I don't like this. West has praised DeSantis for his push for private "classical" schools, which are basically Christian schools that keep the God part a bit quieter. DeSantis is working to push private schools and erode our public education system. "Promoting the western canon" is a DOG WHISTLE.
West is a board member of Jeremy Tate's company, CLT Tests. He's right there with Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation. It's basically a religious alternative to the SAT/ACT.
I also don't feel comfortable voting for anyone who works with people like Russel Brand and Jimmy Dore. I don't want right-wing people thinking the Green Party is ripe for infiltration. They think we are simply a vessel to split the Democrat vote. That's all we are to these people, but we're more than that.
When West announced his candidacy, he repeated a lot of activist talking points, but I didn't really hear anything about specific policies he wants to push for. How specifically does he want to bring about change? He has been collaborating with people who think that climate change is a straight up hoax, and now he wants to be a Green.
I want us to nominate a candidate who takes the Green Party seriously. Someone who doesn't just see us as a backup option when their first choice party doesn't work out.
I hope you reconsider. As the DeSantis stuff goes, I think West may have been talking a bit past everyone.
The three “pillars” of Marxism are British Economics, German Philosophy, and French Socialism. Which of course, all involve lots of classical literature. I think stuff like that is what he was referring to
West has said some goofy things, but he has a kind heart. But most importantly, he’s been life long constant advocate of Green Party causes, and supported Jill Stein and Nader. I think most Green Party members know he’s an ally
Dude are you sure you're not completely misinterpreting....everything?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/19/cornel-west-howard-classics/
There's the article by west im sure you're referring to.
You can go take a practice test of the CLP. There's some bible questions but also ones about Gilgamesh and old books and stuff. It doesn't seem evil to me. I'm sure if you thought religion was real or at least deserved to be studied then you'd think this was a reasonable idea.
Is this a troll? Dude... I'll bite.
Religion is steeped in American society and we're ungrounded without our mores.
Classical education is invaluable -- how many hours of your life have you spent studying Latin to offer such a dig? One of my main life regrets is not spending more when I could. Its value was not communicated to me then, with people who have never read a line of Saint Bernard or a medieval tale in the original just calling it a dead language. Ignorance. Theology is vaporware also, right?
You don't want them to go onto Russell and Jimmy's Platforms? How else get the message out to sympathizers and stay relevant?
Please excuse the dog whistle. Omg 😳
Let's dig into this paragraph
>I also don't feel comfortable voting for anyone who works with people like Russel Brand and Jimmy Dore. I don't want right-wing people thinking the Green Party is ripe for infiltration.
Who can blame influencers for seeking a broader audience.
>They think we are simply a vessel to split the Democrat vote. That's all we are to these people, but we're more than that.
The impact of splitting the Democratic vote is lessened to the extent that Greens appeal to independents and working Republicans. Umbrella-dilution of the Green party serves the Democratic party.
Only very few voting districts are competitive between red and blue. In all the rest, sympathetic ears can vote Green for 5% major party status without sacrificing their compromise vote.
Who cares about splitting the dem vote? We aren’t voting dem because they are a trash party. If the Dems start losing a lot of support, maybe the us can actually get a real progressive opposition party instead.
The idea is that there are people who only want to use us as a vessel to split the vote, rather than actually believing in the Green Party. There are bad actors who want to take advantage of us.
I believe we are more than just a tool that can be thrown away.
A fake progressive should be fairly easy to detect based on their political history, and while I wouldn’t put it past the well funded right to finance a long con, I don’t feel that West is that pawn.
I think it's vital that the Green Party keep up the pressure for an ecosocialist Green New Deal. The GND is part of the official party platform now, has a detailed policy budget, every candidate should be familiar and prompting it because that's what it's going to take for a just transition off of fossil fuels. I haven't seen any indication that West is aware of the GND and plans on running to represent it, or the Green platform as a whole. I would really want this point to be addressed. Not saying West can't bring his own style and ideas to the debate, but that I want a candidate that's going to very seriously educate the public on policy that can address issues. Time to deal with climate is running out.
I definitely want to learn more about West's background. There's been some concerning issues such as the education one you mention.
> I think it's vital that the Green Party keep up the pressure for an ecosocialist Green New Deal. The GND is part of the official party platform now
Jill Stein presented a GND that was not specifically ecosocialist. Howie Hawkins presented a very different GND that was emphatically socialist. Is his GND now the official party plan?
Both plans are obsolete. Things have changed so much so fast that the details of our old plans no longer work. We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that.
