Green Party's 'unapologetic, socialist broadcast'

[Meltingpot]

Can you be a long way along the 'green' continuum without being at least a bit authoritarian?

Good question. I don't think committed Greens see it as "authority"; they believe they're doing what they are in politics out of love of the planet, animals, concern for their children's future etc., though it probably looks "authoritarian" to those who don't share their concerns to the same extent.

 

[thedockerslad]

Bullseye!

 

[8ball]

Good question. I don't think committed Greens see it as "authority"; they believe they're doing what they are in politics out of love of the planet, animals, concern for their children's future etc., though it probably looks "authoritarian" to those who don't share their concerns to the same extent.

Every authoritarian thinks their cause justifies the means.

 

[free spirit]

Can you be a long way along the 'green' continuum without being at least a bit authoritarian?

depends what you mean by that, but I guess there has to be at least some level of what could be referred to as authoritarianism within it.

for example, voluntary schemes for companies to keep their pollution within certain levels isn't exactly renowned for its success rates, whereas compulsory schemes back by legal sanctions and enforcement regimes have a pretty good success rate, though probably the least damaging and best supported are schemes that give a level of choice in how to meet the criteria required - set out the target, not the exact means by which it must be achieved.

without a level of compulsion, we'd still have had pea souper smogs killing thousands a year from coal fires, lead in petrol, ozone depletion causing serious increases in skin cancer levels etc etc.

on the other hand, recycling has been a pretty good success story for the voluntary approach based on provision of the service, and encouragement to use it, rather than legal sanctions for not recycling.

I doubt the aims can realistically be achieved via entirely voluntary means, they do generally need some form of legal backstop and enforcement to be successful, but at the same time they also need the vast majority of the population to support and go along with the measures and understand the need for them if they're to be successful.

 

[free spirit]

The way it makes sense to me is to think of it along the lines of people having both rights, and responsibilities in a society, so while they may have the right to heat their homes, they should have a responsibility to their neighbours not to heat their home in such a way that it results in their neighbours suffering from severe breathing problems / having their quality of life significantly diminished when there are other less harmful options available for heating the house.

Ideally they'd understand their responsibilities to their neighbours and for example, stop burning wet wood on their fire when the problem is pointed out to them, but if they refuse to change their actions, why should the rest of society stand by and allow them to go on causing their neighbours serious health problems without intervening?

 

[elbows]

In regards to your rant about zero growth, I'm a bit tired but I shall have an initial stab at some of the issues you've raised.

I think you are right to point out the slim chances chances of it happening voluntarily/democratically, nor does it seem to be in the interests of the various powers that tend to call the shots. Given that I do not quite share your expectations for what can be achieved under a 'business nearly as usual' transition, this is probably why I have viewed with much interest things like the rather dramatic carbon/energy use targets for 2050. And why I have been more inclined to consider fossil fuel availability woes as potentially being in the driving seat on this, the potential unavoidable force for change as opposed to the optional decisions to make unacceptable sacrifices to save the planet that we pay lip service to but arent showing any signs of really taking for a multitude of obvious reasons.

Likewise although I think you have correctly highlighted some of the ways that some form of real growth can still occur even under circumstances where unavoidable reductions in energy growth are taking place, I doubt we have quite the same sense of how this is actually likely to unfold. What exactly we are measuring and calling economic activity is likely to play a part. Including the possibility that we could still grow the sorts of things that are the real essential growth that sustains peoples meaningful lives, despite potentially being under conditions where what we currently measure and need to see growing in its totality may actually be stagnating or shrinking.

Even taking into account the prospect of separating the 'real, essential growth' from the other waste and bullshit activity that is the norm and counted today, these issues of growth are still the underlying reason why I think green movements are disingenuous if they think they can speak of zero growth at the same time as pretending that population issues are no longer one of their primary concerns. Even if we were able to strip capitalism out of the equation, a growing population remains a prime reason why growth is an essential god, let alone peoples desires to better their lot.

 

[elbows]

I also remain concerned that such are both the decent and the obscene motivations for having periods of growth, that we may end up bringing about periods of stagnation or decline in order to create room for fresh periods of growth. If we imagine for a moment a situation where we bash against some maximum that for a number of reasons we struggle to grow impressively beyond, would certain forms of growth worship be prepared to bring about or tolerate a situation where there is terrible decline in order that we may one day get another growth fix that can be sustained until we run into the maximum once more?

I do not suggest that we can declare with any certainty that such a maximum exists, and I know that many discussions on this subject get stuck on this point. But I still think that by imagining this maximum we can at least explore some interesting and valid issues relating to growth and our future plight, without having to agree that the maximum is something real. Even if its a fictitious construct as far as many people are concerned, in an age of 'austerity' and rather feeble and disconnected mainstream parpings about lack of growth that is discussed only in the context of the financial crisis, there are themes here that desperately require exploration.

 

[elbows]

And although I expect the Green Party will probably avoid using the term zero-growth, a quick glance at their 2010 general election manifesto reveals numerous phrases and policies which are very likely code for exactly that.

