Greens v Marxism, v Capitalism & all 'isms'
Yes I agree with David Quinley (see quote below) that there is not a great match between and Greens and either Capitalism or Marxism. Along with Capitalism I say with throw all the 'isms' on ‘ash heap of history,’ (a phrase originally from a speech Lenin gave in 1917 predicting his opponents’ demise and recycled by Reagan in 1982).
We Greens have some things in common with Marxism and can appreciate some of the contributions of Marx and those following in his footsteps such as the focus they brought to Capitalism's exploitation of Labor for Profit and its inherent economic injustice if not tempered by a social safety net. So maybe we could say Marxism (along with Capitalism) was an evolutionary stage of Political and Economic Theory on the way to Green, but Green is its own entity and IMO represents a higher evolutionary refinement than Marxism. We Greens have our own unique history, our distinctly separate Political and Economic theorists and our own values that contrast sharply with that of Marxism, Communism or Socialism. We draw perhaps more from Gandhi and MLK than from Marx. We are anti-Marxist in that we fiercely value Decentralization and Grassroots Democracy. We most especially do NOT believe in the "Vanguard" concept of a small group that become the "Dictatorship of the Proletariet". Hell no! If I had to pick another 'ism' that has some affinity to Greens I'd pick Libertarian Socialism (ie. the Zapatistas) except we in contrast are fully Nonviolent.
The really telling thing is to reflect on the fact that Greens would be considered just as much a threat to a one party Communist/Socialist state as we are to the single party DemoRepublicans and we'd be wiretapped, spied on, persecuted, thrown in jail and worse in a Marxist dictatorship along with other "dissident" groups as they are for example in China today.
Green solidarity!
Drew
David Quinley wrote:
- Not sure what to make of this - Many of Marx's ideas are in line with that of Greens, I think - But not what the communist took from them - That was dictatorship in the guise of socialism - That's my view anyway - what you think - I'm a Green at least in part that I believe in democracy for everyone - not just some - what we have in America is not complete democracy - is closer than some - but we have a way to go - This is a issue in the GP - What are we? - David Q .
> Teach-In
> East Bay | Globalization & Capitalism
> 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Niebyl-Proctor Library
> 6501 Telegraph Ave. Oakland Rosa Luxemburg was the first to challenge the "established" Marxism of the Second International in 1910, exposing their betrayal of the peoples in the Third World. She embraced the spontaneity of the 1905 revolution.
Technorati Tags: 
I think Greens owe a lot to the libertarian socialist movement. If you think that's a contradiction in terms, google it. As such, we could never agree with vanguardism, which is inherently anti-democratic and anti-decentralisization.
We are not another "ism." We are for a democratic economy. But I think we need to avoid thinking of democracy as the formalistic casting of votes, and instead see it as a system where power is distributed as much as (reasonably) possible, where all matters are local until proven otherwise, and where decisions are made in full knowledge of both their context and consequences.
To prioritize local control this way precludes being dogmatic. We need to see our values as guidelines -- comprehensive, but not highly ideological.
A Green economy is not capitalist. A capitalist economy is an economy run for capital. Greens are not opposed to capital, because that's a non-starter. Rather, we see capital as the tool it is. Capital is the means. A healthy society understood as a subset of many different healthy ecosystems is the end. When I find a catchy name for this school of thought, I'l let you all know.
esteban, one term I like for Green Economics was coined to apply to the theories espoused by the economist E. F. Schumacher in his book "Small is Baeutiful:A Study of Economics As If People Mattered" The question is, how do we turn the phrase "economics as if people mattered" and turn it into something intelligable...a catch phrase if you will. Schumacher used the phrase "Buddhist economics" and I have seen folks use "Ghandian economics", but that all sounds very foreign to my American ear.
What can we use that rings simply, like capitalism or socialism...greenism? localism? decentralism? Where are all the catch phrase writers when ya need 'em, eh?
I specifically observe that no 'ism' has ever sprung up around the Green Party. And that is part of the point of my blog entry. We are not an 'ism'. Some folks connected to one 'ism' or another participate in the Greens, yes, but no 'ism' characterizes the Greens. Why is that? Because an 'ism' denotes a heavy ideological focus. We are wholistically oriented, not ideologically oriented. Therefore we are not now, nor I hope will we ever be characterized by an 'ism'. Technorati Profile
Technorati Profile
I am not sure how to take the angst against socialism. I am not sure without a call for 'economic justice' I would have become a member of the Greens. I have voted Green for several election cycles and it is primarily an economic vote.
