"Obviously, all radicals in British politics are currently wandering aimlessly in a maze seemingly without an exit marked ‘success’. The position that socialists should be in the Greens is surely at least as tenable as the idea that they should choose voluntarily to be bound and gagged in New Labour or opt for impotence and isolation in one of the microsects."

Ach, i'm off to slit my wrists ...

My answer would be no but that an alliance with such groups would sometimes be beneficial.

I would also reject the idea that the green position is Malthusian, I think this is built on a misunderstanding of Marx’s critique of Malthus. (Usually by people who were not Marxists).

Generally agree with the spirit of this article though.

I think that socialist activism within the Green party is just about one of the most influential and progressive things a person can do within contemporary British party politics. At the moment they are the most left wing party in our political mainstream. Their policies in their manifestos are solid social democracy and their base is made up of middle class people who want to pay higher taxes, who care about environmentalism, global poverty and human rights. Not revolutionary by a long shot, but a big step in the right direction.

The laws of politics dictate that everything becomes more right wing when it's put in to practice. It would be a shame to see the Greens centralise when they taste success and socialist activism could prevent that.

And this is all just the party mainstream, not to mention the Green Left. All socialists must be ecosocialists today.

I do feel a vague hostility, sometimes open, more often unconscious, among the far-left to the Green movement. It's seen as petit bourgeois and anti industrial. But the fact is that the prevention of runaway climate change requires - if not revolution - at least broad socialisation of huge swaths of the economy. Conversely, the concerns of the left of creating a fair and equal social system can not be tackled without putting climate change as an upmost priority - we have decades to preserve an atmosphere that can support human life.

The fact is, climate change is by and large caused by the middle and upper classes. For all the talk of chavs' stag nights in Prague and working family's holiday on the Spanish coast, it is the upper classes who take the vast majority of flights. The upper classes have bigger cars. The upper classes buy more electronic goods more often. On the flip side it is the upper classes who can afford to buy food at higher prices when global warming reduces crop yields. They can move when their homes flood. It is the people of the developing world who suffer first and worst from climate change.

Solving climate change in itself implies and requires the redistribution of wealth and power from rich to poor.

And for all this, the far left can not afford to have climate change as one issue among many. Cliamte change can not be hidden away in the opinions sections of parties' websites. It is /the/ single most important threat the proletariat of the world face and it needs to be dealt with as such.

The Green party was founded by hard right wingers and it still has many echoes of that history. It is not a left wing party by any means.

Right, but near the entirety of their support base comes from the progressive middle class, their policy pledges are all social democratic affair that is outside the imaginations of the 3 main parties and some of their most important members are part of the Green Left?

If their are right wing elements in the Green Party they are in the minority. And besides, if their are faults in the party that's all the more reason for socialists to get involved to improve them.

Through our actions we shape the political sphere, one should not wait for parties to change, but should act to make their views in line with our own.

"If their are right wing elements in the Green Party they are in the minority."

Would that be why the Greens have a rather conservative approach to stem cell research?

In my 'independent period' before joining the SP I did think about the Greens but like Dave my gut feeling wouldn't let me. That said I have absolutely no problem building friendly relationships with the left in the Greens and welcome their attempts to build more links with the labour movement.

Is there a prize for getting the Bonzo reference?

Borrowing from Ken Livingstone's complaint about New Labour, 'too middle-class, too graduate.'

Maybe within the Green party it is possible to honestly and sincerely put forward the following ecological socialist strategy and programme - in the best interests of the Green Party, society and the ecosytem? :

To win votes the Green Party must distance itself from its old image of backward looking petite-bourgeoise utopians who appears to romanticise feudalism. Instead it must have a strategy for securing sustainable jobs, housing, food, welfare transport and energy for the majority of people in advanced modern societies. A central plank of this should be an alliance with trades unions and other broad sections of society to promote a planned, democratic and egalitarian transition to a low carbon economy. This techno-economic transition includes what some have described as an 'ecological modernisation', with new green technologies and sciences. However ecological socialism is the only set of ideas that promotes an ecological modernisation that is also anti-capitalist, egalitarian and democratic.

