?

Log in

"a strange, but effective, eloquence" - The Life and Thoughts of Zach

Jun. 26th, 2003

05:34 pm - "a strange, but effective, eloquence"

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

I've been ranting about politics, Greens, and Leftists, on notesfiles a lot today. Figured I'd share some of my text here.



> For the Dems & Pubs, perhaps. We certainly don't need another party that puts power games before principal.

That's like saying "energy generation is fine for coal and nuclear plants but when we build our solar panels they don't actually have to generate anything!"

If you want to make change you need power. You don't have to get it the way the bad guys do, you don't have to keep it the way the bad guys do, you don't have to use it the way the bad guys do, but you have to have it.

In this case the fundamental unit of power is votes. If the Green Party wants to make political change it needs to show that it can get votes.

In this game there are two kinds of money. First there is money. Second there is votes. Money and votes can be exchanged for influence.

This isn't about putting power over principle, this is about showing that power can be achieved by taking principled stands rather than by brainwashing people with a lot of money gotten by sucking up to corporate interests.

The Green Party is about getting corporate interests out of politics and returning democracy to the control of the people. It is not about being an ineffective "moral high ground" that doesn't actually run candidates or try to win. I believe that eventually through perseverance and truth the Greens can take the moral high ground AND get the power of votes.

My point about power was that if we're going to broker any deals with the Dems we need to bring something to the table. It may or may not make sense to even go to the table, brokering a power sharing agreement before the election may or may not be in the interests of the Greens, BUT it definitely doesn't make sense to ask the Greens to go to that table before they've had any chance to campaign for some votes (power). Why would the democrats bargain with an entity that has nothing (yet) to give?




> What do you mean by "leftist"? Do "leftists" have to believe in a woman's unconditional right to abort her baby? Do "leftists" have to be against preemptive war? Do "leftists" have to endorse large central government? Must "leftists" be against large corporations? In favor of affirmative action?

Leftists have to want political and social power to be roughly equally distributed among all people. Hence leftists are neccessarily opposed to sexism, racism, discrimination on any other irrational social basis (such as against LGBT folks), unfettered capitalism, violence perpetrated for the purpose of oppression (hence preemptive war, police brutality, etc). Generally Leftists use a Marxist-influenced political economic analysis though they are not all actually Marxists.

Different kinds of leftists have different views on many of the specific ideological issues that you have raised. You can't define a huge one dimensional classification of political values and expect to have it give answers to every single issue of our day.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:wendywoowho
Date:June 27th, 2003 06:44 am (UTC)

GREAT definition

(Link)
AMEN! That's a great definition of what a leftist is.
(Reply) (Thread)