American socialism has always been socialist-libertarian in nature. Look at Berger and the Sewer Socialists in their calls for home rule and IRV in the early part of the 20th century. Much of their platform are issues I hear floated around in local Green Party platforms. It was the socialists who founded the ACLU, ran on old age pensions, health insurance, unemployment insurance, and electoral reform. Which of these issues should the Greens forsake. Where are these ism you put forward in the american experience, they don't exist.
If the Green vangard believes that 'economic justice' is something that can simply be thrown on the dust heaps of socialism it is making a big error. It is certainly the Greens socialist leanings more so than their libertarian ones that differentiate it from the Demopublicans. Most Green elections I have seen it was the economic front that differentiated them from the Demopublicans if it is healthcare, living wage, sick leave, or inclusionary zoning.
I would argue the differentiation and tension are not between Greens / socialism / communism / capitalism but its own values. You have some some Greens that are motivated by peace and economic justice others by social justice and feminism or decentralization, and grassroots democracy. On my island surrounded by reality it is peace, economic justice, and grassroots democracy that are central themes.
Or might as well be. As far as I can tell, this is a direct result of multiple Red Scares. The big one was under Joe McCarthy, but there was an earlier one during the Great Depression, and as far as I'm concerned, there was a simmering Red Scare during the 1980s as well. During all these times, the Right semi-deliberately conflated anything and everything it didn't like with socialism, regardless of whether or not there was any connection. The US public now has this viceral reaction to the term, though most people couldn't explain why, and even have positive connotations for practices that could be described as socialistic (Medicare, public schools, the post office, the highway system, cooperatives, and so on).
I've identified as a socialist for 15 years, and a libertarian socialist for two or three now, but I don't find it productive to try and argue labels. Let's talk values, and even more so, let's talk practice.
I agree if labels is all it is, but I don't think so. From my experience when those on the left attack 'socialism' at its core is angst at economic justice, or at a very minimum democratizing the economic sphere.
It's safe to say this is a "growing edge" for Greens, especially to the extent that the stereotype people have us is true, namely that we are primarily made up of college-educated middle-class white people. Most of us have limited experience with real poverty, and even less with the extreme poverty of the so-called "Third World." I think if we did, this issue would be a little less abstract and a little more personal.
Back to the stereotype, here's a great quote from Jonathon Farley, an African-American Green:
Secondly Marxism and by extension its descendent socialism can make no exclusive claim to concern about economic justice. Socialism is not the 'daddy' of economic justice. It is merely one more 'ism' that has some focus on many issues including economic justice. The world was vastly influenced by many strains of economic and political foci on economic justice centuries and indeed millenia before Marx was born, so Marxism and socialism can lay no exclusive claim to concern with economic justice.
Thirdly if you want to understand what you termed my 'angst' against Marxism (and again it was you who brought up socialism, not me - I was talking about Marxism. Do you understand that there's a big difference???), then one approach you might try is to actually ask me.
Technorati Profile
Well in a sense they are correct of course. We simply aren't them and they aren't us. We're not competing in the 'More Marxist than Thou' circular firing squads of the Hard Left. Those folks are so fractious they can not even unite long enough to put a party together and be effective. We Greens by our very nature are not hard line ideologues and that is why we will never be an 'ism' of anything. Hard line ideology (to the exclusion of reality) = 'ism' and therein lies corruption and self destruction - ie. witness the Dominionism of the NeoCons!
We Greens don't believe in a 'vanguard' and I would defy anyone to identify such a thing in the Green Parties. We believe in Decentralization and Grassroots Democracy. Of course there are leaders as in any other area of life, but 'vanguard'??? No.
BTW I do agree with you that we have a LOT in common with Libertarian Socialism.
Technorati Profile
JamBoi,
I think you use the term 'we Greens' much too loosly. I would say it was the Greens class consciousness that attracted me. On a practical level, much more class conscious than any dogmatic socialism.
As far as my reference to vangard it was too strong. My point is most I know who are Greens are socialist libertarians. In fact very view socialists would argue for a vangard. If that's your view you are eith uneducated or you need a new socialist friend or two. You keep mentioning decentralization but I have never heard it mentioned outside of the context of grassroots democracy.
So, I guess I'd like to know more about these 'we Greens' who are they and what do they stand for. I vote Green because of my socialism not in spite of it. Every Green candidate I have ever voted for has had a strong economic justice platform, if its single payer healthcare, election reform, sick leave, living wage etc. Any clarification of what this 'we Greens' is would help me very much.
So, in the end I go back to the Green values and possible contradictions (Hegelian sense) between them. For some tree hugging is primary, for others grassrooms democracy etc. You have mentioned decentralization and grassroots democracy several times, do those take more central role in 'we Greens' than the other values.
