Subject: RE: Camejo, elections, independent politics
aymery at ix.netcom.com
Fri Jul 11 19:31:17 MDT 2003
I have the distinct impression that we are not on the same wave length here.
You appear (to me) to base your argumentation on one premise; that is,
whether the GP is or is not a working-class mass movement.
When I look at the Greens, I do not see a "movement" but a "coalition;" That's
the word I used. It's an hybrid, heterogenic formation made of many
constitutencies that appear dissatisfied with the current order of things.
I did not suggest that the GP "will be the vehicle for socialist revolution." I
suggested that the GP is the proper vehicle for Peter Camejo *at this time.*
>From a practical standpoint it would seem rather bizarre to wait for a mass
movement to exist, under whatever appellation of one's liking, to have Camejo
run. Again, one deals with a deck of card as it is dealt.
I have no idea what the proper vehicle for a socialist revolution is. As I have
no idea what a working-class mass movement is -- or how to build one. At
least, I have not seen one in the 20 some years I've lived in this country. To
examplify, I could not tell you whether Cuba's regime is "stalinist" or "leninist'
or whatever. I can tell you that I would happily live in that kind of regime and
would let other good folks define it at length! Labels matter little to me.
The stats I posted are a tangible proof that the GP has grown in the past
election cycles. I posted these stats to dispel your assertion that "[T]he Green
Party has *completely failed* to pick up on it beyond Peter's campaign."
This is an incorrect assertion. Please, check Arcata's city council (among
others). Perhaps, you may want to look at the Greens' coalition in the same
way that the Right looked at the Christian Coalition. Just go after the school
boards, the county's seats and the like... There is much to learn from those
dreadfull people. In other words, control the process; do not negate it as it
does not fit your premises.
I do not own the future. It may well be that the GP will fail and wither away. It
may well be that Camejo will go "back to banking." But, in the present, I see
no alternative to the GP. I'd rather have Camejo run under that banner than
Ramsey Clark, whom I respect much, runs under the WWP banner.
If I may say with all due respect, please be aware of the dangers of
"ideological purity." Jose talked about transitions and he cited Engels. This is
what it is all about. You and I do *not* know what the circumstances will be
ten years from now.
Let us all support what *is.* Let us all avoid sectarianism and work together
for a future that will fulfill our dreams and vision of a just world.
I very much appreciated the exchange and thank you for engaging me..
--- Gilles d'Aymery <aymery at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Can we agree that a scooter may not be *the* perfect vehicle yet be
> *a* vehicle to bring out an alternative voice to the bicephalous
I think you're missing my point, here.
> I am not suggesting that the GP is a "genuine movement" (I presume
> you mean "revolutionary movement"). I am suggesting that at this time
> it may be the only political coalition that Peter Camejo may use for
Yep. Missing my point.
The GP isn't *any* kind of movement, revolutionary or otherwise. I
meant "genuine" in the sense of "building a mass base," not "this will
be the vehicle for socialist revolution." I don't think even Jose
The point I've been trying to make is that any movement Peter builds
around his campaign is just that--around his campaign. It's *not*
around the Green Party, which I maintain is *structurally and
politically incapable* of being the vehicle for such a movement.
Peter has used the GP to launch his campaign--more power to him, yes, I
agree, chances are the WWP wouldn't run him as a candidate and the
Greens are the best he could do. But what becomes problematic is the
age-old question of "where to go from here?" What happens when the
election is over? What happens if Peter decides "screw it, I'm going
back to banking?" That movement completely disappears.
> It seems to me that when one accepts the realities of electoral
> bringing people to the polls and having candidates elected do count.
I honestly don't know what to say to a statement like that. :)
Electoral politics will only get us so far. Even if Peter gets elected,
the only thing that will make his election any more politically
significant than Jesse Ventura's is if that movement *continues to
move* between elections, and continues to build itself *independently*
of election campaigns.
> Of course there are "white, petty-bourgeois, liberal" people aplenty
> the GP. That I know, the last time I looked there were quite a few
> "white, petty-bourgeois, liberal" people in America...and not many
It's not a matter of whether they're "aplenty" in the Party. The fact
is, and it is unfortunate, that "white, petty-bourgeois, liberal"
characterizes the GP as a whole, politically. (I don't just mean
appearances--in this case, "white, petty-bourgeois" has just as much
political connotation as "liberal.")
> I for one would like to hear an alternative voice; keeping in mind
> perfection is the enemy of the good... Do you see another
I think it's a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation. I
really think the movement around Peter's campaign is destined to fail,
due to the failings of the Green Party, *unless* he manages to
spearhead a complete revolution (heh) within that party and the way it
functions. Or lead a split into a new electoral formation. (Jose
probably is having a coronary at reading that.) The real movement here,
as I said, is around Peter, not around the Greens. I'd wager that five,
even ten years from now, the Greens will be in the same spot they are
But, of course, there's the "what else is there" question. It's a
legitimate point, and I don't argue with it. I think we're condemned to
support the Green party until we're in a position to form a new Party.
More information about the Marxism