Subject: RE: Camejo, elections, independent politics

Adam Levenstein cleon42 at
Fri Jul 11 21:50:48 MDT 2003

--- Gilles d'Aymery <aymery at> wrote:

> 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.

*bonk* *bonk* *bonk* (Sound of me hitting head against the wall.)

No, no, no! Nowhere have I said, implied, or HINTED at such a thing.

What I--I don't know about you--have been discussing is whether the
Greens *can become* a working-class mass movement, as Jose alleges. Not
whether they *are*--I don't think anyone, even in the GP, is under the
delusion that they are currently a working-class mass movement. So far,
I think they are incapable of becoming such a movement, and frankly I
haven't seen anything to change my mind.

> 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.

The problem here is because the Green Party functions by consensus, any
"coalition" or "hybrid" atmosphere goes right out the window. Because
of this obnoxious structure, they can only be as progressive as their
most conservative members will allow, and vice-versa. End result; zero
net political change.

> I did not suggest that the GP "will be the vehicle for socialist
> revolution."

Where on earth did you get the idea that I thought otherwise? By
clarifying what I thought a "genuine movement" is?

> 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.

And my point was, while it may be the best Peter can do, the movement
around his campaign is destined to fail. Not out of any fault of his,
but because the Greens are structurally and politically incapable of
driving it. Feel free to disagree with me if you like, but I'm certain
of this to the point of being willing to put money on it.

(Incidentally, what your stats showed was that the Greens have grown
between 1996 and 2002--which I could've told you--not that they've
managed to pick up on the success of Peter's campaign. Have you seen an
increase in political activity--beyond electoral activity--since
Peter's campaign began? Have you seen the Green Party publicly more, or
just Peter? Those are actual indications that the Green Party is
building as a *movement*, as opposed to just Peter's campaign.)


Adam Levenstein                          cleon42 at
ICQ: 17125158

O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou
mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

More information about the Marxism mailing list