You don't seem to recognize that I was attempting to agree with you on many points and build bridges, not burn them. I speak with authority when I point out that I find the approach you are taking - attacking rather than trying to build bridges - typical of socialists. That in my considered, educated and experienced opinion is the root of why no brand of socialist has been successful in building an effective movement or party in the US. Socialists spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME trying to pick apart each others positions and playing the 'More Marxist than Thou' & 'Lefter than Thou' game to actually build solidarity and get something done. And you've just made my argument. Thank you very much. ;-)
I have personally witnessed socialists rip us Greens up for our lack of 'Class Consciousness', not because we aren't conscious of economic justice issues, but because we don't hold ideologically pure Marxist-style 'Class Consciousness'. I know whereof I speak, thank you very much. And its true that we actually are not ideologically Marxist. We just aren't. They are correct. So those folks out there who are looking for pure socialism can look to the gazillion socialist splinter parties. Or they could they can form their own socialist schism party and spend their entire energy on criticizing everyone who isn't them.
In my writing 'We Greens' and 'us Greens' refer to Green Party members. Whenever I capitalize 'G' in Greens I am refering to the Green Party and not just to environmentally conscious people who I term 'greens'. My use of 'We Greens' is not too loose. It is quite precise, thank you.
Here's some basic Green schooling for anyone: We have something we call the Ten Key Values. Check it out. Its fundamental to who we are. This can hardly be over emphasized. Two separate items on our Ten Key Values are #1 Grass Roots Democracy and #5 Decentralization. If you aren't familiar with what we mean by those terms, please take the time to go to this link and really study our Ten Key Values. You'll discover that our values completely rule out the concept of a 'Vanguard'. It would be entirely self contradictory.
Have you heard of the Four Pillars of the Greens??? The Four Pillars preexisted before we Greens created our Ten Key Values. The Four Pillars are also the first four of the Ten Key Values. Are they 'more important than the rest of the Ten' you ask? I say no, not necessarily 'more important' but they do basically encapsulate all ten. We Greens are not about division (and it seems you want to divide us up and classify us according to which values we individually focus on most) but rather about unity. Out Four Pillars and Ten Key Values are what unite us, not what divide us.
What particularly puzzles me is why you seem to think the only people who could possibly be concerned about economic justice would be socialists?!?! As if!!! Just as one example those of us who (like me) are followers of Jesus were extremely concerned about economic justice centuries before Marx was ever born. I am a Green. I like many Greens am no socialist. There are some Greens that are influenced to some degree or another by socialism, but by no means would I say from my extensive exposure to fellow Greens all across the nation are even a plurality of Greens socialists. Nay!
Furthermore Libertarian Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon which DOES NOT REPRESENT historical socialism. If you are thinking that your experience of Libertarian Socialism somehow relates to mainstream socialism you would be entirely incorrect. By the way, although you seemed to miss it, I was saying that I DO recognize the similarities between Libertarian Socialism, and I was expressing significant positive regard that I hold for personally Libertarian Socialism. Do you get that now??? But just because there is similarity does not mean that the two are the same. They are not. Sure some Greens are Libertarian Socialists. Most are not. I'm not.
As to your assertion that the Vanguard concept is not a core socialist concept, I believe it is you Brother proletariat who are lacking in education. But I'm always happy to educate. ;-)
Technorati Profile
You have a funny way of building bridges, I'll give it a try.
1. Resume: So, you need some new socialist friends.
2. Vangard - Its is a concept popularlized by Lenin, one which has been criticized by socialists, marxists, and communists alike. It is the argument of revolution from above or from below. A revolution from above by its very definition ceases to be socialist. It is incorrect to categorize all socialist of the Vangard variety. I share your dislike for the concept.
3. I agree with you very much about dogmatism. Dogmatism has been what broke the camel's back with the socialist movement. What has attracted to the Green Party is its praxis. Its ability to ascend to the concrete as ole Marx would say.
4. Yes I am familar will the pillars and the 10 key values which is where I was trying to push the discussion from the very beginning. It is not about division but about preference. I certainly agree with the wisdom of both the 4 pillars and 10 values, but that says nothing about their preference. I would give a much higher preference to economic justice and economic democracy, whereas you would preference decentralization. I took your 'We Greens' more along the lines of moving away from its contemporary emphasis on economic issues.
5. Economic Democracy: Yes, you are correct economic justice is not solely the arena of socialists. But, justice is certainly not equatable to charity. When I say economic justice I am thinking more of economic and workplace democracy which is the definition of socialism. So, yes one could hand out charity or even goverment payments but that does little to democratize the economic sphere.