A few examples:

Underpinning all this is green economics, which is the only realistic economics. Greens understand that we need a one-planet economy that uses no more than the resources it gives us, not the fantasy multi-planet economy of the other political parties that will one day hit the buffers with a catastrophic crash. The very way we measure economic ‘success’ today shows the bankruptcy of business as usual. ‘Gross Domestic Product’ measures all the economic activity in Britain – even the money spent on picking up the pieces of our unfair and unsustainable society. Prisons and pollu- tion are as ‘productive’ as schools and sanita- tion in the world of conventional economics.

We want to improve the welfare of people and the health of the planet rather than the size of the economy. Because size matters:

if the economy gets too big it will grow beyond its ecological limits. Now we are up against a very challenging limit: the capacity of the atmosphere and the Earth to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions without over- heating. Only the Green Party is willing to face up properly to these limits, and to say that limitless economic growth without thinking about the consequences is a dangerous and careless fantasy.

Abandon gross domestic product as the key measure of economic success, and seek instead to increase our overall welfare.

So a growing material economy with increasing inequality, as we have had for the past thirty years, not only ruins the planet but also undermines well-being.

Not to mention that they also speak of setting an emissions reduction target of 10% per year.

From: http://greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/resources/Manifesto_web_file.pdf

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Did you know that water doesn't exist. It's true. It comes in many forms and sometimes changes. So it doesn't exist. It's class is increasingly amorphous to many people.This is what taffboy has on his leaflet for an inner city mancs ward.

er..did I say class doesn't exist? Nope. Is this what you reduced to? Making nonsense up? Well, yes - it seems it is. Sorry to see that.

It's some years since I had leaflets out, I recall the issues were stuff like accountability on a land sale, local employment and a variety of other parochial concerns.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So, beyond the one line that had nothing to do with the thread, it hasn't happened on this thread. But you want to roll out your pre-baked arguments so insist that it has been happening on this thread and it if hasn't then it bloody well should have been. Joker.

I was challenged on this thread to some stuff I said on this thread, so I responded on this thread. Class and politics are typical enough issues to raise on threads on a message board like this, it is not as if they are totally incongruous to this thread, Greens are often accused of being "middle class" as if it is (a) true and (b) precludes sound policy.

If you believe all threads should remain absolutely and strictly on topic i suggest you take it up with the mods, not for the first time IIRC.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

so blind to your own fucking bigotry. so blind to how you come across to others.

If it's a reference to me, then I recall that last time you persistently accused me of a specific bigotry you mysteriously failed to produce a single quote from me chiming with that allegation, despite repeated polite requests and even a thread dedicated to such false allegations. One of the best things you could do was assert that David Icke is a "hero" of mine, which he isn't. The overall effort was pretty libellous FWIW, but more silly than anything.

If you'd like to specify or critique any bigotry I've exhibited on this thread I'd be happy to discuss it, because I don't tend to hold grudges or jump to unfounded and offensive conclusions as much as some people do.

 

[elbows]

Maybe my memory is faulty but I seem to remember the last time there was a big blow up about this you were pointed to specific things on a specific thread that you should respond to, and then failed to do so in a satisfactory manner. It is possible I am thinking of someone else though.

 

[Meltingpot]

Every authoritarian thinks their cause justifies the means.

Maybe, but the converse isn't necessarily true - just because someone thinks the end justifies the means it doesn't follow that they're an authoritarian. Sometimes it's because the end does in fact justify the means and they merely recognise the fact.

Take another example. Back in the 1960s it was considered normal for people to drink and drive (and people even used to boast about it); nowadays it isn't. That change didn't come about purely through the exercise of authority, but also because the realisation dawned on large numbers of people that driving a car when you're drunk and hence not in a fit state to control it properly or respond adequately to events on the road is foolhardy and irresponsible.

The same thing with green issues; people are increasingly realising that we have to recycle and to try and cut our carbon emissions, polluting industries etc. for the sake of the environment and the planet.

 

[butchersapron]

I was challenged on this thread to some stuff I said on this thread, so I responded on this thread. Class and politics are typical enough issues to raise on threads on a message board like this, it is not as if they are totally incongruous to this thread, Greens are often accused of being "middle class" as if it is (a) true and (b) precludes sound policy.

If you believe all threads should remain absolutely and strictly on topic i suggest you take it up with the mods, not for the first time IIRC.

Look at that first line

No, you weren't challenged to whatever it was you said. A multi-page thread on the greens had covered some interesting things without any of the usual class baiting, you turn up late, very late, with a bizarre rant about people on the thread class baiting - there was none. After having this pointed out to you you proceeded to argue that there bloody well should have been the requisite class-baiting that would have justified your out-of-place rant as there had been on other threads in the past. I'm stopping this with you now.