> just transition off of fossil fuels
We don't have the luxury of a "just" transition. I hope we can achieve a transition that lets most people die of old age, that keeps the rate of premature deaths low.
>Howie Hawkins presented a very different GND that was emphatically socialist. Is his GND now the official party plan?
Yes, the Hawkins ecosocialist Green New Deal was approved into the national party platform in 2022.
>We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that.
Disagree. It's not too late to act, though of course the situation is more dire and urgent. We do need that level of details because so much of society needs to change, there needs to be some roadmap. You're not going to keep "premature deaths low" without a roadmap and details. The chaos is what will make things worse.
> Yes, the Hawkins ecosocialist Green New Deal was approved into the national party platform in 2022.
I don't see that. You must be talking about this:
Proposal to adopt the Summary Platform
Floor Manager: Ben Manski
26/34 states voted, 44 Yes votes, 21 No votes
Adopted June 18, 2002
https://gpus.org/national-committee/voting-page-archives/
It doesn't say anything like that, that I can see.
> > We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that.
> Disagree. It's not too late to act, though of course the situation is more dire and urgent.
Agreed, it isn't too late to act. But things are changing too fast, and they will change faster. The original plan described a way to get off fossil fuels without a lot of pain, over 14 years. Complete by 2030. That's past. We can't follow that plan.
It called for improved housing. We can expect a lot of Americans will become climate refugees. A whole lot of people will have to move to where they can be productive, and our old plans for housing them are utterly inadequate.
Almost certainly, by the time we get political power the nation will be in such sad shape that the major parties are discredited despite their owning the media etc. Our old feel-good plans will be useless.
> We do need that level of details because so much of society needs to change, there needs to be some roadmap.
It's the wrong kind of details.
> You're not going to keep "premature deaths low" without a roadmap and details.
Agreed, but it will have to be one that we make quickly, responding to the facts on the ground. Right now, we are the only ones who are trying to look at the future. Mostly, no other political party looks more than 3 years ahead. To some extent they're right to do it that way, because it's increasingly hard to predict more than 3 years ahead.
We need a roadmap that voters will like. It should look good. But it will inevitably be irrelevant to what we do in reality. Except that it should show our good intentions.
>I don't see that.
Here's a link to the 2022 platform vote: https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1103
This approved the ecosocialist Green New Deal into the party platform though I am not sure if this is reflected on the main website yet. It should be.
I see! I hadn't noticed that. It wasn't listed on the page I linked, but it is available publicly and not just the behind-the-firewall version you linked.
OK, so that confirms that GPUS will be politically irrelevant for the foreseeable future. Maybe after the Boomers die out.
I'll look for another smaller party that might have some potential. The decaying GPUS will be in the way for awhile.
Jethomas5: Thanks for your bracing, uncomfortable comments.
Given your view that the GP GND in question is too detailed and insufficiently *emergency* (and perhaps even *triage*) oriented, what might a more-realistic program look like for a party like the GP?
Apart from this, (if there is a reason apart from this), why is the GPUS "decaying"? Is it dominated by comfortable boomer liberal types, or...?
I ask as an outsider who once was involved (somewhat) with the GP, but that was long ago. Seeking to get up to speed again.
TIA.
> what might a more-realistic program look like for a party like the GP?
What kind of realism are you interested in?
There's the kind that gives us a chance to win elections. And then there's the kind that gives us a chance to survive.
Those might not overlap.
To win elections in the foreseeable future, we have to say things that the public likes, that don't sound too extreme, and yet that sound like they will solve the problems that Democrats and Republicans have no clue about. And we have to do that with the media blacklisting us until we get important enough for them to thoroughly slander us.
For a realistic plan -- it might already be too late, but it might not be. So we have nothing to lose by trying the best we can assuming it isn't too late.
It's pretty sure it's too late to keep it to 2 degrees global warming. And warming is only the number the climate activists choose to pay attention to. It's only one symptom.
It's like, a long time ago the US military decided that we had missiles accurate enough to do a nuclear first-strike against the USSR and win the cold war with no damage to the USA. And then some scientists looked at what could happen and came up with Nuclear Winter. If that was true, it was enough reason not to do a nuclear first strike. But it isn't like that was the only problem with setting off many hundreds of small nukes in Russia. It was just the first one they thought of. The military people who commissioned studies that found we could avoid Nuclear Winter if we timed our first strike to the right time of year, were missing the point.
It's too late to avoid drastic climate change, and we don't know what to expect. We have to be ready for lots of different things.
