A Peter Camejo-Cynthia McKinney ticket?

Gilles d'Aymery aymery at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 21 20:08:27 MDT 2003


[Johannes Schneider wrote]
There seems to be some enthusiasm on this list about the virtues of a Green
presidential ticket.

Given the fact that it is not likely to be the winning ticket, what are the
strategic plans in supporting such a ticket? Building the Green party?

>From the experiences of the Greens in governement here in Germany I doubt
there is any principal difference between the Democrats and the Greens. Both
would like to have a nicer capitalist society but at the end of the day they will
have to accept the realities of capitalism.

[Gilles]

Johannes, enthusiasm for the Greens may be too big a word... There were
discussions pro and con the Greens and the validity/nature of Peter Camajo's
campaign/political action.

I am not familiar with the social composition of the Greens in Germany,
especially before their Faustian bargain. But from the very moment they
bargained with power, they were co-opted. The Greens in the USA are a
loose coalition with a majority of what is now called "Lohas," (Lifestyles of
health and sustainability). These people were correctly depicted by Adam and
Jim. They mostly belong to the "cultural creatives," a would-be movement of
wishy-washy "nice capitalists." They want a "sustainable world" and believe it
can be reached through the market. They are also quite spiritually minded (of
the new age, or postmodern new age type). [I know a lot about these people
for having been around them for several years, working as a computer
consultant.]  These are the people that the Democratic Party, through its
"progressive wing" has been targeting for some time, in order to decapitate the
"movement" (I'm using the word "movement" with circumspection here, due to
my exchange with Adam). But there is also a more radical wing within the
Greens. My impression (I emphasize it is just that, an impression) is that this
wing, due to its activism -- or knowledge thereof -- has taken more
responsibilities within the "movement." Here again, my sentiment only: This is
what is regarded as a threat. Some people on this list may consider that Peter
Camejo has sold out to the system. I sense that the system knows otherwise.
In a way, it looks very much like what happened in the fall of 2002 and early
2003 with the antiwar movement. It would be hard to deny the remarkable
role the iacenter/international Answer played in helping galvenize the
movement. It was duly noticed. The Citadel's guard dogs -- the Cruise Missile
Left -- went on the attack real fast; and not only them: note how the ZNet
folks dealt with the issue in a circular, nauseating way (I'm still fuming about
this). The same phenomenon is occurring with the Greens. Through Kucinich,
in particular, the Dems are trying to reach out to the soft belly of the Greens
by using the Bush scare in order to recuperate them and force the radicals to,
out of dejection, find another vehicle. Divide and conquer, eh? As a third-
party with some limited outreach and a message of resistance, the Greens are
the only game in town *at this time*. Get them out of the fray and the message
disappears from public eyes.

As I said in my piece, the issue is not about winning. The issue is about what
can be done to put a dissenting message and an alternative message out; and
the issue is about NOT joining forces with the system. The moment the
Greens accept the bargain offered by the Dems -- Join us to defeat the great
evil -- will be the very time the Green becomes history.

You may want to read a solid piece by Howie Hawkins, a Green activist on
the East Coast. He is right on mark.
http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20030718124358715.html

On to strategic planning: I'm not a stratege. I would submit to you that the
Greens are an episode in the long struggle. They should be approached as a
transitional "movement." To simply wash one's hands because their ideological
purity does not pass the smell test is, my my opinion, a defeatist attitude.

One more word: I am not a Green. I am not a US citizen (hence I am not a
voter). I am not a Marxist scholar, evidently. I also genuinely, instinctively
understand the words of Jose Marti, recently quoted by Walter ("I have had
to work quietly and somewhat indirectly, because to achieve certain
objectives, they must be kept under cover; to proclaim them for what they are
would raise such difficulties that the objectives could not be realized.")  I am
someone who puts out a bi-weekly publication, entirely dependent on the
work of volunteers (there is no money on Swans)... And I do hear from a
rather large stratus of the Cyber public. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out
there, a lot of grumbling, in all shades and colors. This dissatisfaction may not
be educated according to the liking or sensitivities or ideological purity of
some of us, but it's dissatisfaction alright.

The Greens are in motion. Let's not pass them by. So long as they do not
bargain with the Citadel, we can safely continue our work.

Best, Gilles d'Aymery






More information about the Marxism mailing list