The Green Party is right to build a space within electoral politics for a popular left alternative voice for sustainability, peace and equality. But we also have the benefit of 30 years experience of Green Parties being co-opted and destroyed by the system - from Germany to Ireland. GPEW must have a strategy to avoid this fate in order to fulfill its ecological and egalitarian mission. The change we seek is too important and profound to be thrown away by short term ambitions to join capitalist governments and power structures, and sacrifice our core mission by supporting anti-green policies in office. We are also aware that we are filling a void left by the slow death and decay of the Labour Party, which also once started out with a radical mission. However, Labour in its hundred year cycle of birth and death became caught up in administering the machinery of capitalism, making it attack its own working class supporters and voters, eroding its strength and eventually mutating into the horror we see today, a total captive and slave of the system. If the Green Party is to represent something truly new and hopeful, then it must learn from these Green and Labour histories, and develop a strategy for entering the political mainstream without being captured by it.

A guiding insight must be that the source of real progress is social movement activity by the people themselves - from the founding trades unionists, the suffragettes, anti-slavery abolitionists to civil rights marchers, anti-colonial struggles and now the green movement today. The wealthy and the powerful, those at the apex of business and government have always resisted and dragged their feet. It is not to these social forces that the Green Party should look to and seek compromise with. The Green Party should seek to be rooted in and encourage multiple grassroots social movements, and stay true to these, seeking to use its elected representative to carry forth the demands of these movements. This is the best defense against political suicide by capture and compromise with the system.

Eco-socialists should organise around these ideas and fight for a radical and realistic strategy for the Green Party - one that helps the GPEW shed its existing naivete or indifference to the realities of capitalist political power - and also recognise the alternative sources of counter-power. And it is only through tapping into these historic sources of real social progress through social movements that a long term strategy for victory can be found. If the Green Party should eventually prove incapable of resisting the traps laid out by capitalist politics, then at least enough radical forces will have gathered beneath its umbrella to be able to carry forward the struggle in a new and different form.

"Green is the colour of snot".

Discuss.

Interesting points Barry.

I totally reject the idea that the Greens are right wing -just look at their manifesto for gods sake.

However, I don't believe they yet have any class identity because they try to appeal to all classes, they basically say the destruction of the planet must take precedence over other struggles, without realising that these struggles are part of the system and cannot be abolished until the system is abolished. This contradiction with the greens must inevitably reach breaking point.

Hopefully then the greens will develop as Barry wishes.

"So why didn’t I take out a card? Well, at the gut level, it would just not have felt right. I do not think I could be at home in a party that has no organic ties with the labour movement. Yes, I am that much of a tribalist. Sorry, can’t help it."

Hey Dave.. lets go and "organically" bomb/invade Iraq again? To cement our er, "ties with the Labour movement". C'mon it'll make you feel REALLY at "home" or "right"! (cosy)

And let's make it two million Iraqi dead this time to demonstrate our class-conscious internationism. It's for their own good.

The Green Party, like most modern parties, is an alliance of different groups. Like the three blind men and the elephant, any three bloggers can pick on a different characteristic of the party and express an opinion.

The question should be put differently: if you are a trade union which party will you get more for your contribution? If you are an individual activist where can you have the most effect?

As a former trade unionist I can see why the unions are hanging on to the (reduced) influence that they have with Labour. However, it's also clear that they could do more for their members by spreading out their influence (e.g. by funding particular Green Party campaigns).

As for the second question, the choice of any activist should be based on local factors. I need to build the local democratic organisation that exists. Alliances, fronts, and joint campaigns with other democratic organisations will follow and in the long term we must build more united political organisations on the left. But if you don't start building at the base then please ask yourself what type of politics you are really engaging in.

Having just done a post on this, obviously great kinds thinking alike etc, (answer: No, No, NO), a major point is this: once the Green party gets any real political influence it is bound to got the way of the loathsome German Greens and the, slightly less loathsome but still very non-socialist, French Verts.

