Leftie Greens

Mr.Farmer

Some interesting online resources on this topic can be found at:

http://www.libertarian.ie/decentralism.html
http://www.libertarian.ie/environment.html
http://www.libertarian.ie/political_party.html

great unwashed

There's a lot of greens arguing the case FOR Aer Lingus' recent decision to pull out of Shannon, which sounds like pure textbook commerce to me. How anyone can say they are lefties or anarchists after that...

lostexpectation

the greens are right wing, they believe the market can solve environmental issues they support carbon cheating, the european carbon trading schme was farce and failed from day one.


stern report was basiically how will the rich survive global warming... only a right wing party would quote it without that criticism

this idea that technology will solve the problem is just a cop out(by bush) and all the amount of money being spent on it maybe millions but its miniscule compared to conventional stuff, there not serious about reducing consumption and slowing down the economy to sustainable levels, their economy is like the bus in speed keep going at 50 miles an hour or it'll blow up...

Húrin

cavedave wrote:

Ever since the invention of nuclear weapons, and the development of the ability to kill everyone, everyone has recognized this to be true.

No, they haven't. If this is true, why is there a war in Iraq? Why is Russia itching to bomb somebody over gas reserves? It's clear that in many halls of power, commercial interests, let alone national interests, are more important than the interests of peace.

Akrasia wrote:

Left/right labels don't really apply to the greens (and to be honest, they're an extremely antiquated way of looking at politics). The Greens claim to be an anti authoritarian party with socialist leanings.

The Greens do not claim to be a socialist party. I don't view them as such. After all, they get elected in middle-class constituencies, not working-class strongholds.

Húrin

Sand wrote:

Well the enviromental groups could do a ring around Hollywood and see how many millionaries/billionaires could cough up, a website to allow small donations through paypal, seek out corporate donations if they want to demonstrate their "green" credentials etc etc. Between the highspending individuals/corporations and the the hundreds of millions who might donate 20 or so euro each year - all this before passing the bucket around a G8 summit - youd certainly be able to make a decent stab at buying plots. They spend tens of billions on US presidential races every few years already.

Even if the environmentalists were given all the time to jump through the numerous hoops of fire you're suggesting, they would still fail. Hollywood "lefty" types are rich, but their fortunes are dwarfed by the largest companies and individuals in this world.

As for the return - Well, you said yourself its valuable due to its role in the biosphere alone. But why not tourism?

The value of rainforest tourism compared to the value of timber and paper is a pittance.

clicking at www.therainforestsite.com causes a patch of rainforest to be bought, for conservation, but this is a slow process; not at all an ideal solution.

Húrin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Muinteoir,
Yes, it does. Socialists control markets to achieve a public good. That control might mean public ownership, it might mean a ban on certain kinds of enterprise, it might mean limits on some enterprises, it might mean that some enterprises do much better.

Come on Jack, socialism is off the table for the forseeable future. The future is social market capitalism.

Jackie laughlin

Are you playing with terminology? What is "social market capitalism"? Socialists believe in a mixed economy. The thing is when we say that, we mean it. In other words, markets are fine as long as they deliver for society as a whole; when they don't, they will be regulated; and if that doesn't work, the commodity in question will be taken out of the market; the state can become involved as required.

The Green Party is far too far to the right on this spectrum.

Húrin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Are you playing with terminology? What is "social market capitalism"? Socialists believe in a mixed economy.

That's odd, I thought that socialists believed in a socialist economy. The theoretical type where a government of workers owns all means of production.

Jackie laughlin

Húrin,
You are seriously misinformed.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Húrin,
You are seriously misinformed.

is he?

Many people call themselves socialists, all with varing economic policies. Some might say that the labour party are plain old right wing capitalists, some like you would say they are socialists, perhaps because they like red flags at election time? How much regulation in the market is needed before a government is socialist. If any regulation at all is the only requirement then I can't think of too many countries which aren't socialist.

It's all relative. Would a socialist party member consider a labour member a socialist? Would a labour party member consider a fianna failer a socialist? Did Fine Gael run a socialist election campaign?

Jackie laughlin

Most Irish socialists choose to join the Labour Party. Socialism is a spectrum. I'm sure there are mild socialists in FF. The question of Boston or Berlin? is a good rough indicator. The issue is quite plain in Ireland today where market solutions are offered to just about everything.

The Socialist Party members I know are quite puritanical and espouse a 19th century version of socialism. I wish they would inform themselves of late 20th cen. thinking and come into the socialist camp which is numerically very weak.

Húrin

cavedave wrote:

If i am wrong and I can as a slightly right wing (as in market economy) extreme libertarian join the green party then i will sign up

Nobody ever asked me my personal ideology when I signed up. I'm not sure that you would like it; the general atmosphere of thought is centre-leftish, business interests are often viewed with mistrust, and there are many pro-life Christians in its grassroots membership. You can join, but I'm not sure you would get much satisfaction. Try the PDs.

Húrin

Akrasia wrote:

Investment of 100 billion in wind energy in a year is equivilent to less than the amount we spend on oil in 1 day. (80 million barrels a day at 70 dollars a barrel plus the price of going to war to secure the oil and the various other oil related industries) And a lot of that investment in Wind has arisen because governments are investing in research and manipulating markets to make wind more attractive to investors

Ireland does not consume 80 million barrells of oil a day.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Húrin,
You are seriously misinformed.

Then inform me. Socialism is not the same as the Keynesian economic model which you are talking about.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Most Irish socialists choose to join the Labour Party. Socialism is a spectrum. I'm sure there are mild socialists in FF. The question of Boston or Berlin? is a good rough indicator. The issue is quite plain in Ireland today where market solutions are offered to just about everything.

