Subject: RE: Camejo, elections, independent politics

Gilles d'Aymery aymery at ix.netcom.com
Fri Jul 11 23:22:26 MDT 2003


Adam, well, I sincerely hope your head has not sustained any
irreparable damage...

As I said, check out Arcata in Northern California for an increase in
activity since Camejo's campaign.

As I also said, this thread was very interesting (as many are on the
list); I much appreciated this particular exchange of opinions; and, I
thanked you -- and thank you again -- for engaging me.

I think that at this point everybody has a good sense of our respective
approaches.

Time to move on.

Gilles d'Aymery

--- Gilles d'Aymery <aymery at ix.netcom.com> 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



More information about the Marxism mailing list