: SDF: Perhaps individual Greens think that way, however, I'd still like to see where "private ownership" is mandated in any Green platform.
Its not mandated, its presupposed, there was no talk of nationalisation nor socialisation in their 197 Election Manifesto (I did buy it, I wavered about voting for them back then...). Most of the talk was about encouraging local economies, or taxes on big business- to tax big business, it must exist. If it still exists, you;re tackling symptoms not cause.
: SDF: Which begs the question of why we are supposed to presupposed Green politicians that are supposed to be in charge, when we didn't presuppose that of world-socialists.
Because,. like in germany, they would have to work within the system of the British Constitution, which as the Bennite left found in the 70's, refuts grass-roots democracy.
: RD claims in one post that the people are really the agent in charge, that there's fuck-all he can do if the people do not agree, then turns around and applies the statist model when considering Greens.
Pardon I, but your lot stand for parliament on a platform of reforms, I can only assume they mean to use the British constitution to try and bring about change.
:Double standard? Go back and read about grassroots democracy, or Murray Bookchin, or Walt Sheasby's stuff on Green Marxism, or something along those lines. Let's avoid the "no true Scotsman" argument -- "No true socialist would support the Green Party"...
But how could a rational socialist support a reformist platform? Specifically when we know that reforms cannot work, because the market won't allow it.
: SDF: So? A platform is an ad. In an age when the advocates of "socialism" are a tiny collection of relics all pitted against each other in war, were they required to advertise class?
Well, without a class basis their programme for change will eitehr go no-where, or end up being a de-facto capitalist class programme. Appeals to general humanity are appeals on behalf of a specific classes conception of humanity.
: SDF: From one who regards "work" differently, this could just as well mean giving everyone a right to work, rather than forcing unemployment upon some so that they are indefinite standbys for capitalist exploitation.
A right to work, and under the wages system, they would need to be given money, and it would need to be one in such a way as to not harm the capitalist's job market.
: SDF: There's doubtless a liberal wing in the Green Party where you live. My experience is that Greens are pretty much a mixed bag of people who've figured it out on their own that things can't keep going the way they've been going.
They've figured that out, OK, but teh problem is that they're policies are not going to solve it, just as we used to lambast Labourites- their hearts are in teh right places, but so long as they remain wedded to reformism, they're going no-where.
: SDF: "If people choose to remain ignorant, there's fuck-all we can do." -Red Deathy. But what you're asking of them here, is that they be already-enlightened BEFORE you contact them. Absence of presence does not mean presence of absence.
We do contact them, and tell them their going wrong- my local green councillor teaches William Morris, he knows our platform...their not ignorant, they're just on teh wrong track.
: SDF: So each of you is going to try separately to displace Labour, without the help of the other or the least thought of a coalition? Good luck!
We will not enter into reformist politics, we will not try and replace labour, we work, as ever, and only, for world socialism. By adopting reformists policies, and filling the leftist gap left by labour, the greens are not changing minds, merely appealing to minds allready there.