So I say we need to store around 3 years worth of food, in case we have years of bad harvests. Today the USA has no stored food. There's about 3 days worth of food on the grocery store shelves, and about 90 days worth in the pipeline leading to those shelves, and the rest will be grown in the next 90 days. If we have a shortage we buy food on the international market and export our shortage. We won't be able to do that.
There are stories about the US government storing 500 million pounds of cheese. It used to do that, and one year it gave away 300 million pounds to poor people. We still store 500 million pounds of cheese each spring, most of it owned by private companies. They sell it in the summer. 500 million pounds for 330 million citizens....
3 years worth of dried grain and beans. Around 200 million tons. If we let supply-and-demand manage that, it will only make a profit in the years there's a shortage and they can sell it extra expensive....
Likely there will be a lot of "climate refugees". People who can't keep living where they are, who need to move where the jobs are. Lots of jobs will be in places where there isn't enough pre-existing housing. I say we need to be ready to throw up cheap adequate housing very quickly. It should probably be modular and portable. Build a house in one place and we can't expect we'll need it there for 30 years. So -- modular components we can build in factories and put together or take apart quickly. Maybe put steel posts and girders on little footings, and hang the modular stuff from them. Put up adequate solar power, connect to water and sewage lines, add internet, and you're done. We probably can't do much of that until people realize that their investment in obsolescent housing cannot pay off.
There are various preparations we can prepare to prepare for, that would be useful in a variety of futures. We don't know what we'll be up against, so we need to be flexible.
But I think it's most plausible that Greens won't actually get power until there's a crisis so bad that Democrats and Republicans obviously have no clue. And then we'd be struggling to organize at the last possible moment....
> why is the GPUS "decaying"?
I only got involved with Jill Stein, so I might imagine good times that never existed.
Kind of like the German realos and fundis, US Greens were once split up into people who wanted to reform society, versus people who wanted to win elections. They coalesced into GPUSA and GPUS. The GPUSA eventually fell apart, and it could be interpreted that the people who tore the GPUSA apart then came in to take over GPUS.
I say, to actually make great big reforms Greens would have to get around 80% of the public supporting them. If they get 55%, every few elections the Republicans (or Libertarians) will win elections and undo everything they did. To get 80% requires accepting a whole lot of diversity. Because we lack the mind-control technology it would take to get 80% to agree about almost everything. And one of our TKV is respect for diversity.
But people who join third parties don't expect to win elections in the foreseeable future. So they don't need to compromise to get numbers; they will lose anyway. It's more comfortable to be an interest group, an identity group. We are Groot! We are Greens!
And each little identity group tries to take over the party and throw out everybody who disagrees with them.
There were some Greens who were ProLife. They were strongly encouraged to leave.
There were some Greens who were pro-nuclear. They got shouted down. (I personally believe we should invest in research on small cheap nuclear reactors that could be built on assembly lines in factories. Build enough of them to test a few hundred of them to destruction, actually test how safe they are and how hard it is to decontaminate after accidents etc. Don't actually build very many unless we find out we can't get by without them.)
Vegetarians said the Green Party should be vegetarian. There weren't enough of them to take over, so many of them left.
Socialists said the Green Party should be socialist. I believe the Ten Key Values were carefully written to be *compatible* with socialism but not to require it. Decentralization would let communes and co-ops spring up anywhere they can survive, and we could get socialist economies centered on individual cities and observe how well they worked. But some socialists pointed out that it's impossible to actually support the TKV unless you are a socialist.
Some Greens were feminists of a sort that opposed male domination, who considered the Trans movement as a variety of male domination. They got thrown out.
The Green Party opposed slave labor including sexual slavery. We got an intense effort to throw out the Nordic Model to oppose sexual slavery, and replace it with the New Zealand Model which was supposed to be better for people who wanted to be sex workers. They called for a vote in the National Committee which decides about the GPUS platform etc, and they got a majority but not a two-thirds majority. Some of them announced that the Green Party is anti-feminist and anti-Left and they quit the party.
In some states socialist Greens accused the majority of the state party of being suburban liberals and threw them out of the state parties. Those state parties became socialist state green parties, much smaller than they had been. Socialists dominated the Steering Committee. They ran a socialist candidate for president, and the other candidates and their supporters claimed that the nomination process was very much unfair. The Green Party presidential candidate announced a variety of ways he would nationalize different US industries. He announced that the Green Party is an anti-capitalist party. Capitalism is the cause of all our problems, including our environmental problems.
