What is the difference between Greens and socialists?

Great Debates
1

Are the Greens simply a more environmentally aware breed of Reds? Or are they something fundamentally new and different?

At present there are two national Green organizations in America: The Green Party of the United States (www.gp.org) and the smaller Greens/Green Party USA (www.greenparty.org). The second is clearly more radical. But, reviewing their literature, both organizations appear to be socialistic by American standards, with notable exceptions. For instant, the Green Party of the United States lists “decentralization” as one of its Ten Key Values – which cuts clean against most (but by no means all) conceptions of socialism.

On the other hand, I hesitate to simply classify the Greens as a kind of socialists – since the whole Green movement began in (West) Germany, where large, well-organized communist and democratic-socialist parties already existed. Why did the original Greens start their own party instead of simply joining the Social Democrats? They must have perceived something unsatisfactory about the SD’s message. But what? Insufficient attention to environmental issues?

For background, here are a couple of blurbs from politics1.com , a website devoted to all aspects of politics in America:

Green Party of the United States (Green Party) - The Green Party – the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist European Greens movement – scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore’s campaign – answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) – seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004 (Note: a third Nader run is still possible as he said “I haven’t ruled out going in 2004” in February 2002). Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal and unified national party organization. Other useful Green Party links and information can also be found at the Green Parties of North America (unofficial), Green Information (unofficial), Green Pages (official online magazine), Green Party News Circulator (official - recent news clippings about the party) and Green Party Election Results sites (unofficial). The official youth wing of the party is the Campus Greens. Strong local Green Parties exist – with ballot status – in a handful of states. The Green Party Platform 2000 sets forth the party’s official views. The Green Alliance is an officially sanctioned, national network of Green Party political clubs.

The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) - The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. While the GPUSA also nominated Nader for President in 2000, Nader rejected the G/GPUSA nomination and embraced the other Green party. Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: “There are two Green party organizations – the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] … on the fringes … [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas.” Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower’s comments were a bit unfair – but read the G/GPUSA 2000 Platform and decide for yourself. While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majority of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party.

2

This is interesting, but could you be more specific? What qualities, exactly, do the Greens possess that would make them similar to socialists? Does leftist/radicalist = socialist? I don’t understand your point, or what you are asking.

I am familiar with the Ten Key Values, and am at a loss as to why the Greens would be similar to the socialists. Please enlighten me.

3

**

I tend to think of many of them as watermelons. They present an environmental message that really hides their socialist or anti-capitalist agendas. So they’re green on the outside and pink in the middle. Which is unfortunate given that there are legitimate environmental concerns.

Marc

4

I’ve dealt with quite a few Greens in my lifetime (I’m Californian), and, among them, I’ve dealt with:

“Green” Greens: Greens whose main interest is the enviromentalist movement

“Pink” Greens: Greens with democratic-socialist views.

“Red” Greens: Greens with Marxist views.

“Left” Greens: Greens of the definate but not quite socialist left.

“Nader” Greens: Greens whose main interest is in the consumer-protection field.

“Protest” Greens: Greens who vote Green out of protest of the current political system, rather than for any solid ideological reason.

5

Hitler was very Green and never did anything validating the “Socialist” in “National Socialist VP” (IIRC).

There should be a bann on indroducing the 3rd Reich to every argument, shouldnt there?

6

How about someone who’s actually read up on the politics of the Green Party, rather than, “I know a guy…”? Anybody?

7

I fall into the Nader Greens category.
I am not a socialist, being a Bircher natch, but am to the left more cultrually than politically.
I won’t vote green again next year.
Too important to waste a vote.

8

I’m Green. I can’t speak for the others but I differ from a socialist by not being socialist. Of course, it has been my experience that Greens tend to be able to actually identify socialism unlike most Americans, even most politically aware Americans. Socialists believe that the means of production should be owned by the workers. Universal health care isn’t “socialized medicine”. No one is proposing to have the hospitals owned by the nurses and doctors and support staff.

Our tenets are the Ten Key Values as has been stated. Notice there is nothing in there about workers owning the means of production. Not all of us value all of those values equally, of course. Personally, I find our governments too decentralized already.

9

Posted by 2sense: “Socialists believe that the means of production should be owned by the workers.” Actually, most conceptions of socialism involve state ownership. Ownership or control by the workers is not socialism but syndicalism.

Looking over the 10 Key Values, the only language I can find which touches directly on either concept is under Value 6, COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE: “We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.” I suppose these “co-operatives and public enterprises” could be state-owned or worker-owned; the language is not specific enough to indicate which is favored.

When I say Green doctrine is “socialistic” by American standards, I mean that it incorporates the elements of communalism and egalitarianism. For instance, under Value 2, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: “All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” This statement does not call for the nationalization or socialization of anything in particular, but it does sound like the kind of thing a socialist would say, and a conservative or libertarian would not say. Same with, “A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.” Note, “real value,” whatever that might be, as opposed to “market value.”

10

I’m a Green as well, and I’m not a socialist. If I was European, I wonder if I might count as a kind of Social Democrat (I support universal healthcare, for example), but I’m not a socialist.

I think GovernorQuinn’s post demonstrates that there are many different kinds of Greens, just as there are different kinds of Democrats, Republicans, Communists, etc. Which should be obvious, really, but it’s worth saying.
And on the other hand, MGibson’s post demonstrates people who actually have firsthand experience do better to answer a question about themselves than people who oppose them.

The Green Party started off as more of a “one issue” party than it is today, with the environment just one of the ten key values. One might argue that Decentralization is VERY un-Socialist, and conservatives in my experience tend to consider “personal responsibility” rather Socialist as well.

11

D’oh!!! That last sentence should be that I find conservatives tend to consider “personal responsibility” a very un-liberal and un-Socialist position. :stuck_out_tongue:

12

A good example of the difference here in Ireland can be found in the ongoing controversy over the bin tax (requiring householders to pay for trash collection). The socialists opposed it a regressive double tax that will hit the poor hardest; the Greens supported it in the belief it will discourage waste.

13

Good point, ruadh. When I was going to law school in Baltimore, 1989-1992, there was a local community activist, Bob Kaufman – an old-school Marxist – who was trying to put together a “City-Wide Insurance Coalition” which would be a kind of city-owned cooperative for providing cheap car insurance to the poor. His reasoning was, a car is a basic necessity for full participation in the modern economy and society, but many people who could afford a used car and gas are still too poor to afford insurance, so they drive uninsured or do without a car. He wanted to help eliminate this barrier to full-time employment, etc. A lot of community organizations, especially left-of-center groups, joined or endorsed the City-Wide Insurance Coalition. But not the Baltimore Greens. They did not want to endorse anything which would make it possible for even more people to own and drive automobiles. Automobiles are environmentally destructive.

14

Good point, ruadh. When I was going to law school in Baltimore, 1989-1992, there was a local community activist, Bob Kaufman – an old-school Marxist – who was trying to put together a “City-Wide Insurance Coalition” which would be a kind of city-owned cooperative for providing cheap car insurance to the poor. His reasoning was, a car is a basic necessity for full participation in the modern economy and society, but many people who could afford a used car and gas are still too poor to afford insurance, so they drive uninsured or do without a car. He wanted to help eliminate this barrier to full-time employment, etc. A lot of community organizations, especially left-of-center groups, joined or endorsed the City-Wide Insurance Coalition. But not the Baltimore Greens. They did not want to endorse anything which would make it possible for even more people to own and drive automobiles. Automobiles are environmentally destructive.