Citation
Possibilities for a Green party U.S.A.

Material Information

Title:
Possibilities for a Green party U.S.A.
Creator:
Morgan, David Edward
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 90 leaves : ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Third parties (United States politics) ( lcsh )
Environmental protection -- Political aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Environmental protection -- Political aspects ( fast )
Third parties (United States politics) ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 88-90).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Department of Political Science.
Statement of Responsibility:
by David Edward Morgan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
18008587 ( OCLC )
ocm18008587
Classification:
LD1190.L64 1986m .M67 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
POSSIBILITIES FOR A GREEN PARTY U.S.A.
by
David Edward Morgan
B.A., University of Colorado, 1984
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Political Science
1986


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by
David Edward Morgan
has been approved for the
Department of
Political Science
Date
/


in
Morgan, David Edward (B.A., Political Science)
Possibilities for a Green Party U.S.A.
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Michael- S. Cummings
The thesis first looks at what it means to be Green to
ecology, anti-nuclear-power,, peace and feminist groups. It
defines these groups and reflects upon why they are part of the
Green movement. It also looks at what the movement means for
average citizens and why it would benefit them.
In Chapter II, problems under the Capitalist and Socialist
industrial systems are explored from a Green perspective that
questions the long and short-term goals of industrialism.
In Chapter III, the systems of Capitalism and Socialism are
shown to be ideologically antagonistic yet similar in their
commitment to industrialism.. The case is presented that it is
irrelevant which ideology is dominant as long as industrialism leads
all in the destruction of the planet. The chapter also looks at
the earth and its present condition. Problems that the industrial
system cannot cure, such as the danger of nuclear power, centralized
governmental power, denial of deep ecology, and violence, are
explored and questioned.
Chapter IV examines why a Green movement or party is
necessary, and looks especially at societal leadership, grassroots
teamwork, and economic democracy as components of the Green
solution.
Obstacles to the development of a successful party in the


iv
United States include electoral laws hostile to new parties, new-
party co-optation, demography, and geographical problems. These
obstacles are reviewed in Chapter V.
The final chapter looks at the alternatives that might
work in the United States. The network,, movement, caucus, and
party are all investigated in order to see which could be the most
effective in our unique' situation. The chapter ends with a
recommendation of the most sensible Green alternative that will
have an impact not only upon the current industrial system, but
also upon the socio-political structure without causing violent
upheavals in our society.


V
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. WHO IS GREEN?............................................ 1
Ecology................................................... 7
Social Responsibility................................... 8
Grassroots Democracy...................................... 9
Nonviolence.......................................... 10
II. PROBLEMS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM.......................... 21
Is Bigger Better?............. ....................... 24
Capitalism and Socialism................................ 26
III. WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK....................... 32
Antagonistic Systems.................................. 32
Capitalism............................................ 32
Socialism........................................... 35
The Same Master--The Same Goals........................ 37
Problems for the Current System.......................... 41
Nuclear Power......................................... 41
Decentralization................................... 45
Deep Ecological Understanding......................... 46
The Air............................................... 49
The Water............................................. 51
Toxic Wastes.......................................... 51
PeaceNonviolence..................................... 52


vi
IV. WHY A GREEN MOVEMENT OR PARTY IS NECESSARY................ 56
Awakening Mankind.......................................... 60
Grassroots Teamwork...................................... 60
Societal Leadership................................. 61
Economic Democracy................. ................ 62
V. OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUCCESSFUL THIRD
PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES................................. 67
Proportional Representation............................... 67
Other-Party-Co-optation............................... .70
Demographic and Geographic Problems........................ 73
Demographic Problems.................................... 73
Geographic Problems................................. 74
VI. WHAT WILL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.......................... 77
Types of Organizations..................................... 77
Green Network............................................ 78
Green Movement........................................... 79
Green Caucus within the Movement......................... 81
National Membership Green Caucus................ 82
Green Party........................................... 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY-BOOKS............................................ 88
BIBLIOGRAPHYJOURNALS/ARTICLES..................................... 90


CHAPTER I
WHO IS GREEN?
"Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night
suffocate in your own waste____11
Chief Seattle
Leader of the Suquamish tribe
Washington Territory
Regardless of your political ideology, you might have a
little "Green" in you. If you are concerned about nuclear energy
development, decentralized government, the conservation of non-
renewable resources (notably energy), urban congestion, over-
population, air and water pollution, waste disposal and the preser-
vation of f)ora and fauna in their natural states--all issues
involving protection of the environment and the improvement of the
quality of life--you might be a potential Green movement supporter.
This spectrum of causes is not necessarily restricted to
"big picture" mentality. The persons who are concerned with a Green
problem in their own home town are as important as the international
leaders who try to coordinate the struggle for the Green movement on
a worldwide basis. In fact, one of the founding blocks for the Green
movement is grassroots involvement. The German Greens, for example,
consider themselves "the political voice of the citizens' movements,
that is ecology, anti-nuclear-power, peace, feminist and others.


2
In fact, most members of the German Green party are members and
activists in one or more of these movements."*
The purpose of this chapter will be to try and define who
is Green, and what it means to be Green in the United States. As
earlier stated, those individuals and groups that share the follow-
ing basic principles could be considered Green oriented. Capra and
Spretnak list the following principles: ecology, social respons-
ibility, grassroots democracy and nonviolence as the basis for
Green ideology. These were taken from the programme of the German
Green party and apply to any real Green movement, but they must
be discussed and explained more fully, later in the chapter.
The German Greens will be referred to throughout the thesis.
Their political success in such a short time is the major reason
for this referral. Let us look at the "track record" of this Green
organization, and also of other European Greens, before proceeding
further into their basic unifying beliefs.
American and European Greens have benefitted greatly from
the success of the West German Green party, die Grunen. Their
tremendous success at the polls has given other parties an element
of transferred credibility. In March 1983 they won twenty-seven
seats in the West German Bundestag and captured 5.6 percent of the
vote. This firmly established Green politics as a serious alterr'
native form of politics and helped to proliferate Green growth on a
worldwide scale.
Die Grunen did not become a formal party until January, 1980,
and it was the nuclear power issue which was the catalyst in this


3
case.
In the mid-1970s most environmentalists in Germany were
confident that nuclear power could be stopped by non-violent
direct action, including the occupation of new sites.
Their experiences.... led them to realize that such actions,
divorced from the exercise of real political power, were
quite inadequate.2
They tried legal action through the courts and other efforts to
win the support of the Social Democratic party (SPD) in their
anti-nuclear-power position. These attempts also failed.
By 1977 Green coalitions and citizen action groups were
Still opposed to creating a separate Green party, but Green
candidates were beginning to run in local elections and enjoy a
fair amount of success. Rudolf Bahro, one of the leaders of the
German Green party, notes in his book "BUILDING THE GREEN MOVEMENT",
that the failures of conventional techniques, ultimately led the
Green-oriented leadership to once again renew the call for a Green
party so that the extraparliamentary efforts could be backed by
parliamentary involvement. The environmental movement in West
Germany became increasingly politicized, and its leadership, began
to realize that elimination of nuclear power would be possible
only as part of a larger political transformation. In 1979 the
various coalition groups put together a basic platform and the
Green party, die Grunen, was formally created.
Over the next three years the German Greens more finely
tuned their beliefs and consolidated them into the "Programme of
the German Green Party". They became very involved in the peace
movement, and their solid stance against Pershing II and Cruise
missiles helped to broaden their membership. It was because of


4
the clarity of their opposition to nuclear power that they enjoyed
fair success in the local elections. Capra and Spretnak point
out that it was this period, when their credibility was established,
that prepared the groundwork for die Grunens1 suprising election to
the Bundestag in 1983,
Some of the reasons why die Grunen has enjoyed such success
are:
"-A well established base at the grassroots;
-a politicized environment movement;
-a passionately fought campaign against nuclear power;
-total commitment to a peace movement not dominated by. the left;
-a federal parliamentary system;
-an electoral system (with representation allocated
proportionately once a 5 percent threshold has been
crossed) that has allowed a green party to claim its
place alongside the established parties."3
The "track record" of the German Greens is very encouraging.
They have become the political voice of their grassroots constituency
and also have shown that power and information can run both ways by
their example of constant feedback to the grassroots level. It was
the Green party that brought to the country's attention the present
severity of ecological damage. They made an issue of the missile
problem that the established parties chose to ignore. It should
be noted that the Greens have, most importantly, changed the make-up
of the political-social culture. By bringing grassroots politics
back into focus, they have reintroduced equality into the general
political spectrum.


5
In invigorating and transforming the political culture,
the Greens have changed not only what should be discussed
but also who should discuss it: women as well as men,
and ordinary citizens as well as entrenched politicians.
When the Greens went to the Bundestag, they upset the
traditional patriarchal balance.because there were more than one-
third women in their contingent. Charlene Spretnak noted that
this drew the ire of the "old guard" and they were hardly able
to maintain courtesy towards the Green delegates.
Problems the German Greens face are co-optation by the
)
established parties; whether or not they would strengthen or
weaken their position by entering into a coalition with an
established party; and lastly, internal problems between the
extreme left and right factions of their party. What are die
Grunen's prospects for the future? Capra, and Spretnak indicate that
the established politicians predict that the Greens will lose their
5 percent mandate and all their seats in the Bundestag in the next
election. A West German research group, Trend-Radar, concluded:
there is a 50 percent probability that the Greens will
become a well-established party in the Bundestag, a less
than 50 percent probability that they will remain largely
extra-parliamentary, and a less than 30 percent probability
that they will soon dissolve.5
This same research group determined the characteristics of the Greens
to be the following:
-They facilitate the dissolution of men's-club politics;
they support female, and hence, holistic, thinking.
-They try out process politics; there is permanent learning.
-They test flexible forms of organization, which causes
delicate problems with communication and voting.
-They redefine power; holding office is not seen as a sign of
superiority but as holy sacrifice.


6
-Emotions, intuition, and a new balance between play and
seriousness have entered politics.
-They have introduced morality into politics and attempt to
develop a new morality.
-Although they have taken .votes from the Social Democrats in
the past, the Greens will win many votes from the Christian
Democrats as well in the future.
The legitimation of die Grunen has greatly aided the cause
of the other European.Greens. Over the past several years, there
has arisen a much broader:and confident, international movement.
There are now Green parties in West Germany, the United Kingdom,
Ireland, France, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Luxemburg
and Austria. The countries of Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain
have dynamic Green-oriented groups that are planning to form
parties in the near future.
There is no doubt that Green momentum is increasing. "In
November 1981, the two Belgium Green parties had five senators
elected to the Upper Chamber and four representatives elected to
the Lower Chamber of the Belgian Parliament."^ This was the first
time any Green party had people elected to any type of national
parliament. "In 1982 they won 120 seats on local councils, and
Q
now hold the balance of power on three of them."
The proliferation of universal Green ideals is not only to
be found in Europe. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have Green
parties that are slowly making headway in the arena of established
politics. Information on these organizations is still limited, but
a colleague, Amir Piroozi, who is currently researching the Canadian
Green parties, indicates that they are making relatively solid progress.


7
Let us now look at the basic principles of ecology, social
responsibility, grassroots democracy and nonviolence and see
how they are united in their quest for deep ecology. ..
Ecology
A means of unifying most of the factions within a Green
movement is the ecological movement in general. Everything that
we, as humans and stewards of the earth, are involved with, either
directly or indirectly, relates to and affects others. The
current system in the United States strives to maintain the status
quo and protect the current industrialized, constant-growth system.
What is needed is a new outlook: "deep ecology, which encompasses
the study of nature's subtle web of interrelated processes and the
application of that study to our interactions with nature and among
ourselves." Deep ecology means interrelating economics, politics,
social structures and spirituality, all towards achieving the same
goal; that of not only stopping current damage to the eco-system
and the planet as a whole, but enhancing the survival prospects
for future generations and creating a way of living and thinking
that will ensure that this system will endure indefinitely.
Under the ideals and goals of deep ecology, the ecology,
anti-nuclear-power, peace and feminist groups can find a common
banner and harmoniously strive to create a meaningful relationship
with the earth. This deep ecological perspective could be considered
holistic in the truest sense of the word. As Capra and Spretnak
point out, "the broader applications of this ecological thinking


8
leads to social ecology; the perception of societal structures and
human interactions as an intricate web of dynamic systems that are
simultaneously interrelated parts and complete in themselves."1*1
Groups such as the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense
Fund, Greenpeace and the American Indian Movement (AIM), to name
only a few, all recognize.that the universe, including humankind, is
interrelated and interconnected and must be handled and understood
from that perspective.
Social Responsibility
"The ecological and social spheres belong inseparably
together: the economy of nature, is linked to the economy of humans
for better or for worse."11 Social responsibility means that the
Green movement programs will not harm the poor and the working
class in the attempt to restructure our social, political and
economic systems along ecological lines. It is also the reason
groups such as the League of Women Voters and many of the feminist
and minority groups in our society are sympathetic to the Green
movement. The Greens strive.to promote more social and civil rights
for women and minority groups.
Current social conditions create much social and mental
hardship for those not in the majority. Many groups are discrimin-
ated against because of religion, race of sexuality. Discrimination
creates instability within the social system which, in turn, creates
increased crime and other social problems, such as suicide and
alcoholism. A better environment for everyone on the socio-
political, ecological, economic and spiritual levels will do much


9
to better our chances for deep ecological understanding and harmony.
Increased social responsibility decreases the stress in the overall
system and permits women and ethnic minorities to contribute
constructively to the overall betterment of the system. Antagonism
is decreased and cooperation is increased much to the benefit of all
concerned.
Grassroots Democracy
Citizens Advisory Boards and neighborhood organizing groups
all are part of grassroots democracy. Green movements, everywhere,
stress the need for a greater amount of control on the local level.
Decentralization of power is their goal. In the United States,
grassroots democracy has been greatly influenced by the peace move-
ments, civil rights movements, anti-nuclear-power movements and
ecology movements. The current American system stresses central-
ization of power. It implies that bigger is naturally better. The
larger the bureaucracy, the more important it must be. The system,
ultimately, ends up being its own reason for survival, rather than
the system being created for the service of the people.
Greens, on the other hand, call for a sound, sustainable
economic system that is decentralized, equitable, and institutionally
flexible, one in which people have significant control
over their own lives and the life of the entire system. Power
would be withdrawn from the few and disseminated to the many. No
longer would the system run the people, or the minority run the
majority, rather, the people would run the system in the interests
of the people and environment in which they live.


10
Nonviolence
Petra Kelly has said that "nonviolence is the essential
ingredient in-an ecological society. Nonviolence can never be
compromised." (Petra Kelly is one of the leaders of the German
Green movement.) Nonviolence permeates the Green philosophy, whether
it is nationally, regionally, or locally defined, and seems to be
the main building block of all Green goals and ideals. Ecological,
social and grassroots goals all are dictated to by the philosophy
of nonviolence. The Green opposition to violence applies not only
to violence perpetrated between individuals but also to violence
conducted by the state and by institutions. The Greens condemn
13
both "personal and structural violence." Violence between people
and groups is no better than violence conducted between warring
nations. Violence by humans to the environment is just as bad as
human-to-human violence. This means not only physical harm but also
violence and repression against women and minorities. The Green
movements want
to develop a nonexplo.itive [sic] economic system in which
employee owned and controlled, businesses replace huge operations
dictated by the state or corporate interests. They want to
transform our violent relationship with nature into one of
balance and respect. The Greens even extend this principle .
of nonviolence to their active resistance against the most
deadly manifestation of structural violence: the nuclear arms
race promoted by the military-industrial complex and the
government.14
The German Green party gives probably the best definition
of nonviolent goals that could apply to any Green movements,
worldwide.
We aim at a nonviolent society where the oppression of one


11
person by another is abolished. Our foremost principle is
that humane goals cannot be achieved by inhumane means.
Nonviolence should prevail between.all human beings____and
includes social resistance in its various forms. In the long
run resistance can be carried out most effectively in a social
manner, as shown by the example of the anti-nuclear-power
movement. We are just as fundamentally opposed to use of force
between states in acts of war....
Nonviolence does not exclude active social resistance, and
so does not mean passivity for those involved. The principle
of nonviolence means, that resistance against government
measures is not only legitimate in certain circumstances, it
may even be essential for people to defend their vital interests
against an authority which escapes their control (for example
sit-ins, blocking of roads, obstruction.of vehicles).15
The process of nonviolent protest was helped in the United
States by the early civil rights and the peace movements of the
1960s. We are very aware of the power of nonviolent confrontation,
and any successful Green movement in the United States would have
to utilize this cornerstone if and when necessary.
These four basic principles of the Green movement, ecology,
social responsibility, grassroots democracy and, finally, nonviolence,
are all adhered to by the various interest groups that make up the
movement itself. It gives them a reliability and a consistency in
their joint belief and goals that will enable them to work together
in beating a current system that seeks to redirect or co-opt their
goals.
What it means to be Green to the ecology groups such as
the Sierra Club or the Friends of the Earth is that the natural
resources, the wealth of the earth, will not be exploited to the
point of depletion. It means that, as Jonathon Porritt, of Friends
of the Earth, United Kingdom, says, "we do not have dominion over


