Criticism of U$ Greens
MichaelP
World Socialist Web Site
WSWS : Polemics
A reply to US Green Party supporters
By Barry Grey
3 July 2000
Two letters sent to the World Socialist Web Site in response to our June
27 article "US Green Party candidate Ralph Nader courts Buchanan
supporters" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/gp1-j27.shtml)
warrant detailed replies, not, as will become clear, because they have any
intrinsic political or intellectual merit.
Rather these letters from supporters of the Green Party reflect in tone
and content the outlook of at least a significant section of those active
in the organization. The emails, which were received the same day our
article was posted, denounced the WSWS for its criticism of the Green
Party and its presidential candidate Ralph Nader. (The full texts of the
letters are linked to this reply).
In the first letter, reader MH begins, "Your article was stupid and
uninformed. People opposing China in WTO are not anti-Chinese people, they
are anti-Chinese totalitarian government & anti-US corporations having
license to exploit Chinese workers."
Here MH echoes those, including the American Federation of Labor-Congress
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and organizations such as the
Christian fundamentalist Family Research Council, who have lined up with
right-wing politicians like Patrick Buchanan against the normalization of
trade with China. To a man they deny any animus toward the Chinese.
But why was China singled out? MH says the reason is the repressive regime
in Beijing. In that case, why are the Greens not campaigning against trade
with Turkey, which has a notorious record of internal repression and
violence against its Kurdish population? Why do not the Greens call for an
end to normal trade relations with Israel, in protest against that
country's treatment of the Palestinians? What about Peru, whose autocratic
president stole the recent elections?
In fact, human rights concerns are a smokescreen thrown up by those
leading the campaign against trade with China. It has far more to do with
the longstanding campaign of Southern textile bosses like Richard
Milliken, as well as the steel companies and other sections of US
industry, against Chinese imports. Such economic interests are concealed
behind Cold War-style anticommunism, misdirected in as much as the Beijing
government is not a socialist regime, but rather a variety of Stalinism.
MH throws in for good measure opposition to the exploitation of Chinese
workers by US corporations. This is another red herring. US corporations
brutally exploit workers all over the world, including within the US. But
the Green Party explicitly rejects the struggle for socialism and defends
the existing property relations of capitalism. Is MH suggesting an end to
all trade and investment by American corporations around the world?
The campaign against the normalization of trade with China is based on the
politics of economic nationalism and American chauvinism. A major aim of
those involved is to channel the anger of working people in America over
economic insecurity away from the American ruling class and its political
representatives, and direct it against workers in other countries.
This is confirmed in the next line of MH's letter, in which he defends the
Greens' policy of blocking Mexican truck drivers from entering the US. He
says of allowing Mexicans to drive their trucks across the border, "...if
that's not a formula for massive wage reductions, what is?"
MH wants us to believe that Nader's position on Mexican truck drivers
(which is a transparent attempt to solicit the support of the Teamsters
union bureaucracy) implies no animus towards Mexican workers. But he
himself indulges in a bit of demagogy that amounts to an incitement of US
workers against their Mexican counterparts.
MH continues: "One can agree with Buchanan on WTO & NAFTA without
endorsing other views of his. On abortion, etc. Or is that distinction too
hard for you to make?"
MH writes as though agreement with Buchanan on economic nationalism were
of no greater significance than one's position on a host of other issues.
In fact, nationalism is a fundamental question of political orientation,
which ultimately reflects the class interests for which an individual or
party speaks. The embrace by Nader and the Greens of economic nationalism
is an adaptation to the global interests of American capitalism. Given the
fact that the US is the preeminent imperialist power in the world,
American nationalism inevitably takes on a particularly aggressive and
militaristic coloration.
MH's attempt to isolate Buchanan's trade policy from his ultra-right
opposition to abortion and his fascistic leanings in general only reveals
a lack of theoretical consistency and political principle, which is the
hallmark, not only of the Greens, but all such petty-bourgeois
organizations. In these groups, people with the most disparate views can
coexist with one another on the basis of opportunism and political
expediency. The outcome of such methods has been demonstrated by the
Greens in Germany, who joined the government and directly participated in
NATO's war against Yugoslavia.
