From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 02 Jan 93 12:12 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600008:000:10687
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  2 12:12:00 1993


Karen Lofstrom,
 
It is a little disturbing to need to address your comments about the
divisions, or, as I would say different strategies, promoted by
various Greens around the country.  But since you brought it up, and,
I hate to say it, since you made false statements, I must respond.
 
First, this statement is purely false:
 
> Leftist Greens have captured the national leadership of the Greens/
> Green Party USA.  They organized as the Left Green Network, outside
> the regular Green meetings and then used their organized clout to
> take over.  
 
The Left Greens were organized well before the formation of the
G/GPUSA.  Their stated goal was to "Green the Left, and Radicalize
the Greens."  They were one of many factions which came together
in Elkins, WV in August 1991 to organize The Greens/Green Party USA.
Other factions included The Green Party Organizing Committees (GPOC),
and the vast majority of the rest of us (myself included) who were
simply members of locals of the old Greens Committee of Correspondence
(GCOC).  Some of these locals were into electoral politics, some were
into education, some were into issues work, and some were into community
building.
 
Prior to the Elkins meeting, the GPOC agreed to disband as an independent
organization to reconstitute itself as The Green Party Organizing Caucus
within a *unified* Green Party U.S.A.  (Sorry, same initials, which is
also the same initials for The Green Party of Calif.  However, *NONE*
of this discussion is about the Calif. Green Party.)  The Left Greens
and the majority of us GCOC locals also desired to become a part of a
unified GPUSA.  It seemed like everyone was in agreement.  We elected
members from all factions to our seven person Coordinating Committee,
as well as the other various national bodies.  Everyone seemed like
they wanted to work together.
 
There was no "takeover".  All these decisions were made democratically
and all negotiations were in open forums.  Unfortunately, some of the
members of GPOC were not willing to work in this new arrangement.  They
have used the bogus claims of leftism and sexism to justify this behavior.
However, many have felt that the real reason they were not willing to go
along is because they enjoyed their personal power in the old organization,
and were not willing to share in the new one.  Well, some of these members
of the GPOC (not nearly the majority) decided to organize the Green Politics
Network as a competing organization to the G/GPUSA.  They have been quite
vocal and have created quite a stir, but it is not clear to me that they
even exist any more.  While they organized themselves as a tight cadre of
devotees with membership open "by invitation only", the G/GPUSA continues
to grow with over 300 paid up dues paying locals.
 
Now, let me change the subject and discuss some of your concerns
about leftist philosophy and strategy.  First, however, I must
say that I am not, nor have I ever been a Left Green. (They disbanded
their organization about the time I got involved in Green organizing
at the national level).  Also, it is only recently that I even
consider myself a leftist.  So, these opinions may not be as well
formed or as representative of leftism or Left Green thinking as
they could be.
 
First, there is a major mistake that people in this country make
when discussing leftism.  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 style of bureaucracy.  While I
personally am beginning to understand and agree with Marx' analysis
of capitalism, I vehemently reject violent revolutions, ruthless
dictators and intransigent bureaucracies.
 
You were also concerned about what you called "defiant Leftism".
In my own experience relating to other Greens, this is a concern
that many of us struggle with.  The problem is how do you firmly
state and organize around a position which is clearly harmful
without making enemies through strident rhetoric and actions.
In East Liverpool, Ohio, Waste Technologies has gotten EPA approval
to build one of the world's largest hazardous waste incinerators
only 1,100 feet from an elementary school and on the flood plain
of the Ohio River.  Greens (and others) have staged protests,
civil disobedience and have gotten arrested by protesting this
outrage.  Would you object to this demonstration of "defiant
Leftism"?  But, the question of stragety remains.  How defiant
can you get and still maintain public sympathies?  See how much
popular support Ross Perot got by "defiantly" accusing Democrats
and Republicans of creating our national debt.
 
There is another question of strategy that Left Greens point out.
Most Greens agree that the goal of The Greens is to advance the
Four Pillars (Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, Grassroots
Democracy, and Non-Violence) and the 10 Key Values (see earlier
in this list).  What Left Greens, and nearly most of the rest of us
who have ever tried to organize politically, point out is that you
can't simply advance these values by getting elected to office.  You
need popular support from a grassroots movement to give you the
political space to advance your legislation.  Note the problem that
Clinton is having by trying to allow gays and lesbians in the military.
 
