Green Party and Class Politics
| July 11th, 2008 | Crossposted from The Blog and the BulletDave Marlow blogs:
Fellow blogger Renegade Eye put it best: “I don’t believe the Green Party is the alternative party formation, since it lacks a program and class basis.” The Green Party is incapable of leading a successful workers revolution, at least in its current manifestation, because of its inherent ties to reformism and its separation from class struggle. They are not a genuine proletarian party and so any progress achieved through the Green Party will be limited to the confines of a non-revolutionary framework.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
There will never be a successful “worker’s revolution”. This has been obvious for fifty years or more. Worker’s revolutions which “succeed” - that is, that manage to kill off a bunch of people in gloriously stupid and bloody revolt and take power - immediately turn into autocratic cesspits where the putative “workers” end up more dispossessed and more ground down than before. Every. single. time.
At some point, doesn’t it become obvious that it isn’t the people who are flawed, but the ‘revolutionary’ model?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I’d guess it’s somehow related to the insane allegiance some still claim to laissez-faire capitalism, despite the massive cost in human suffering, corruption, bigotry, and cronyism every single time it’s tried.
Every. Single. Time.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 6:44 am
The problem with that being, I can point to lots of examples of ‘worker’s revolutions’ gone to crap. You can’t point to any examples of laissez-faire capitalism, because there aren’t any. The most economically right-wing place on Earth isn’t even close to LFC.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Bullshit.
In the 19th century US, regulation of business was so rare as to be almost non-existent, up until, in the early 20th century, the atrocities committed by business lead to a great public outcry for regulation.
Also, of course, your line is the standard communist one as well, “But, True Communism hasn’t been tried yet!”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
100-year old examples all you got? Like I said, you can’t point to it, because it doesn’t exist here and now.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 9:07 am
You know why 100-year old examples are used? Because everyone with a brain and conscience realised a century ago that it wouldn’t fucking work.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Myca, isn’t your response kind of a straw man? Outside of hard core libertarians there’s not a lot of desire for laissez-faire capitalism. As you pointed out it doesn’t work. The last time it was tried it lead to monopolies and anti-capitalist policies. the argument now seems to be around how much regulation is needed to make the current capitalist system work best. But what does that have to do with the terrible history of workers revolutions? Mixed market capitalism seems to work pretty well. Workers revolutions don’t.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Not at all . . . my point is that there are plenty of ideologues on both the right and the left whose ideologies seem to have little relation to historical reality. Furthermore, I’d say that those fools and liars advocating laissez-faire capitalism have far more power and influence in the US (and always have had) than anyone advocating a worker’s revolt.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I think it’s obvious that unregulated markets are bad. However, that’s a red herring.
The OP is stating that the Green party is ineffective because it doesn’t accept a revolutionary model (it’s more social democrat; reformed capitalism).
Robert’s point, as I understand it, is that the Greens not being revolutionary is a good thing. Revolutions fail, or at least they always have. Reformed/regulated capitalism works…
This comment was written by StephenR.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I still tell people to vote for Cynthia McKinney, who will get the Green Party nomination. She supports the embryonic Reconstruction Party based in New Orleans after Katrina. It’s a black led party with a working class program.
I’m also critical of the Greens, because in Europe they played a neoliberal role.
Myka: The US has the wealth to make socialism work, without dictatorship.
Stalinism was a counter-revolution. The leadership was made up of people as Zinoviev and Kamenoov who opposed the 1917 revolution. After Stalin took over internationalism died. He also banned prostitution and homosexuality. I can go on and on.
In Venezuela after the bosses locked out the oil workers, in what was a bosses strike; the workers took control, and got the industry running. Nobody believed they could.
This comment was written by Renegade Eye.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
You know I think this person would communicate much more successfully with the U.S. working class if they just translated their rhetoric into Elvish. Or Klingon. Or Esparano. Or any language which would hide their use of terms like “genuine proletarian party”.
This comment was written by Gar Lipow.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Great points Renegade!
This comment was written by Jack Stephens.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Myca:
despite the massive cost in human suffering, corruption, bigotry, and cronyism every single time it’s tried.