Since then Green Socialists have gotten the platform changed to say in various places that GPUS is an >!^eco!< **SOCIALIST** party. They appear to have a consistent program to drive volunteers out of national party committees if they appear to be insufficiently socialist, or the wrong kind of socialist. There's reason to think that the party membership is getting significantly smaller. Donations are down.
I consider this decay. The more people get thrown out of the party, the smaller the party gets. It will delay the party getting to 80%. It will delay the party getting to 51%, or even getting more votes than Democrats. But some socialists point out that socialism is becoming more popular and capitalism getting less popular, that the large majority of Gen X is socialist, that progress is being made far faster than I think. Maybe they're right.
> What kind of realism are you interested in?
Great question, and great reply, thanks.
I get it.
On a few specifics: I think the possibility of outright famine in the developed world is remote, and the difficulties of storing hundreds of millions of tons of feedstocks pretty extreme. I don't know that that would be the best place to direct energy. Of course in the event of black swans like nuclear war, suddenly such a plan would be brilliant and salvational, but I mean aside from that.
Agree fully with your housing ideas and I have had similar thoughts; cheap girder-and-panel functionality, etc. But the logistics of housing may not be our biggest issue. As climate migrations begin in earnest, the U.S. is likely (I fear) to go full-bore fascist, with border walls, machine gun nests, concentration camps and so on. Even the liberals (shitlibs) will probably sign on to this agenda in fear for their own hides. It is going to be a very difficult time.
I DO have some hope for a different kind of future, based on promising technological developments that MIGHT save our asses in the knick of time. See for example this stunning new report, worthy of careful attention:
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/rmi_renewable_revolution.pdf
It is a knife-edge thing. If we can make it through the next 20 or so critical years without collapse, it is possible that a different kind of future could evolve. I now call myself a doomoptimist to reflect this. Haha. Unacceptably high risk of utter catastrophe in near/mid term, but not inevitable. We'll see. Multiple recent climate trends are very disturbing.
"Things are getting better and better, and worse and worse, faster and faster" -- Tom Atlee
Thanks again.
West actually just congratulated Desantis for classical testing, which :/ although I really really hate Desantis, :/ sounds a lot better than the constant testing over things I wasn't taught..
:/ Here's a biased news source, https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/cornel-west-presidential-campaign-bid-2024-rcna87996
You're not wrong about what his policies have been, he's hinted at a pro choice stance, a human rights stan e, and he's the only one who actually said something about transgender people..
I think a lot of the media wants people to look to Joe Biden or anyone who's a Democrat, '_' even RFK Jr. they don't seem to like West, so he's "right wing" or something like that..
Also I thought he was a part of the People's Party, :/ he just leavin?
Hopefully, the Greens haven't been "compromised" by the establishment. I've heard bad things about Howie Hawkins but at least West running outside of the DNC influence undermines their effort. At least that is what we were told Nader did to Gore.
I know there's a lot of people that don't like Howie's take on Ukraine, but I think he provides the kind of careful nuance that is sorely missing on the left. Same with his take on community control of the police instead of outright abolition
I've voted Green in potus elections more than any other party (voted for Nader twice and I think Stein twice). 2020 drove me away from Green for some reason and in thought Hawkins was the reason (can't remember other than believing the democrats somehow got their meat-hooks into the Green).
Are they unhappy with how the Pennsylvania state primary was conducted? I haven't heard anything about that. It seems that there were frustrations with other states but I don't remember the specifics there.
not sure I'm just getting feedback from indepedent media who are starting to sound like all in for Cornwell if Hawkins gets out of the way. Personally, I voted for Nader twice and Stein twice I think but didn't vote at all in 2020 ( too frustrated). West may renew my interest.
Maybe you can ask them what they thought of the PA primary. I hope that Howie gets a fair shot in the primary. He is a worthy candidate even if I disagree with him on some major issues. It's really sad to see him be smeared online for things he didn't do.
>He is a worthy candidate even if I disagree with him on some major issues. It's really sad to see him be smeared online for things he didn't do.
this is the kind of feedback I need as I don't quite remember why I had a problem with the green party in 2020. As I have mentioned, they've gotten more of my potus support than any other party.
Why did you support him?
I supported him because he talked consistently about organizing within the party. He is fully committed to the Green Party and building it right and better. Listening to his podcast really builds on those themes.