To be fair, market solutions are offered to just about everything in almost all parts of Europe save Norway. Remember, it's the neo-liberal EU commanding us to privatise An Post and end its monopoly.

So the choice Boston or Berlin is just capitalism, or more extreme capitalism.

Jackie laughlin

When socialism is weak, the choice may indeed be between different variants of capitalism. Different fractions of capital may be - in fact, usually are - in conflict. (That's a bit of good old conventional Marxism.) Socialists are not utopian and often have to take sides within a capitalist dispute.

Right now in Ireland and across Europe the issue is plain. Neo-liberal dogmatists - who dismiss Keynes - are winning and will destroy much of that which we have socially created and perhaps the planet as well.

Socialist intervention is required. Too few socialists (but an increasing number) see that a political response to global warming is their responsibility. Why? Because the kind of intervention required is incompatible with other ideologies but is familiar terrain to socialists.

The Green Party is just far too broad a church, just like FF.

Dirk Gently

Jackie, can you explain to me the socialism of the Labour party and how the market would change if labour were in power?

Also, now that rabbitte is gone, what direction do you feel the Labour party will take? Will you rebrand yourselves as actual socialists or will you continue to be irrelevant, offering nothing different from the other market parties, thus giving no one a reason to vote for you over FG / FF.

I think it's a bit much to be having a go at the greens for the reasons you have, especially considering that if labour / FG had of formed the government it is highly unlikely we would have seen any of this socialism you promote and accuse the greens of lacking. A labour / FG + the greens however I think would have a bit of a pink tint to it. What exactly do you mean when you say "most socialists choose to join the labour party"? Why are they not active and why does the labour party cloak their presence so well. You accuse the greens of being too broad a church but in Labour I see simply FG / FF and nothing else. Certainly not a broad church I suppose, but one anchored firmly on the right me thinks.

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I certainly won't duck your question but it really should form another thread.

I am a member of the Labour Party. As a socialist I saw no alternative to joining the Labour Party. However, my views here are mine alone and not Labour Party policy.

Very few party members that I know are not socialists. Some others have joined because of the party's liberal credentials. (I mean personal or even sexual liberalism) Others have joined because of Trade union affiliations. I'm sure I could come up with a few other small motivational categories.

My point here is that Green is not a coherent political perspective. This "neither right nor left but green" stuff is nonsense, which evades decisions. Global warming will require the level of intervention in the market with which only socialists will initially feel comfortable. I argue this position within the Labour Party and I am finding an increasing level of agreement.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Clown Bag,
I certainly won't duck your question but it really should form another thread.

I am a member of the Labour Party. As a socialist I saw no alternative to joining the Labour Party. However, my views here are mine alone and not Labour Party policy.

Very few party members that I know are not socialists. Some others have joined because of the party's liberal credentials. (I mean personal or even sexual liberalism) Others have joined because of Trade union affiliations. I'm sure I could come up with a few other small motivational categories.

My point here is that Green is not a coherent political perspective. This "neither right nor left but green" stuff is nonsense, which evades decisions. Global warming will require the level of intervention in the market with which only socialists will initially feel comfortable. I argue this position within the Labour Party and I am finding an increasing level of agreement.

Even the Labour party itself does not describe itself as a socialist party it says it is a social democratic party.
While I'm sure there are many people in the Labour party who consider themselves to be socialist that does not make the party socialist unfortunately the Labour Party is more a party of the middle class than the working class. It is hard to think of one thing that the Labour party would not have gone along with if they had been in power for the last 10 years instead of the PDs.

On the issue of the Labour party being more amenable to market intervention and as such the best hope for the environment it is more likely that your friends see that their are votes in Green issues and that they are popular in the labour middle class with a conscience heartland.
The Labour party in power have always let down the working class and the unions to such an extent that I know loads of union officials that would much prefer FF in power than the Labour party because FF actually have a strong working class base unlike the Labour Party.


On the issue of the Labour party being more amenable to market intervention and as such the best hope for the environment it is more likely that your friends see that their are votes in Green issues and that they are popular in the labour middle class with a conscience heartland.

Jackie laughlin

I am very reluctant to reply to this jaded line of opposition to the Labour Party as it has no place in this thread.

However, if I leave it, it might be thought sensible by someone reading the thread. Therefore, a few brief points:

The Labour Party is so-called because of its roots in the trade union movement; very few union members then or now are socialist and would not have tolerated the name Socialist Party or Social Democratic Party. This is also the reason why so many members and officials today feel comfortable with FF. The purpose of a Union is essentially to win gains for its members.

The term Social Democrat is very old and applied originally to European Marxist parties. It is now interchangeable with Socialist.

Many socialists feel that the name socialist is too easy a target in these neo-liberal days and prefer to call themselves social democrats. Moreover, it has to be admitted that there are people out there who are - frankly - nutters but who call themselves socialist and I can't blame many of my comrades for creating clear water between themselves and the nutters by moving to the old title, Social Democrat.

Your use of the term working class seems dated and lacks the rigour of a Marxist viewpoint. There have been many late 20th century Marxist analyses of class in order to try to re-create a theoretical majority working class. The need for this work was born out of the realisation that commentators were confusing "poor" with working class, sociologists had taken to using the term to describe people who among other characteristics rented their homes, lacked a decent education etc etc., and categories of workers unknown in Marx's time had emerged, e.g. technicians, engineers, medical jobs, various other "professionals", "managers" etc.

I'm sorry you feel as you do about the Labour Party. I'm not uncritical of the Party either. Now, could we return to the point?:

The only feasible hope for the planet is the kind of intervention familiar to socialists.