Every kind of government that exists on the face of the earth has human suffering, corruption, bigotry and cronyism. There’s nothing here that particularly distinguishes capitalism over others.
Renegade Eye:
The US has the wealth to make socialism work, without dictatorship.
That wealth exists because of our present economic structure. Change it to socialism and I strongly suspect that it’ll be the end of this country’s wealth.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
There most certainly is a difference in the cost of human suffering between a mixed-market economy (which we currently have) and a lassiez-faire capitalist economy.
Your statement is laughable, frankly. It’s like saying, “every country in the world has prisoners who are falsely accused, so there’s no real difference between Sweden and North Korea.”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 1:29 am
It used to exist, very recently, in Third World countries indebted to the IMF that were put on austerity programs. It was abandoned when it was discovered that in addition to the massive cost in human suffering, corruption, bigotry, and cronyism, it also plain didn’t work.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Crony capitalism, which is what you saw in the “austerity” program countries, is not laissez-faire. I agree that laissez-faire does not work for most societies.
The only place in recent history that has tried laissez faire was Hong Kong. And it worked pretty well there - but that was a very special case and I would not generalize it.
All of which is way off topic. The ludicrous attempt to equate the faith in revolutionary socialism with a nearly entirely academic economic libertarianism aside - let me know when 100,000 masked youths march through Paris demanding the government allow business to do as it pleases - I think my question is very valid.
Why are leftists so committed to a model of revolutionary socialism which has proven unworkable? If you insist on generalizing the phenomenon to other socioeconomic models, fine, answer that one too - but with a realistic, not rhetorical, view of who’s advocating for what. A handful of crabby economists is not a social movement; revolutionary socialism is.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Totalitarian bureaucracy, which is what you saw in the USSR, is not communism.
The point is that crony capitalism is what laissez-faire inevitably leads to. If we’re lucky. Fascism is the other.
Only a Westerner could differentiate between “Hong Kong” and “crony capitalism” in two sentences without a trace of irony.
But if Hong Kong is a shining model for laissez-faire, perhaps many of us liberals should be more open to the ideology, given that it would mean “laissez-faire” guarantees free medical care and housing.
Hong Kong has low taxes. That’s not synonymous with laissez-faire. It can afford low taxes because it does not need to pay for national security (it has a totalitarian communist daddy to take care of that), it’s a city-state (urban areas pay more in taxes, rural areas receive more), and it has a relatively young population (low dependency ratio). But its economic culture has very cozy ties between its corporations and its government, and some of its social programs are more generous than any in Europe.
We are not committed to a model of revolutionary socialism. We’re arguing that laissez-faire is analagous to communism, and we disapprove of laissez-faire. That formulation would not make sense if we did not disapprove of communism in turn.
But I don’t see the “100,000 masked youths” metric as the only valid measure as to judge whether a rogue ideology is dangerous. A hundred academics and shady well-heeled interests having the ear of government sounds a lot more nefarious to me.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Especially since the only serious internal attempt to overthrow the government came from the right, and was promoted by business interests, almost certainly as a way to reduce regulation.
Wow, actually, gosh, I guess that’s also true of the Civil War, isn’t it?
We don’t have to indulge your fantasies of 100,000 masked youths, Robert. The USA has had plenty of experience with actual danger from anti-regulation fanatics.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
We are not committed to a model of revolutionary socialism.
Maybe you aren’t, but the OP seems to be.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Robert, you said “Why are leftists so committed to a model of revolutionary socialism which has proven unworkable?” That statement certainly appears to be about more than the OP.
Most of the leftists I know are not committed to a model of revolutionary socialism, especially if that means violent revolution. Your generalization about “leftists” seems unwarranted to me.
I’m not sure if “laissez-faire” is the correct term for the widespread economic beliefs that lead to things like the austerity programs; a worship of so-called free markets, a hatred of regulation, the cutting away of social support services, etc.. These beliefs are extremely widespread among influential people; they are the consensus belief among powerful conservatives, and also among “centrist” Democrats in leadership positions. And they do a lot of harm in the world, and generally create a fertile ground for crony capitalism.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
OK, why are some leftists, then.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Even if we regard the fact that Green movements aren’t revolutionary as positive, it cannot be denied that for all their rhetoric about new perspectives and alternative ideologies, Green parties’ programs are almost entirely dedicated to saving capitalism from itself, not ending it.