Dave,

But look at it another way, surely the Greens provide a home for those individuals who've been burnt out, crushed or politically eviscerated by small groups, sects and other vanity projects since 1968?

I am sure a sociologist or similar could explain this phenomenon.

> once the Green party gets any real political influence it is bound to got the way of the loathsome German Greens and the, slightly less loathsome but still very non-socialist, French Verts.

Fortunately, "real political influence" is something you'll never have to worry about.

Given that the left have no influence whatsoever in the Labour party, and none of the pathetic warring microsects will ever achieve anything, the Greens look like the best vehicle for leftists in the UK right now (I'd love to see a British version of Die Linke, but we all know it isn't going to happen). In fact, a strong Green Left is essential precisely to avoid the kind of 'selling out' once in power that we've seen in Germany.

> Would that be why the Greens have a rather conservative approach to stem cell research?

Well, that changes everything. Modernity finds one current policy he objects to and decides on a blanket rejection of everything else.

I think I'll vote Labour next time - it's the embryonic stem cells, stupid.

Shame, Greens can't admit that their policy on stem cells is conservative? Seems rather stupid of them

"The Green Party believes that experiments on human embryos could have unforeseen outcomes harmful both to individuals and to society. We would work for an immediate international ban on all cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos, whether for research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes.

We do think that the use of 'adult' (or 'mature') stem-cells has promise for both research and therapeutic purposes and does not involve the same risks and ethical issues as embryonic stem-calls. The Green Party would work to allow the use across the EU of adult stem-cells, subject to the precautionary principle."

http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/05/meps_science_stem_cell_researc.php

surely the Greens provide a home for those individuals who've been burnt out...

As does Labour now, and as would any socialist regroupment project with any chance of success. What I mean is with regard to the whole paragraph: so what? Nobody needs a sociologist to explain that people who have been previously politically active are often looking for a more 'human' way of getting involved again, without having to sacrifice either so much time and energy as previously, or (too many of) their principles.

"Get a grip" would like a British version of Die Linke. Oh dear. I almost have to choke to say this, but the current issue of the "Weekly Worker" has a very reasonable analysis of the state of the party - and of the so-called left within it.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/oskarlafontaine.php

surely the Greens provide a home for those individuals who've been burnt out...

As does Labour now, and as would any socialist regroupment project with any chance of success. What I mean is with regard to the whole paragraph: so what? Nobody needs a sociologist to explain that people who have been previously politically active are often looking for a more 'human' way of getting involved again, without having to sacrifice either so much time and energy as previously, or (too many of) their principles.

"Get a grip" would like a British version of Die Linke. Oh dear. I almost have to choke to say this, but the current issue of the "Weekly Worker" has a very reasonable analysis of the state of the party - and of the so-called left within it.
http://www. cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/oskarlafontaine.php

I suggested earlier that Green was the colour of snot. Obviously no one has taken the bate but "Hey Ho" as they say.

Addressing the title of the original post, ie can Reds be Green, the answer is clearly No!!!

Any future Left politics will espouse the politics of, well, the future. Just like it did in 1789. Green politics, by definition cannot do that, what with their insistence that our aspirations for a better life for all should be secondary to 'the needs of the Planet'.

Well for starters 'the Planet' doesn't have 'needs' at all. It just is. We, the Working Class, do have needs and aspirations and they won't be furnished by those who seem to think that dirt, soil and wind somehow somehow have a greater consideration.

I shall be honest here and say that the former RCP have the better argument on this one (Yes, it's a hard pill to swallow!)

When the future Left is in the ascendant it will hold no quarter for those who wish to put green brakes on our desires and needs for a better life, free from Malthusianism and Bourgeois Socialism (yes I've read the manifesto).

Yes, the Green Party is able to put a red gloss on their manifesto and when it comes to social and Workers' rights I'm 100% up for it- maybe even more. But let's not kid ourselves. Enviromentalism is a thoroughly bourgeois creed, despite the attempts by activists to show they are 'down wiv da people'.

Stay Red, Dave. Stay Red.

