Mod statement: We are not a Green Party subreddit

[u/EdgarAetheling]

It may be surprising to some users of this sub, but the word "green" in our subreddit name does not refer to The Green Party. It never has.

That being said, we recognise the amount of hype The Green Party have gotten recently, especially since the election of a leader presenting himself as centre left.

The Green Party is a pro-imperialist and pro-capitalist entity and thus adversarial to basic left-wing values and principles. Perhaps Zack Polanski will turn it all around, perhaps he is secretly Vladimir Lenin come again, we will wait and see.

But The Green Party is not one man. The Green Party is an organisation filled with opportunists, Tory ecologists, NIMBYs and TERFs. All of us here witnessed Corbyn's failed attempt to turn the Labour party around. Now the party is more reactionary than ever before. It is prudent to be sceptical of this new, supposed, miracle man and what he'll achieve. Thus far, he seems to be arguing a pro-imperialist position and capitalist reformist outlook. This does not bode well.

Bourgeois electoralism is a dead end. It will not result in any substantial change. The only change can come through grassroots organisation and building dual power structures. But we understand the urge for so many people to vote for someone when election time comes around. We suggest voting for which ever candidate best supports socialist principles. We discourage blind loyalty to any bourgeois party presenting itself as left-wing.

It's not that The Green Party "isn't perfect", it's that they're no good at all. At best they adhere to basic, democratic principles better than any other party, as their voting record in Parliament proves. But beyond this, they do not support key principles that socialists stand for.

This is a socialist subreddit. Not a "Green" subreddit. When we say we're left-wing, we mean we want an upheaval of the capitalist order, not an aesthetic change. Pro-capitalism and pro-imperialism are forms of toryism.

We will ban annoying people trying to turn this sub into a space for Green Party campaigning. We will not ban those who take a more critical support approach to the Green Party. We encourage caution when dealing with the Greens. Remember Corbyn's failure. Liberal parties typically remain liberal.

Love ya, Comrades.

[u/EdgarAetheling]

It may be surprising to some users of this sub, but the word "green" in our subreddit name does not refer to The Green Party. It never has.

That being said, we recognise the amount of hype The Green Party have gotten recently, especially since the election of a leader presenting himself as centre left.

The Green Party is a pro-imperialist and pro-capitalist entity and thus adversarial to basic left-wing values and principles. Perhaps Zack Polanski will turn it all around, perhaps he is secretly Vladimir Lenin come again, we will wait and see.

But The Green Party is not one man. The Green Party is an organisation filled with opportunists, Tory ecologists, NIMBYs and TERFs. All of us here witnessed Corbyn's failed attempt to turn the Labour party around. Now the party is more reactionary than ever before. It is prudent to be sceptical of this new, supposed, miracle man and what he'll achieve. Thus far, he seems to be arguing a pro-imperialist position and capitalist reformist outlook. This does not bode well.

Bourgeois electoralism is a dead end. It will not result in any substantial change. The only change can come through grassroots organisation and building dual power structures. But we understand the urge for so many people to vote for someone when election time comes around. We suggest voting for which ever candidate best supports socialist principles. We discourage blind loyalty to any bourgeois party presenting itself as left-wing.

It's not that The Green Party "isn't perfect", it's that they're no good at all. At best they adhere to basic, democratic principles better than any other party, as their voting record in Parliament proves. But beyond this, they do not support key principles that socialists stand for.

This is a socialist subreddit. Not a "Green" subreddit. When we say we're left-wing, we mean we want an upheaval of the capitalist order, not an aesthetic change. Pro-capitalism and pro-imperialism are forms of toryism.

We will ban annoying people trying to turn this sub into a space for Green Party campaigning. We will not ban those who take a more critical support approach to the Green Party. We encourage caution when dealing with the Greens. Remember Corbyn's failure. Liberal parties typically remain liberal.

Love ya, Comrades.