6. Libertarian Socialism: You can't be serious, with all the credentials you began with to state that "libertarian Socialism is a relatively new phenomenon which DOES NOT REPRESENT historical socialism" is laughable indeed. Libertarian socialism have been the only socialism that developed in this country. If its Eugene Debs Socialist Party, Berger and the Sewer socialists of Milwaukee, socialist communities in Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York. Libertarian Socialism is the only socialism that has ever existed in this country.
I think we both despise the concepts of vangard and dogmatism. Your socialist friends appear to value those concepts very much, me and my socialist friends do not. The fact that you denied / ignored the role of libertarian socialism in the U.S. says much about our disagreement. But, I still believe there is something deeper here.
In the initial post, and your posts afterwards decentralization came to the fore. Of all the pillars / values that is the one I have seen the least emphasis on. I can't even recall anything closely resembling that in any candidate platform I have read. I also have a hunch that while 'economic justice' is something you'd value economic democracy - socialism - is takes it too far. And to paraphrase Marx, socialism is nothing other than extending democracy to the economic realm.
So, tell me where are bridges built, and where are they burned.
Nate
Secondly I have plenty 'o socialist friends, as I asserted before. I'm not looking for 'new socialst friends.' Some of them are even reasonable, and some of them are Greens! I'm not interested in further focusing on cultivating friendships with this small niche group when all of America and indeed the world is waiting for the liberation we Greens are bringing to it.
On Libertarian Socialism you misunderstand my statement as well as make the counterfactual assertion "Libertarian Socialism is all that ever existed in this country." Sure we have Eugene Debbs we can appreciate and a host of others we can look up to, but to ignore the historic fact that quite a number of forms of socialism/communism in this country have been extremely 'Vanguard-' and central control-oriented would be downright foolish.
I am at least appreciating that you've finally included a number of points where you agree with me. Thank you for that bridge building gesture.
Technorati Profile
For a contemporary example simply glance over today at Bob Avakian's control over the 'Revolutionary Communist Party' - the people behind the curtain at 'World Can't Wait'! That group is basically a personality cult around Avakian. They hand out papers and CDs filled with Avakian's words. That is SO typical of Marxists. Personality cultists. Pah! You couldn't get much further from Green values than that.
So Brother proletariat, I urge you to wake up and smell the reality of the Green Party and of socialism. I'm not sure where your 'island' is located, but although as you say 'On my island surrounded by reality' - it may be 'surrounded by reality', but your perception of reality I'm really starting to wonder about when you make these non-reality based, nonhistorical assertions.
Technorati Profile
We're all on the same side, here. That doesn't mean we have to agree down the line, but we do have to treat each other as allies, maybe even friends.
I agree with Nate that liberatarian socialism has a long history in the US, but it's also easy to see why JamBoi wouldn't find much evidence of it: much of it went by another name, or at times, no name at all. The anarchists were -- and are -- part of the libertarian socialist movement. (May Day is in memory of the Haymarket incident, which took place in Chicago.) Emma Goldman was part of it. Benjamin Tucker and friends were part of it. We in the IWW were -- and are -- a major part of it. I've even heard Thoreau considered part of it.
Modern examples include John Zerzan, Murray Bookchin, the Indymedia Centers, Noam Chomsky, infoshops, Food Not Bombs, Critical Mass, Howard Zinn, the folks who frequent mutualist.blogspot.com, not to mention any and all cooperatives.
In short, anyone whose politics are anti-authoritarian and anti-corporate is, by definition, a libertarian socialist. I was one long before I ever heard the term -- pretty much since I figured out that being anti-corporate required being anti-authoritarian as well. As members of the Green Party, we are trying to take power within the state, which precludes us from qualifying as pure anarchists, but if the Libertarian Party can run for office, then we as libertarian socialists (or, the libertarian left, if you're more comfortable with that) can, too.
And yes, of course we Greens are allies with all other Greens including the Greens that are libertarian socialists, and outide the party we coalize with even the Libertarian Socialists.
Technorati Profile
The term "libertarian socialism" is not a recent invention. In fact, "libertarian" originally had anarchist overtones.
With all due respect, we certainly can go back and label so-and-so a libertarian socialist: Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldman, the Haymarket marytrs -- you could go back as far as the Diggers, if you wanted to. If you are opposed to concentrating power in the state or in the capitalist class (but I repeat myself), you are a libertarian socialist.
I agree.
It is much better to begin with 'libertarian socialism' as the natural socialist lineage with the dogmatic varieties a distortion of it.
If we follow that lineage there are very similar struggles to what the Greens experience today. For example the New York socialists a reocurring struggle was STV / IRV. They saw that as fundamental to third party participation. The Sewer Socialists of Milwaukee saw 'home rule' as central.