12
the Earth to do with as we please, we are merely stewards who are
to use what we have wisely, only as needed, in harmony between man
and the planet."*6
The ecology groups believe in deep ecology. They look at
the holistic view of mankind in relation to the planet. A Sierra
Club brochure says, "when we try to pick out anything by itself, we
find it hitched to everything else in the universe." A unified
movement, organized around those four basic principles of the Greens,
gives the ecology movement very comfortable parameters within which
to work.
Doug Robotham, local organizer for the Rocky Mountain chapter
of the Sierra Club, echoed these same sentiments in a recent inter-
view. Groups like the Sierra Club are an excellent example of how
a local chapter can interrelate with the regional and national head-
quarters and work compatibly towards the same goals on a local
level. Many people see the Sierra Club, for example, only according
to the big picture, on a worldwide or national level, but its
ecological, nonviolent and socially responsible principles are often
started and pushed at the grassroots level. The Sierra Club is
based, in San Francisco, California, and has a national membership of
370,000 members. It concentrates its attention on national affairs
and incorporates ecology groups, anti-nuclear-power groups, peace
groups and feminist groups within its membership. To the
misinformed, it consists of the 'tree huggers' who want only to go
backwards instead of going forward.
A good example of this false view was an article in the


13
January 30, 1986 edition of the Rocky Mountain News by Thomas Sowell
entitled, Environmentalist by any other name is a green bigot",
which claimed that we have gone too far in the direction of preser-
vation and that all that was being preserved was special privileges"
for the environmentalists. His argument implied that the white
middle class was pushing environmentalism as a project of self-
interest. He claimed that the poor, Black, Indian and other
minorities would not have the means to have access to these areas
being fought for, simply because of their limited incomes and
resources.
On February 12, 1986, this article was answered by Michele
Perrault, president of the Sierra Club, in the Rocky Mountain News
under the title, "Wilderness.desired, by many, opposed by few." The
article countered the Sowell accusation with facts and statistics
and added to the local credibility of:the Sierra Club. A recent
poll in California had been taken with results differing from
the accusations of Mr. Sowell. Ms. Perrault said,
further, these respondents were hardly the small affluent
group that Sowell imagines. Sixty percent of those with incomes
under $20,000 supported the preservation side of the debate; 60%
of the minority respondents in the sample also favored increased
preservation.
In fact, the support for desert parks and wilderness totalled
more than 60% in every region of. the state and in every
income group.
In countering Sowell's arguments that the underprivileged cannot use
or have access to these parks, and only the middle class with the
time and income to get there and stay there use them, Perrault
stated that "the Sierra Club also favors the acquisition of addition-


14
al lands for urban parks and the creation of new parks for ordinary
city people with limited vacation time."
To get an idea how an American Green-oriented organization
obtains its grassroots support, let us look briefly at the Rocky
Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club. The overall regional membership
is approximately 7,000., which is broken further into seven local
groups that discuss and handle, problems at the grassroots level.
These groups interrelate and work with other organizations also at
the grassroots level. When it comes to problems that need "clout",
they unite into a larger movement with other groups, and support or
oppose positions on local and state, conflicts in the areas of nuclear
power, water, wilderness, conservation, hazardous substances and
many other environmental and human issues that might arise.
This local Sierra Club chapter is also a member and supporter
of other grassroots organizations such as the Colorado Environmental
Coalition and the Colorado Environmental Lobby. Whereas the
Sierra Club is a group, the Colorado Environmental Coalition is a
movement that encompasses diverse groups that are Green in their
orientation. "The Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) is a
coalition of groups and individuals dedicated to promoting and
achieving the protection of environmental values primarily in
17
Colorado." With dedicated leadership, this local organization has
the regional support of many national organizations such as the
Audubon Society, League of Women Voters, local branches of the
Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law Society, Citizens
Alliance, Sierra Club, Wild!ife Society and many other groups


15
with goals and ideals that fall within the parameters of the Green
movement's four basic principles.
A Green movement is necessary in order to give these diverse
groups a focal point. They need a unified political voice with
which to make their objectives known and felt by the politicians
that are a part of the mainstream political system that either
ignores these problems or attempts to co-opt their critics.
This focal point is the reason a movement is necessary. All
the different groups can find unity under the four principles, if
they can be made to realize that the problems we are facing on the
planet are not only severe, but interdependent, that united the groups
will succeed in their goals, but divided, they will lack the volume
needed to create a policy-changing presence. The awareness must be
so great that the current system will be unable to co-opt its
momentum and defuse the movement. More awareness at the grassroots
level is the basis for this growth. Groups can unite, as in the
Colorado Environmental Coalition, and have enough supporters to
make a political and social impact on the mainstream political
system. The CEC has over 30,000 members, of whom a great many are
active. Working at the grassroots level, these activists can
accomplish much, and significant outreach can be accomplished. A
movement that believes in its causes and makes society aware of
its own problems on the grassroots level will certainly create a
socio-economic and political impact on the holistic treatment of
ecology and on attempts to avoid basic solutions to ecological
problems.


16
Such a movement would have enough support on a national
basis to create an influence over major national issues such as
environmental regulation, clean^air acts, nuclear power, industrial
chemicals and pesticides, and women's and minorities rights, just
to name a few.
Can a holistic party or movement that brings all this together
address the problems that the Democrats and Republicans do not
solve? If the German Green party, die Grunen, can be used as an
example of what a young, dynamic party can do, it most certainly
can be successful. A Green-party that is willing to work within
the existing system yet not allow the current decision-makers to
lure it away from its goals and ideas will most assuredly make
an impact on how the existing society treats the ecological
system. This claim will be discussed more fully in Chapter III.
What it means to be Green to average citizens is that
the environment will be healthier for both themselves and the
planet. Holistically speaking, it ensures that the planet will
still be around for their offspring, without the threats of nuclear
war, acid rain and many other current problems. A socio-political
system that lives by, and adheres to, social responsibility, grass-
roots democracy, deep ecology and nonviolence guarantees its life
and the lives of the creatures, that inhabit the planet.
As Theodore Roszak has said,
the needs of the planet and the needs of the person have
become one, and together they have begun to act upon the
central institutions of our society with a force that is
profoundly subversive, but which carries within it the
promise of cultural renewal.18


17
Chapter II, Problems under the Current System, examines
problems under the existing socio-political and economic system,
especially those related to industrialism and the fact that
industrialism is responsible for a short-sighted squandering of
natural resources. It also.addresses the inadequacies of the two
major pro-industrial ideologies, Socialism and Capitalism, in
responding to these problems. The chapter ends with a discussion
of the problems that the current system cannot cure in its present
form.
Chapter III examines why the current system will not work.
It looks at the ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism and attempts
to separate fact from fiction about the similarities and differences
between them. Beginning with the reality that they both come
from industrialism, this chapter shows why they ignore deep
ecology as an answer to the problems they are presented with.
Chapter IV explains why a Green movement or party is necessary
in the United States. It looks at the present condition of the
earth and then at the future direction and potential condition
that it might end in if we are not ecologically-oriented. The
second part of chapter IV argues for the urgency of recognizing
what industrialism is doing to. humanity and the planet. It discusses
how citizens must initiate this change at the grassroots level and
ultimately evolve into a force powerful enough.to affect the current
systems of the world.
Chapter V discusses the obstacles to the development of a
successful third party in the United States and lists the


18
difficulties that await a holistic, unified movement. Issues
such as proportional representation, other party co-optation and
demographic and geographic location must be considered in order to
determine what will make a national party or movement viable. The
Green movement is fairly successful in Europe, but the comparative
logistics must be closely scrutinized because of the size of the
United States.
The final chapter, What Will Work in the United States,
looks at what alternatives are available in this country. It
reviews the various types of Green organizations possible,-such as
the party, the movement, the caucus, and the network. Lastly, it
looks at what specific alternative is likely to be the most viable
Green alternative, here in the United States.


19
"NOTES-CHAPTER I."
*Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New-York,. N.Y., E.P. Dutton, Inc. page 3.
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 12.
3.1 Ibid." page 13.
4Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.P. Dutton, Inc., page 144.
5"Ibid." page 160.
6,,Ibid." page 161.
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 13.
8.1 Ibid." page 13.
9Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.P. Dutton, Inc., page 31.
10"Ibid." page 31.
UDie Grunen, PROGRAMME OF THE GERMAN GREEN PARTY, (1983).
^Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.P. Dutton, Inc., page 45.
13"Ibid." page 45.
14,1 Ibid." page 43.
15"Ibid." page 43.
16Jonathon Porritt, SEEING. GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 147.
^Roger Fuehrer, "Colorado Environmental Coalition*Organizer",
Colorado Environmental Report, (1986), page 1.


Granada
"NOTES-CHAPTER I.u
18Theodore Roszak, PERSON/PLANET, (1981), St. Albans,
Anchor Press, page 42,


CHAPTER II
PROBLEMS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM
The socio-economic and political systems that practice deep
ecology will find their goals and aspirations in direct conflict
with the current mind-set that is being practiced in much of the
world today. E. F. Schumacher said,
we are not in the least concerned with conservation; we are
maximizing, instead of minimizing, the current rates of use;
and, far from being interested in studying the possibilities
of alternative methods of production and patterns of living
so as to get off the collision course on which we are moving
with ever-increasing speed--we happily talk of unlimited
progress along the beaten track of education for leisure in
the rich countries, and the transfer of technology to the
poor countries.^
Industrialism, as we know it, is not conservative. It is a system
calculatingly predicated on ever-increasing growth. From the
beginnings of the industrial revolution until the present, the
system has been concerned with creation of more and more goods
and the technology necessary to continue on in an uninhibited growth
pattern. The evolution from the earliest 'cottage industries' to
the present-day multinational corporations, has taken place in a
relatively short period of time when considering how long it has
taken the planet to produce the resources that industrialism is
using up at a break-neck pace. Not even ex-president Jimmy Carter's
GLOBAL 2000 report, which was a factual piece that showed the
problems that we are currently facing will be small ones


22
compared to those in the-future, was listened to by the military-
industrial complex in the United States.
If present trends continue, warned the CEQ in its GLOBAL 2000
report of .1980, the world of 2000 will be more crowded, more
polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to
disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses
involving population resources and the environment are clearly
visible ahead.2
If there had been a holistic or deep ecological sense
inherent in industrialism from its inception, the world would not
be facing the problems that persist and threaten our future. It
should also be noted that these, problems are not unique to the
United States, but are found in every industrial country on the
globe, and are drifting into.the-non-industrial, underdeveloped,
Third World areas. Most environmental problems are universal,
and all countries share or contribute to the degradation of the
environment. They, therefore, share in the consequences of an
eco-system that has been corrupted by high technology, fast-growth
industrialism. National boundaries can neither isolate nor
insulate a people from ecological interdependence.
As new technologies diversify, and developing countries also
industrialize, the current stresses upon the global eco-system will
be compounded. Problems such as air quality, the Greenhouse effect,
the ozone, acid rain, deforestation of mountains and rainforests, and
the dissemination of persistent hazardous substances will continue
to grow at an unprecedented pace if deep ecology is ignored.
These problems are created.by industrialism and have
continuously increased because of the lack of interest and mis-


23
direction given them by current socio-political and economic
leaders. The environmental policies of the United States for the
1980s are directed more at "stamping out fires" than directly
addressing the problems of constant industrial growth. Rather
than realizing that heavy industrial growth is the problem,
current leaders look at pollution, acid rain and many other problems
as the" problem to be solved.
Despite the efforts of Ralph Nader, Barry Commoner and many
others to extend purely environmental concerns into a more
fundamental opposition to. large corporations and the whole
ethos of industrialism, there has been little basic change
in either the goals or the institutions of American society as
a result of the so-called "environment boom." Reformism
remains very much the order of the day, few activists seem
concerned that they are dealing mostly with symptoms and
not with causes.^
It seems that the industrialist and the consumer are both
unaware that the trade-off for constant growth and prosperity in
today's industrial world means shortages and hard times in the
problem world of the future. It is even more terrifying when
the industrialists and their supporters either ignore or gloss over
the GLOBAL 2000 report and give credence to Julian Simon's latest
work, THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH, which makes statements like "environment,
resource and population stresses are diminishing, and with the
passage of time will have less influence than now upon the quality
4
of human life on our planet."
It is this type of progress that scares the supporters of
the Green movement. This is the type of viewpoint that convinced
the Reagan administration to attempt to sell off millions of acres
of publicly owned land to real estate developers, oil, gas, coal


24
and timber companies in the hope that private.ownership might put
the land to a higher economic purpose." It might, but if the
dictates of progress today already require the creation of national
sacrifice areas, what are we to make of the prospects for progress
for our future generations on this planet when we have even less
to sacrifice?
Is Bigger Better?
In 1973, E.F. Schumacher wrote a book entitled SMALL IS
BEAUTIFUL, which was one of the forerunners of the Green movement
today. The subtitle of the book was Economics as if People Mattered,
and he addressed the proposition that bigger was not necessarily
better. In his book, he addresses the problems of the modern
world, its resources and what the modern world would one day do to
the Third World because of its insatiable need for growth and
natural resources.
By endlessly seeking solutions through more of this and more .
of that, the problems of the world are merely compounded. As
Schumacher explains, the industrialists' illusions are based upon a
failure to distinguish between capital and income:
Every economist and businessman is familiar with the distinction
and applies it conscientiously and with considerable subtlety
to all economic affairsexcept where it really matters: namely
the irreplaceable capital which man has not made, but simply
found, and without which he can do nothing.
A businessman would not consider a firm to have solved its
problems of production and to have achieved viability if he
saw that it was rapidly.consuming its capital. How, then
could we overlook this vital fact when it comes to that very
big firm, the economy.of Spaceship Earth and, in particular,
the economies of its very rich passengers?^


25
This then is the framework: an environment ravaged and devastated
by the majority of the world's people just so they can live from
day to day, and by a minority to satisfy their wasteful habits of
consumption. Industrialism is the culprit and the creation of this
catastrophe. As Jonathon Porritt says, "the poor haven't the
luxury and the rich haven't the inclination to think about tomorrow."*
As these problems become more accentuated and the pressure becomes
more obvious,- one would think that more sustainable patterns of
economic development would be created, as soon as possible. More
often than not, the indifference or special interests of our politi-
cians, coupled with the "I need it now" conditioning of our society,
has placed ecological problems at the end of the agenda, only to
be resurrected when a severe problem arises or when the pressure gets
too high. When it finally does, re-direction or co-optation of
ecological leadership is more likely the goal than is curing the
actual problem. As was earlier stated, the problems that political
systems under industrialism address are usually not the causes, but
the symptoms, and for this reason, the politics of industrialism, as
it currently is, and the politics of ecology, are basically at odds
with one another.
It is with good reason that Schumacher says,
Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but
as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He
even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he
won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side.
Until quite recently, the battle seemed to go well enough to
give him the illusion of unlimited powers, but not.so well
as to bring the possibility of total victory into view.
This has now come into view, and many people, albeit only a


26
minority, are beginning to realize what this means for
the continued existence of humanity.7
Schumacher says that the main reason we overlook this important
fact is that we are estranged from reality and tend to look at
anything that is not man-made as being without value. He even -
alludes to Dr. Karl Marx being in error when he formulated the
"labor theory of value." "Now we have indeed laboured to make some
of the capital which today helps us to producea large scientific,
technological, and other knowledge; an elaborate physical infra-
structure, innumerable types of sophisticated capital equipment, etc.
but all this is but a small part of the total capital we are
using."8
Much larger than this is the capital not provided by
humans, but by nature itself. The capital that was created by
nature, we do not even recognize as such. This capital, we. use
up without giving attention to.the. fact that it is impossible to
reproduce. When Marx suggested "alienation", he referred to
alienation on the human scale, but it also applies to alienation
between humans and their planet. This type of alienation is where
the Greens are at odds with the politicians representing industrialism,
regardless of the specific system, Capitalism or Socialism.
Capitalism and Socialism
Schumacher said that the problem with economics today is
that it concerns itself with mathematical specification and
statistical quantification of economic contexts. Capra and Spretnak
state that present-day economists, whether classical, Keynesian or


27
Marxist, all fail to have an ecological perspective. They believe
that none of the economists recognire that the economy is merely
one facet, or aspect of the whole ecological system and tend to
isolate it and "describe it in terms of highly unrealistic models.
Most economists define their basic conceptsefficiency, productivity,
GNP, and so forthin a narrow way, without considering the social
g
and ecological context." They especially disregard any environmental
costs that might be generated, by economic activity. Economists and
politicians alike, because of the industrial system, see a
continually growing economy as virtually essential to survival
when, in reality, the reverse is true. The belief in the necessity
of continuing economic growth is an excellent example of what the
Greens are against: the idea that more is always better, or that
bigger is better for the sake of all concerned. Chapter 4 in-Capra
and Spretnak's GREEN POLITICS, The. Global Promise, addresses this
problem very well.
The prevailing creed in government and business is still that
the common good is best served whan all people and institutions
maximize their own material wealthwhat's good for General
Motors is good for the United States. The whole is identified
with the sum of its parts. The fact that it can be either
more or less than this sum, depending on the positive or
negative interference, among the parts, is ignored. The
consequences of this reductionist fallacy are now becoming
painfully visible, as economic forces collide with each other
with increasing frequency, tear the social fabric, destroy
the natural environment, and generate international political
tensions.^0
It is because of industrialism and "all out" economic growth,
that there have arisen striking similarities between the two major
ideologies in the world.


28
Capitalism and Socialism address only the current issues
of environmentalism and fail to look at the long-range goals of .
deep ecology. It is precisely because of the industrial notion of
continuous, growth that the German Greens made the statement that
they are "neither right, nor left, nor in the center, but in
front." The Greens, worldwide, disagree with the politics of the
right and its underlying ideology of Capitalism; they also disagree
with the politics of the left and its adherence to the ideology
of Communism. As Jonathon Porritt describes the politics of the
center as an "ideological pot-pourri" of socialized Capitalism,
it must be disagreed with also. He says, "the politics of the
industrial age is 1 ike a three-lane motorway, with different
vehicles in different lanes, but all heading in the same direction."11
It is the Green movement's perception.that all roads currently are
heading for trouble; therefore, Greens must travel a new road.
The Greens believe there is such a disparity between the two
primary ideologies, that if they ever should reconcile, it would
most likely be too late to save the planet.
The obsession with industrialism and continuous growth has
created tremendous similarities between both Capitalist and
Socialist economies. If one were to review the most important
characteristics of the United States and the Soviet Union, for example,
it would be found that they share many characteristics. They are
both earmarked by.a dedication to constant growth in the industrial
sector and in hard technology. In either country can be found a
very large bureaucratic controlling element and a great degree of


29
centralization. Both are dedicated to the expansion of the means
of production, to a materialist ethic as.the best means of meeting
people's needs, and to unimpeded technological development. I shall
be arguing in Chapter III-that the similarities between these two
predominant systems are. of greater importance than their differences.
For the time being, suffice it to say that the leaders of these
competing ideologies only look at the current issues on the environ-
mental level. Once again, this means that they do not look,
holistically, at the entire system. They look at the products of
their industrialism as all consuming. When their industrial
products create an industrial by-product that could be harmful,
they then take steps to control it within the environment. This
lack of long-term dedication is how the environment is endangered.
Instead of looking at the long-range goals.of deep ecology, and
at the fact that everything on the planet is somehow interrelated,
they only respond to the problems they create. This is what the
Republicans and the Democrats in the United States call environmental
policy. This is what the Capitalists and the Socialists call
environmental policy. As Roszak puts it: "The two ideological camps
of the world go at one another; but, like antagonists in a nightmare,
their embattled forms fuse into one. monstrous shape, a single force
of destruction threatening every assertation [sic] of personal rights
12
that falls across the path of their struggle."
This chapter has dealt with the notion that capitalism and
socialism only address the current issues of environmentalism and
fail to look at the long-range goals of deep ecology. Chapter III


30
asks why they do so, what it is about them that means they will
continue to do so, and, in'short, why any solution to the ecological
crisis threatening us must.move beyond their shared world view of
contemporary Capitalism and Socialism.


31
"NOTES-CHAPTER 2.-
*E.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if
People Mattered, (1973), New York, N.Y., Harper & Row. Page 14.
2
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), GLOBAL 2000 Report
to the President, Executive Summary, Vol.1, (1980), Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office.
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 225.
4Ju.Tian Simon, THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH, (1984), Oxford, U.K.,
Blackwell Ltd., page 78.
5E.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if
People Mattered, (1973), New York, Harper & Row, page 13.
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, Blackwell Ltd., page 42.
^E.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if
People Mattered, (1973), New York, Harper & Row, page 13.
8"Ibid." page 14.
9Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, (1984),
New York, E.F. Dutton, page 83.
^"Tbid." page 84.
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, Blackwell Ltd., Page 43.
^Theodore Roszak, PERSON/PLANET, (1981), St. Albans, Granada,
Anchor Press, page 294.


CHAPTER III
WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK.
The purpose of this chapter is to explain why neither
Capitalist nor Socialist systems are capable of solving the critical
problems caused by industrialism. It is because of this similarity
that is shared between the two, that the Greens attack both ideologi
in their present form, and offer alternative viewpoints.
Antagonistic Systems
Before looking at the similarities of Capitalism and
Socialism, we shall look at both systems separately, and define
what they are and what beliefs and goals they embrace. It is
important to understand and contrast their differences in order
to appreciate more fully their similarities.
Capital ism. Capitalism is an economic system that has
changed greatly over the years. "Traditionally, it means a system
characterized by:
1. Private ownership of property.
2. No limitations on the accumulation of property.
3. The absence of governmental intervention in the economy
the free market system.
Today capitalism is characterized by:
1. Most property held privately.
2. Little actual limit on the accumulation of property.


33
3. Governmental regulation of the economya modified free
market system.1,1
The distinction between these two Capitalist systems must be kept
in mind, because they are often confused and combined in intellectual
discourse. Traditionally defined capitalism is no longer found
in the United States, but it is discussed as if it were still in
use.
In classical capitalism, the major political emphasis is
liberty, particularly liberty of accumulation. This brand of
liberty is best exemplified by protection of private property,
upon which the free-market system is based. This system directly
encourages competition and indirectly encourages exploitation, not
only by individuals, but by monopolies, multinational corporations,
and even by the government, when the occasion permits. Cooperation
is sometimes achieved, harmony is sometimes achieved, but a system
that embraces the dog-eat-dog ethic can only be described as
competitive, coercive, exploitative, and tantamount to the "war
of all against all." The problem is that this "war" is fed by the
system.
Modern capitalism is often called a mixed economy, which
indicates that, even though most property is privately held, much
property may also be publicly owned. This indicates that the
government, or public sector, may be active in manufacturing and
distributing of goods and services, although most production rests
with the private sector. The government's main emphasis is on
regulation and taxation rather than manufacturing and distribution.


34
Although the system has shifted from the traditional definition of
capitalism, the changes in capitalism are changes in degree, not in
kind. Private ownership is still greatly encouraged and is still
the major means of property holding.
The United States government interacts heavily with the
private sector through the process of regulation. Ideally, the
reason for this regulation was to ensure that the competitive
capitalist game was fairly played, and that no one was taken undue
advantage of. There are, however, many who insist that fairness is
not what the government seeks. They insist that the government
favors those whose interests most coincide with the goals of the
government itself. Those whose goals most reflect the national
interest are favored. Multinationals such as Anaconda, Kennecott,
General Motors, Union Carbide, to. name a small few, are favored
over the small private entrepreneur because of the immense benefit
the United States, as a world power, can derive from their expansion
and control over the world market-place.
In all fairness, the. alternative view should be examined.
It is virtually impossible for a system as large as that of the
United States capitalist economic system to be regulated equitably.
No governmental agency, no matter how efficient, can regulate all
potentially questionable, dealings. Regulation by the government is
a necessity, it is not completely infallible, but it does help in
curbing or controlling the multinationals .or monopolies from
running rampant.
In summary, capitalism as an economic system does not promote


35
participation in political decisionmaking. Conversely, capitalists
advocate liberty and equality,. There.is most definitely a strong
belief in economic freedom, primarily freedom in the marketplace.
Each worker is free to try to become a part of the bourgeoisie and
make a.try at economic success or failure in the competitive system
called capitalism. The proponents of the capitalist system believe
that everyone can attempt-to become a capitalist and that everyone
should have the potential of becoming rich.
The modern capitalist system is based upon the industrial
system. Tts proponents believe, in a constant growth within the
economy. A system that is pushed towards constant growth must
get its resources from somewhere, and currently, they can only be
gotten from the planet on which we all reside. How can a constant-
growth system continue to exploit the limited resources of the earth
indefinitely? No one knows exactly how long. It is known that once
these resources are gone, they cannot be replaced. Currently the
capitalists do not recognize what their system is doing and they -
are still taking measures to correct only the effects of industrial-
ism and are not taking steps to redirect or reshape, the cause of many
of the ecological-environmental problems: industrialism.
Social ism. The most basic assumption of social ism is that
the people should extend their power not only to the political
arena, but also to the economic decision-making arena. Socialists
believe that since politics, society and economics are so closely
interwoven, the voters should be in the most powerful position to
control their own economic futures through the type of government


36
and the type of representatives they elect. Socialists argue
that capitalism gives too much power to individuals and mono-
polistic groups that cannot be closely controlled.
If it is to be believed.that the average citizen should be
in direct control of his or her political life, it is only reasonable
to assume that the citizens should have control over the economic
decision-making of the country also.
Socialists feel not.only that the worker is exploited
economically in capitalist countries, but that capitalism has
failed to solve the human problems of its societies. For example,
it is accused of not concentrating on poverty and alienation that
face many capitalist societies. Socialists believe that capitalism
has the economic resources to solve these problems, but since the
economic decision-makers are unaccountable to the needs and wishes
of the people as a whole, they choose to sidestep important
humanitarian issues. Socialists maintain that capitalists are
too concerned with profit and growth.
Socialism differs from capitalism primarily in the
following ways; Much property is held by the public through the
elected government. These properties are usually major industries,
utilities and transportation, industries that most directly affect
the welfare of the society. Socialism expounds a concern for society
as a whole. Its leadership stresses.all citizens as the center of
politico-economic power. Capitalism is concerned with select
individuals first, and the "people", o,r society second. Both are
concerned with the welfare within their respective societies, but


37
socialism places the emphasis upon individual equality and society
as a whole, while capitalism stresses economic individuality.
Socialism stresses societal harmony. Capitalism stresses individual
competition.
The Same MasterThe Same Goals
Although capitalism and socialism are opposed to each other
in terms of the focus of.power, they sharea commitment to indus-
trialism., Their shared belief in continuing growth is antagonistic
to deep ecology and is therefore opposed by the Green philosophy.
When the Soviet Union, after its technological revolution and struggles,
finally achieves parity with the West, it will be in for the biggest
surprise of all; it will be. industrially indistinguishable from the
capitalists.
As we have earlier looked..at the differences, let us look
briefly at the similarities. Currently both the United States and
the Soviet Union are dedicated, to unimpeded technological development,
the continuous expansion of the means of production and constant
industrial growth. In a system such as this, centralization and a
large enforcing bureaucracy are necessary in order to maintain
control over society. Whether groups of capitalists control the
means of production or the state controls it, is irrelevant. The
worker is still the worker, the environment is still being destroyed,
and finally, all are being controlled and guided by the same
industrial machine. Industrialism is the ideology driving both
capitalism and socialism, and it exploits both the people and the


38
planet. Therefore, it is industrialism that is the enemy of all
Green movements worldwide.
In looking at the many differences between the two
predominant socio-political and economic ideologies in the world,
Jonathon Porritt, of Friends of the Earth, United Kingdom, says,
For an ecologist, the debate between the protagonists of
capitalism and communism is about as uplifiting as the
dialogue between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. That most
commentators still consider it to be the-be all and end all -
of politics serves to demonstrate the abiding delusions of
our industrial wonderland.2
Capitalism's central thesis is. that with a constant increase
in the production cycle, of goods and services and, at the same time,
a promotion of consumption, there will be no major unemployment and
everything will continue cyclically. As earlier stated, socialism's
goals are basically the same, but it is the state that is in the
driver's seat. Both ideologies, because they are predicated
upon this industrial ideal, must maintain high consumption in
order to avoid mass unemployment. This unlimited growth cycle is
contrary to the goals of the Greens. How can unlimited growth
continue indefinitely on a planet with a finite amount of natural
resources? Neither ideology, to date, adequately addresses this
problem.
Under, socialism, the mere socialization of the means of
production subtracts nothing from the damage that is being done
to the planet and its inhabitants. Is it socialism or capitalism
that creates the most problems?. Is. it U.S. or Soviet nuclear plants
that create the most nuclear waste? Is it French or Canadian


39
industrial plants that create the most industrial pollution? Is it
Chinese or Chilean rivers and.forests that suffer most? In his
book ECOLOGY AS POLITICS, Andre Gorz points out that environmental
concerns are fundamental and that socialism is not any better than
capitalism if it uses the same tools. The problem is industrialism.
Socialism was born out of capitalism. It is another product of
industrialism. If socialism's leaders are striving.to compete
with capitalism, they must play on the same field. That field
is industrialism, and from the Green perspective, both players
are involved in a game which neither can win; because in playing
the game, the field they are playing upon will ultimately be
destroyed.
From a Green perspective, socialism-industrialism is merely
a "bastardization" or an extension of capitalism-industrialism by
other means. Because of the rivalry, socialism has determined
that it will over take capitalism. When Nikita Kruschev said,
"We will bury you", he. was predicting that the Soviets would
triumph over capitalism economically. J.F. Pilat, in his book
ECOLOGICAL POLITICS, The Rise of the Green Movement, points out that
if socialism is to overtake capitalism, it must first follow it.
In doing, this, its vision of progress includes the same basic
methods of production, worker alienation, and conception of the
use of raw materials.
Porritt continues in his East/West critique:
Whether it is organized according to the market :or according
to the plan, the maximization of production and consumption
produces the same irrational results, and because all socialist


40
countries are enmeshed: into the-system of world trade just as
inextricably as capitalist countries, none has ever come
near the ideal of producing only for need rather than for profit
or exchange. In this sense at least, the two extremes are
not really extremes.at all, but merely two ways of designating
the same thing. Rivals no more, united in their industrialist
super-ideology, the nations of East and West blithley go about
their business of destroying the planet.3
The prevailing systems that practice industrialism have not
solved the problems of their own creation primarily because they
refuse to recognize them. Currently, they only intensify the problems
they create. As stated in Chapter 2, they attempt to treat the
symptoms rather than the cause.
The Green movement is opposed to this industrial destruction
of the earth and its inhabitants.
The technological imperative that drives our industrial
society allows for no check or restraint along the suicidal
path we have chosen to foilow--or rather, are informed we
have no option but to follow. The forces of industrialism
impose so uneasy a consensus: upon us all, and impose it now
with such rigour, that like the pigs and the humans at the
end of Orwel 11s ANIMAL FARM, the leaders of the capitalist
world and the leaders of the communist world have become all
but indistinguishable.^
It is important to understand the core similarities of these
theoretically antagonistic ideologies. Regardless of the professed
differences, capitalism and socialism, as currently practiced,
share a common perspective of their industrial catalyst.
It is one of the Green movement's goals to oppose this
abusive treatment of the world and its inhabitants. The Committees
of Correspondence, which form a nationwide American clearinghouse
for Green organizations, goals, and dissemination of information,
insist that alternative systems be. created in order to deter us


4:
from the destructive path upon which we are all currently heading.
It is unanimous amongst the Greens, worldwide, that the current
high-pace industrial system that all countries of the globe are
either directly under or else striving to attain, be dismantled
and alternatives be. instituted that favor deep ecology. Only
such an approach will enable the earth and it's future inhabitants
to survive.
Problems for the Current System
We have discussed industrialism and the inherent problems
that it creates for the world on which it operates. We have
discussed the problems, of Capitalism and Socialism within the
industrial and economic systems. Let us now look at several
major problems that neither Capitalism nor Socialism, in their
present forms, can adequately address. Let us review them from
a Green perspective and attempt, to determine whether or not they
can be controlled.
Nuclear power. For over thirty years the United States
government has promoted, subsidized-and protected the private nuclear
power industry. For years, the government and private industry have
worked, closely on creating the "peaceful atom". One problem is
that nuclear power is used not only for peaceful work, but also for
the work of war. Nuclear warheads proliferate throughout the
world, not only in the United States and the Soviet Union, but
throughout many second and third world countries. There seems to
be no end in sight.


42
The problem at hand, however, is not whether peaceful
nuclear power or nuclear power for war is all right; the problem is
whether or not nuclear power is all right! The two primary
environmental issues are.: is a catastrophic accident possible; and
what do you do with all the waste?
Even as I write this thesis, the predictions of Green-
oriented, anti-nuclear-power activists worldwide are becoming a
reality. On April 29, 1986, the world was shocked to learn about
the accident that occurred with a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl
nuclear power plant 80 miles north of Kiev, the Soviet Union's
third most populous city.
It was an accident that, to date, has killed thirteen people
and put several hundred more in the hospital in serious condition.
The exact cause of the disaster may never really be known, but
whether it was a broken pipe, valve failure or human error, the
tragedy clearly points out the weakness of the arguments of the
proponents of "peaceful" nuclear power.
I will not elaborate on the Chernobyl incident in depth
because the world's newspapers are full of it everywhere one turns
today. I will, however, mention the important fact that this
nuclear radioactive cloud, borne by the winds of the earth, has
in a matter of only several weeks, spread across Europe and North
America. Many nuclear scientists are intentionally playing down
the seriousness of the impact of radioactivity to humans and the
environment. Environmentalists and other earth scientists predict
that radiation from Chernobyl could seriously damage crops in two


43
of the U.S.S.Rls most fertile regions, the Ukraine and Belorussia,
and who knows what other long-term effects it may have on others
around the earth.
How does one make nuclear power, safe? Nuclear energy is
not natural and scientists, must constantly be on their guard to
contain it. As long as it is harmful and must be contained there
is no sure way to guarantee safety from unintentional accident.
Weak alloys., faulty casts in machinery or human error could result
in the end of the earth: peacefully.
Governments must recognize the fact that there are
multitudes of technical and managerial problems with the safety of
the reactors and the ability of these governments and their managers
to handle emergencies. The Greens are concerned with the widespread
lack of preparation of local, state and federal governments to deal
with an emergency. For this reason, anti-nuclear-power is a
founding block of Green principles worldwide. The growing
uncertainties about the probability of a major accident, such as at
Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and the lack of adequate governmental
planning to deal with it should be of utmost concern to both critics
and supporters of the nuclear power industry.
If the bureaucrats could correct their technical problems,
there still remains the question of disposal of nuclear waste
material. "The half-life of plutonium 239, the most controversial
5
isotope associated with nuclear power, is 24,400 years...." At
present, thermal pollution and radiation are the principal
environmental dangers spawned by the nuclear fuel cycle.


44
Environmentalists and ecologists believe that opposition
to nuclear fission must be uncompromising and unending. This power
source, regardless of its purpose, cannot avoid natural disasters
or serious mechanical failures, human errors or intentional
malevolences. It demands that our social systems be on guard not
only now but for the long-run, a quarter of a million years.
Acceptance of nuclear technology amounts to the acceptance of the
spread of nuclear weapons from country to country, and practically
guarantees that, sometime in the; future, nuclear warfare will
become a reality, and the earth and. its inhabitants as we now know
them, will cease to be.. As long as the two superpowers continue
to expand their nuclear arsenals, there is little hope that other
nations can be dissuaded from joining the nuclear club,"^
The Greens believe, in the complete elimination of nuclear
power. Because of the complete disregard for the environment, the
current industrial system has nearly depleted the fossil fuels
that the earth has taken billions of years to produce. The
current industrial system is attempting to replace this energy loss
with nuclear power. The Green position on this is that nuclear
power is unsafe. It has already been proven that at many nuclear
power sights around the. world, nuclear radiation can leak and
be harmful to both humans and the environment. This danger, plus
the fact that there is no decent, safe place to get rid of nuclear
waste that will not potentially threaten the future of both human-
kind. and the planet is why the Greens are against nuclear power for
both peaceful and military use. It has no place on earth and no


45
benefit can be derived from it.
The stand of the present system, is one of apathy on the
level of peaceful research and insanity on the military-industrial
complex level. The currently operating nuclear power stations are
still running, but the program to build new ones has slowed because
of public opinion caused by incidents such as Three-Mile Island and
Chernobyl.
The level of nuclear activity on the military level is
constantly increasing with no end in sight. The Greens call for
immediate cessation of any further nuclear use and experimentation
at any level. The substitute energy policy of the Greens according
to the Programme of the German Green Party states, in part,
Furthermore, nuclear power is an energy source directed
against the very foundations of life. Because of this, a
radical change in the energy system is essential. The
production of energy by combustion must be replaced by the
use of energy from environmentally benign and renewable
energy sources such as the sun, wind and water. Available
technical and scientific resources must be used for the
development of soft energy. As ecological energy policy aims
at stabilising energy utilisation in a mode of environmental
compatibility.7
What this means in the medium and short term is that there must be
a careful management and allocation of the existing resources at
hand. In the long run, it means that there must be a gradual shift
to renewable energy sources.
Decentralization, Decentralization of power in government
Is a must. The current industrial system encourages large bureau-
cracies and a tight,, controlled., centralized form of government
that is needed to run and direct the system for the minority that run


46
the socio-economic and political system. The Greens believe in
the ideal of grassroots democracy. They believe in the increased
realization of decentralization and direct democracy. They
support the idea of strong participation of the people on local,
state and federal levels.
Deep ecological understanding. The Greens reject any plan
that exploits the natural wealth of the ecological system. The
population, the air, and the water are exploited by the managers of
the industrial system. There are many problems resulting from this
exploitation. Let us look at the present condition of the earth and
some of these industrially caused problems more directly.
The first and most important condition needing to be
addressed is the rapidly expanding population of the earth's
peoples. Any species with an abundance of resources and very
few predators will continue to grow, unchecked, as long as those
two primary considerations remain uncontested.
Two thousand years ago the earth had an approximate population
of 250 million people, it reached 1 billion by 1830, 2
billion by 1925, 3 billion by 1962 and 4 billion by 1975.
World population is now-nearing 4i billion and is being
forecast at 6 billion by the end of the century.8
Professional ecologists say that this is usually the pattern of a
species in time of abundance and lack of predators. They also say
that the growth trend tends to contract after such a phenomenal phase
as this, until a level is reached that is compatible with the
environment. The question or problem is, are we to be considered
just another species? Do we fit into this pattern? We are the


47
industrialists, the shapers of.the global, environment; how can we
consider these same cyclical patterns as those of the "animals"?
Apparently, the only way that we can control this problem is by
conscious correction. Generally, in the area of environmental
protection, action is prompted by crisis and we are not at the
critical crisis stage yet. However, most ecological studies
indicate that the most basic answer to this question is yes.
Ecologists agree with the notion that no species, not even humans,
is able to eradicate the immutable law that says that indefinite
increases in population are simply not sustainable on the basis of
finite resources. Their fear is.well warranted.
....there's already a fearsome momentum built into population
growth on account of the relative youthfulness of some countries
45% of all Africans are under 15 years old, as are 40% of
Latin Americans and 37% of Asians. The United Nations and
the World Bank talk of world population stabilizing at 10
billion sometime in the next century. They also estimate
that in twenty years time, the world's population will be
divided equally between living in cities and living in rural
areas, on account of the huge migration of the rural poor
into the cities.9
From a Green perspective, this information is astounding. As the
population must continue to grow, so must the industrial system
that is needed to support it. The incredible strain that will be
placed on the environment by the sheer numbers of people will also
be increased by the more rapid depletion of the earth's resources.
The government looks at the population explosion and tries to
accomadate it by jobs and increased availability of resources and
goods., but the deeply ecological perspective is still lacking.
Problems that will be long-term in nature., will be created if the


48
tenets of deep ecology remain ignored by decision makers on this
planet. Letls look at a few of the problems that are caused
directly by the systematic ignorance of deep ecology.
The German'Green movement, in its "National Programme11 and
the American Committees.of Correspondence, in their "Ten Key Values"
draft, (which is a statement of principles put together by the major
separate Green movements and environmental organizations in the
United States), list the following areas as most critical to the
earth and humankind: the air., the water, flora and fauna, oil, and
toxic wastes.
The Green statement of principles says in part,
"We are disturbed by and will not accept:
-The irresponsible treatment of soil, water and air like
a disposable consumer good.
-The valuation, marketing and destruction of the natural
vegetation of old established countryside predominantly
in terms of commercial perspectives.
-Human experience being deprived of the beauty of nature.
-____animal and plant species that are threatened due to the
destruction of their habitats.
-The contamination of air, water and soil by radioactivity
and the concentrated chemical industry.
-The occurrence of climatic deterioration, soil erosion-----
as a result of deforestation caused by roadbuilding, industrial
developments, and the disruption of our natural environment.10
The Greens believe that current economic and environmental norms
must be replaced by policies that are long-term in vision and
guided by rational, ecologically oriented thought. A summary of
Petra Kellyts thoughts would be: that we. must stop the violation of


49
nature in order to survive in it,
"The air accompanying this planet is not replaceable,...It may
be cleansed in part if excessively spoiled_____However, they will
discover that anything they throw, spew, or dump in it will
return to them in.due time. Since passengers will need to use
the air, on the average, every five seconds, they should treat
it accordingly."
Third Planet Operating Instructions
by David R. Brower
The'air. In the United States and the rest of the industrial
world, clean air has become one of the primary political battlefields
between the environmentalists and the industrialist-oriented
politicians. The environmentalists claim that there is great
waste and abuse of the atmosphere inherent in industrialism, while
the political apologists of the system say that they are very
concerned about air pollution and will make every attempt to
control it. There is not much said, however, about elimination of
the problem..
Clean air has become a symbol of a problem for environmental
restorations that almost all Americans can approve. And so
it is politically chic. Politicians so routinely assure
constituents that they favor clean air--whatever that implies--
that clean air has become a cliche1 long before it has become
a reality.il
Not just one simple substance creates air pollution. It is
created, by many substances, either combined or singly. The
pollutant carbon monoxide's major source is vehicle exhausts. It is
characterized by being colorless, odorless and very poisonous. It
can cause dizziness, unconsciousness or death- Another pollutant,
hydrocarbons, comes from the incomplete combustion of gasoline or


50
from the evaporation of petroleum fuels, solvents and paints. This
pollutant contributes greatly to the creation of smog. Lead, another
pollutant that is used in conjunction with automobiles, is the
anti-knock agent in gasoline. It.accumulates in the bone and
the soft tissues. It al so. affects the blood-forming organs, the
kidneys and the nervous system. The. last major pollutant that
affects us through the automobile is nitrogen dioxide. It also
comes from vehicle exhausts and industrial processes. It can
seriously alter the lungs, but on the larger scale, it reacts with
hydrocarbons to create smog and also contributes heavily to acid
rain. Other air pollutants are ozone and sulfur dioxide. These
two also, contribute to acid rain and smog and can impair the lungs
and cause colds, asthma and bronchitis.
Our current industrial system encourages these pollutants.
It should be noted that "three sources appear to account for about
75% of the major air pollutants by weight: gasoline burning vehicles
(transportation), electric power (stationary sources), and
12
industry," It is this type of problem that infuriates Greens,
worldwide, when once again, they see that the effect is being
treated instead of the cause. (In the ranking of major metropolitan
cities on the Pollutant Standards Index, "Denver, Colorado ranks
fourth nationally in the category of 1 unhealthfu.l1 or very
unhealthfu.l1 days, with nearly a 1 out of .3 days average. It
ranks third nationally in the 'hazardous' category with 36 days
13
per year, )


51
The water. In the major industrialized countries, water is
polluted by many and varied means? but the pollutants generally
remain the same as with the air.
Measured by volume, about half the pollution dumped into
surface water originates from storm sewers, municipal sewage
treatment plants,, and. mainly, industry. The remaining half
originates from non-point sources such as agriculture activities,
mine runoff and construction sites.^
Pollution that originates from so many sources presents a real
problem in that even government leaders that care cannot readily
control it technically or economically. These major pollutants
in our water are pesticides, herbicides,, fungicides and other.
industrial toxic chemical substances. Even though we are trying
to correct the water problem, our rapidly expanding economic and
industrial systems are feeding more pollutants back into the system
faster than they can be'cleaned up.
Toxic wastes. Our nation's hazardous, substance problem is
partially a grouping of biochemical danger sites. It is estimated
that the United States has over 50,000.. abandoned hazardous waste
sites about which the government and. industry assumed that it was
only necessary to bury the materials and their problems would be
over and soon forgotten. These same sites now are showing
dangerous after-effects to their surrounding areas. Toxic and
hazardous waste materials can seep out through the earth in which
they are buried and get at human, animal and plant life through
our water? earth and air. There is no medium through which they
cannot travel, and they can be fatal to all life forms. Cancer is
the gravest and most widely feared of all toxic impacts from


52
hazardous substances. There is no telling how long the impact of
"old toxic waste material11 will continue to threaten us, and there
is also no telling how long it will take, us to control it.
America's chemical junkyards are growing in volume by 3% to
10% annually.,..at best, no more than 10% of this waste has
been properly disposed of. Accidents and investigations have
disclosed more than 50,000 hazardous waste sites, the legacy
of a century's irresponsible, but widely tolerated dumping of
chemicals by virtually all segments of U.S. industry, permeate
America's earth.*5
These problems endanger our existence. Those of the water,
the air, the earth, nuclear waste are terrible individually, but
when they are combined with one another, it is easy to see that we
have not a chance for survival if the current system is left
unchecked. These problems cause even greater global problems. The
acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and lastly, the greatest pollutant
of them all, nuclear power, paint us a dim and gloomy picture for
our future and that of generations to come.
The current ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism are guided
by industrialism. Industrialism, as earlier stated in the chapter, is
based upon constant growth and places ecological concerns last in
its hierarchy of objectives. It is the Greens' conviction that
the exploitation of both humans and nature must be countered in order
to stop a real and serious threat to both humankind and the planet.
One of the ways that toxic materials can be controlled is by
the method that is in use in Los Angeles, California. Barry Groveman,
the district attorney: for environmental protection, started the Toxic
Waste Strike Force, which actually watches out for corporations that
practice the illegal disposal of toxic wastes. This environmental


53
"SWAT" team actually watches and raids large corporations that had
previously been above the law. When a company is caught dumping
toxic waste illegally, and prosecuted: and.found to be guilty, fines
or jaiT terms are then levied against the corporation executives that
either directly encouraged or tacitly condoned the illegal dumping.
Currently there are 25 corporate executives in jail serving terms
from6 months to 2 years for the crime of illegal dumping of toxic
waste material. This is a crime against the community and it is
being treated as such. If this program were practiced on a national
level, at least there would be some form of deterrent for the large
corporations.
Peace-nonviolence. The current industrial system creates
competition, violence and antagonistic goals. It creates competition
not only between individuals, but also between competing ideologies,
as exemplified by the ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism. Where
the Greens strive for harmony, the antagonists strive for economic,
military and political mastery over one another.
The nuclear arms race is an excellent example of this problem.
The Greens are peace-and nonviolence-oriented. They believe that
nonviolence should prevail not only between human beings, but
between societies and nations as a whole.
We therefore put forward an active, peace policy in international
relations. This means that we oppose the occupation of
countries and the oppression of national groups, and support
the independence and autonomy of national groups in all
countries. Peace is inseparably linked with the independence
of countries and; the existence of democratic rights. Worldwide
disarmament is a must.T6


54
NOTES-CHAPTER .3."
*L.T. Sargent. CONTEMPORARY'POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES, (1978),
Homewood,, Illinois, The Dorsey Press, page 55.
^J.-Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained,
(1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd,, page 45.
3,lIbid." page 49.
^ Ibid.11 page 53.
3T.D. Goldfarb, TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views on Controversial
Environmental Issues, (1983), Dushkin-Pahl GP., Guilford, Conn.,
page 151.
R.A. Fried, Nuclear Wart: NOW There's Something You Can Do
to Prevent It., (1984), Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of
Nuclear War, Denver, Colorado, page 7.
^Die Grunen, Programme of the. German Green Party, (1983),
page 7.
8
Joint Economic Committee, Country Reports for Human Rights
Practices for 1983, (1984), Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Offices, introduction,
^J. Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained,
(1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 27.
^Die Grunen, Programme of the German Green Party, (1983),
page 30.
-UW.A. Rosenbaum, ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND POLICY, (1985),
Congressional Quarterly, Washington,. D.C., CQ Press, page 105.
12
Environmental Protection Agency, National Air-Pollutant
Emissions Estimates, (1980), (draft Nov. 1981), tables 2-6.
13
.Council on Environmental Quality,'Environmental QUality,
(1982), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, page 33.


55
"NOTES-CHAPTER 3."
14W.A. Rosenbaum, ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND'POLICY, (1985),
Congressional Quarterly, Washington,.0.C., CQ Press, page 143.
15uIbid." page 183,
^Die Grunen, Programme of the. German Green Party, (1983),
page 16.


CHAPTER IT
WHY A GREEN MOVEMENT OR PARTY IS NECESSARY.
This chapter explains why a Green movement or party is
necessary in the United. States. We have already looked at the
current situation of the planet, now let us look at the future
direction and potential condition that the earth might end in if
we are not ecologically oriented. The second part of the chapter
attempts to explain why we Americans must awaken from our apathetic
condition of not recognizing what industrialism is doing to us, our
country and our planet. It discusses how we may start this change
at the grassroots level and ultimately emerge into a force strong
enough to change the current systems of the world.
In the United States, our industrial society has supplied
many things that are beneficial to us. A higher standard of living
than is found in most non-industrial societies is a fact that is not
to be denied. Improved health care, housing and transportation
are but a few of the benefits to be: derived from a high-growth
industrial society. We have been conditioned not only to enjoy the
"good, life", but to accept it as if it were inevitable and permanent.
These benefits can only be short-term because in an ever-expanding
Industrial society, there are limits to depletion that are not
being heeded by the managers' of the society.


57
This love of the good life" is not to be misconstrued as
a blatant disrespect for the planet and. the environment. The
majority of the people on earth truly believe in,-and wish for,
the ongoing efforts of the environmentalists and humanitarians to
succeed. They want clean air, unpolluted rivers, and more say
in the decision-making process of their government, but also want
to retain this good lifestyle that they have. Most people are
afraid of the potential trade-offs that,, they are told by
government., will happen, if they side too favorably with the proponents
of deep ecology. The government co-opts their thinking when it
implies that too much deep.ecology at once will cost the average
citizen vast amounts of money and loss of many of the current
benefits presently enjoyed.
The primary reason for the need of a united Green
movement is the frustration of diverse elements of society
who believe that their interests are being ignored by established
political parties; this frustration is particularly true regarding
environmental concerns. As Jonathon Porritt says, "the state of the
planet provides the. context in which all politicians operate. Yet
the vast majority of them remain oblivious to that context or choose
to ignore it."* The Greens believe that the state of the planet should
not be ignored and. offer alternatives to this attitude of our current
contemporary politicians.
It is the Green philosophy to work for change within the
system,. Through the electoral system and by working at the grass-


58
roots level, the Greens plan to shift the level of consciousness
of the majority to that of a deep ecological awareness of the
problems of the planet.
An ecological policy implies an all-round rejection of an
economy based on exploitation and the uncontrolled pillage of
natural wealth and raw materials, as well as refraining from
destructive intervention in the circuits of the natural
ecosystem. It is our conviction that the exploitation of both
nature and human beings must be countered by human beings, in
order to repel an acute and serious threat to life.
Our policy is a policy of active partnership with nature and
human beings---We stand for an economic system oriented to the
necessities of human life today and for future generations, to
the preservation of nature and a careful management of natural
resources.2
The Greens do not consider the earth, its people and the
environment lost yet. They do not profess to have all the answers;
however, they are certain that we cannot endure indefinitely under
a system that does not practice restraint in any form unless it is
forced to do so. Their immediate objective is the education of the
population about this adverse relationship. The adoption of
ecologically oriented policies is still blocked by powerful economic
industrial interests. The prevailing industrial-economic mindset
must be replaced by long-term ecologically oriented goals and
policies. The Greens do not claim to have all the answers but the
following examples of their initiatives reveal their basic strategy
for change.
---immediate application of the principle that the cause of
pollution must pay all its costs.
The maintenance and extension of forests, especially for the
biological cleaning of air, the safety of water supply and
for recreation.
Production processes which do not produce toxic refuse.


59
In principle, all waste should be discharged in such a way
that it is reusable as a raw material.
Organic refuse should be turned into compost and made available
to agriculture, in order to maintain the nutrient cycle_____
ensure that the compost is not contaminated by poisons including
heavy metals from industrial effluents.3
The Greens oppose nuclear energy in any form, for any
purpose.
The Greens, everywhere, believe that through deep ecology
the earth and its inhabitants not only will be made healthier,
but can endure indefinitely. Remember, deep ecology means inter-
relating economics, politics, social structures and spirituality,
all towards achieving the same goal, that not only of stopping
current damage to the eocsystem and the planet as a whole, but of
enhancing the survival prospects for future generations. The
short-term goal of the Greens is the dismantling of life-threatening
industry, while the medium and long-term goal is the reorientation
of production towards ecologically benign and socially necessary
products.
The goals of dismantling of life-threatening industry and
the reorientation of production towards ecologically benign and
socially necessary products, can best be accomplished within the
parameters of the Green's four basic pillars. The goals of deep
ecology can take place only within an environment that practices
social responsibility and grassroots democracy, and lives by the
code of nonviolence. It is the holistic approach that will lead to
success. These four pillars, if separated, cannot achieve the
desired result that the Greens want.


60
Awakening Mankind
Grassroots teamwork. The Green's plans and goals for the
planet include grassroots input and output on a major scale. They
attempt to develop a system that allows and encourages people to
participate in the decisions that affect their lives. They will
attempt to insure that representatives are fully accountable to the
people who elect them. Planning mechanisms must be developed that
will allow citizens to develop their own preferences for policies
and spending priorities. At the grassroots level, the family,
neighborhood organization, church group, voluntary associations and
others must recover many of the functions now performed by government
and large corporations. In a society with deep ecological conscious-
ness, civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility
will once again be in the forefront.
Not only small organizations can be considered the primary
case for grassroots teamwork; there is also the example of groups
like the Sierra Club in Denver that influence the club at the state
level, and finally, cooperate in harmony, on the national level
with other grassroots-to-national-level organizations. The
"trickle down" policy is cast aside in Green politics. The flow
is upwards as well as downwards. The grassroots level can not
only contribute to the process; it can, as it should, determine the
overall direction of things. In order to accomplish this goal,
Greens must create the notion of personal and social responsibility
within the individual in order to create a society of leaders and


61
do-ers rather than the apathetic citizens that presently predominate.
Societal leadership. How can we encourage people to commit
themselves to lifestyles that promote their own health? By
getting them involved in the Green alternative, we can make this
goal a reality. One of the Greens' primary purposes is that of
informing the average person about the alternatives to our current
industrial system. Once the awareness is there, new leaders will
develop from the grassroots level. There are Green sympathizers that
currently are involved in the politics of the right, left and center,
that, once they realize that there is a viable alternative, will
join the rank and file of the Green movement and give it additional
credibility. There are already many potential leaders within the
Green groups and movements such as ecology groups like Greenpeace,
Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, or human rights groups like the
ACLU, NAACP, NOW and Common Cause, or peace groups such as the
Atomic Scientists, Center for Defense Information and Ground Zero.
These are only a handful. Capra and Spretnak, in their book GREEN
POLITICS, The Global Promise, list one hundred organizations that
are Green in their orientation from which society's leaders may
come. This one hundred is still only a handful of those active
when one begins to delve into the network or organizations solely
within the United States.
A sense of personal and social responsibility can be
developed through unification and sharing of ideas from groups such
as these, and we can encourage people to commit themselves to


62
lifestyles that promote their own health. Under a caring leadership
it is possible to have a community-controlled education system that
will effectively teach our children academic skills, ecological
wisdom, social responsibility and personal growth.
Working together, at the grassroots level, can be the
beginning of resolving inter-group and interpersonal conflicts
without the usual process of turning them over to lawyers and judges.
Once harmony is perfected, the system will be more open to peaceful
change.
A policy of grassroots democracy means the increased
realization of decentralized and direct democracy. We start
from the premise that priority must always be given to
the decision of the base. Surveyable and decentralized
basic units (local community district) should be given
extensive autonomy and rights of self government.^
Economic democracy. In the United States, our current
economic system, capitalism, encourages competition and discourages
harmony. It encourages private incentive to wealth accumulation.
This point was discussed in Chapter 3, so it will not be elaborated
upon here. However, this section looks at an alternative system,
one in which Green political leaders can redesign our work structures
to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. The goal
is to develop new economic institutions that will allow us to use
our new technologies in ways that are humane and ecological. The
Greens want to create a system that goes beyond capitalism and
socialism; perhaps with a little of each of them, a merger would
be more appropriate. If so, there would be some form of basic
economic security that would be open to all. In this way, income


63
distribution patterns could be restructured to reflect wealth
created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who
take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens and
lastly, community volunteer work.
In his book WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY, Daniel Zwerdling talks
about successful worker co-ops such as those in Yugoslavia, northern
Spain and the northwestern United States. As we are looking at
the feasibility of a Green party or movement that can and will make
an impact, here in the United States, it is best to look more
closely at a highly successful example that is currently working
here, in the United States.
In 1984> I elected to do a study on the worker-owned plywood
cooperatives of the Pacific Northwestern United States, primarily
because I am a professional within the industry.
Democracy in the workplace is a good example of workers
democratically cooperating with one another, and at the same
time, making a good living. These co-ops started after World War I,
when the privately owned plywood mills experienced serious
financial troubles. Many owners decided to sell and rather than
have the mills either be sold and be relocated or, the other
alternative, be closed permanently, the workers bought them to be
operated as a cooperative. The first such business was founded
in 1921 and many have flourished and prospered right up to the
present. There seems to be no decline or obstacle in sight
except when, once in a while, a multinational corporation such as


64
Georgia-Pacific or Weyerhauser offers to buy them out. The
worker cooperatives have shown anywhere from 25% to 60% more
productivity than conventional capitalist-run mills. This
information was verified by the American Plywood Association.
The cooperative is an alternative to the current system,
and one that eliminates the exploitation of the worker. It is
definitely not the answer to all of America's problems, but it is
another means of economic expression. In the sense that the Greens
profess grassroots democracy, this is a good example. Worker
power in the plywood co-ops, like in any corporation, is often
measured not by formal board meetings or by votes taken, but by
the informal power of the workers to influence the board of directors'
and managers' decisions. In many of these plants, the co-op
members exert enormous pressure and influence simply because the
appointed directors, when not in the board meetings, are the same
people with whom they work, every day, on the production line.
Researcher Paul Bernstein describes some of the plywood
cooperative's most historic achievements:
They invented the working share, which guarantees for each
worker-member the rights of ownership, labor and self-
government on an equal basis;
They have worked out a legal identity of workers' control,
through the existing state laws-----;
They have created workers councils in the U.S. without
waiting for either a socialist revolution or a change in
union ideologies;
They have worked out a mechanism to equalize income
distribution.


65
The purpose of this section has been to show that the
Green perspective is not merely ideological theory or fantasy.
It not only can happen, but is happening right now. We can move
beyond the narrow "job ethic" to new definitions for "work", "jobs",
and "income" that will effect our changing economy. Through
closer grassroots teamwork and increased awareness and through a
new-found societal leadership, at all levels, Green ideology can
become more than an idea.
We have the basics for a successful Green movement right
here in the United States. Many of the worldwide peace, humane and
ecologically oriented groups that have a worldwide following are
based in the U.S., or else many of their goals were inspired or
initiated here. Much of the worldwide Green literature comes from
the United States; yet, even though there are millions of Green-
oriented people in the United States, the movement has more impact
in other countries such as West Germany, Australia, Great Britain
and New Zealand. Chapter 5 addresses this phenomenon. It looks at
the obstacles to the development of a successful third party in the
United States, and attempts to explain how and why they are hindering
the proliferation of Green power in the U.S.


66
"NOTES-CHAPTER 4."
^Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 25.
2
Die Grunen, Programme of the German Green Party, (1983),
page 7.
3,1 Ibid." page 30.
^"Ibid." page 8.
5Paul Bernstein, WORKPLACE DEMOCRATIZATION: Its Internal
Dynamics, (1976), Kent State University Press, page 25.


CHAPTER V
OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUCCESSFUL
THIRD PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES.
Chapter 4 looked at where we are headed, and how we can
enlighten and awaken humankind so that a Green movement will form
that will help try and cure the earth's ills. Chapter 5 looks at
the major obstacles to the development of a Green movement or
party in the United States and attempts to explain why and how
these obstacles are hindering the proliferation of Green power
in the United States.
Proportional Representation
The strongest drawback to the maturation of a Green party
in the United States is that of our "winner take all" political
system based on single-member electoral districts. Unlike the
system of proportional representation that is found in West Germany
and much of Europe, the United States has the structured two-party
system and the electoral college that is the determining factor
in choosing its winners. This, plus the high cost of campaigning
in the United States, makes it extremely difficult for a candidate
to win unless, of course, there are the donations from the
multinationals and other large corporations and institutions.
Because the Greens oppose most of the multinationals' means of
procuring their objectives, help from these sources would be highly


68
unlikely.
The only way to get campaign funding in the United States
is by the example that Capra and Spretnak give regarding the 1980
John Anderson campaign.
If a party's presidential candidate appears on the ballot
in thirty states and wins over 5 percent of the vote, and
if the party will run in at least ten states in the following
election, the Federal Election Commission will award matching
funds.through a formula based on the number of votes. John
Anderson, for instance, won seven percent of the vote in
1980 and later received about $6.5 million (much less than
what his campaign had cost.)*
Whereas in West Germany the Greens receive a governmental payment
on each vote they receive, the United States' minority parties
usually end up financially "in the hole". Ah excellent example
of this point is that the Citizens Party was still paying off its
1980 Presidential Election debts at the time of the 1984 election.
It is because of the lack of proportional representation
that our smaller parties have few representatives in our system of
government. This unequal system makes it very difficult for a
small political party to establish a foothold in government, as it
discourages even sympathetic voters who often think that a vote
spent on parties other than the major, giant parties, would be a
wasted one. This is the same case in France and Great Britain.
The Greens must begin lobbying for an amendment that allows
for proportional representation if they are to have a chance at
getting members elected to federal and state positions.
The lack of proportional representation is an extremely
important obstacle to the development of a third party in the U.S.
but there are also many other discriminatory electoral rules that


69
protect the two major parties. Some of these examples are purely
ludricrous. Richard Borchers, a District Court Judge for the 17th
Judicial District, the State of Colorado, cites the following
examples of discriminatory electoral rules in a recent discussion.
In Colorado, the 1984 Baer v. Meyer case was over the States'
not allowing for the protection of the name of a political organ-
ization. Prior to 1984, Colorado allowed voters to register only
as Democrat, Republican or unaffiliated.
Also in Colorado, the only way to become a party is to
obtain 10% or more of the votes in the previous Gubernatorial
Election.
The state of Georgia requires 20% of the total vote in
order to become a party. This requirement was upheld in Jeness v.
Fordson in 1971.
In contrast to the Colorado legalities, California upheld
the decision, in Storer v. Brown (1974), that the voter could not
change party affiliation less than one year prior to elections if
the voter wanted to run for public office. This specific incident
occurred because a member of the Communist Party tried to change
to the Democratic Party, shortly before the elections, in an effort
to run for office.
The industrial, national and multinational corporations
that espouse.and support the two-party system will certainly not
stand placidly by and let the Greens have their way about a new
amendment that changes the system that the elites created. The
industrial system has supported the Democrats and the Republicans


70
that favor the exploitation of the planet. Both parties will,
therefore fight any initiative that attempts to upset their power
\
position within the political system.
Other-Party Co-optation
Another major obstacle to the successful development of a
third party in the United States is that of co-optation by the
representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties. As a
Green minority party begins to grow in size and stature, and gain
state and national credibility, its impact upon the current system
will be felt by the political parties that cater to the whims of
the managers of the existing industrial system. Pressure from the
multinational and local industries upon the current politicians
will result in the Democrats and Republicans trying to defuse any
Green advance. What is not in the interest of the industrialists,
is not in the interests of the system that serves them. Even
those of the current elected officials that are slightly tilted
towards the Greens are, themselves, co-opted by the power of their
own system.
Most of the elected officials probably would be afraid to
embrace Green ideals because they owe their electoral
victories to campaign contributions from corporations and
other monolithic institutions.2
The Greens have to be wary of working within the system,
as much as they would want to. They can work within the system, but
must be aware of the pitfall of co-optation. Whether or not the
mainstream politician introduces bills to either soften or
redirect Green goals is not the main point. If the Green politicians


71
are not careful and if they fail to recognize the traps inherent
in the current system, they can become a part of that same system
before they realize that their positions have been compromised and
co-opted in favor of less stringent ecological, peaceful and people-
oriented goals that they were initially striving for.
I say this because the supporters of heavy industry will
never openly come out and state that their bills and laws are in
favor of abuse of the earth, exploitation of the people and
termination of many of our natural resources. These supporters of
industrialism will not attack the Greens' ideology directly. Direct
confrontations over global problems such as acid rain, the green-
house effect, toxic waste, slaughter of near-extinct animals and
nuclear waste materials would be foolhardy even coming from people
that are adept at deception.
For the purpose of clarity, it should be noted that I am not
implying that all mainstream politicians and industrialists are in
favor of destroying the environment and its inhabitants. What I
am saying is that they are not even close to ecologically-oriented,
holistic thought: therefore they go on defending the system that is
causing the problems, and the means that they use to achieve their
goals are primarily those of co-optation and redirection of Green-
type proposals.
Even in the United States, our Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) looks to solving our symptoms and soft-sells the
cause: industrialism. Regulation in the United States is currently
in the hands of industry. A good example was the EPA scandal of


72
several years ago when Anne Gorsuch and other EPA officials and
staffers were dismissed for being too lenient on environment-
industrial regulatory programs. Greens frighten the supporters of
the current system because the system or network of grassroots
politics creates a very closely knit "watchdog" type of system
that is out of the reach of those who would most like to manupulate
it. "It would be extremely hard for proponents of big business to
successfully 'buy-off' or co-opt a practicing Green at any level
3
of government."
Another problem is that the people who manage agencies
such as the EPA, come from the very industries that they are
to regulate. After their term in a regulatory agency, they usually
go back to the industrial sector. Perhaps it is necessary to have
experts regulate their own industry, but it is still suspect.
Maybe an alternative to this "revolving door" phenomenon would
be the training of people from outside the industrial sector to
regulate industries. Another alternative could be that someone who
was entering or exiting a regulatory agency not be allowed to work
in that industry for from three to five years.
The final notation about co-optation in the United States
is about the electorate, our own people. The lack of participation
at the voting polls is frightening. We let the agencies of the
system and the government do most of our thinking for us. We think
that there is nothing the average citizen can do, therefore why get
involved? The Green ideal of government will surely reduce this
form of co-optation because it will encourage participatory democracy,


73
which requires involvement, time, effort and dedication.
Demographic and Geographic Problems
The final obstacle to be discussed in this chapter comes
in two parts: demographic and geographic. They should be addressed
separately in order to concentrate on the importance of each.
Demographic probiems. Countries that exemplify successful
Green organizational characteristics generally do not have the
tremendous demographic problems that are inherent in the United
States. West Germany and Great Britain, for example, are countries
that do not have the extreme spread of different cultures whose
members are longtime residents and citizens, such as is the case
for the United States. Capra and Spretnak, in their book, GREEN
POLITICS, The Global Promise, appear not to have given much attention
to the problems of the different races and cultures that make up
the United States. This is a problem almost unique to our country.
Either way, the concrete condition of the United States, particularly
the unique position and role of Black people, Mexican-Americans and
Native Americans, was ignored while the racially blind categories
of European thought were transplanted. One of the problems of
Green thought, globally, is that it does not deal directly with
racism. I am sure the Greens, everywhere, are concerned with it,
and their literature encompasses rights for all, but they do not
directly address the subject.
Nowhere in GREEN POLITICS is there any mention of the
Rainbow Coalition and the growing Black political energies--
no mention despite the longest chapter in the book, "The


74
Green AlternativeIt Can Happen Here," being devoted to the
possibilities and problems of the 'Green alternative in
this country.^
This quote by George Katsiafi.cas, in an article in The Anvil called
"The Greens are Coming", is one that should not be taken lightly.
If the Greens are to make an impact in this countryj it is all right
to look.at the successes of those in Europe, as role model for
desires and aspirations, but American Greens must shape it into
something that will be viable here, in the United States. It can be
done successfully, but it will not be done simply by one race or
group of ethnic origin. Deep ecology, holistic thinking, must
include every vital aspect of our country, its inhabitants and the
space it takes up. This can be further reinforced by another quote
from the same article.
----to be sure, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition have
gathered two to three times the highest percentage of votes
received by 'die Grunen' in any German election, and the
victory of Harold Washington in Chicagoto say nothing of
the similar campaigns in Santa Cruz, Madison, Boston and
Burlington, Vermontindicates a greater level of popular
support for post-1968 "new" politics in the United States
than in West Germany.
Geographic problems. A person that has been born and raised
in the United States will have little problem grasping the problem
of geography in relation to a new political partys growth and
unity. Countries that have had successful Green parties are
nowhere near the size of the United States. The sheer scale of
uniting an organization that spreads out over 2000 miles in one
direction is daunting, to say the least.


75
There are....well-established feminist, decentralist,
bioregionalist, civil rights, anti-nuclear, voluntary
simplicity, Environmental and peace movements through the
statesa veritable patchwork quilt of progressive thinking
and action. And yet;one still cannot point to any coherent
Green movement in the States, let alone to any viable strategy
for the long term development of Green politics.
Jonathon Porritt, along with many other globally known
Greens, all recognize that we have no major unifying movement;
they all recognize that our Green thinkers' have done much for
the advancement of Green principles and thought on a global basis,
but none of them address the fact that the United States is the
size of Europe, a continent, not the size of Great Britain, France
or West Germany, countries.
The size of the job of unifying our 'patchwork quilt' of
Green groups in the United States is in direct proportion to the
size of the country. Groups such as the Committees of Correspondence,
which are a clearing-house of Green thought and ideas for all state
and local committees, groups and organizations, are doing an
excellent job of both disseminating information and creating unity
and loyalty, in the United States, for the Green cause. There will,
in the near future, be a Green party involved in U.S. politics, but
because of geographies and demographics, it will not happen overnight.


76
"NOTES-CHARTER 5."
^Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, N.Y,, E.F.Dutton, page 203.
2,1 Ibid." page 201.
3North Country Anvil, "Green Politics",(1986), Melville, Mn.,
Anvil Press, page 15.
4
North Country Anvil, "The Greens are Coming", (1986),
Melville, Mn., Anvil Press, page 51.
5"Ibid." page 51.
C
Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 224-


CHAPTER VI
WHAT WILL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.
The thesis so far has concerned itself with what is Green
and then with exploring why the current system will not work
effectively and why a Green alternative is necessary. This final
chapter looks at what alternatives are available in the United
States, the various types of actual organizations available, and
finally what specific organizational form is most likely to be
the most viable Green alternative, here, in the United States.
Types of Organizations
It is precisely because of the numerous obstacles to the
development of a successful third party in the United States, that
Capra and Spretnak, in GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, list
five potential forms of Green organization that could work here.
The purpose of this chapter is also to determine, from the
interaction that I have had with numerous Green-oriented groups in
the United States, which organizational form would be most viable
and preferable and, lastly, why U.S. Greens think their choices are
the best ones. These organizations are as follows:
1. Green Network.
2. Green Movement.
3. Green Caucus within the Movement.
4. National Membership Green Caucus instead of a Movement.
5. Green Party.1


78
The Green Network. The first of these organizations, the
Green Network, is.already in place in the United States. The
network serves to link already existing decentralized groups in
order to make a more coordinated input into the political system.
These groups can get involved in political discussions, and locally
or nationally, create an educational environment in which to
make others aware of Green goals and objectives. Since networks are
primarily "nonconfrontational and require little commitment, they
have succeeded in attracting many people during the past decade
2
and introducing them to political thinking."
A good example of a Green network would be the Committees of
Correspondence located in Kansas City, Missouri, which is a clearing-
house for Green thought and ideas that is shared between various
Green organizations nationwide. It is through an organization like
the Committees of Correspondence that Greens everywhere in the
United States, can find groups indigeneous to their own area to
work with.
A network such as this might well develop into a long-term
political movement, but it still runs the danger of overlapping and
duplicating what already goes on within other networks espousing the
same Green goals. An example of this is the New England Committees
of Correspondence, in Vermont. When I sent to the Kansas City
Committees of Correspondence, they were very helpful and gave much
information. The same thing happened with the New England Committees
of Correspondence. The interesting item is that neither of them
referred me to the other and they are most assuredly attempting to


79
achieve the same goals both on the macro and micro levels of
influence.
The point is not that it is bad that there are more than one
or two networks; what is needed is that they look towards
a more sophisticated type of organization in order better to
pinpoint their energies rather than using the shotgun1 effect of
blasting.in all directions and hoping for a hit.
Capra and Spretnak say of Green networks:
They are a necessary first step in building a political
movement but----they are insufficient. Their limited functions
do not translate easily into activities necessary for political
actions, and they carry no responsibility to formulate
programs and carry them out.3
The Green network is an excellent tool for the involvement of many
newcomers at the entry level. The major problem is that it simply
lacks political power with which to force new, innovative ecological
goals out of the current system.
The Green Movement. The second type of organization that
Capra and Spretnak refer to is the Green movement. On the national
level or on the state level, a movement such as this would be a
membership organization that would formulate proposals and attempt
to educate both the Republican and Democratic parties on the merits
of their proposals. Charlene Spretnak sees this organization as not
running candidates for office, but as still acting politically as a
party. It would have its own Political Action Committee (PAC) and
paid lobbyists.
The Colorado Environmental Coalition fits somewhat into


80
this description. It is a state membership organization made up
of. many diverse groups that basically support the four basic Green
pillars mentioned in Chapter one. One of their member groups is
the Colorado Environmental Lobby, which is effective in persuading
legislators to consider the Green perspective on legislative
proposals. In 1985, the Colorado Environmental Lobby (CEL)
monitored 95 bills and selected 35 on which to take a position.
These included bills involving water quality, hazardous wastes,
and vested property rights.
We opposed 11 bills and supported passage of 24. We achieved
a success rate of around 54 percent on the bills we opposed;
six were defeated, five passed. Of the 24 we supported,
nine passed and fifteen were defeated; we achieved a success
rate of around 38 percent in support of various bills.^
Another member of the "Coalition" is the Sierra Club, whose
political action committee is a great help in fund-raising
and supporting popular Green-oriented mainstream public servants.
It is through these groups that there is much volunteer work in
campaigns and in giving direction to the Green vote for the right
candidates.
In addition to these already active organizations, the CEC
helps sponsor the Colorado Environmental Education Project every
election year. This group places emphasis on environmental know-
ledge, fundraising, election campaigns, strategies in helping
make the environment-oriented legislators known to the electorate.
They also make the enemies of deep ecology well known to the public.
Because the network appears to be an insufficient form for
Green ideas and expression, the movement is recommended over the


81
Green network. The network lacks the need for commitment and
involvement.
Although a movement would require greater commitment than a
network to change and.the process of nonviolent struggle, it
would be more effective. It would also be more open ended,
dynamic and welcoming toward innovation. Hence it would have
a broader appeal, both ideologically and in the variety of
people it would attract.5
I strongly agree with this quote by Capra and Spretnak. Even the
term, network, implies something static, while a movement is a
series of organized "activities" directed towards achieving a
specific objective. When I think of a movement, I think of action.
Green Caucus within the Movement. The third alternative is
a Green Caucus within the Movement. The logic behind this
suggestion is that the Green movement will supply members to work
with the two parties on issues that are of interest to the Greens.
It would be this part of the movement that would devote its time
primarily to the electoral and legislative necessities of interest
to them. The Caucus might even provide Green candidates directly
for both major parties.
Jonathon Porritt says,
To a European, this looks [sic] an unnecessarily unwieldy and
indirect way of going about ones green politics. Such a
caucus, concentrating on electoral and legislative strategies
would provide Green candidates with both parties--but how
would one ensure that they were neither coopted nor bought
off??
It must be noted that the idea of cooptation is foremost in
most Green literature when writing about the current system and the
ensuing interaction between holistic Greens and the mainstream


82
politicians.
If cooptation is the major factor against a caucus, the
notion of at least having some direct influence into the political
system is the major benefit of the caucus. Without proportional
representation, the benefit of such an option is that it would
avoid problems within the movement between factions that want
electoral political involvement and those who want grassroots
citizens involvement only.
National Membership Green Caucus. The fourth alternative is
that of a national membership caucus instead of a .movement. Members
of such a caucus could indicate whether they wished to be affiliated
with either the Republicans or the Democrats. The major benefit of
this type of organization is that it is much less expensive to run
than it is to run a party. The primary drawback to this is that it
affords the major parties the opportunity to either redirect thinking
or else co-opt the goals and ideas of the Greens. It would
appear that not much would be accomplished if both sides were
distrustful of each other. This type of organization could easily
alienate many of the Greens who believe that one cannot work within
the system that creates so many of the problems.
Again, per Jonathon Porritt, "You need a long spoon to sup
O
with the devil, especially when the menu is not of your choosing." :
It appears that any form of caucus could be more harmful to
the future of a Green party than it would be helpful. Cooptation and
the splitting of the party or movement into differing factions


83
would make the Greens easier to manipulate for the leaders of
the current socio-economic political system. For these reasons,
I am unable to recommend a caucus in any form. Short-term benefits
would please many green supporters, but the long-term effects would
be the co-optation of,, and the possible defeat of any unified Green
Party in the United States.
The Green Party. The last recommended alternative is that
of the Green party. The benefits a party would bring to the United
States would be a sense of unity, direction and greater potential
power for all green-oriented organizations. With a party, the
diverse Green organizations, nationwide, would have a unifying
factor that would enable them all to share a coherent view or
platform that they could present both to their grassroots public
and to the current politicians.
The difficulties that a party would face would be from
more than one area. In the financial arena, remember, the Citizens
Party was still paying off its 1980 Presidential Election debts
at the time of the 1984 election. The amount of money needed to
run a national election would be staggering. The high cost of
campaigns alone makes it difficult for a candidate to win unless
he or she gets backing from large corporations.
Another problem is the electoral process. Proportional
representation is just as unlikely to occur here as it is in
Great Britain or France.
Just as we believe a network to be an insufficient political
form for Green ideas, so we believe that moving into electoral


84
politics prematurely would be an error. Considering the
political system and traditions in this country, a bipartisan
caucus is probably the shrewdest choice, although Green
candidates could run at the local level as independents.
However, whether or not a caucus or party evolves later the
soundest starting point is a well-organized, grassroots, national
Green movement that develops a coherent view and comprehensive
programs to present to lawmakers and the public. The structure
should respect local and regional autonomy within a framework
of shared values and should have only the minimal amount of
national coordination necessary to present the movement as a
potential element in American politics.9
This is the sentiment echoed by Capra and Spretnak.. It is not far
off from the majority of Green-oriented organizations' opinions
that I have talked with in the United States. They would support
a Green party but realize that, presently, it cannot win seats in
the formal government. They believe that the traditional political
parties of the industrial democracies have not given high enough
priority to the ecological issues. They believe that if a party
were formed it would expand their influences over the electoral
process in two ways: by exerting pressures from within even without
getting any formal victories at the polls, and secondly, by serving
to publicize ecological issues.
In his book SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained,
Porritt says of his Ecology Party:
The role of the Ecology Party is obviously of considerable
importance to the development of green ideas in this country.
It's my contention that party political activity will always
remain an essential part of that development. For better or
worse, the Ecology party is the only organization around
prepared to take on that role to its fullest extent. But even
as a political party, we have no illusions about the fact that
our primary function is still an educative one, the spreading
of Green politics to as wide an electorate as possible.1^
Personal discussions with regional members of Friends of the


85
Earth, the Sierra Club, Physicians against Nuclear War, Committees
of Correspondence, Colorado Environmental Coalition, League of
Women Voters all echo these Same sentiments. They would love to
see a Green party in the United States, but are wise enough to
realize that because of our electoral system, it could not win seats
A Green party that was created to unify, direct and educate the
people would be worthwhile, welcome, and successful. Nearly all
Green-oriented organizations concede this, and would try hard to
make it successful. Over the past several months, I have correspond
ed either directly or indirectly with representatives of 61 Green-
oriented organizations that span from the local grassroots level
to the global level, and this same sentiment is echoed. If the
two-party system can be changed, the Green party not only has a
chance to win seats in the state and national legislatures, but
can become a major factor in the determination of how this country
will be run. For the time being, a unified Green movement is the
answer for the education of the people on all levels. With lobbying
at the national and state levels, much can be accomplished to create
Green thought in our legislatures. With the dissemination of
education and ideas at the local grassroots level, there will be
an ever-increasing awareness of the Green, holistic way of thinking
that can permeate all levels of society so that policy makers will
be aware of this new awareness of their constituents.
E.F. Schumacher, in his classic book SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL,
remi nds us,
We must do what we conceive to be the right thing and not


86
bother our heads or burden our souls with whether we're going
to be successful. Because if we don't do the right.thing,
we'll be doing the wrong thing, and then we',11 be a part of
the disease and not part of the cure.H
If a Green party were created in the United States, it
would have the support of the vast majority of Green-oriented
organizations in the United States. Even if the party were initially
created to educate and unify Green thought, it would be a success.
Unified lobbying could ultimately result in an amendment creating
a more savory atmosphere for them in the political arena. The
Greens will not be able to have everything at once in the U.S.,
but they must get started now building a party in order to begin
their ascent in the political arena. If they fail to begin now,
they will remain sincere but separate organizations that can be
co-opted or ignored by the current politico-economic system. For
now, they can run people at the local level as independents. This,
they should do, so as to get as many Green thinkers as possible into
the system at any level. Green-oriented groups such as the Friends
of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, that have Political
Action Committees (PACS) funding for the purpose of sponsoring
and supporting Green-oriented candidates, can play a major part
in getting supporters elected that could help in pushing for a
proportional representation amendment. They will need all the help
that they can get.


87
"NOTES-CHAPTER 6."
*Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.F. Dutton, pages 200-202.
2"Ibid." page 200.
3"Ibid." page 200.
4
K. Hanson, "Legislative Analysis.", Colorado Environmental
Lobby, (1985), Denver, Colorado, CEL, page 4.
3Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.F. Dutton, page 207.
8Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 234.
^"Ibid." page 201;
8,lIbid." page 232.
^Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise,
(1984), New York, E.F. Dutton, page 204.
10Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology
Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 9.
^E.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if
People Mattered, (1973), New York, Harper & Row, page 99.


88
"BIBLIOGRAPHY"
Bernstein, P., WORKPLACE DEMOCRATIZATION: Its Internal Dynamics,
(1976), Kent State University, Kent State Univ. Press.
Bottomore, T., A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, (1983), Oxford,
U.K., Blackwell Ltd.
Callenbach, E., ECOTOPIA, (1975), New York, New York, Bantam Books.
Capra, F., Spretnak, C., GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, (1984),
New York, N.Y., E.P. Dutton, Inc.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), GLOBAL 2000 REPORT to the
President, Executive Summary, VoT. 1, (1980), Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
(1982), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
Die Grunen, PROGRAMME OF THE GERMAN GREEN PARTY, (1983), London,
U.K., Heretic Books Ltd.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Air-Pollutant Emissions
Estimates, (1980), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
Goldfarb. T., TAKING SIDES:Cl ashing Views on Controversial Environ-
mental Issues, (1983), Dushkin-Pahl GP., Guilford, Conn.
Gorz., A., ECOLOGY AS POLITICS, (1975), Paris, France, Editions
Galilee.
Kanter, R., COMMITMENT COMMUNITY, (1972), Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
Univ. Press.
Kelly, P., FIGHTING FOR HOPE, (1983), Boston, Mass., South End Press.
Kraft, M., Vig, N., ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS IN THE 1980s,(1984),
Washington, D.C., CQ Press.
Pilat, J.,'ECOLOGICAL POLITICS: The Rise of the Green Movement,
(1980), London, Sage Publications, Ltd.
Porritt, J.,'SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1985),
Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd.
Rosenbaum, W., ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND POLICY, (1985), Washington,
D.C., CQ Press.


89
Roszak, T., PERSQN/PLANET, (1981), St. Albans, Granada-
Sargent, L., CONTEMPORARY.POLITICAL.IDEOLOGIES, (1978), Homewood,
Illinois, The Dorsey Press .
Schumacher, E., SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if People Mattered,
(1973), New York, N.Y., Harper & Row-
Simon, J., THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell
Ltd.
Tucker, R., THE MARX-ENGELS READER, (1978), New York, N.Y., Norton
& Co.
Wiles, P., THE:POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COMMUNISM, (1962), Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard Univ. Press.


90
"BIBLIOGRAPHY-JOURNALS"
Fuehrer, R., "Environmentalismwhat is it?", Colorado EnvirOhmental
Report, 2, (1986), Vol. 1, Denver, Colorado Environmental
Coalition.
Fried, R., "Nuclear War: Now there is something you can do to
prevent it", COalitiOn Newsletter, 1, (1986), Colorado Coalition
for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
Hansen, K., "Legislative Analysis", Colorado Environmental Lobby,
(1985) , vol. 1, Denver, CEL.
Katsiaficas, G., "The Greens are Coming!", North Country Anvil, 51,
(1986) , Vol. 51, Millville, Minn.
Watson, R., "Challenging the Underlying Dogmas of Environmentalism",
\ Whole Earth Review, 5, Vol. 45, Sausalito, California.


Full Text

PAGE 1

POSSIBILITIES FOR A GREEN PARTY U.S.A. by David EdwardMorgan B.A., University of Colorado, 1984 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science 1986

PAGE 2

) This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by David Edward Morgan has been approved for the Department of Political Science Date f'k,-t. <-f / It/; I ( I

PAGE 3

I t Morgan, David Edward (B.A., Political Science) Possi.bi1i.ti .es for a Green Party Thesi.s di rected by Associ.ate Professor Mi chael S. Cummi.ngs The thesis firs.t looks at what it means to be Green to ecology, anti-nuclear-power, peace and feminist groups. It defines these groups and reflects upon why they are part of the Green mov ement. It al so looks at what the movement means for average citizens and why it would beneftt them. iii In Chapter II, problems' under the Capitalist and Socialist industrial systems are explored from a Green perspective that questions the long and short-term goals of industrialism. In Chapter 111, the systems of Capitalism and Socialism are shown to be ideologically antagonistic yet similar in their commitment to industrialism The case is presented that it is irrelevant which ideology is dominant as long as industrialism leads all in the destruction of the planet. The chapter also looks at the earth and its present condition. Problems that. the industrial system cannot cur.e, such as the danger of nucl ear power, central i zed governmental power, denial of deep ecology, and violence, are explored and questioned. Chapter IV examines why a Green movement or party is necessary, and looks especi.ally at soci etal 1 eadershi p, grassroots teamwork, and economic democracy as components of the Green s.olution. Obstacles to the development ofa successful party in the

PAGE 4

United States include electoral laws hostile to new parties, newpartyco-optation_ demography; and geographical problems. These obstacles are rev iewed in Chapter '[. The final' chapter looks at the a1ternatives that might iv work i.n the' United States.. The network" movement, caucus, and party'. are all investigated in order to see which could be the most effective in our unique: situation. The chapter ends wi tha recommendati.on of the most sensibleGreenalternative that will hav-e an impact not only upon the current industrial system, but also upon-thesocio-political structure.without causing violent upheavals in our society.

PAGE 5

v CONTENTS CHAPTER I. WHO IS GREEN?.............. .... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . 1 Eco logy ... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 Soc i a 1 Respons i bi 1 ity ........................ . 8 Grassroots Democracy................................. 9 Nonv i 0 1 ence ........... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 II. PROBLEMS UNDER THE CURRENT SySTEM...................... 21 Is Bigger Better? ........ 24 Capitalism and Socialism .... ........ ................ 26 III. WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK................... 32 Antagonist; c Systems ..... ...... ............................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32 Capitalism..... .......... .... .......... ....... .... ..... 32 Socialism... ................ ... ............. ...... ....... 35 The Same Master--The Same Goals...................... 37 Problems for the Current System...................... 41 Nucl ear Power ..... ...................................................................... 41 Decentral ;zation .................. ..................................... ......... 45. Deep Eco 1 ogi ca 1 Understand; ng. . . . . 46 The Air....................................................................................... 49 The Water........................................................... 51 Tox; c Wa s te s 51 Peace--Nonviolence................................. 52

PAGE 6

IV. WHY A GREEN MOVEMENT OR PARTY IS NECESSARy ............. Awaken; ng Mank; nd" .-" " " " " " " " Grassroots Teamwork ................................ Societal Leadership ..................... Economi c Democracy"""""""" 0 " e e " " " " V. OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF. A SUCCESSFUL THIRD PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES ......................... Proportional Representation ................... Other-Party-Co-optation ................ ..... and Geographic ............... Demographic Problems ................................. Geographic .......................... VI. WHAT WILL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES .................... Types of Organ i za t ion s " " " " " " " Green Network""""",,""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Green Movemen t" " " " " " " " " " Green Caucus within the Movement ............. Nationa 1 Membership Green Caucus ............... .... Green Party""",,""""""""""""""""""""""""""",,",,"""""""" BIBLIOGRAPHY--BOOKS .............. .......................... BIBLIOGRAPHY---JOURNALS/ARTICLES ............................. vi 56 60 60 61 62 67 67 .70 73 73 74 77 77 78 79 81 82 83 88 90

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I WHO IS GREEN? IIContinue to contaminate your b ed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste .... 11 Chi ef Seattl e Leader of the Suquamish tribe Washington Territory Regardless of your political ideology, you might have a little IIGreenll in you. If you are concerned about nuclear energy development, decentralized government, the conservation of nonrenewable resources (notably. ener.gy), urban congestion, over population, air and water pollution, waste disposal and the preser vation of and fauna in their natural states--all issues involving protection of the environment and the improvement of the quality of life--you might be a potential Green movement supporter. This spectrum of causes is not necessarily restricted to IIbig picturell mentality. The persons who are concerned with a Green problem. in their own home town are as important as the international 1 eaders who try to coordinate the struggl e for the Green movement on a worldwide basis. In fact, one of the founding blocks for the Green movement is grassroots involvement. The German Greens, for example, consider themselves lithe political voice of the citizens' movements, that is ecology, anti-nuclear-power, peace, feminist and others.

PAGE 8

In fact, most members of the German Green party are members and activists in one or more of these movements.1I1 2 The purpose of thi s chapter wi 11 be to try and defi ne who is Green, and what it means to be Green in the United States. As earlier stated, those individuals and groups that share the following basic could be considered Green oriented. Capra and Spretnak list the following principles: ecology, social responsibility, grassroots democracy and nonviolence as the basis for Green ideology. These were taken from the programme of the German Green party and apply to any real Green movement, but they must be discussed and explained more. fully, later in the chapter. The German Greens will be referred to throughout the thesis. Their political success in such a short time is the major reason for this referral. Let us look at the IItrack recordll of this Green organization, and also of other European Greens, before proceeding further into their basic unifying beliefs. American and European.Greens have benefitted greatly from the success of the West German Green.party, die Grunen. Their tremendous success at the polls has given other parties an element of transferred credibil ity. In March 1983 they won twenty-seven seats in the West German Bundestag and captured 5.6 percent of the vote. This firmly established Green politics as a serious native form of politics and helped to proi 'iferate growth on a worldwide scale. Die Grunen did not become a formal party until January, 1980, and it was the nuclear power issue which was the catalyst in this

PAGE 9

case. In the mid-1970s most'-environmentalists in Germany were confident that nuclear power could be stopped by non-violent direct action, including the occupation of new sites. Their experiences led them to realize that such actions, divorced from the exercise of real political power, were quite inadequate. 2 They tried legal action through the courts and other efforts to win the support of the Social Democratic party (SPD) in their position. These attempts also failed. 3 By 1977 Green coalitions and citizen action groups were opposed to creating a separate Green. party, but Green candidates were beginning to run in local elections and enjoy a fair amount of success. Rudolf Bahro, one of the leaders of the German Green party, notes in his book"BUILDING THE GREEN MOVEMENT", that.the failures of conventional techniques, ultimately led the Green-oriented leadership to once. again renew the call for a Green party so that the efforts could be backed by parliamentary involvement. The environmental movement in West Germany became increasingly politicized, and its leadership began to realize that elimination of nuclear power would be possible only as part of a 1 arger pol iti cal transformation. In 1979 the various coalition groups put together a basic platform and the Green party, die Grunen, was formally created Over the next three years the German Greens more finely tuned their bel iefs and. consol idated them into the "Programme of the German Green Party". They became very involved in the peace movement, and their solid stance against Pershing II "and Cruise missiles helped to broaden their membership. It was because of

PAGE 10

4 the cl arity of their opposition to nucl ear power that they enjoyed fair success in the local elections. Capra and Spretnak paint out that" it was this period, when their credibility was that prepared the groundwork for die Grunens' suprising election to the Bundestag in 1983, are: Some of the reasons why die Grunen has enjoyed such success "-A well established base at the grassroots; -a politicized environment movement; -a passionately fought campaign against nuclear power; -total commitment to a peace movement not dominated by the left; -a federal parliamentary system; -an electoral system (with representation allocated proportionately once a 5 percent threshold has been crossed) that has allowed a green party t3 claim its place alongside the established parties." The "track record" of the German Greens is very -encou. raging. They have become the political voice of their grassroots constituency and also have shown that power and information can run both ways by their example of constant feedback to-the grassroots level. It was the Green party that brought to the country's attention the present severity of ecological damage. They made an issue of the missile problem that the established parties chose to ignore. It should be noted that the Greens have, most importantly, changed the make-up of the political-social culture. By bringing grassroots politics back into focus, they have reintroduced equality into the general spectrum.

PAGE 11

In invigorating and transforming the political culture, the Greens have changed not only what should be discussed but also who should discuss it: women as well as men, and ordinary citizens as well as entrenched politicians.4 When the Greens went to the Bundestag they upset the traditional patriarchal balance because there were more than third women in their contingent. Charlene Spretnak noted that this drew the ire of the ,1I0ld guardll and they were hardly able to maintain towards.the Green delegates. Problems the German Greens face are co-optation by the ) established parties; whether or not they would strengthen or 5 weaken' their position by entering into a coal ition with an established party; and lastly, internal problems between the extreme left and right factions of their party. What are die Grunen's prospects for the future? Capra. and Spretnak indicate that the established politicians predict that the Greens will lose their 5 percent mandate and all their seats in the Bundestag in the next election. A West German research group, Trend-Radar, concluded: there is a 50 percent probability that the Greens will become a well-established party in the Bundestag, a less than 50 percent p robabil ity that. they will remain largely extra-parliamentary, and a less than 30 percent probability that they will soon dissolve. 5 This same research group determined the characteristics of the Greens to be the following: -They facilitate the dissolution of men Is-club politics; they support female, and hence, holistic, thinking. -They tryout process politics; there is permanent learning. -They test flexible forms of organization, which causes delicate problems with communication and voting. -They redefine power; holding office is not seen as a sign of superiority but as holy sacrifice.

PAGE 12

-Emotions, intuition, and a new balance between play and seriousness have. entered politics. -They have introduced morality into politics and attempt to develop anew morality. -Although they have taken votes from the Social Democrats in the past, the Greens will win many. votes from the Christian Democrats as well in the future. 6 The legitimation of die Grunen has greatly the cause of the other European. Greens. Over the past years, there has arisen a much broader :and confident,internationalmovement. There are now Green parties in West Germany, the United Kingdom, Irel and, France Bel gium, Sweden, Switzerl and, Holl and, Luxemburg and Austria. The countries of Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain have dynamic Green-oriented groups that are'planning to form parties in the near future. There is no doubt that Green momentum i.s increasing. "In November 1981, the two Bel gium Green parti.es. had five senators elected to the Upper Chamber and.four representatives elected to the Lower Chamber of the Belgian Parliament." 7 This was the first ti.me any Green party had people elected to any type of national parliament. "In 1982 they won 120 seats on local councils, and now hold the balance of power on three of them." 8 The proliferation of universal Green is not only to be found in Europe. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have Green parties that are slowly making headway in the arena of established politics. Information on these organizations is still limited, but 6 a colleague, Amir Pirooz.i, who is currently researching the Canadian Green parties, indicates that they are making relatively solid progress.

PAGE 13

Let us now look at the basic principles of ecology, social responsibility, grassroots democracy and nonviolence and see how they are united i n thei r quest for deep ecology. Ecology 7 A means of unifying most of the factions within a movement is the ecological movement. in general. Everything that we, as humans and stewards pf the earth, are involved with, either directly or relates to and affects others. The current system in the United States strives to maintain the status quo and protect the current industrialized, constant-growth system. What is needed is a new. outlook: "deep ecology, which encompasses the study of nature1s subtle web of interrelated processes and the application of that study to our interactions with nature and among ourselves.n9 Deep ecology means interrelating economics, politics, social structures and spirituality, all towards achieving the same goal; that of not only stopping current damage to the eco-system and the planet .as a whole, but enhancing the survival prospects for future generations and creating a way of living and thinking that will ensure that this system will endure indefinitely. Under the ideals and goals of deep ecology, the ecology, anti-nuclear-power, peace and femin:ist groups can find a common banner and harmoniously strive to create a meaningful relationship with the earth. This deep ecological perspective could be considered holistic in the truest sense of the word. As Capra and Spretnak pOint out, lithe broader applications of this ecological thinking

PAGE 14

leads to social ecology; the perception of societal structures and human interactlons as an intricate web of .dynamic systems that are si.multaneously interrelated parts and complete 8 Groups such as the the Environmental Defense pund; Greenpeace and the American Indian Movement (AIM), to name only a few, all recognize that the universe, including humankind, is interrelated and interconnected and must be handled and understood from that perspective. Social Responsibility "The ecological and social spheres belong inseparably together: the economy of nature is linked to the economy ot; humans for better or for worse."ll Social responsibility means that the Green movement programs will not harm the poor and the working class in the attempt to restructure our social, political and I economic systems along ecological lines. It is also the reason groups such as the League of Women Voters and many of the feminist and minority groups in our society are sympathetic to the Green movement. The Greens strive. to promote more social and civil rights for women and minority groups. Current social conditions create much social and mental hardship for those not in the majority. Many groups are discrimin ated against because of religion, race or sexuality. Discrimination creates instability within the social system which, in turn, creates increased crime and other social problems, such as suicide and alcoholism. A better environment for everyone on thesocio-political, ecological, economic and spiritual levels will do much

PAGE 15

9 to better our chances for deep ecological understanding and harmony. Increased social responsibility decreases the stress in the overall system and permits women and ethnk minorjties to contribute constructively to the overall betterment of the system. Antagonism is decreased and cooperation is increased much to the benefit of all concerned. Grassroots Democracy Citizens Advisory Boards and neighborhood organizing groups all are part. of grassroots democracy. Green movements, everywhere, stress the need for a greater amount of control on the local level. Decentralization of power is their goal. In the United States, grassroots democracy has been greatly influenced by the peace movements, civil rights movements, anti-nuclear-power movements and ecology movements. The current American system stresses centralization of power. It implies that bigger is naturally better. The larger the bureaucracy, the more important it must be. The system, ul timately, ends up bei ng its own reason for survival, rather than the system being created for the service of the people. Greens, on the other call for a sound, sustainable economic system that is decentralized, equitable, and institutionally flexible, one in which people have significant control over their own lives and the life of the entire system. Power would be withdrawn from the few and disseminated to the many. No longer would the system run the peopl.e, or the minority run the majority; rather, the p .eopl e waul d run the system in the interests of the people and envir.onment in which they live.

PAGE 16

10 Nonvi 01 ence Petra Kelly has said that unonviolence is the essential ingredient in -an ecological society. Nonviolence can never be compromised.1I12 {Petra Kelly is one of the leaders of the German Green movement.} Nonviolence permeates the Green philosophy, whether it is nationally, regionally, or locally definep, and seems to be the main building block of all Green goals and ideals. Ecological, social and grassroots goals .all are dictated to by the philosophy of nonviolence. The Green opposition to violence applies not only to violence perpetrated .between ihdividuals but also to violence conducted by the state and by institutions. The Greens condemn both "personal and structural violence.1I13 Violence between people and groups is no better than violence conducted between warring mtions. Violence by humans to the environment is just as bad as This means not only physical harm but also violence and repression against women and minorities. The Green movements want to develop a nonexplo.itive [sic] economic system in which employee owned and controlled businesses replace huge operations dictated by the state or corporate interests. they want to transform our violent relationship with nature into one of balance and respect. The Greens even extend this princlple of nonviolence to their active resistance against the most deadly manifestation of structural violence: the nuclear arms race promoted by the military-industrial complex and the government. 14 The German Green party give s probably the best.definition of nonviolent goals that could apply to any. Green movements worldwide. We aim at a nonviolent society where the oppression of one

PAGE 17

11 person by another is Our fo.remost principle is that humane goals cannot be achieved by inhumane means. Nonviolence should prevail between.. all human beings and i.ncludes social resistance in its various forms. In the long run resistance can be carried out most effectively in a social manner, as shown by the exampl e of the anti -nucl ear-power movement. We are just as fundamentally opposed to use of force between states in acts of war .. Nonviolence does not exclude active social resistance, and so does not mean passivity for those involved. The principle of nonviolence means. that resistance against government measures is not only legitimate in certain circumstances, it may even be essential for people to defend their vital interests against an authority which escapes their control (for example sit-ins, blocking of roads, obstruction of vehicles).15 The process of nonviolent protest was helped in the United States by the early civil rights and the peace movements of the 1960s. We are very aware of the power of nonviolent confrontation, and any successful Green movement in the United would have to utilize this cornerstone if and when necessary. These four basic principles of the Green movement, ecology, social responsibility, grassroots democracy and, finally, nonviolence, are all adhered to by the various interest groups that make up the movement itself. It gives them a reliability and a consistency in their jOint belief and goals that will enable them to work together in beating a current system that seeks to redirect or co-opt their goals. What it means to be Green to the ecology groups such as the Sierra Club or the Friends of the Earth is that the natural resources, the wealth of the earth, will not be exploited to the point of depletion. It means that, as Jonathon Porritt, of Friends of the Eart h, United Kingdom, says, "we do not have dominion over

PAGE 18

12 the Earth to do wi th as we pl eas .e,we are merely stewards who are to use what we have wisely, only as needed, i n harmony between man and the planet. 1116. The ecology groups believe in deep ecology. They look at the holistic view of mankind. in relation to the planet. A Sierra Club brochure says, IIw henwe try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe. II A unified brganized around those four basic principles of the gives the ecology movement. very comfortable parameters within which to work. Doug Robotham, local organizer for the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club, echoed these same sentiments in a recent interview. Groups like the Sierra Club are an excellent example of how a local chapter can interrelate with the regional and national head quarters and work compatibly towards the same goals on a local level. Many people see the Sierra Club, for examp.le, only according to the big picture, on a worldwide or national level, but its ecological, nonviolent and socially responsible are often started and pushed at the grassroots level. The Sierra Club is based. in San Francisco, California, and has a national membership of 370,OOQmembers. It concentrates its attention on national and incorporates ecology groups, anti-nuclear-power groups, peace groups arid feminist groups within its membership. To the mi si.nformed, it consi sts of the I tree huggers I who want only to go backwards instead ofgo;ng forward. A good example of thi s fa se view was an articl e in the

PAGE 19

13 January 3D, 1986 edition of the Rocky" Mountain News by Thomas Sowell entitled, "Environmentalist by any other name is a green bigot", which claimed that we have gone. too far in the direction of preservationand that all that was being preserved was uspecial privileges" for the environmentalists. His argument implied that the white mi.ddl e c-l ass was pu sh i ng envi ronmenta 1 ism as a proj ect of se 1 finterest. He claimed that the poor, Black, Indian and other mi.norities would not have the means to have access to these areas being fought for, simply their limited incomes and resources. On February 12, 1986, this article was answered by Michele Perrault, president of the Sierra Club, in the Rocky Mountain News under the titl.e, "Wilderness.desired by many, opposed by few.1I The article countered the Sowell accusation with facts and statistics and added to the local credibility of the Sierra Club. A recent poll in California had been taken with results differing from the accusations of Mr. Sowell. Ms. Perrault said, further, these respondents were hardly the small affl uent group that Sowell imagines. Si?
PAGE 20

14 al lands for urban parks and the creation of new parks for ordinary city people with limited vacation time.1I To get an idea how an American Green-oriented organiz ation obtains its grassroots support, let us look briefly at the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club. The overall regional membership i s approximately 7,000., which is broken further into seven local groups that discuss and handle. problems at the grassroots level. These groups interrelate-and work with other organizations also at the grassroots 1 evel. When-it comes to prohl ems that need "cl out", they unite into a larger movement w.ithother groups, and support or oppose positions on local and state conflicts in the areas of nuclear power, water, wilderness, conservation, hazardous substances and many other environmental and human issues that might arise. This local Sierra Club chapter is also a member and supporter of other grassroots organizations such.as the Colorado Environmerital Coal ition and the Colorado .. Envi ronmental Lobby. Whereas the Sierra Club is a group, the -Colorado Environmental Coalition is a movement that encompasses diverse groups that are Green in their orientation liThe Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEe) is a coalition of groups and individuals to promoting and achieving the protection of environmental values primarily in Colorado.1I17 With dedicated leadership, this local organization has the regional support of many natio .nal organizations such as the Audubon Society, League of Women Voters, local branches of the Env.ironmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law Society,Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club,Wildlife Society and many other groups

PAGE 21

15 with goals and ideals that fall' within the parameters of the Green movement!s four basic principles. A Green movement isneces. sary in or.der to give these diverse groups a focal point They need .. a unified political voice with which to make their objectives known' and felt by the politicians that are a part of the mainstream pol itt. cal system that either ignores these problems or attempts to co-opt their critics. This focal point is the reason a movement is necessary. All the different groups can' find unity under the four principles, if they can be made to realize that the problems we are facing on the planet are not only severe, but interdependent, that united the groups wHl succeed in their goals, but divide d, they will lack the volume to create a policy-changing presence. The awareness must be so great that the current system will be unable to co-opt its momentum and defuse the movement. More awareness at the grassroots level is the basis for this growth. Groups can' unite, as in the Colorado Environmental and have enough supporters to make a political and social impact on the mainstream political system. The CEC has over 30, 000. members, of whom. a g 'reat many are active. Working at the grassroots level, these activists can accompl.ish much, and significant outreach can be accomplished. A movement that believes in its causes and makes society aware of its own probl ems on the grassroots level wi 11 certainly create a socio-economic and' pol iti. cal impact on the hal istic treatment of ecology and on attempts to avoid basic solutions to ecological problems.

