Ken, by electorialism, I am referring to when a political party sees itself exclusively engaged in getting candidates elected. The Reform Party is one such animal, along with the Democrats and Republicans. Since money buys elections in capitalist politics, there is a tendency to water down the politics for money. If a party is exclusively engaged in this type of political action, it has a very conservatizing effect. Contrary to what is pushed as the ONLY political action available in society, electorialism happens to be a very marginal and weak exercise for people looking for change. There are other much more effective, and strength building ways, to build political power. A political party offering an alternative should be principally non-electoral in focus. If not, professional politicians looking for 'power' of some sort, begin to run the party. This is always a problem in any organization. People like to have themselves running the show. Electorialism is like throwing gasoline on this negative aspect of human psychology. Electorialism is also focused on lobbying behind the scenes with the power players. Non- electorial strategies try to use other pressure than just delivering the votes or money to the politicos. Foremost in effectiveness, is to actually physically try to remove the politicans from out of public offices directly to the jails they might need to be in. This is an advanced form of non-electoral strategy, that is not often availabe. Still, it's what people often shoot for in a more ideal environment. Education and militant demonstraion are two other methods short of armed action, that have very important roles to play. Chomsky is noted for his ability to educate, but not so noted for his ability to mobilize for militant demonstration. And this is the case with Nader also. Martin Luther King, and the tens of thousands that built the civil rights movement, are positive examples of a non-electoral strategy in action. In the case of MLK and supporters, the electoral avenue was closed off, and therefore, there was no real alternative to what they did. Unfortunately, The Greens see that carrot dangling before them, and it's important not to react like a donkey would. Many Greens are becoming convinced that the Party IS something now, strictly based on supposed success at electoral activity. This is a delusion. The Greens will be something real, the moment that they can mobilize hundreds or thousands to demonstrate in the streets for issues of real importance. After November, will this be the case? I would suggest, that there is nothing in the past record of Ralph Nader to show that this is where he is leading the Greens to. Or the labor movement. Check out the material from off another list that has some further comments that touch on this issue. Good luck with moving your Party in the right direction. The other stuff is below your letter, Ken. Tony ______________________________ Ken wrote- As a Green party organizer, I don't want to see the Greens become another Democrat or Republican party (only poorer) either. I intend to change the way politics is done in this country and build a lasting "alternative" to the current system. I interested in what you said and would like to know what you mean by "electorialism" and "non electoral political party". Regards, Ken ______________________________ More comment from a Green not supportive of electorialism- Orton has considered himself part of the green movement since 1983 but has never joined any Green political party. He has been critical of the formation of Green parties, which he feels have accommodated themselves to the continuation of industrial capitalist society. For example, this is part of what he has written on the relationship between the green movement and party in Green Web Bulletin #64: In no place, where green parties have been established, was (a) deep ecology accepted as the philosophical basis of unity; and (b) a political plan of implementation for deep ecology worked out along with steps for the transformation of industrial society. Instead of this, a series of 'green-sounding' principles were adopted by green parties, like the so-called "four pillars" of the German Green Party: ecology, social concern, grass-roots democracy and non-violence. Such principles could be endorsed by party members, because of their ambiguity, and then disagreed with, when actual issues came along which a green party had to take a stand on. If there is no agreement on philosophical fundamentals, then there will be no agreement on important practical issues... Essentially, green "party" politics everywhere concentrated on electoral success. This was interpreted to mean coming to an accommodation with industrial society - and its political institutions, like the parliamentary electoral system. Politically it meant the politics of green dilution, that is, promoting shallow ecology. In this process most "fundamentalists" like Rudolf Bahro in Germany, who saw the primary task of green party politics as spreading the consciousness that industrial society was finished, were forced out. Bahro, when he left 'Die Gruenen' said, "At last I have understood that a party is a counterproductive tool..." ... For a green party not to be a paper organization and to have substance, a green party must: - Lead theoretically, which means party members sharing, understanding, and expressing in their work a common deep Green philosophy. - Be practically involved in issues and sum up this experience in policies/programs, around which the public can be rallied. - Develop new structures which are independent of the market and the state and the parliamentary road, which are radically democratic, give a sense of the embryo of a Green society, and which are accountable to the alternative movements. Since the above was written, the German Green Party, which has been a model for electoral Greens everywhere, in coalition with the German social democrats, actively supported the NATO bombing of Kosovo. A fundamental question is: How does one participate in electoral politics without being absorbed into the existing industrial paradigm of values? The speaking invitation is an example of the open- mindedness to different ideas of the party Greens organizing the Convention. "I look forward to an exciting intellectual exchange between Greens," said Orton. "Earth destruction is intensifying overall, yet green and environmental thinking in Canada is becoming more marginalized. Why has the 'meaning' of life become survival and denial for so many people in Canada? As has been said by Saral Sarkar, a fundi German Green originally from India, who has written a book on German Green politics - the Greens are the first social movement in history to 'promise' a lower material standard of living if successful. This is not the stuff, in the short term, that electoral victories are made of. Greens should not see their role as brushing the teeth of the industrial dragon. We, as Greens, need to put forth alternative visions. The present Earth-eating industrial capitalist society everywhere commodifies and destroys Nature and undermines human communities. All of us, from whatever diverse cultures, need to see that we share our identity with the natural world and all its animals and plants, as a necessary part of ourselves. This means to move away from human self-centeredness and chauvinism. We are talking about a spiritual transformation in consciousness. Could this Convention in Ottawa signify the start of something new for Greens in this country?" For further information, contact David Orton at (902) 925-2514