Johnny Uk: You are parroting the very worst line anyone of the left can take. Falling hook line and sinker for the lies of Ryan Air and co who claim to be protectors of the proletariat. They're not. And for all the talk of greater working class oportunities to travel abroad and the like, it's the middle class who fly. It's the middle class who cause global warming and the working class who suffer.

But I'll give you this, science has stepped in and proved some old assumptions of the Left wrong. Industrialisation, at least not the heavily poluting industry of the last hundred years can not be the answer to the problems of the world. Human happiness can not be achieved by constant economic growth.

Environmentalism is a bit of a bad term for it, it comes down to humanism. The environment will be fine whatever happens. Barring nuclear catastrophe, the world will be fine and some life will continue to survive, adapting to a vastly hotter earth. We are not destroying the environment, we are destroying the environment as it is able to support humanity and civilisation. Being Green isn't about polar bears and rainforest, it's about preventing mass starvation in africa and asia due to soil errosion. It's about making sure the gulf stream doesn't change course leaving Britain with the climate of Siberia. It's about costal cities flooding.

The science is there, it is widely documented and it is easily avalible, the only possible reason for not accepting it is that you don't want to.

The Left can't afford to listen to those who don't opperate in reality.

@scurvydom. Where in my post do I mention Ryanair? When did they claim to be 'protectors of the proletariat'. I and everyone else knows they're in it for the money- never mind the waffle O'Leary comes out with. I'm all up for greater working class opportunities, whether provided by a money grabbing capitalist organisation or a workers' co-op (pref. the latter)

"Human happiness can not be achieved by constant economic growth". Will human happiness be achieved by economic decline, a recession? A permanent zero growth? Who will benefit from that? Not you, not I and certainly not those in the poorer countries struggling to get out of poverty. And I should point that as people and nations rise out of poverty they invariably become cleaner and more able to confront what ever nature has to throw at them.

You can be as Green as much as you like and good luck to you but a 21st century Left will have to rise above the downbeat eco-philosophy and reclaim the politics of material aspiration so shamelessly stolen by the Right.

Oh, just in case anyone out there thinks I'm some kind of philistine: all my lightbulbs are energy saving, I don't drive and fly only once a year. I also think we can be more energy-efficient because it's means a better, cleaner standard of living. Not because it'll 'save the planet'.

Older readers wil remember the advent of the Greens, and their sudden new found enterprise, recycling.

Yet none of the comfortable middle class types that pushed this message ever realized (or I suspect cared), that the working classes have been re-using things for years, clothes can be handed down, bits of old junk kept (just in case), new jobs found for old pieces of metal and wood, etc. Never throwing away anything, just in case.

The working classes were "recycling" stuff decades before it had even entered the minds of the Pimms drinking classes.

there are a few countries where the Green Party and the socialist left are the same parties aren´t there? How´s that going?

The Greens are a pretty wide constituency, everything from far-right-wing Darréites through to Marxists on the left, so it's very hard to find a typical Green; it often depends on who one bumps into. I've met all sorts.

However, one thing that does seem to be common to most if not all is the contention that today's society is using up the world's resources at an unsustainable rate, and that some change in that field is urgent.

One thing that does concern me here is that this is a very pessimistic outlook. Even if one considers, as I do, that a socialist world would be able far better to manage the world's resources and thus enable much more to be produced from what we have around us, to give the world's population a basic standard of civilised life, a vast amount of material and energy is required.

How much resources will be required to provide the world's population with the basic necessities of clean running water, electricity and sewerage, an adequate dwelling, and sufficient food? Then we have adequate education facilities to be considered; transport to get youngsters to schools and colleges, people to work and raw and finished products to where they are required. The requirements are tremendous.

Various Greens to whom I have spoken feel that technology and development has gone too far, and is a major part of the problem. This to me is consigning humanity to a petty awful future.

Where do socialist Greens stand on this matter?

What Dr Paul said. And I must say, Morality Blog is sounding surprisingly Furedite on this thread.

The Green Left candidates did very well in the conference elections for Green Party Exec and other posts.

Particularly pleasing to see Andy Hewitt as campaigns coordinator.