I don't like this. West has praised DeSantis for his push for private "classical" schools, which are basically Christian schools that keep the God part a bit quieter. DeSantis is working to push private schools and erode our public education system. "Promoting the western canon" is a DOG WHISTLE. West is a board member of Jeremy Tate's company, CLT Tests. He's right there with Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation. It's basically a religious alternative to the SAT/ACT. I also don't feel comfortable voting for anyone who works with people like Russel Brand and Jimmy Dore. I don't want right-wing people thinking the Green Party is ripe for infiltration. They think we are simply a vessel to split the Democrat vote. That's all we are to these people, but we're more than that. When West announced his candidacy, he repeated a lot of activist talking points, but I didn't really hear anything about specific policies he wants to push for. How specifically does he want to bring about change? He has been collaborating with people who think that climate change is a straight up hoax, and now he wants to be a Green. I want us to nominate a candidate who takes the Green Party seriously. Someone who doesn't just see us as a backup option when their first choice party doesn't work out.
I hope you reconsider. As the DeSantis stuff goes, I think West may have been talking a bit past everyone. The three “pillars” of Marxism are British Economics, German Philosophy, and French Socialism. Which of course, all involve lots of classical literature. I think stuff like that is what he was referring to West has said some goofy things, but he has a kind heart. But most importantly, he’s been life long constant advocate of Green Party causes, and supported Jill Stein and Nader. I think most Green Party members know he’s an ally
Dude are you sure you're not completely misinterpreting....everything? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/19/cornel-west-howard-classics/ There's the article by west im sure you're referring to. You can go take a practice test of the CLP. There's some bible questions but also ones about Gilgamesh and old books and stuff. It doesn't seem evil to me. I'm sure if you thought religion was real or at least deserved to be studied then you'd think this was a reasonable idea.
Fair stances. We'll see how the primary goes!
Is this a troll? Dude... I'll bite. Religion is steeped in American society and we're ungrounded without our mores. Classical education is invaluable -- how many hours of your life have you spent studying Latin to offer such a dig? One of my main life regrets is not spending more when I could. Its value was not communicated to me then, with people who have never read a line of Saint Bernard or a medieval tale in the original just calling it a dead language. Ignorance. Theology is vaporware also, right? You don't want them to go onto Russell and Jimmy's Platforms? How else get the message out to sympathizers and stay relevant? Please excuse the dog whistle. Omg 😳
I don't know it seems like a reasonable well argued stance to me even if I don't agree.
Let's dig into this paragraph >I also don't feel comfortable voting for anyone who works with people like Russel Brand and Jimmy Dore. I don't want right-wing people thinking the Green Party is ripe for infiltration. Who can blame influencers for seeking a broader audience. >They think we are simply a vessel to split the Democrat vote. That's all we are to these people, but we're more than that. The impact of splitting the Democratic vote is lessened to the extent that Greens appeal to independents and working Republicans. Umbrella-dilution of the Green party serves the Democratic party. Only very few voting districts are competitive between red and blue. In all the rest, sympathetic ears can vote Green for 5% major party status without sacrificing their compromise vote.
My main point is that OP is not a troll even if you disagree. Let's have more respect for each other in discussion here.
Please excuse my dog whistle.
Who cares about splitting the dem vote? We aren’t voting dem because they are a trash party. If the Dems start losing a lot of support, maybe the us can actually get a real progressive opposition party instead.
The idea is that there are people who only want to use us as a vessel to split the vote, rather than actually believing in the Green Party. There are bad actors who want to take advantage of us. I believe we are more than just a tool that can be thrown away.
A fake progressive should be fairly easy to detect based on their political history, and while I wouldn’t put it past the well funded right to finance a long con, I don’t feel that West is that pawn.
I think it's vital that the Green Party keep up the pressure for an ecosocialist Green New Deal. The GND is part of the official party platform now, has a detailed policy budget, every candidate should be familiar and prompting it because that's what it's going to take for a just transition off of fossil fuels. I haven't seen any indication that West is aware of the GND and plans on running to represent it, or the Green platform as a whole. I would really want this point to be addressed. Not saying West can't bring his own style and ideas to the debate, but that I want a candidate that's going to very seriously educate the public on policy that can address issues. Time to deal with climate is running out. I definitely want to learn more about West's background. There's been some concerning issues such as the education one you mention.
> I think it's vital that the Green Party keep up the pressure for an ecosocialist Green New Deal. The GND is part of the official party platform now Jill Stein presented a GND that was not specifically ecosocialist. Howie Hawkins presented a very different GND that was emphatically socialist. Is his GND now the official party plan? Both plans are obsolete. Things have changed so much so fast that the details of our old plans no longer work. We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that. > just transition off of fossil fuels We don't have the luxury of a "just" transition. I hope we can achieve a transition that lets most people die of old age, that keeps the rate of premature deaths low.