Greens do debate, however, whether The Greens' role in the larger
movement (including the ACLU, The Sierra Club, Amensty Int'l, etc.)
is simply to get people into office who can promote the movement's
ideas, or whether The Greens should also be involved in grassroots,
issues based, organizing.  The decision at Elkins, that we become a
unified organization, seems to indicate that The Greens will continue
to work both at grassroots organizing and on electoral campaigns.
 
There are also some who identify with the Left Greens who question
being involved in electoral politics at all.  Some claim that
electoral work goes too far to accomodate the system we are trying
to change.  Others claim it is a waste of time, which would be better
spent developing alternative institutions or organizing around issues.
Rumor has it that there are those who would stop The Greens from
being involved in electoral activity.  However, I have *never* met
anyone like that.  Those who do not want to be involved in electoral
politics simply don't get involved.
 
Lastly, you were concerned about portions of the economics statement
in the program.  I think nearly all of us agree that it needs some
work.  In fact, there has been a working group developed to look into
this issue this year.  The statement suffers stylistically and logically
because different people operating from different (although possibly
equally valid) economic models or theories authored different portions
of the statement.  This does not, by itself, say that it is flawed, but
merely that it is a natural product of a document which was developed
democratically with a wide variety of input.  (Please contact The
Greens Clearinghouse if you would like to participate in working on
the program.  Members of the G/GPUSA only, please.)
 
To your specific point about "it calling for taking over the energy
and transportation industries and putting them under what I believe
they called 'direct democratic control.'"  I can hardly see why you
have difficulty with this (although the program does not use the
phrase "taking over", but rather "we will act pragmatically to
bring these sectors under decentralized, democratic ownership and
control.")
 
The energy industry is largely under government control now.  Electric
utilities are controlled by state coorporation commissions.  Nuclear
energy is subsidized by the DOE.  Oil, coal and gas are highly subsidized
through 100 year old mineral rights laws which are rip-offs to the
taxpayer not to mention the subsidies in the form of road building,
imminent domain and the Persian Gulf War.  Transportation is also
highly subsidized and controlled by the government.  Rail has been
in collusion with the government from the beginning (although less
so now).  Autos are subsidized and controlled, again through road
taxes and oil subsidies.  Air is subsidized through air traffic
controllers, and so on.
 
Now, we may or may not agree as to whether it is appropriate for these
industries to be publicly owned and controlled.  But, the point of the
statement in the program is that since natural monopolies are generally
publicly owned or controlled, (as they are currently in the U.S.), it
should be Green Policy that they are "decentralized" (at least as much
as is appropriate) and placed under "democratic control".  And, this
flows naturally from the 10 Key Values.
 
For the record, here is the preface to the portion of the economic
statement in the program on "Decentralized Public Sector Industries
and Services".
 
    "Rejecting all dogmatism as the either private or public ownership
  of productive wealth, we support a maximum of free initiative for
  individuals, cooperatives, and small companies to earn a decent living
  in useful vocations within an overall framework of public policies
  to meet human needs and protect the environment.  At the same time,
  in situations of natural monopolies and where the private sector has
  failed to meet human needs or consistently abused the environment,
  we will act pragmatically to bring these sectors under decentralized
  public ownership and control.
    The type of public sector we advocate, however, is not centralized,
  bureaucratic nationalization, but rather decentralized, democratic
  municipalization of industries and services.  Where coordination
  requires a larger-than-municipal scale, we advocate the confederation
  of municipalities to share facilities regionally and the coordination
  of the public-sector industries and services at the national and
  international scales through grassroots democratic structures of
  planning and coordination."
 
The industries that the program mentions for inclusion in this policy
are Public Health Service, Public Banking and Insurance, Public
Housing, Public Energy, Public Transportation and Public Ownership
of Natural Resources.
 
Like I said earlier, the economics portion of the program is currently
being worked on.  So, these statements and assumed economic models may
not necessarily be included in future versions.  However, I repeat,
any changes, additions, or deletions will continue to be the result
of open and democratic deliberations and processes, open to any member
of the G/GPUSA.
 
Karen, I hope you will continue to participate in this discussion!
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens