green from below

No need to go into great detail as the results have been analysed abley elsewhere (I nicked the delightful pie chart from there…cheers Jim!).

However there are 3 points worth reiterating

1) The Left

The Left did almost universally disastrously. Clearly something in the message and the methods is not working. No amount of optimistic spin can change this. Hopefully, these results will provide a long overdue wake up call.

2) The Far Right

Whilst some take comfort from lower than expected gains for the BNP, there should be no escaping the fact that gaining a London Assembly member is a major breakthrough that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. The BNP are getting closer to a European style permanent presence in the British political landscape.

Also even the to all intents and purposes defunct National Front managed to attract large amounts of votes in some areas.

3) The Green Party

The only comfort in these elections was the continued progress of the Greens (albeit modest). The simple lesson to be drawn from this is that the Green Party represents the most practical vehicle for success with libertarian, progressive and ecosocialist ideas, and that the Greens manage to do something the Left do not. Those of us who would self define as being  on the left of the party should be cautioned by this against jumping into bed too easily with sympathetic elements of what remains of the old left. Similarly those of our allies still clinging onto leftist praxis (as it were) would be well to take a step back and critically analyse where exactly they are.

Two recent events in Europe again bring up the question of the Green Party’s political identity.

In Italy the collapse of the Left has taken the Greens, who self identify themselves as being on the far left, down with them, whilst in Germany the Greens are looking likely to enter into with the right wing CDU, at least in Hamburg.

Both are severe blows to the credibilty of the Greens as a distinct political current.

Attempts at what our Leninist friends might characterise as centrist vacillation are not really working, and should not be inferred as the aim of this piece. Rather, it is time to return the fundamentals and position the Greens as a unique aberration from the norms of the political spectrum.

Yes, we have a lot more common ground with the left, and should recognise this is our choice of postelection allies, yet it is vital that we maintain our traditions and philosophy that allow the Greens to simoultaneously be both radical anti-capitalists and a practical choice for voters seeking urgent, local change within their communities.

Our focus on autonomy, libertarianism and practical direct action are our strengths and the Green Left and ecosocialists should  continue to work to promote this and hold our own banner high!

From the Climate and Capitalism blog…worth reposting here I belive.

The Qollasuyo Declaration: Indigenous Peoples Demand Full Participation in Climate Talks and Decisions

The statement below was issued on March 19, at the conclusion of a conference held in the Qollasuyo district of the province of La Paz, Bolivia, on “The Role of Indigenous Peoples in the Protection of Bio-Cultural Diversity: The Effect of Deforestation and Gas Emissions on Climate Change.”

According to a report in the Chilean newspaper El Rancahuaso, the meeting was sponsored by six groups:

• Coordinating Body of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin;
• Andean Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organizations;
• Indigenous Council of Central America;
• United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues;
• Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues;
• Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The conference recommendations will be submitted to Seventh Session of the Permanent UN Forum on Indigenous Issues, which will be held from April 21 to May 2 in New York City. The theme of that session will be “Climate Change, Bio-Cultural Diversity and Livelihoods: The Stewardship Role of Indigenous Peoples, and New Challenges.”

The Qollasuyo Declaration on Climate Change

The Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala [the Americas] have gathered in the International Conference on “The Role of Indigenous Peoples in the Protection of Bio-Cultural Diversity: The Effect of Deforestation and Gas Emissions on Climate Change.”

With great respect for our ancestors and our Mother Earth, we declare that:

The Indigenous Peoples, who inhabit the most fragile ecosystems on the planet, including tropical rain forests, deserts, moors, mountains and islands, are the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The impact of climate change endangers our Mother Earth, our culture, our environment and our livelihood.

These changes are the result of the Western model of development, which is based on a rapacious capitalism that does not respect Mother Earth. In this century it is estimated that the average temperature will rise 1.8°C to 4.0°C, accelerating the impact of climate change on Indigenous Peoples. We insist that industrialized countries are solely responsible for the changes that are profoundly affecting Mother Earth, and we reject any suggestion that indigenous peoples have any responsibility for them.

The catastrophic effect of these changes can already be perceived in our territories: chaotic climatic problems including prolonged rainfall, flooding and droughts, deglaciation, rising sea levels, the expansion of endemic diseases, fires in the tropical rain forest, changes in the growing season. They are breaking the chain of life, threatening the survival of our peoples, and inducing high rates of extreme poverty. Indigenous women are particularly affected.

Even though we suffer disproportionately from climate change today, change caused mainly by excessive exploitation of natural resources, we are marginalized when attention turns to the development of policies and programs to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Multilateral agencies, the private sector, international NGOs and governments, etc. are proposing mitigation and adaptation policies that, although advanced as “solutions,” affect the exercise of our rights and outrageously assault our way of life. These supposed “solutions” include development of monoculture farming, production of biofuels, carbon sequestration, reduced emissions through avoiding deforestation and creating protected areas.

Historically, as different environmental pressures have affected our surroundings, Indigenous Peoples have been able to use our traditional knowledge to adapt. Because we still have that ability, we can propose alternative approaches to adaptation and mitigation.

It is time for Indigenous Peoples to be full participants in the national and international processes, discussions and actions related to climate change, biodiversity, protected areas etc.

Therefore we demand:

1. Full and effective participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the conventions on Biological Diversity and Protected Areas, and others.

2. Establishment of an indigenous expert group on climate change and traditional knowledge within the UNFCCC.

3. Coordination with agencies and specialized agencies of the United Nations such as the CBD, UNFCCC, UNESCO, FAO, UNICEF, GEF, UNPFII, UNDP and others that are involved in implementing actions and policies on climate change that affect Indigenous Peoples.

4. That the Permanent Forum [on Indigenous Peoples] recommend that a Special Rapporteur from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights produce a report on the impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Peoples.

5. Projects and programs related to climate change and adaptation should:

a. Fully respect the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples.

b. Consult effectively in advance, to obtain free and informed consent.

c. Be subject to the requirements of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Convention 169 of the ILO, and other relevant national and international agreements.

d. Respond to the needs, priorities and real experiences of Indigenous Peoples.

6. The implementation of UNFCCC policies should be subject to the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

7. Financial mechanisms to ensure that Indigenous Peoples have access to funds for adaptation, capability development, technology transfer, etc. should be expanded and made more flexible.

8. Programs and strategies specific to the climate change mitigation and adaptation needs of Indigenous People should be recognized and supported.

Adopted in Qollasuyo, La Paz, Bolivia, March 2008

(Translation by Ian Angus, Climate & Capitalism)

Vacouver, 29 March.

Heading into town on the Greyhound I was unsurprised to a protest about Tibet on the edge of the city’s chinatown.

What did surprise me was the fact the demonstrators were pro-Chinese.

The common call seemed to be denouncing the Tibetans as violent, with many placards saying “No to Riots!”.

Now whilst we can all be a little concerned about stories of ethnically based attacks on Han chinese settlers in Tibet, the Chinese angle of the Dalai Lama being a violent trouble maker does not square with the liberal west’s sanctification of the guy.

Friend’s who have lived in China talk about the improvements in infrastructure brought by Chinese occupation, and ironically  I belive had Tibet remained an indepedent theocracy many of the protesters we see on the news now would likely be waging a Maoist “peoples’ war”.

We must support the Tibetan’s right to self-determination, but be cautious of the forces backing it. We should also look more at workers’ unrest in China itself, Western Leftists would do well to offer as much practical support as possible to the nascent labour movement there, it is one of the few genuine powder kegs of proletarian insurgence at the moment. Maybe, just maybe the revolution will begin in China.

Apologies for reposting from elsewhere, but I think this is worth disseminating as widely as possible. The blog also looks like one to keep an eye on.

