough or powerful enough to sustain a 14 yr struggle on one issue--we have to work on many issues at a time as a party should--and be developing candidates, REMEMBER CANDIDATES.

Probably 10 different nonprofits and community groups have developed over the years to save Ballona. Oftentimes Greens don't get proper credit for our involvement, that's why Linda and David Cobb and others are always saying "BE Seen Being Green."

We are a political party and we exist to get people elected to office to support our issues there. yes, there is crossover; but we ARE NOT the green movement.

We aim to be the electoral arm of the green movement, but we can't do both.

Wes said...

Lisa, I could not agree more. There are a lot of individual greens who do work and do make a difference. I am trying to make the case the organization and official actions of the GPCA do NOT support these efforts.

It may be that people have given up on the Green Party as being able to accomplish something on environmental issues. If that is the case, then maybe the future will show that they give up on the Green Party being able to accomplish anything (full stop).

I refuse to accept that. So, I will continue to argue for a more organized approach to environmental questions, especially when these questions begin to affect us all, as does the health of the California Delta ecosystem from which the Metropolitan Water District draws so much water. I have the feeling that the Water District will not be satisfied until they turn the San Joaquin Valley into the another Owens Valley. This is a regional question, even a national question given the dependence of the entire nation on the agricultural output of the valley. It requires a Green voice and is not getting it.

Lisa said...

I hear you.

I guess my next question would be though, what do think the party can accomplish without having anyone elected at the state level? We haven't abandoned issues, we just don't have anyone elected that can fight for us.

Peter Camejo was just on KPFK talking about his new book that is coming out in April, something about California Under Corporate Rule. I don't have to tell you about how corporations are dominating the will of the people.

sure, we should continue to fire out press releases of all sorts, but I think the party falls down on candidate development and recruitment. That is our eventual goal, is it not, to get people elected to solve enviro and other probs?

Roger, Gone Green said...

Aw shucks; there are actually a few more of us out there, we just tend to sit quietly. I think it is time to speak up a little however.

Of course you can guess that I might say that Green politics cannot work without a Green critique of capitalism, and Left and Right have nothing to do with it.

In any case, be seen being Green, eh? Sure. Put away the warmed over marxism that trivializes what it really means to be Green. I find I get more work accomplished that advances the City I live in, and not incidentally Green values, when I keep quiet about my registration.


But again, thanks for the notice!