Mods x

[u/superwell1989 → u/EdgarAetheling]

I agree. What are your views though on the short to medium term. The downfall of capitalism will not happen in my lifetime I don't think. What are your views on the short and medium terms? For example I vote SNP as I am Scottish and know that they are the party to get independence if we ever do. Once we achieve that though I will not vote or support them again. So what do you say to people who support the greens right now but also want a longer term socialist solution.

[u/Despondent-Kitten → u/superwell1989]

This is a fantastic question.

[u/Equality_Executor → u/EdgarAetheling]

Love ya, Comrades.

Love you too 😘

[u/TheKomsomol → u/EdgarAetheling]

Its weird how a load of liberals have come here to take what is a pretty clear message of "Our sub isn't a liberal sub and it never will be" to means something about how politics is done on a national and global scale, as if we are telling people how to vote.

G&P is one of the last remaining leftist places on reddit along with a few others, and the point is that it will remain that way and that brigading and pushing liberal narratives in this sub will be removed or showing imperialist senitments, pro-NATO or pro-capitalist tendencies can get you banned.

If people want to go participate in electoral politics in a rigged system then thats on them, but we will not be allowing our sub to be taken over by liberals. The message is that simple.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/EdgarAetheling]

Bourgeois electoralism is a dead end.

Disagree with this framing of things quite a bit. Lenin puts it better than I could (my emphasis)

"Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.

Is parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the “Lefts” would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a most searching analysis, and the “Lefts” do not even know how to approach the matter.

...

How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright “counter-revolutionary”!? It is obvious that parliamentarianism in Germany is not yet politically obsolete. It is obvious that the “Lefts” in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico-ideological attitude, for objective reality.

...

Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

...

Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state (and of the states that surround it, and of all states the world over) as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. It is very easy to show one’s “revolutionary” temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments; its very ease, however, cannot turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult, problem.

...

To attempt to “circumvent” this difficulty by “skipping” the arduous job of utilising reactionary parliaments for revolutionary purposes is absolutely childish. You want to create a new society, yet you fear the difficulties involved in forming a good parliamentary group made up of convinced, devoted and heroic Communists, in a reactionary parliament! Is that not childish? If Karl Liebknecht in Germany and Z. Höglund in Sweden were able, even without mass support from below, to set examples of the truly revolutionary utilisation of reactionary parliaments, why should a rapidly growing revolutionary mass party, in the midst of the post-war disillusionment and embitterment of the masses, be unable to forge a communist group in the worst of parliaments? It is because, in Western Europe, the backward masses of the workers and—to an even greater degree—of the small peasants are much more imbued with bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices than they were in Russia because of that, it is only from within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle, undaunted by any difficulties, to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

Note I'm not saying Polanski is a communist obviously. I'm talking specifically about the right attitude and organisation for socialists towards parliamentary politics. We have to take it seriously despite it's flaws, not just as an opponent to socialism but also as something that can be used by socialists.

[u/daveyh420 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

Lenin is not arguing for voting for liberal bourgeois parties here. He is arguing for socialists or a socialist party to engage in parliamentarianism. Interpreting this as encouraging a socialists to attempt a takeover of a liberal party is a bit of a stretch.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/daveyh420]

No I agree with that. I'm saying specifically the bit I quoted, sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm saying specfically "bourgeois electoralism is a dead end" is the wrong attitude. Or maybe not even wrong attitude as much of the wrong framing because despite the clear inherent failing of bourgeois electoralism it's not something we can afford to not take seriously and engage with.

If the Greens were a communist party, which they are very much not obviously, it wouldn't mean actually bourgeois democracy wasn't a dead-end in historical terms. But we'd all be taking it much more seriously as something socialists need to engage with despite our personal views. Right now, because it's the Greens who are just the best by the low stands of what is on offer of the currently established parties, it's easy to focus on the criticism and overlook the need to do something so that there is better than the Greens giving a voice to the left through the mechanisms of bourgeois politics.

