: : SDF: Maybe your anti-capitalists didn't put in the prior effort to insure that the Green Party would be anti-capitalist. : They are 'anti-capitalist', they are, however, unfortunetely reformist, hence the whole flaw of their arguments as you lay out- whatever they want to do to the market (make it more social, have community economics), it still includes private ownership, and reforms of the current market system- which mean that all such policies are doomednto failure.
SDF: Perhaps individual Greens think that way, however, I'd still like to see where "private ownership" is mandated in any Green platform.
(skipping)
: : which has to mean something better than the commodification of labor under capitalism.
: But which is an airy fairy wish because they demonstrate no means to attain it, other than tried and failed tactics of Labourism, and reform/regulation of markets.
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. 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. 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"...
: : which basically means they want to promote an economy based on harmony with nature. Now it doesn't take a genius to argue that they must be thinking of something other than capitalist development, which has as its "modo de vivir" the maximization of the rate of profit in order to avoid bankruptcy. So maybe you could at least forget about your "hostility clause" for a little while and go and talk to those people...
: 1:No-where (and I did read their manifesto) did they mention class.
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?
: 2:In their manifesto they talked about attaining full employement- which means working with capital in the tired old labourite way.
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.
: 3:The GP-EW opposes the single currency, usggesting that currencies should be controlled at national level- which is rubbish coz currencies can't be controlled- a sop to Euro-Sceptic voters I reckon.
SDF: Probably just phobia of the New World Order.
: 4:Most of their policies are tax reforms (of, as the progress board folk mention, Georgist proportions).
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.
: 5:No-where attack or recognise money as the inherent problem of market reform, nor the logic of money.
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.
: I shall remain hostile- we are standing against the buggers in elections you know.
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!