On Saturday March 22nd at 2pm Middle East Worker’s Solidarity will be staging a protest opposite Downing Street in defence of Mehdi Kazemi, a gay Iranian asylum seeker who the British government plans to send back to Iran on the grounds that if gay Iranians are “discreet about their sexuality”, they will not get in trouble.

In fact, Mehdi Kazemi’s boyfriend in Iran has already been executed for being gay, and the regime knows about Mehdi Kazemi and will likely kill him if he returns. We are demonstrating to demand that he should not be sent to his death in Iran, and that he should be allowed to stay in Britain if he so chooses.

Saturday March 22nd, 2pm, Downing Street. Nearest tube Westminster/Charing Cross

Finally the ecological crisis is being taken seriously by capital.

How do we know?

The torrent of green lifestyle features and eco films pouring out of places like Hollywood coupled with the mainstreaming of green commodities and conusmerism.

Bluntly, this is a good thing.

If, the forces of capitalism dominate this world. As the Situationists used to say every realtionship in this society has been commodified. Given the timescale of the catastrophe we are facing a climate friendly capitalism today is an improvement and one that might make a crucial difference.

Of course green consumerism and planet friendly exploitation are no long term solution, but they might just give the rest of us enough breathing space to organise the alternative.
We know the flaws in green consumerisma and any solution within a capitalist society. I have no intention of rehashing these arguments here and now.
However, one thing we must be aare of as we champion An Inconvenient Truth, Grist.org and carboon footprint calculators is that none of this green lifestyle mentions the need for a political alternative to the ruling class.

The backing of Angela Davis for the US Greens gives us an example of where we need to position ourselves. We are winning the the awareness battle, but now we must focuss our efforts at providing a radical, grassroots political movement. The upcoming elections in London and the US give us an oppurtunity to position the Greens as the vehicle for enacting the radical change we need.

Liam Mac Uaid’s blog contains the following statement about the Socialist Resistance magazine. Here is my initial response:

It means a lot more than using environmental issues to have another kick at capitalism.

This is a key sentence in my opinion. Many of us are used to seeing the Left picking up ideas such as environmentalism and instead of actually engaging with their content, using them to pad out their own already existing ideaology. Some kind of real engagement is necessary and a consequent evolution of ideas and actions is what I would like to see come out of a Left / Green dialogue via ecosocialism.

Our political conclusion is:

“This new phase of capitalism forces an inevitable conclusion – only by a total transformation in politics and production, in other words a transformation of our social relations, can a sustainable future for humanity be established.”

Again, I have little real disagreement here. However, I would caution against slipping into the terminology of “phases of capitalism” for a couple of reasons. First, the predictions of the far-Left regarding the various phases etc. have tended to both be inaccurate and a stumbling block to action. Debates and disagreements of this nature are from my point of view offputting. Secondly, whilst right here, right now we can (and must) focus on capitalism we must recognise the environmental degradation caused by pre-capitalist societies and the consequences that these had.

Ecosocialism is the cross-fertilisation of ecological ideas in the Marxist left and the spread of Marxist ideas in the green movement. It is becoming more and more common for environmentalists to point at the ecological situation and attribute much human created global warming and environmental destruction to the capitalist economic model.

It should also be noted that not everyone in the ecosocialist current is moving leftwards from some kind of liberal environmentalism towards Marxism, many of us have always maintained a clear anticapitalism without necessarily adopting Marxist ideas.

At the same time some socialists have been rethinking their own assumptions about continuous growth of production as a requirement of a socialist society and many of us owe a great debt to the pioneering writings of John Bellamy Foster who has reminded us of Marxism’s contribution to ecological thinking.

This is a good step. Too often in the past in debates with the Left I’ve encounterd a manic productivism, with a caveat that a socialist socioety would automatically be better for the environment.

