What is your opinion of the Green Party of the United States or in general and why isn't it as large or influential as the Green Party in Europe?

Asked by: Anonymous

The European Green movement, simply put, was created out of a different set of circumstances than its American counterpart. In both cases, yes, the radicalization of students during the 1960s and emerging information about climate change played a key part, but Europe was also deeply influenced by its own historical and geographical situation. The Arab oil embargo of 1973-4 drove home the message that resources are scarce and need to be utilized responsibly. The pollution of the Thames (which resulted in the death of numerous species of fish), the problems experienced in Sweden and Germany with acid rain, and so on all contributed to the formation of an ecological consciousness that, I think it’s generally agreed, is far more ubiquitous in Europe than in America.

The U.S., for its part, was deeply influenced by the European environmental movement, but here climate science is commonly suppressed, distorted, or questioned by rightwing pundits and organizations (often funded by energy corporations). Moreover, the U.S.’s access to domestic oil reserves has forestalled any mature understanding of natural scarcity and the dangers of excessive reliance on fossil fuels.

As for the Green Party, it is to the left of the Democrats, which, of course, is refreshing, and its program espouses a much more humane kind of capitalism than either of the two major parties. Its call for nationalization of the Fed and the banks, a single-payer national health-care program, prison reform, labor rights, and equal treatment for women, people of color, and those in the queer community are all welcome ideas, and very compatible with a socialist agenda (even if the party itself is not socialist).

However, as socialists, one of the valuable “correctives” which we ought to bring to the environmental movement is the observation that a society that meets human needs is best facilitated by economic and political democratization, and that includes full ownership of the means of production by the masses (whether through nationalization, cooperatives, collective arrangements, or some combination thereof). Beyond that, and in contrast to the lifestyle-oriented approach taken up by many environmentalists, it is important that we acknowledge the current ecological crisis as a systemic problem to be remedied by collective political action rather than mere adjustments in personal habits.

That said, there are some currents of socialist thought that emphasize the ecological dimension as much as, if not more than, the labor issue, but I would advise caution with any brand of socialism or communism that holds any one “activity sphere” (to use David Harvey’s phrase) — be it economic, ecological, technological, etc. — as determinative. The interaction between these various factors is, I think, far more complex and nuanced than that (both Harvey’s notion of a coevolutionary dialectic and Althusser’s idea of overdetermination provide interesting alternatives to this kind of “vulgar determinism”). Finally, while there may be aspects of a number of American third parties — Communist, Socialist, Green, etc. — that I like, this blog is not meant to endorse such entities, and I tend to take issue with all of them on certain matters as well.

Ultimately, I think there is a lot of room for the radical left to work together with the environmental and ecological movements to build a more just and sustainable society, but just how that alliance might work or what it may look like in practice is anyone’s guess.

Posted 3 months agoReblog 3 notes
  1. leftliberty posted this