From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 09:08 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600033:000:7667
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  5 09:08:00 1993


Karen Lofstrom,

It is distressing to read such anger from a fellow Green.  I would
be happy to make a long distance call to Hawai'i so we could discuss
some of your concerns in person.  Just send me your phone number and
a good time to call to my email address at (dmcmillen@igc.apc.org).

Briefly, let me try to respond to your concerns on-line:

> My statement is false ONLY if one accepts your self-serving
> statement that there were no Greens before August 1991.

I never made the statement that there were "no Greens before August
1991".  In fact, I believe I clearly outlined that there were Greens
before then who came together in August 1991 to form the G/GPUSA.

Regarding your comments about "self-serving",  outside of my feeling
that I am helping to advance the vision and goals of The Greens (which
many others share) I receive absolutely no personal gain.  In fact,
I do regularly contribute both my time and money to help in advancing
our mutual values.  However, I do advocate support for the national
organization, decentralized as it is, The Greens/Green Party U.S.A.
because I believe that working with a good organization is the best
way that we can individually promote our goals for a sustainable
and just future.

> The Leftists grabbed a functioning organization....

I stand by my earlier statement.

> As a member of the national Greens, I was never notified that the old
> organization had been dissolved and invited to join a new Marxist group.

All dues paying members of local chapters received notification.  Either
you were not a dues paying member of a local chapter, or your local chapter
did not properly inform their members of important national business.

And, why do you call us a "Marxist" group?  I simply said that some of
us agree with Marx's critique of capitalism.

> dropped the old Green slogan, Neither Right Nor Left, and starting
> arguing for the abolition of private property.

Please provide some references, I am not aware of this.  Perhaps you
would like to respond to the topic "NOT LEFT NOR RIGHT BUT UPFRONT"?

> I was then notified that the old magazines would be merged with the
> Left Green journal, Regeneration, and sent a copy of Regeneration,
> to which I had certainly never subscribed.  

Regeneration was merged with Green Consensus, which were our theoretical
journals.  The other "old magazines" have continued.  It just seemed
that we were duplicating our efforts by supporting two theoretical
journals, especially on a shoe-string budget.  As far as I know, the
old contributers and editors of Green Consensus are working on
Regeneration.  Besides, the issue of Regeneration to which I think
you are referring, contained articles from different Greens who had
_very_ divergent prospectives.  I think you would have found many in
that issue whom you would have agreed with.  It is my understanding
that Regeneration, as a theoretical journal, will continue to have
articles representing very different viewpoints.  In fact, they are
currently calling for articles.  Perhaps you would like to submit one?

> You describe this process as "democratic."  I never participated in
> it.  No one from Hawai'i participated in it.  We were too damn busy
> getting on the ballot, and we didn't have the money to send any
> delegates to a meeting thousands of miles away.  I've been told
> that the Leftists were able to take over because the meeting was on
> the East coast, the Leftists are strongest on the East Coast and
> were able to pack the meeting.

I am sorry that no one from Hawai'i was able to attend the August 1991
Congress in West Virginia.  As I remember, no one from Hawai'i attend
the August 1992 Congress in Minnesota, either.  Travel costs are clearly
a problem which we all must face, which are particularly burdensome for
folks from Hawai'i and Alaska.  However, there were many from Alaska
at both Congresses.

The actual decision to reorganize as a single organization occured through
a very detailed mail balloting process which occured during the year prior
to the 1991 Congress.  The primary function of the Congress was to affirm
those results and to adopt the name of The Greens/Green Party U.S.A.
It was clearly our intention to be as "democratic" as possible.  If you
did not receive the ballots by mail, that would be because you or your
local chapter not being a dues paying member, or that your local chapter
did not properly inform its members of important business.

Also, national Gatherings/Congresses have been held around the country
to try to share the travel burden.  They have been in Oregon, Colorado,
Minnesota, and West Virginia (and perhaps elsewhere before I became
involved).  There is currently lots of talk about the next Gathering/
Congress being in California or Atlanta, though the decision is not
final yet.

> I've also heard stories about Leftists refusing to accept the results
> of meetings that they didn't like, and reconvening meetings until they won.  

Please provide details.

> You are an avowed Marxist.

I have never said I was a Marxist.  In fact, I would deny it.  I only
said I have begun to understand the validity of Marx's critique of
capitalism.

> Your group has radically changed the content and tone of
the national publications in a Left direction.

Please provide details.

ME: >>The mistake is to assume that anyone who acknowledges the validity
    >>of Karl Marx' analysis of capitalism automatically promotes a
    >>Bolshevik style revolution, a Stalinist style of rule, and a
    >>Breshnevian [sic] style of bureaucracy.  I vehemently reject
    >>violent revolutions, ruthless dictators and intransigent
    >>bureaucracies.

> You may not intend these things, Dale, but they are the natural
> consequences of the Marxist naivete about political power.

I am 100% in agreement with your apparent assertions that many
revolutionaries claiming Marxism were viciously power-hunger
while their followers remained naive.

> You believe that the government is corrupt because it represents the
> interests of the ruling class.

Correct.

> You believe that if you abolish the ruling class, the government will
> become the incorruptible guardian of the interests of the people.

Wrong!  I don't have any illusions about the "incorruptibility" of the
government.  Far from it!  I am proposing that both the "ruling class"
and "the government" should be accountable to the people through
processes which we are currently trying to work out.  The basis for
these processes will be "non-violence" and "grass-roots democracy".

> As has been shown time after time, the people's government becomes
> the bureaucrats' government.  Those who manage, manage in their own
> interests, not in the interests of the people they presumably represent.
> You may assure us that you've fiddled with the formula, that this time
> you're going to make it work.

I agree with these valid points.  We (you, presumably, and me both) are
trying to come up with ways that the government can continue to be the
people's government, even after the bureaucrats come in.  Maybe this
will mean abolishing government altogether.  Or, maybe it would mean
redefining government to mean "a process by which people can make
decisions which affect their own lives" rather than "a provider of
services" or a "tool for the privileged to maintain their privilege".

See, I believe in the slogan "Neither Left nor Right, but Upfront"!

> Mr. McMillen does not represent all Greens. Please do not judge us by
> his postings.  

No problem here.

Peace,
Dale

P.S.  Is Karen's liaison giving her copies of the entire discussion
here or only my original response?