 

[frogwoman]

good thing I dont need to prove anything then, your snobbery and contempt for those you see as below you is apparent in every post you make whether its whinging that the edl don't know enough about english culture to having a go at people for something that only exists in your mind, to your nonsense conspiracy theories. You make me sick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've long thought that Marxists focused overbearingly on the bourgeois in a way that alienated some of them un neccessarily. This view is supported by a look at the backgrounds of so many leftists.

The borgeoisie and the proletariat are alienated for a reason, which is that the bourgeoisie are ever-complicit in our subjugation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

'a green party' should in theory be left wing and I've seen little to suggest otherwise about the UK one on this thread.

Why? Why should a Green party be left wing in theory?
What a Green party should be, as a start toward some kind of politics of giving a fuck about the environment, is anti-neoliberal in general, and anti-capitalist by nature. That doesn't dictate a left or right course, merely a conservation and preservation-based course.

 

[butchersapron]

The borgeoisie and the proletariat are alienated for a reason, which is that the bourgeoisie are ever-complicit in our subjugation.

And they are home in their alienation - it provides many comforts.

 

[Meltingpot]

good thing I dont need to prove anything then, your snobbery and contempt for those you see as below you is apparent in every post you make whether its whinging that the edl don't know enough about english culture to having a go at people for something that only exists in your mind, to your nonsense conspiracy theories. You make me sick.

Froggy, whom exactly are you referring to? Surely not Butch, whose post is right above yours and is anything but a conspiracy theorist? Why not quote them or refer to them directly?

 

[frogwoman]

Froggy, whom exactly are you referring to? Surely not Butch, whose post is right above yours and is anything but a conspiracy theorist? Why not quote them or refer to them directly?

taffboy.

 

[Meltingpot]

taffboy.

Then why not say so? It's not clear, and I'm not the only person in this thread who's wondered about whom you're referring to; newbie wondered whether or not you were referring to him or her earlier in the thread.

 

[frogwoman]

I have said so now haven't I? Let's not derail this thread any more.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

good thing I dont need to prove anything then, your snobbery and contempt for those you see as below you is apparent in every post you make whether its whinging that the edl don't know enough about english culture to having a go at people for something that only exists in your mind, to your nonsense conspiracy theories. You make me sick.

"Let's not derail this thread any more" - Once you have spouted some bile, any reply can be headed off at the pass as a derail?


Allegations such as you have made against me in the past require proof. You never had any. I'm sorry I make you feel sick, it could be one of many needless and groundless sensations on your part. You ended up being far more offensive to me on an ad hom basis, but I am able to let it be. You do not make me sick.

What grounds I have for snobbery or contempt for others are beyond me, I really am not that phenomenally great or accomplished a guy. You don't actually know me FW, and you don't have to make stuff up or allow your imagination to run wild, especially if it makes you feel off colour.

 

[elbows]

Just got the county council election leaflet for the green candidate for my ward. Apart from some green issues his focus is on 20MPH speed limits for the area, upgrading CCTV and incentivising the neighbourhood watch scheme.

 

[butchersapron]

The bristol one concentrates on covering up the 30 million quid cuts and 300+ jobs gone they have engineered.

 

[elbows]

This is the wording for the Neighbourhood Watch thing:

Neighbourhood Watch! : Should the council incentivise this scheme like they do in some European countries? Reduction in Council tax for members and a bonus for valuable information!

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is the wording for the Neighbourhood Watch thing:

Neighbourhood Watch! : Should the council incentivise this scheme like they do in some European countries? Reduction in Council tax for members and a bonus for valuable information!

They could re-name the Neighbourhood Watch as the State Security Auxiliary or suchlike. Perhaps Mini-StaSi for short!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> There is a strand that gained early favour with a subsection of the elite, and found easy compatibility with their existing worldview as it pertained to the poor breeding like crazy and their own love for certain aspects of the animal kingdom and nature. They found it easy to drool about population control because they assume they have the luxury of not being the ones who are affected, and they could be heard because they have a voice and influence.

I think that anyone who tries to talk about population control is making some (typically unacknowledged) assumptions about the way class dynamics would mediate whatever measures they're proposing to control population.

Very frequently these assumptions are along the lines that you mention.

 

[cantsin]

Nice video but they have very strange ideas about science on some issues like GM crops

And 'green Industry' is hopeless wank - down here in N Devon it's means 300 turbines dumped in the sea 12 miles out from the beaches, acheiving little but making Big Corps lots of money (subsidised to fuck ), giving a layer of green sheen to industry / the economy and therefore helping mask the Fossil Fuel giants continued reign of destruction, whilst providing a bit of short term employment ( not for our locals people as it happens, but the Welsh on the other side ) . Long term, the technology will supposedly be outdated within 20 years = rusting hulks to gaze out at as we begin to fry.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Fact is, that energy saving and renewable energy employ far more people in the UK per kWh generated / saved than fossil fuel power stations using imported fossil fuels, and that employment is well distributed across the UK rather than being concentrated in just one part of the country.

That's a really useful point.

How robust is the evidence for it do you think? (beyond the bit you linked)