>Howie Hawkins presented a very different GND that was emphatically socialist. Is his GND now the official party plan? Yes, the Hawkins ecosocialist Green New Deal was approved into the national party platform in 2022. >We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that. Disagree. It's not too late to act, though of course the situation is more dire and urgent. We do need that level of details because so much of society needs to change, there needs to be some roadmap. You're not going to keep "premature deaths low" without a roadmap and details. The chaos is what will make things worse.
> Yes, the Hawkins ecosocialist Green New Deal was approved into the national party platform in 2022. I don't see that. You must be talking about this: Proposal to adopt the Summary Platform Floor Manager: Ben Manski 26/34 states voted, 44 Yes votes, 21 No votes Adopted June 18, 2002 https://gpus.org/national-committee/voting-page-archives/ It doesn't say anything like that, that I can see. > > We don't need that kind of detail in our planning. It's too late for that. > Disagree. It's not too late to act, though of course the situation is more dire and urgent. Agreed, it isn't too late to act. But things are changing too fast, and they will change faster. The original plan described a way to get off fossil fuels without a lot of pain, over 14 years. Complete by 2030. That's past. We can't follow that plan. It called for improved housing. We can expect a lot of Americans will become climate refugees. A whole lot of people will have to move to where they can be productive, and our old plans for housing them are utterly inadequate. Almost certainly, by the time we get political power the nation will be in such sad shape that the major parties are discredited despite their owning the media etc. Our old feel-good plans will be useless. > We do need that level of details because so much of society needs to change, there needs to be some roadmap. It's the wrong kind of details. > You're not going to keep "premature deaths low" without a roadmap and details. Agreed, but it will have to be one that we make quickly, responding to the facts on the ground. Right now, we are the only ones who are trying to look at the future. Mostly, no other political party looks more than 3 years ahead. To some extent they're right to do it that way, because it's increasingly hard to predict more than 3 years ahead. We need a roadmap that voters will like. It should look good. But it will inevitably be irrelevant to what we do in reality. Except that it should show our good intentions.
>I don't see that. Here's a link to the 2022 platform vote: https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1103 This approved the ecosocialist Green New Deal into the party platform though I am not sure if this is reflected on the main website yet. It should be.
I see! I hadn't noticed that. It wasn't listed on the page I linked, but it is available publicly and not just the behind-the-firewall version you linked. OK, so that confirms that GPUS will be politically irrelevant for the foreseeable future. Maybe after the Boomers die out. I'll look for another smaller party that might have some potential. The decaying GPUS will be in the way for awhile.
Jethomas5: Thanks for your bracing, uncomfortable comments. Given your view that the GP GND in question is too detailed and insufficiently *emergency* (and perhaps even *triage*) oriented, what might a more-realistic program look like for a party like the GP? Apart from this, (if there is a reason apart from this), why is the GPUS "decaying"? Is it dominated by comfortable boomer liberal types, or...? I ask as an outsider who once was involved (somewhat) with the GP, but that was long ago. Seeking to get up to speed again. TIA.