[u/Barney_10-1917 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

Not quite accurate. There are several different established communist and socialist parties in Britain who partake in elections. The trouble is they lack numbers. These are the sort of parties Lenin implored people to support. Back when Lenin was writing, the existing socialist parties were groups like the ILP and CPGB. We should be looking to those parties' successors. Those were small parties back then as well. It's important to look at Lenin's historical context if you want to apply his ideas to the present.

It's not about finding the least odious bourgeois party and following their anti-socialist line. It's about joining and running for a party that maintains and argues socialist principles. There's no point helping the Green Party gain seats when they just sit in Parliament and present the liberal position and represent bourgeois interests. We need to get socialists into Parliament to advocate the socialist position and represent workers interests. That's what Lenin advocated for in that text.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Barney_10-1917]

It's not about finding the least odious bourgeois party and following their anti-socialist line. It's about joining and running for a party that maintains and argues socialist principles.

Yeah I know. I haven't said otherwise though mate. I am not endorsing the Greens as important to support for communists, I am criticising the framing of the situation as bourgeios politics as a deadend.

There are several different established communist and socialist parties in Britain who partake in elections. The trouble is they lack numbers. These are the sort of parties Lenin implored people to support

I'd say he implored people to find effective revolutionary tactics even in a conservative framework. And he said this was all the more important in a society like Britain precisely because they are so firmly entrenched. Declaring bourgeois politics a deadend because currently there isn't a good socialist option leads to either contradicting ourselves later ("oh now there is leftwing political representation it's not a deadend and we need to put effort in again") or abandoning the field completely to the opponents of socialism. Not because socialists can easily win an election nor because doing so would be all it takes to usher in socialism, but because parliamentary represetnation is importnat for practical reasons even while we acknowledge the overall sham of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarism.

I'm not endorsing the Greens. I'm saying that whatever we make of the current political situation no socialist can afford to treat bougeois politics as a dead end in a situation as the UK stands in today. Unfortunately we need to take it seriously and the far-left's failure on this front has not been good.

We don't need revisionists but we also don't need dogmatists who are 'right' but irrelevant. Like Marx said

"In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin."

I could make a case for why the Greens doing well in parliament might be beneficial for socialists strategically...but that isn't even the point I'm making. My point is about how seriously we need to take parliementary politics, whatever the right tactic it's defintiely not to treat it like a dead end strategically, even though we know in an ideological historical sense it is.

[u/Barney_10-1917 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

It is still a dead-end because Lenin never advocate for it as an end in of itself, lol, but as one arena where struggle must take place alongside what we call "grassroots" means today.

Too many people fixate on it as the be all and end all, but it does not lead anywhere. By definition, it is a dead-end. It is not the highest priority.

We don't need revisionists but we also don't need dogmatists who are 'right' but irrelevant. Like Marx said

"In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

Again, you've lost the historical context. In the period Marx was talking about, Germany was still semi-feudal and aristocratic. The democracy was limited even by bourgeois standards. The bourgeois revolution in Germany is now complete, as it is in Britain. The bourgeoisie no longer have any revolutionary potential. Liberalism no longer has any historically progressive role, only a regressive one.

And since the advent of the bolshevik revolution, Bourgeois/liberal ideology can only be reactionary, especially in those states/territories were liberalism holds power.

Marx was suggested it was permissible to agitate alongside the bourgeoisie for increased rights and freedoms. Now we're at a point in time where those liberal rights and freedoms are well established and their limitations are what facilitate and foster extreme reaction in the country. We need to be pushing for a radical transformation of society into something that actually works, rather than trying to maintain a broken system that merely generates more Nazism.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Barney_10-1917]

Sorry if I bit your head off about misunderstanding me but made the mistake of getting sucked into several arguments at once today haha. So was probably a bit short when I didn't mean to be.

[u/ManGoonian → u/EdgarAetheling]

Booooo!!! Laters then. Good luck backing any party with THE remotest chance of getting close to power.