[TE]
Hello. I'm not sure if I am a member of Neither - though I am a
supporter and have argued for Neither voting at all the schools I have
spoken at as a Greens candidate in the last election.
Perhaps in some minds being a Greens candidate forbids me being a member
of Neither? I have stated and continue to state that I am an activist
first before I am a party member, I readily admit that the Greens are
dangerously too close to the middle class and even small l liberal upper
class, and I am totally supportive of increased immigration. My
association with the Greens is extremely recent so I don't apologise for
it's past policies. Nor have I ever hid that I don't believe the ballot
box is our route to freedom. It is only one more tactic among many.
Having lived in Tent Cities and occupations I am happy to try every
thing I can.
My own background is in student unionism and queer politics but as a
long term unemployed I currently feel my strongest solidarity with other
unemployed people. You may be pleased to know there are the seeds
planted for a political consciousness for unemployed people in this
country and I don't mean an organisation/faction/party. I'm talking
about the emerging of a class consciousness.
Whether I am considered a member or not, as at least a fellow traveller
I fervently hope that Neither comes from the Left in opposing two-party
big-business "democracy". My personal mantra is that people should have
more control over their lives, including their environment and their
expression. I consider this to be fundamentally Left as the poor
outnumber the rich both locally and globally. If power is shared equally
then the consequences will be more for the poor not less. I hope others
in Neither can agree.
Ciao.
tony camilleri
"http://angelfire.com/sd/eatrich/index.html"
[AL]
Seems to me that people with an outlook broadly similar to yours
are likely to form the backbone of Neither, with all sorts of variations
and differences on concrete issues.
Personally, I reject the Green party for reasons we can debate
later. But I'd be delighted to work together with Greens and anyone
else that want to fight against the two party state.
No doubt you (and most other Neither supporters) would reject my own
political views (revolutionary communist), but I'm pretty sure we'll get
along fine on what we do have in common.
Several Green candidates put out How To Vote cards with the ALP and the
Coalition equal last in 1996. I guess that will be unlikely from now on
while the Greens as a party continue their submissive attitude to being
excluded from representation. But I can't see any reason why that should
be an obstacle to Green candidates who do WANT to put them equal last
being members of Neither.
The problem with membership has not been any desire to exclude Greens
from membership but a complete inability to include ANYBODY.
That HAS to end if we are to become an organization capable of "opposing
from the left" rather than just another narrow factional
clique as is so common in "left" politics.
My view is that it will be a long time before there can be a united
party of the left in Australia, but Neither could play an important role
in paving the way for that by proving that progressives of DIFFERENT
political views can work together to end the two party state.
That means encouraging people who are members of various other political
organizations and parties, some of which will claim to be "the answer",
to agree on accepting our differences (not by burying them but by
debating them), and work together on what we agree on.
That will be difficult and has not been achieved up to now.
There has been a long history of abject failure of allegedly "left"
organizations to build anything but narrow factions (often described as
"broad coalitions").
That is a strong argument for not identifying ourselves as "opposing
from the left" and instead being open to ANYONE who opposes the "two
party state". At least the presence of right wingers with that view
would make it more difficult for the leftists to make the usual
factional presumptions.
But in the long run I think One Nation or (whatever replaces it if it's
present leadership implodes), will lead the opposition to the two party
state from the right, and Neither from the left - if we do succeed in
avoiding attempts to turn us into another "left" faction competing with
others.
My view is that the membership criteria should simply be rejecting both
the ALP and the Coalition by voting against them both until they agree
to PR. Within that we should have open public debates about policies,
and in the course of those debates adopt policies, such as support for
increased immigration, that would naturally incline people broadly on
the left to continue working with us and incline those on the right to
look elsewhere. But without requiring support for any particular policy
on anything as a criteria of membership so that winning and losing
debates votes on policy is seen as a model for a future representative
legislature rather than a means to establish another faction.