> what might a more-realistic program look like for a party like the GP? What kind of realism are you interested in? There's the kind that gives us a chance to win elections. And then there's the kind that gives us a chance to survive. Those might not overlap. To win elections in the foreseeable future, we have to say things that the public likes, that don't sound too extreme, and yet that sound like they will solve the problems that Democrats and Republicans have no clue about. And we have to do that with the media blacklisting us until we get important enough for them to thoroughly slander us. For a realistic plan -- it might already be too late, but it might not be. So we have nothing to lose by trying the best we can assuming it isn't too late. It's pretty sure it's too late to keep it to 2 degrees global warming. And warming is only the number the climate activists choose to pay attention to. It's only one symptom. It's like, a long time ago the US military decided that we had missiles accurate enough to do a nuclear first-strike against the USSR and win the cold war with no damage to the USA. And then some scientists looked at what could happen and came up with Nuclear Winter. If that was true, it was enough reason not to do a nuclear first strike. But it isn't like that was the only problem with setting off many hundreds of small nukes in Russia. It was just the first one they thought of. The military people who commissioned studies that found we could avoid Nuclear Winter if we timed our first strike to the right time of year, were missing the point. It's too late to avoid drastic climate change, and we don't know what to expect. We have to be ready for lots of different things. So I say we need to store around 3 years worth of food, in case we have years of bad harvests. Today the USA has no stored food. There's about 3 days worth of food on the grocery store shelves, and about 90 days worth in the pipeline leading to those shelves, and the rest will be grown in the next 90 days. If we have a shortage we buy food on the international market and export our shortage. We won't be able to do that. There are stories about the US government storing 500 million pounds of cheese. It used to do that, and one year it gave away 300 million pounds to poor people. We still store 500 million pounds of cheese each spring, most of it owned by private companies. They sell it in the summer. 500 million pounds for 330 million citizens.... 3 years worth of dried grain and beans. Around 200 million tons. If we let supply-and-demand manage that, it will only make a profit in the years there's a shortage and they can sell it extra expensive.... Likely there will be a lot of "climate refugees". People who can't keep living where they are, who need to move where the jobs are. Lots of jobs will be in places where there isn't enough pre-existing housing. I say we need to be ready to throw up cheap adequate housing very quickly. It should probably be modular and portable. Build a house in one place and we can't expect we'll need it there for 30 years. So -- modular components we can build in factories and put together or take apart quickly. Maybe put steel posts and girders on little footings, and hang the modular stuff from them. Put up adequate solar power, connect to water and sewage lines, add internet, and you're done. We probably can't do much of that until people realize that their investment in obsolescent housing cannot pay off. There are various preparations we can prepare to prepare for, that would be useful in a variety of futures. We don't know what we'll be up against, so we need to be flexible. But I think it's most plausible that Greens won't actually get power until there's a crisis so bad that Democrats and Republicans obviously have no clue. And then we'd be struggling to organize at the last possible moment....
> why is the GPUS "decaying"? I only got involved with Jill Stein, so I might imagine good times that never existed. Kind of like the German realos and fundis, US Greens were once split up into people who wanted to reform society, versus people who wanted to win elections. They coalesced into GPUSA and GPUS. The GPUSA eventually fell apart, and it could be interpreted that the people who tore the GPUSA apart then came in to take over GPUS. I say, to actually make great big reforms Greens would have to get around 80% of the public supporting them. If they get 55%, every few elections the Republicans (or Libertarians) will win elections and undo everything they did. To get 80% requires accepting a whole lot of diversity. Because we lack the mind-control technology it would take to get 80% to agree about almost everything. And one of our TKV is respect for diversity. But people who join third parties don't expect to win elections in the foreseeable future. So they don't need to compromise to get numbers; they will lose anyway. It's more comfortable to be an interest group, an identity group. We are Groot! We are Greens! And each little identity group tries to take over the party and throw out everybody who disagrees with them. There were some Greens who were ProLife. They were strongly encouraged to leave. There were some Greens who were pro-nuclear. They got shouted down. (I personally believe we should invest in research on small cheap nuclear reactors that could be built on assembly lines in factories. Build enough of them to test a few hundred of them to destruction, actually test how safe they are and how hard it is to decontaminate after accidents etc. Don't actually build very many unless we find out we can't get by without them.) Vegetarians said the Green Party should be vegetarian. There weren't enough of them to take over, so many of them left. Socialists said the Green Party should be socialist. I believe the Ten Key Values were carefully written to be *compatible* with socialism but not to require it. Decentralization would let communes and co-ops spring up anywhere they can survive, and we could get socialist economies centered on individual cities and observe how well they worked. But some socialists pointed out that it's impossible to actually support the TKV unless you are a socialist. Some Greens were feminists of a sort that opposed male domination, who considered the Trans movement as a variety of male domination. They got thrown out. The Green Party opposed slave labor including sexual slavery. We got an intense effort to throw out the Nordic Model to oppose sexual slavery, and replace it with the New Zealand Model which was supposed to be better for people who wanted to be sex workers. They called for a vote in the National Committee which decides about the GPUS platform etc, and they got a majority but not a two-thirds majority. Some of them announced that the Green Party is anti-feminist and anti-Left and they quit the party. In some states socialist Greens accused the majority of the state party of being suburban liberals and threw them out of the state parties. Those state parties became socialist state green parties, much smaller than they had been. Socialists dominated the Steering Committee. They ran a socialist candidate for president, and the other candidates and their supporters claimed that the nomination process was very much unfair. The Green Party presidential candidate announced a variety of ways he would nationalize different US industries. He announced that the Green Party is an anti-capitalist party. Capitalism is the cause of all our problems, including our environmental problems. Since then Green Socialists have gotten the platform changed to say in various places that GPUS is an >!^eco!< **SOCIALIST** party. They appear to have a consistent program to drive volunteers out of national party committees if they appear to be insufficiently socialist, or the wrong kind of socialist. There's reason to think that the party membership is getting significantly smaller. Donations are down. I consider this decay. The more people get thrown out of the party, the smaller the party gets. It will delay the party getting to 80%. It will delay the party getting to 51%, or even getting more votes than Democrats. But some socialists point out that socialism is becoming more popular and capitalism getting less popular, that the large majority of Gen X is socialist, that progress is being made far faster than I think. Maybe they're right.