Caroline Lucas has been very keen to put forward social equality and opposition to neo-liberalism as key policies....we have been very pleased with her work as leader despite opposing the creation of a single leader during the referendum.

Green Left go from strength to strength and we are running an event with Socialist Resistance on climate change and capitalism next weekend.....we were also out in force for climate camp, so while happy with the direction of the GPEW we are keen to build links with others on the left outside the GPEW.

If you want to join Green Left and the GPEW details are here...http://gptu.net/gleft/greenleft.shtml

Dr. Ray Wall from the Mary Whitehouse Experience ignores the discussion and plugs his own organisation in an anodyne way shocker. Oh no, what a political disaster.

I think part of the pull of the Greens, on those burnt out by the various sects and cults, etc in Britain is that whatever you think of the Greens they do do something.

A side benefit for those joining, is that the middle classes don't have to be embarrassed about their snobby attitudes or Public school mannerisms, they won't be noticed in the Green Party.

Also, they can drop those overdone regional and mockney accents, which fooled no one :)

If you take the view that all left parties are a complete waste of time and that leftists should be working inside the Labour party, then Modernity's points make partial sense. (the stuff about regional accents etc has lost me)

If, however, you believe the left need a seperate identity, then alliances with the greens is surely ok.

Whatever, socialists do need a green policy and this policy can form part of the overall critique of capitalism.

As a former trade unionist I can see why the unions are hanging on to the (reduced) influence that they have with Labour. However, it's also clear that they could do more for their members by spreading out their influence (e.g. by funding particular Green Party campaigns).

But doing the latter would mean the end of the former.

You might think that's a good idea; if so, you should say so clearly, because the quote above reads as though you are asking us to ride two horses with one arse.

Can't say I much care for the Greens myself, but it's amusing that that someone who can't bring himself to have a Green membership card burning a hole in his pocket can bear to have a New Labour one, after years of its neo-liberalism, imperialism and racism. And it's not even as though it has a discernable left, a one-time argument for staying in it.

there was a strong left wing inside the German Greens which had a majority on the party's federal committee ~1982-1988 but the dominant forces which influenced the practical politics of the party in a much stronger way were the "realist" moderates who were the dominant forces in parliament, state assemblies and local councils, this became especially evident after grassroots movements in Germany went into decline after 1986; most socialists either left the Greens between 1988 and 1991 or became moderate themselves

Ent,

Could the change in the German Greens have had something to do with the fall of the USSR and similar events?

Germany, I think the realists had a strategy of getting involved in coalition governments and the left fundis didn't have a viable alternative to this....although the perceived failure of socialism with the fall of the Berlin Wall may have contributed.

The GPEW is well to the left of most other European Green Party's bar Portugal and Italy but the US and Australian Greens are to the left as well.

The real progress is being made in Latin America when it comes to green politics but that I guess is off topic?

anyway Dave might not join us but it would be good if he posted more on Vestas and other ecosocialist struggles.

Left is stronger in the GPEW than at any time in the last 30 years....

@Mod,

it started earlier, a general downturn in extra-parliamentary activities after the defeat of the paece movement in 1983 and the partly successfull strikes for an 35h week by the metal workers' and printers' unions, the general weakness of the anti-nuclear movement despite a short revival in 1986, etc.

It amazes me how so many self-professed "socialists" or "left-wingers" can excel at nitpicking the Green Party after they put up (and repeatedly voted and supported, no matter how many grumblings) with New Labour's crap for 12 years.

A government with the most aggressive foreign policy since the days of the Empire. A government that sided COMPLETELY with the most right-wing US administration in history. A government who lied on vital stuff; who bullied opponents into submission; who bent over backwards to appease big business; who did so much damage and contradictory stuff to as regards climate change; who's been so hostile to workers and the working classes; who's fostered and embraced right wing tabloid rhetoric on welfare and immigration...etc etc etc...I could go on forever.

So you people have voted that. You obediently paid your subscription fees to remain members and supporters of that party. And now you're splitting hairs whether the Greens are genuinely of the left!