The transformation of politics and production we are fighting for will oblige us to replace capitalism with a society in which common ownership of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership, and in which the preservation and restoration of ecosystems will be central to all activity. Capitalism’s need to make profits and produce destructive, wasteful useful things is not something that we will be able to modify with reforms. To do that we need a revolutionary change in the way we govern, produce, distribute and consume. From this it follows that economic and political power have to be taken away from capitalists and their politicians and put in the hands of working people and their communities.

Once again, I have nothing to disagree with here. Although, I don’t think we should underestimate capitalism’s abilty to transform limited environmentaol reform into profit. We are already seeing steps taken towards this. Capitalism may well be able to put the crisis on hold long enough to squeeze a bit more profit out of it.

Ecosocialism is much more advanced outside the rich world. That’s especially true in Latin America, where anti-imperialist governments headed by Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Raul Castro in Cuba, are pressing for strong anti-capitalist, pro-environment measures.

Whilst moves taken in these countries are certainly positive, we should remain cautious about their extent and be on guard against any strain of authoritarianism that may be present within left populism. A cautious welcome, for sure, but not cheerleading.

This new magazine has set itself the ambition of becoming the principal English language ecosocialist publication.

Will it be truely non-partisan? Many of us remember another small Trotskyist grouplet liquidising itself to produce a new voive for the movement…WRP(Workers Press) if I recall correctly folded to produce Reclaim the Future for the RTS/EF!/antiroads etc movements. Not sommething wanted by the movements themselves.

I’m cautious about anyone claiming to be the “voice” of what is still an amorphous current. Would the title change to reflect this?

Having said all of this, I like forward to seeing how your project develops and whether it fits into the grassroots, autonomous, libertarian socialism that provides the left for my “Green Left”

by Guy-Ernest Debord

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of the FARC (or indeed of Hugo Chavez) at this point. It is still worth keeping an eye on the current provocations in the region.

The right in the US have been continously meddling in Latin America, and the latest incident involving an attack on a alleged FARC camp in Ecuador smells of “gringo”.

Hawks in the US regime have no interest in an end to the civil war in Colombia, and the killing of a potentially key negotiator does no harm to their agenda and their abilty to operate in the country.

Equally, provoking Chavez (and to a lesser extent Ecuador) is likely the latest move in their long game of destabalising left leaning governments in Latin America.

In two current election campaigns the issue for the Green Party, and also for the Left of tactical voting has come up.

In the US presidential elections the “spectre” of a Nader candidacy has been raised, whilst in the UK the London mayoral elections and standing against the city’s left(ish) mayor Ken Livingstone has emerged as an issue for Greens and for the various groups of the Bristish left.

All of this assumes an enagagement with electoral politics in the first place. There is a perfectly valid argument against representative democracy that I have a great deal of sympathy. However, if we accept electoral politics as one strategy amongst many, then the issue of how best to tactically intervene appears.

In the US, I feel that a strong Green Party challenge for the Presidency can only be a good thing. I’m not yet sure whether Nader would’ve been the best candidate and now the alternative is split , but we’ll see how this develops. Sure, another Republican victory would be a disaster for the US and indeed for the rest of the world; and the prospect of an Obama victory is intriguing. But, let’s not forget that the last Democrat President dropped cruise missiles on a Sudanese pharmecutical factory - I doubt Obama would have any qualms about pursuing the US military’s foreign policy objectives.

In the UK, the debate is more nuanced. PR in the mayoral elections mean that it is perfectly possible for smaller parties to stand and then urge for a 2nd preference vote for Ken. The Green Party in London is currently debating whether to formally advocate this vote going to Livingstone.

I’d say no.

It is one thing accepting that proportional represenation allows parties like the Greens to stand and attract “safe” tactical voting, but to officially advocate a vote for the candidate of the ruling Party? Not for me. We need clear water between ourselves as a genuine alternative and the traditional Parties. Elections for me are one tactic amongst many and we mustn’t lose sight of what we really want to acheive.