This comment was written by daedalus_x.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The funny thing is that Red Left movements recently (since the 60s) have also not been grass-roots - they’ve tended to be “bourgeois” youth voluntarily renouncing their privilege, at least for a few years in college and afterwards.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I got myca’s point. But I still don’t think it holds.
It’s probably about as accurate as saying medicare is ‘communism’.
Advocating less regulation is not the same thing as advocating NO regulation. There’s a big difference between advocating the elimination of all taxes and advocating the estate tax be eliminated in favor of carrying over the original basis price of the asset. (To pick a somewhat topical example) By conflating the two I think you’re trying to pull the same trick as when Medicare is called communism. You’re associating a particular position with the most extreme version of that position possible in an effort to discredit the position.
But it’s nice to see that Robert, Myca Amp, and sylphhead all seem to agree that the OP is proposing a bad idea.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Prior to WWII, revolutionary socialism was a social movement, but the energy and ideas of revolutionary socialism were subsumed into European social democratic movements, which took the social programs and things that would benefit society and ditched the ideological purity and Soviet Imperialism of pre-WW II Communism.
Right now, the only true laissez-faire people are the Ludwig von Mises Institute economists and the college Objectivists, and the only true revolutionary socialists are the kids selling newspapers on and around college campuses and in the Bay Area.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Ummmmm…I’m not sure about your classification of “revolutionary.” I mean, for me, a bourgeois white kid who doesn’t understand fully (but thinks s/he knows about) white privilege and just passes out a bunch of paper to folks whom they’ll never organize is not a revolutionary.
This comment was written by Jack Stephens.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Myca, capitalism, socialism and other “-sims” each have their flavors. The evils you quote have existed (and do exist) in all of them. It seemed to me that your comment implied that it was something unique to or more pronounced in those systems favoring capitalism. If you meant only pure unregulated capitalism then that’s a bit of another story.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
OK, why are some leftists, then.
For the same reason that some rightists still believe in the New Capitalist Man. Aren’t you paying attention?
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Austerity programs went way beyond repeal of the estate tax and Carter-esque winnowing of some regulations here and there. They are as fair an example of laissez-faire as the USSR was to communism.
Workers’ revolutions are not necessary under a mixed market welfare state. We know this because all these leaders of neo-Marxist and Trotskyite revolutionary guard seem not to be the workers themselves, but…
That doesn’t mean the revolution has been won. There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that would like to roll back the clock to the late 19th century.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Sylphhead:
There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that would like to roll back the clock to the late 19th century.
I’d rephrase that as: There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that is rolling back the clock to the late 19th century.
This comment was written by Ben Lehman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thank you very much for the reference to The Red Mantis. I appreciate it.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Define revolution before bemoaning the lack of it. Every line of revolutionary theory has different rules and different track records. There are very few variations on capitalism - the differences are minor (ie: anti-trust laws or not - weighing competition vs. freedom).
Meanwhile, the only definition of such “revolution” these days is “non-capitalist”, which basically means taking ownership away from private interest, and says nothing about what to supplant it with. Anarcho-syndicalists do not see eye-to-eye with authoritarian Communists, who also don’t necessarily agree with conventional far-left liberals, and in order to become “revolutionary” one has to pick a doctrine, otherwise you’ve nothing but screaming pointless contrariness.
This comment was written by Silenced is Foo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Well, I think that’s giving them a bit too much credit. Remember how badly Social Security privatization turned out. The point is, the fact that they’re fighting a battle that can’t be won makes them more unhinged in some ways. Note the overwhelming victim complex, coming from a group of people who are basically protecting yacht owners from malnourished inner city children.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Apropos of our discussion of anti-regulationist ‘the market will fix everything’ delusional thinking, I just ran across this discussion of the career and theories of Phil Gramm, McCain’s former economic adviser.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators