At 2:44 PM -0400 10/22/04, michael a. lebowitz wrote:
Doug wrote:
you've got to figure out how to organize in a world with a Senate,
an electoral college, and a Supreme Court.
As long as the electoral college exists, most people on PEN-l --
Carrol in Illinois, Jim, Michael Perelman, etc. in California,
Carl, you, Lou, etc. in New York, etc. -- might as well prioritize
social movements over most elections and vote for candidates to the
left of the Democratic Party candidates.
--
Yoshie
OK, now I'm confused. I'm not following this election closely and am
limited to internet anyway, but isn't the strategy that Yoshie is
describing exactly what the 'official' greens are saying and which
Yoshie rejects? I thought I was beginning to understand until now. I
think this is not what you wanted to say, Yoshie.
michael
The national Green Party, as well as many of the state parties, has
yet to become committed to a perspective that the Green Party has to
grow out of, and in turn helps grow, social movements, nor has it yet
to acquire capacity to do so. That's one of the things that Peter
Camejo and his Green allies want to change; at the same time, they
are trying to bring together various political currents committed to
independent political action.
Here's what Camejo has to say about the above two points in his
interview with Ernest Tate:
<blockquote>The Green Party has a membership in the order about half
a million people. It is increasingly becoming a big centre of
progressive activity, but only electorally. The Green Party is not
very active at other levels.
The anti-war demonstrations are organized by people who are mainly
outside our organization. The Green's support the demonstrations, but
doesn't take the leadership of them. The Green Party is a rainbow of
opinions about of a lot of issues that have come together within a
single organization. There's been a recent shift in the approach of
other progressive and left organizations, but until now they have not
become members of the Green Party. That's now beginning to happen.
They're following what Solidarity did in joining us. I think others
will too. But I think there's some feeling among progressives that
the Green Party has too many internal problems and difficulties and
that it may not be the instrument that they think can be most
effective in making social change.
At this stage I'm urging everyone to join the Green Party and help us
fight to keep it independent of the Democrats and to democratize its
internal structure and deepen its involvement in the community, for
example, in the unions. We have tens of thousands of members in
California's unions, but we have yet to organize them. We have been
trying to organize caucuses in the unions and this, I think, is how
the next period could go if more forces keep joining.
We are making headway among Latinos, especially in California. We
feel it's possible we could become an arena in which different
progressive groups begin to work together to build an alternative
force against those who favour the government's policies towards
labour.
Ninety percent of our people, in the last few years, have made no
financial gain when you make adjustments for inflation, in a period
in which the GDP of the United States has risen more than ever in its
history. At this moment, profit margins are now the largest ever in
the history of the United States. Corporations are now paying the
lowest tax rate they've ever paid. They once paid 33% of all our
taxes; now they're only paying 7.8%. Meanwhile the minimum wage has
dropped from $8.15 to $5.15, adjusted for inflation.
But there are changes happening where the Green Party has had
influence. In one city, because we elected a person to one position,
we were able to have the minimum wage raised to $10.50, and in
another to $8.50.
We have also succeeded in giving the right to undocumented workers to
vote, a democratic right that's now on the ballot because of the
influence of the Green Party in San Francisco. We can see the
beginnings of an alternative political force emerging, and it would
be good to have all those who are doing work in other areas to come
into the Green Party and work together.
But there is no unanimity on this. For example, we have a party in
California called the Peace and Freedom Party which has about 70,000
registered members. While we're starting to work together -- in my
campaign I'm welcoming one of their candidates to speak with me at
all my meetings -- we have yet to bring our two forces together.
The Green Party has 160,000 members in California and the Peace and
Freedom Party has 70,000. Therefore, there are about a quarter of a
million people in California who have clearly broken from the
Democratic and Republican Parties. That lays the basis for the
beginning of a movement that will fight for social justice. ("Ernest
Tate interviews Peter Camejo," September 8th, 2004,
<http://www.marxsite.com/Camejo%20Interview.htm>)</blockquote>
That's roughly the political direction that I support, recognizing
that it will continue to be an uphill battle to move the Greens and
others in that direction together.
As for the "safe states" strategy, that's not what I personally
support, but if Doug, Carl, and other current Kerry supporters could
at least come to that position, ditching Kerry, I will happily
welcome the change, for that's a step in the right direction.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
