[Marxism] Peter Camejo on the crisis in the Green Party

Carlos A. Rivera cerejota at optonline.net
Mon Apr 4 19:34:14 MDT 2005


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Flanders" <jonflanders at jflan.net>

> For the rest of us, who are not readers of entrails and soothsayers,
> perhaps we should be thinking how to relate to anyone out there
> struggling with building an alternative to the Democrats?

Hear ye! Hear Ye! Nostramarx speaks!

Erm.

Thank you for the non-answer.

If you treated the Cobbites the same way you treat us "from the sects", 
maybe, just maybe, the entrails would give a better prognosis. Why don't we 
all go into the Socialist Party?

And maybe if the Green leaderhsip, Camejo included, saw that militant 
liberalism will always, irreversibly, be subjected to the co-opting 
influence of the Democratic Party, much like left populism (WFP, Rainbow 
Coalition). Militant liberals have a home, and it is the Democratic Party; 
the Cobbite liquidation is just a natural result of any effort that doesn't 
represent a true break from left-liberalism. Or maybe they are uncapable of 
seeing it because they are militant liberals themselves.

To fail to see this is to hope beyond hope. My worry as a Marxist is that a 
lot of fellow Marxists, while purporting to want to break the isolation 
marxism currently has by participating in the Green Party, fail to see that 
unless some real political confrontation happens, the Greens would remain a 
funnel for Democratic votes, similar in form to the Fundamentalist Churches 
in their relationship to the Republican Party.

Marxism is always about confrontation, about thesis and antithesis clashing 
violently to give birth to a new thing. And to my fellow Marixsts in the 
Green Party I say the time has come to confront the enemy inside, and Camejo 
is not doing it. Instead for reasons unknown, reasons of which I raised some 
legitimate questions about in my previous post, Camejo wants to continue to 
orient the party toward a "consensus" with the Cobbite liquidation. The only 
consensus this people, who apparently went as far as robbing the Utah 
branch, want is one of the Greens as a pressure group for the Democrats.

Instead of telling it like it is, Goff-style, we see a failure of the best 
leader the real Greens (the Greens that truly want a progressive third party 
that serves as a coalition of pro-labor, pro-environment, 
reformist/transitional platforms), to confront the objective enemies of the 
Greens, and when your best leader is capitulating and backing down from the 
fight, the struggle is dead.

I have seen this time and again in many circumstances, including in the 
General Strike in Puerto Rico in 1998. Leaders who capitulate rather than 
sturggle, who grant the enemy space and legitimacy, and then cry  bloody 
murder after they offered the body to be murdered themselves.

Louis talked about Gus Hall, that revisionist, and his on again off again 
calls for a "Peoples Party". Yes, the guy was wrong, and a revisionist 
interested more in the Democratic Party than in communism. Yet, Camejo's 
orientation towards the right of the Green Party is similary liquidationist. 
I cannot join and work for a Party that has leadership so ineffective it 
allows liquidationists from with-out to take it over.

Take for example, the case of Utah he uses as proof of wrongdoing on the 
part fo the Cobbites. Why hasn't he led his people there to politically 
inarticulate the Cobbites in utah?. Not even with the suppor tof bourgeoise 
courts have they been able to assert their rigtheous position! Why?!? I 
mean, if I am in an organization and someone steals our money, the least 
that will happen to that person is the cops arresting them.

Of course, all of this becomes moot if we don't believe the assertion that 
Nader and Camejo represent the majority of the Green Party.

Then, Camejo emerges as a true hero figthing valiantly against all odds to 
save the soul of the Green Party. Then supporting the GDI makes sense. Hell, 
then I would even go in and work for the Greens.

But can't have it both ways. You are either a majority so badly lead that a 
minority has been able to crush you, or are a minority trying to save the 
project.

Yet Camejo argues he represents both the majority of the party and that he 
is trying to save the project. And that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That 
speaks negatively of both the project and the leadership.

There is no worse blind man than the one that doesn't want to see.

sks 





More information about the Marxism mailing list