MH concludes: "Nor does Nader need to have a position on Mumia." Why is
that? Because "Nader needs to reach out to reasonable conservatives &
others & if that's not PC enough for you, tough."
MH apparently is unaware of the depths of his own political cynicism.
Otherwise he would hardly admit that he views the life of Mumia Abu-Jamal,
a political prisoner on death row for nearly two decades, as small change
when compared to the Greens' political aspirations. If, in order for the
Greens to improve their image in conservative and right-wing circles, they
have to sacrifice the life of this political prisoner -- and abandon any
serious struggle against capital punishment -- so be it!
Such is the content of MH's attack on the WSWS. As for the tone of his
letter, it exudes the kind of posturing at real politik that is typical of
a certain milieu of "leftists" who have, in fact, no fundamental
differences with the Democratic Party.
The second letter was sent to the WSWS by GS in Arcata, California. It
begins: "What's wrong with trying to move the Democratic Party to the
left? I strongly disagree with the writer's assertion, in Nader Courts
Buchanan Supporters' that this underscore[s] the highly superficial
character of the organization's independence from the Democratic Party.'"
He then proceeds to confirm precisely our assertion that the Greens'
independence from the Democrats is more apparent than real: "We naturally
talk about trying to push the Democratic Party to the left and other such
noble pursuits, as good reasons to vote for a candidate everyone knows
isn't going to win the presidency."
In other words, the basic orientation of the Green Party is to act as a
pressure group on the Democratic Party, not to lead a break from this
capitalist party. The Greens make no analysis of the origins of the
Democratic Party or the class interests it represents. Nor do they examine
the economic and political processes that underlie the Democrats' shift to
the right over the last 25 years.
GS obviously considers himself a proponent of political realism, as
opposed to the hopeless idealism of the WSWS. But it is far more
"realistic" -- in the sense of pursuing an objectively attainable goal --
to work systematically for the development of a politically conscious and
independent socialist workers movement than to base one's efforts on the
futile perspective of transforming one of the major parties of American
capitalism into a force for progressive change. That endeavor is truly the
political equivalent of alchemy, i.e., the attempt to turn lead into gold.
GS continues: "Your criticism of the Greens smacks of the tiresome
motivation of ideological purity, which has been the bane of the left's
existence in America. It has led to endless backbiting and infighting,
rather than coalition building; as long as it continues, it dooms the left
to virtually no significant influence over the political process in the
US."
This criticism is by no means new. Socialists who stand for the political
independence of the working class and its international unity have always
been branded as sectarians by muddle-headed reformists.
GS's appropriation of the designation "left" warrants critical scrutiny.
If the term "left" implies opposition to the status quo from a
revolutionary -- or at least socially progressive -- perspective, then one
has every right to wonder whether the Green Party really merits such a
designation. A party that embraces the economic nationalism of Patrick
Buchanan, seeks an alliance with the Teamsters and AFL-CIO bureaucracy,
and actively courts the support of right-wing elements can only hope to
present itself as a party of the "left" in the absence of a genuine
movement, embracing significant sections of the working population, of
social and political opposition to capitalism. Such a movement will
emerge, and it will be built in a struggle against the unprincipled and
nationalist politics epitomized by the Greens.
GS concludes: "While the various splinter parties of the left fight over
who is the most sincerely radical, the corporate duopoly continues right
on dominating the political system."
Here arrogance and ignorance converge. The responsibility for the
continuing domination of the capitalist parties in the US does not rest
with socialists who have fought intransigently for the political
independence of the working class -- first and foremost, the Socialist
Equality Party and its predecessor, the Workers League. Rather it is
opportunist opponents of Marxism, many of whom find a natural home in the
Green Party, who bear a major responsibility.
======================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the
source. ***