[Marxism] The end of the Green Party?

[Anthony Boynton <northbogota@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to address the whole discussion of the
2008 elections on this list, especially the remarks
made by Mark Lause, Bonnie Weinstein and Jim
Farmelant.

Whether or not 2008 marks the end of the Green Party
depends to one degree or another on what people on
this list do.

I think Mark Lause has the right idea. I support his
remarks strongly.

As the article posted by Louis Project demonstrates,
the Demo-Greens are out to sink the Green Party for a
second election in a row. This could be fatal to the
Green Party.

It would be a major blow to everyone who is against
the war in the Middle East.

Why? 

Bonnie Weinstein argues that the Greens support the
Democratic Party, so who cares what happens to them.

Jim Farmelant argues that the winner take all
electoral system in the USA, combined with the
pragmatic spirit there, prevents third parties from
forming unless there is a major social/ political
crisis. The implication, if not the intent, of his
remarks seems to be, "So why do anything now, history
will just take its course when it pleases."

Here's why both arguments are off, and Why the Green
Party is important for the antiwar movement.

The Green Party is not simply the sum of its
activists,as Bonnie Weinstein would have us think.

It is the ONLY ballot qualified party in many states
which has  a political program which is
environmentalist, feminist, anti-racist, and anti-war.

In other words, it is the only ballot qualified
alternative for antiwar voters in 2008 AGAINST the
Democrats and Republicans. 

This fact is important for two reasons.

First is that millions, tens of millions, are becoming
disgusted with the war, AND the hypocrisy of the
politicians of both ruling class parties about endnig
the war.

What are they going to do in 2008? Probably not
demonstrate because the majority of ACTIVISTS are TO
THEIR RIGHT on the issue of war. 

The majority of activists are going to be working for
DEMOCRATIC PARTY candidates election campaigns.

Those new antiwar voters maybe are going to light up a
joint, pop open a beer, and watch TV.

But if they had the chance to vote for an ANTIWAR
candidate, they have a good chance of taking a half
hour to walk down to the polling booth to flip the
bird to Hillary and that fat Republican actor (or
whoever those parties come up as their candidates).

Who can provide them with an antiwar candidate. ONLY
the Greens in 2008.

Why? Because it is very expensive and difficult to
place independent candidates or new political parties
on the ballot in the two-party system USA.

What would happen is the Greens run an antiwar
campaign and get 5 million votes?

How many of those voters would become political
activists after the elections? If 0.1% did that would
be 5,000 people. Where would they go, the Green Party
naturally. How would that change the Green Party.

It depends.

What would happen if they joined the Green Party and
found out that the best organizers of the campaign
which attracted them had been the good comrades of
Bonnie Weinstein's honest, principled little
organization? Some of them would join BOTH Bonnie's
little group, and the Greens. The same would happen
with any sincere left organization or even group of
friends who seriously worked for the election
campaign.

The first is that the Green Par

It is also an internally anti-Democratic organization
which functions on the principle of minority rule
(consensus) as pointed out by the article Louis
Project posted.

It is true, as the article posted by Louis Project
points out, that the Demo-Greens are working hard to
sabotage any possibility of the Greens taking votes
away from the democrats in 2008. It is also true that
the very antidemocratic, minority rule structure of
the  Greens makes this sabotage easier for them.

But Mark Lause's suggestion of independent campaign
committees is a way to fight back. The new activists
who are attracted to the Greens will NOT be attracted
to the do-nothing, sit on your hands and everyone
elses hands leaders, they will be attracted to the
campaigners.

If the Green's are truly and finally taken off of the
ballot in 2008, it will be very expensive, and very
difficult, to put another left electoral alternative
on the ballot for 2010.

The Green Party is a tremendous asset for the left, if
it would only wake up and see it for what it is. It is
more valuable than all of the seats on Central Labor
Councils, all of the unread websites, and all of the
bank accounts combind of the entire left. 

Use it or lose it. That's what Lenin always said.

Anthony




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the 
tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism