Subject: RE: Camejo, elections, independent politics
cleon42 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 11 16:00:51 MDT 2003
--- 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.
Adam Levenstein cleon42 at yahoo.com
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