Nader/U.S. Election

Martin Zehr m_zehr at
Wed Nov 8 16:42:37 MST 2000

   Thanks for the words of encouragement. One thing I am familiar with is
the back stabbing sympton that you referred to. I have seen that in all
brand names of politics. Another thing that I've notice is the high degree
of eclecticism that is rampant among Greens. The other thing is the
subservience to spontaneity, decentralization and lack of theoretical
struggle. All these qualities work against the Green Party, but in spite of
them, they have managed to show a degree of respectability.
   I really believe that theoretical discussions should be rooted in the
practice of the mass struggles so that everyone can learn and the knowledge
process can be deepened and re-invigorated with every struggle. Those with
fragile egos really should not concern themselves with presuming to be
leadership. I'm certain that you could at least add some depth to the
knowledge of the practice, theory and struggle of the Green movement based
on your own experiences and I encourage you to do so. We all need to learn
from each other.

>From: "Alan Bradley" <alanb at>
>Reply-To: marxism at
>To: <marxism at>
>Subject: Re: Nader/U.S. Election
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:11:22 +1000
> > From: "Martin Zehr"
><much snipped>
> >    Inasmuch as I know nothing of the history of the Australian Green
> > Party, I must plead ignorance to your snipet of information, and hope
> > that you provide some more detail to your own experiences and the
> > Australian experience. I do not question the "seriousness of the
> > contributions", as much as I do their competency and thoroughness of
> > analysis, and there I will be ruthless in my expectations.
>I'm not really sure that an adequate Marxist view of the various Green
>phenomena in Australia has been written.  I probably can't really do one
>What I can vouch for is that I picked up a good set of backstab scars, and
>a definitely cynical attitude!  Still, a fair slab of the DSP's younger
>leaders were recruited from the environment movement.  (Not just "the
>Greens" in an electoral sense.)
> >    And since I would not agree with your definition of Greens as
> > liberals, Alan, I would say that on that point all we would do is bump
> > heads in our disagreement, without clarifying the importance of the
> > matter. Anyone is free to elaborate on that matter.
>They are heterogeneous.  Some will prove themselves to be hardened
>life-long enemies of ours.  Others will join us!  Just don't get too
>disappointed when there turns out to be lots of people in the first
> >    As to the question of the nature of the state, that has been brought
> > up by others, I would suggest that what is important in this matter is
> > the fact
>Given that we shouldn't be seriously considering Nader and most of the
>Green leadership as being anything like revolutionaries, it is fair to
>suggest that they will tend to have a fairly muddled attitude to the state,
>not to mention pretty much every other question.  That doesn't mean that we
>can't recruit their supporters, some of whom may be the next generation of
>"Green" leaders....
>Alan Bradley
>alanb at

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

More information about the Marxism mailing list