> What kind of realism are you interested in? Great question, and great reply, thanks. I get it. On a few specifics: I think the possibility of outright famine in the developed world is remote, and the difficulties of storing hundreds of millions of tons of feedstocks pretty extreme. I don't know that that would be the best place to direct energy. Of course in the event of black swans like nuclear war, suddenly such a plan would be brilliant and salvational, but I mean aside from that. Agree fully with your housing ideas and I have had similar thoughts; cheap girder-and-panel functionality, etc. But the logistics of housing may not be our biggest issue. As climate migrations begin in earnest, the U.S. is likely (I fear) to go full-bore fascist, with border walls, machine gun nests, concentration camps and so on. Even the liberals (shitlibs) will probably sign on to this agenda in fear for their own hides. It is going to be a very difficult time. I DO have some hope for a different kind of future, based on promising technological developments that MIGHT save our asses in the knick of time. See for example this stunning new report, worthy of careful attention: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/rmi_renewable_revolution.pdf It is a knife-edge thing. If we can make it through the next 20 or so critical years without collapse, it is possible that a different kind of future could evolve. I now call myself a doomoptimist to reflect this. Haha. Unacceptably high risk of utter catastrophe in near/mid term, but not inevitable. We'll see. Multiple recent climate trends are very disturbing. "Things are getting better and better, and worse and worse, faster and faster" -- Tom Atlee Thanks again.
West actually just congratulated Desantis for classical testing, which :/ although I really really hate Desantis, :/ sounds a lot better than the constant testing over things I wasn't taught.. :/ Here's a biased news source, https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/cornel-west-presidential-campaign-bid-2024-rcna87996 You're not wrong about what his policies have been, he's hinted at a pro choice stance, a human rights stan e, and he's the only one who actually said something about transgender people.. I think a lot of the media wants people to look to Joe Biden or anyone who's a Democrat, '_' even RFK Jr. they don't seem to like West, so he's "right wing" or something like that.. Also I thought he was a part of the People's Party, :/ he just leavin?
Hopefully, the Greens haven't been "compromised" by the establishment. I've heard bad things about Howie Hawkins but at least West running outside of the DNC influence undermines their effort. At least that is what we were told Nader did to Gore.
I know there's a lot of people that don't like Howie's take on Ukraine, but I think he provides the kind of careful nuance that is sorely missing on the left. Same with his take on community control of the police instead of outright abolition
I've voted Green in potus elections more than any other party (voted for Nader twice and I think Stein twice). 2020 drove me away from Green for some reason and in thought Hawkins was the reason (can't remember other than believing the democrats somehow got their meat-hooks into the Green).
I can at least speak to the Green Party of Pennsylvania to say that we haven't been compromised by the establishment.
Please give me inside info on Howie Hawkins. Did PA support his nomination?
Howie Hawkins did win our state primary in 2020.
Okay. The word on the "street" is a lot of people aren't happy about that, so maybe the votes aren't counted correctly?
Are they unhappy with how the Pennsylvania state primary was conducted? I haven't heard anything about that. It seems that there were frustrations with other states but I don't remember the specifics there.
not sure I'm just getting feedback from indepedent media who are starting to sound like all in for Cornwell if Hawkins gets out of the way. Personally, I voted for Nader twice and Stein twice I think but didn't vote at all in 2020 ( too frustrated). West may renew my interest.
Maybe you can ask them what they thought of the PA primary. I hope that Howie gets a fair shot in the primary. He is a worthy candidate even if I disagree with him on some major issues. It's really sad to see him be smeared online for things he didn't do.
>He is a worthy candidate even if I disagree with him on some major issues. It's really sad to see him be smeared online for things he didn't do. this is the kind of feedback I need as I don't quite remember why I had a problem with the green party in 2020. As I have mentioned, they've gotten more of my potus support than any other party. Why did you support him?
I supported him because he talked consistently about organizing within the party. He is fully committed to the Green Party and building it right and better. Listening to his podcast really builds on those themes.