PAGE 22

Such a movement would have enough support on a national basis to create an influence over major national issues such as 16 env" ironmental regulation, clean-air acts, nuclear power, industrial chemicals and pesticides, and women's and minorities rights, just to name a few. Can a holi stic party or movement that brings all thi s together address the problems that the Democrats and Republicans do not solve? If the German Green party, die Grunen, can be used as an example of what a young, dynamic party can do, it most certainly can.be successful. A Green-party that is willing to work within the existing system yet not allow the current decision-makers to 1 ure it away from its goals and' ideas wi 11 most assuredly make an impact on' how the existing society treats the ecological system. This claim will be discussed more fully in Chapter III. What it means to be Green to average citizens is that the environment will be healthier for both themselves and the planet. Holistically speaking, it ensures that the planet will still be around for their offspring, without the threats of nuclear wa.r, acid rain and many other current problems. A socio-pol itical system that lives by, and adheres to, social responsibility, grass roots democracy, deep ecology and nonviolence guarantees its life and the lives of the that inhabit the planet. As Theodore Roszak has said, the needs of the planet and the needs of the person have become one, and together they have begun to act upon the central institutions of our society with a force that is profoundly subv'ersive, but which carries within it the promise of cultural renewal.18

PAGE 23

Chapter II, Problems under the Current System, examines probl ems under the exi st.i.ng socio-pol iti. cal and economic system, especially those related to industrialism and the fact that industrialism is respons .ible for a short-sighted squanderi .ng of 17 natural resources. It al so addresses the inadequacies of the two' major ideolog.ies, Social ism and Capitalism, in responding to these problems. The. chapter ends with a of the problems that the current system cannot cure in its present fonn. Chapter III examines.why the current system will not work. It looks at the ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism and attempts to separate fact from fiction about the similarities and differences between Beginning with the reality that they both come from industrialism, this chapter shows why they ignore deep ecology .as an answer to the problems they are presented with. Chapter IV explains why a Green movement or party is necessary in the United States It looks at the present condition of the earth and then at the future direction and potential condition that it might end in if we are not ecologica .lly-oriented. The second part of chapter IV argues for the u rgency of recognizing what industrialism is doing to humanity and the planet. It discusses how citizens must initiate this change at. the grassroots level and ultimately evolve into a force powerful enough. to affect the current systems of the world. Chapter V. discusses the obstacles to the development of a successfu l third party in the United States and 1 ists the

PAGE 24

18 di fficul ti es that await a hol isti.c, unifi".ed movement. .Issues such as proportional representation, other party co-optation and demographic and geographic location must be considered in order to determine what will make a national party or movement viable. The Green movement is fairly successful in Europe, but the comparative logistics must be closely scrutinized because of the size of the United States. The final chapter, What Will Work in the United States, looks at what alternatives are avail abl ein this country. It revi.ews the various types of Green organ .izations possible,' such 'as the party, the movement, the caucus, and the network. Lastly, it looks at what specific is likely to be the most viable Green alternative, herein the United States.

PAGE 25

IINOTES-CHAPTER 1.11 lCapra and GREEN The Global' promis' e, (1984), New-York, N.Y., E.'P. Qutto, n, Inc" page 3. 2Jonathon ,SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 12. 3l1Ibid.1I page 13. .. .. 4Capra and Spretnak,GREEN POLITICS" The Global Promise, (1984), New York, E. P. Out'ton, Inc., page 144. 5l1Ibid.1I page 160. 6"Ibid." page 161. 7Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 13. 8"lbid." page 13. 9Capra and Spretnak,GREEN POLITICS, The,Global Promise, (1984), New York, E.P. Dutton, Inc., page 31. 10Wlbid." page 31. 110i e Grunen, PROGRAMME OF THE GERMAN GREEN PARTY, (1983). 12Capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, (1984), New York, E.P. Dutton, Inc., page 45. 13l1Ibid.1I page 45. 14l1Ibid.1I page 43. 15llIbid.1I page 43. .. 16Jonathon Porritt, SEEING, GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained,(1985), U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 147., 19 17Roger Fuehrer, IIColorado Environmental Coalition*Organizerll, COlorado Environmental' Report, (1986), page 1.

PAGE 26

20 "NOTES-CHAPTER 1. II 18Theodore Roszak; PERSON/PLANET (1981), St. Albans, Granada, Anchor Press, page 42.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER II PROBLEMS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM The socio-economic and political systems that practice deep ecology will find their goals and aspirations in direct conflict with the current mind-set that is being practiced in much of the world today. E. F. Schumacher said, we are not in the least concerned with conservation; we are maximizing, instead of minimizing, the current rates of use; and, far from being interested in studying the possibili:ties of alternative methods of production and patterns of living-so as to get off the collision course on which we are moving with ever-increasing speed--we happily talk of unlimited progress along the beaten track of education for leisure in the rich countries, and the transfer of technology to the poor countries. 1 Industrialism, as we know it, is not conservative. It is a system calculatingly predicated on ever-increasing growth. From the beginnings of the industrial revolution until the present, the system has been concerned with creation of more and more goods and the technology necessary to continue on in an uninhibited growth pattern. The evolution from the earl iest cottage industries' to the present-day multinational corporations, has taken place in a relatively short period of time when considering how long it has taken the planet to produce the resources that industrialism is using up at a break-neck pace. Not even ex-president Jimmy Carter's GLOBAL 2000 report, which was a factual piece that showed the problems that we are currently facing will be small ones

PAGE 28

compared to those in the futur .e, was listened to by the military complex in the United States. 22 If present trends continue, warned. the CEQ in its GLOBAL 2000 report of .1980, the world of 2000 will .be more crowded, more polluted, stable ecologically, and more vulnerab1e to disruption than the world we live in Serious stresses involving population resources and the environment are clearly visible ahead. 2 If there had been a holi-stic or deep ecological sense inherent in industrialism from its inception, the world would not be facing the probl ems that persi st and threaten our future. It shoul dal so be noted that these. probl ems are not unique to the United States, but are found in every industrial country on the globe, and are drifting into .. the non-industrial, underdeveloped, Third World areas. Most environmental problems are universal, and all countries share or contribute to the degradation of the environment. They, therefore, share in the consequences of an eco-system that has been corrupted by high technology, fast-growth industrialism. National boundaries can neither isolate nor insulate a people from ecol.ogical interdependence. As new technologies diversify, and developing countries also industrialize, the current stresses upon the global eco-system will be compounded. Problems such as air quality, th'e GTeenhouseeffect, the ozone, acid rain,' deforestation of mountains and rainforests, ,and the dissemination of persistent hazardous substances will continue to grow at an unprecedented pace if deep ecology is ignored These probl ems are created. by industriali sm and have continuously increased becausa of the lack of interest and mis-

PAGE 29

direction given them by current socio-political and economic leaders. The environmental policies of the United States for the 1980s are directed more at IIstamping out fires" than directly addressing the problems of industrial growth. Rather than realiz.ing that heavy industrial growth is the problem, 23 current leaders look at pollution, acid rain and many other problems as Ilthe" problem to be solved. Despite the efforts of Ralph Nader, Barry Commoner and many others to extend purely envir.onme ntal concerns into a more fundamental opposition to .. large corporations and the whole ethos of industrialism, there has been little basic change in either the goals or.the institutions of American society as a resu 1 t of the so-ca 11 ed II envi ronment boom. II Reformi sm remains very much the order of the day, few activists seem concerned that they are dealing mostly with symptoms and not with causes. 3 It seems that the industrialist and the consumer are both unaware that the trade-off for constant growth and prosperity in todayls industrial world means shortages and hard times in the problem world of the future. Itis even more terrifying when the and. their supporters either ignore or gloss over the GLOBAL 2000 report and give credence to Julian Simonis latest work, THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH, which makes statements like "environment, resource and population stresses.ara and with the passage of time will have less influence than now upon the quality of human life on our planet.1I4 It is thi s type of progress that scares the supporters of the Green movement This is the type of viewpoint that convinced the Reagan administration to attempt to sell off millions of acres of publicly owned land to real estate deve10pers, oil, gas, coal

PAGE 30

24 and timber companies in the hope that. private ownership might put the land to a economic purpose. :.. It might, but if the dictates of progress today already require the creation of national sacrifi.ce areas, what. are we to make of the prospects fO. r progress for our future generations on this planet when we have even less to sacrifice? Is Bigger Better? In 197.3, E. F. Schumacher wrote a book enti tl ed SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, which was one of the forerunners of the Green movement today. The subtitl e of the book was. Economi cs as if Peopl e Matter.ed, and he addressed the proposition that bigger was not necessarily better. In his book, he addresses the problems of the modern world, its resources and what the modern world would one day do to the Third World because of its>insatiable need for growth and natural resources. By endlessly seeking solutions through more of this and more. of that, the probl ems of the world are .. merely compounded. As Schumacher explains, the industrialists illusions are based upon a failure to distinguish between capital and income: EV' ery economist and businessman is' familiar with the distinction and applies it conscientiously and with considerable subtlety to all economic affairs--except where it really matters: namely the .irreplaceable capital which man has' not made, but simply found, and wi thout wh i ch he can do noth i ng A businessman would not consider a firm to have solved its probl .ems of producti on and to have achi eved vi abi lity if he sawthat it was rapidly consuming its capital. How, then cQuldwe overlook thts vital fa .ct when it comes. to that very btg fi.rm, the economY. of$paceship Earth and, in particular, the economi.es of .its very rich passengers?5

PAGE 31

25 This then is the framework: an environment ravaged and devastated by the majority of .the world'speople just so they can live from day to day, and :by a minority to satisfy their wastefu l habits of consumption. Industri.alism is the culprit and the creation of this catastrophe. As Jonathon Porritt says, lithe poor haven't the luxury and the rich haven't the inclination to think about tomorrow.1I6 As these problems become. more acc.entuated and the pressure becomes more obvious, one would think that more sustainable patterns of economic development would be created as soon as possible. More often than not, the indifferenceor special interests of our politici.ans, coupled with the III need it nowll conditioning of our society, has placed ecological problems. at the end of the agenda, only to be resurrected when. a severe .probl em ari ses or when the pressure gets too high. When it finally does, re,..direct ion or co-optation of ecological leadershipts more likely the goal than is curing the actual problem. As was earlier stated, the problems that political systems under industrial ism address are usually not the causes, but the symptoms, and for this reason,. the politics of as it currently is, and the politics of ecology, are basically at odds with one another. It is with good reason that Schumacher says, Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that, if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side. Until quite recently, the. battle seemed to go well enough to give him the illusion of unl imited power.s, but not so well as to bring the possibll tty of .total victory into view This has now come into view; and manypeopl e, al beit only a

PAGE 32

minority, are beginning to realiz.e what this means for the continued existence ofhumani:ty.7 Schumacher says that the main reason we overlook this important fact is that we are estranged from reality and tend to look at anything that is not man-made as. being without value. He even -, alludes to Dr. Karl Marx being in error when he formulated the 26 "labor theory of value." "Now we have. indeed laboured to make some of the capital which today helpius to large scientifiG, techno 1 ogi ca.l, and other knowl edge; an elaborate phys i cal i nfra structure, innumerabl e'. types of sophi sti cated capital equ i pment, etc. --but all this is but a small part of the total capital we are using.1I8 Much larger than this is the capital not provided by humans, but by nature itself. The capital that was created by natur e, we do not even recognize as such. This capital, we. use up without giving attention to. the fact that it is impossible to reproduce. When Marx suggested .. "al ienation", he referred to alienation on the human scale,. but it also applies to alienation between humans and their planet. This type of alienation is where the Greens are at odds with the politicians representing industrialism, regardless of the specific system, Capitalism or Socialism. Capitalism and Socialism Schumacher said that the problem with economics today is that it concerns itself with mathematical specification and stati.sticalquantification of .economic contexts. Capra and Spretnak state that present-day economists, whether classical, Keynesian or

PAGE 33

27 MarXis.t, all fail to have an ecolog .i.cal They believe that none of the economists recognize that the economy is merely one face.t, or aspect of the whol e ecological system and tend to isolate it and "describe itin terms of highly unrealistic models. economi sts define their basic concepts--efficiency; productivity, GNP, and so forth--in a narrow way, without considering the social and ecological context' ,"9 They especially disregard any environmental costs that might be generated. by economic activity. Economists and politicians alike, because of theindustrial system, see a continually growing economy as virtually essential to survival when, in reality, the reverse is true. The belief in the necessity of continuing economic growth _is an excellent example of what the Greens are against: the idea that more is always better, or that bigger is better for the sake of all concerned. Chapter 4 in Capra and Spretnak's GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, addresses this problem very well. The prevailing creed in government and business is still that the common good is best served whan all people and institutions maximize their own material wealth--what s good for General Motors is good for the United States. The whole ,is 'identified with the sum of its parts. The fact that it can be either more or less than this SUfi, depending on the positive or negative interference among the parts, i:s ignored. The consequences of this reductionist fallacy are now becoming painfully visible, as economic forces collide with each other with increasing frequency, tear the social fabric, destroy the natural environment, and generate international political tensions.IO It is because of industrialism and "all out" economic growth, that there have arisen striking similarities betweenthe two major ideologies in the world.

PAGE 34

28 Capital ,ism and Socialism address onlY, the current issues . of ,en'vironmentalislll and fall to look ,at the long ... range goals of ecology. Itis because of the industrial notion of conti.nuous, growth that the German'Greens made the statement that they are "neither right, nor 'left, nor in the center, but in front. II The Greens, worldwide, di sagree wHh the pol Hics of the right and its underlying ideology of Capitalism; they also disagree with the politics of ,the left and its adherence'to the ideology of Communism. As Jonathon PorrHtdescribes the polHics of the center as an "ideological pot-pourrt" of socialized Capitalism, it must be disagreed with also. He says, "the pol Hics of the industrial age is like a three-lane motorway, wHh different vehicles in different lanes, but all heading in the same direction."ll It is the Green movement's perception. that all roads currently are heading for trouble; therefore, Greens must travel a new road. The Greens believe there is such a disparity between the two primary ideologies, that'if they ever should reconcil,e, it would most likely be too late to save the planet. The obsession with industrialism and continuous growth has created tremendou, s similarities between both Capitalist and Soci.alist economies. If one were, to review the most important characteristics of the United States and the Soviet Union, for exampl,e, it would be found'that they share many characteristics. They are both earmarked by, a dedication to constant growth in the industrial sector and in hard technology. In either country can be found a very large bureaucratic controlling element and a great degree of

PAGE 35

29 centraliz.ati on. Both are dedicated to the expansion of .. themeans Qf production, a materialist ethic as.thebestmeans of meeting . people'sneeds, and to unimpeded technological development. I shall be arguing in Chapter III that the simi1ari .ties between these two predominant systems are of greater importance than their differences. For the time being,suf.fice it to say that the leaders of these competing ideologies only look at. the current issues on the environ m ental 1 evel. Once agai n, this means that they do not look, holistically, at the entire system. They look at the products of their industrialism as all consuming. When their industrial products create an industrlal by-product that could be harmflll, they then take steps to control it within the environment. This lack of long-term dedication is how the environment is endangered. Instead of looking at the long-range goals of deep ecology, and at the fact that everything on the planet is somehow interrelated, they only respond to the problems they create. This is what the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States call environmental policy. This is what the Capitalists and the Socialists call environmental policy. As Roszak puts liThe two ideological camps of the world go at one another; but, like antagonists ina nightmare, their embattled forms fuse into one. monstrous a single force of destruction threatening every assertation [sic] of personal rights that falls across the path of their struggle.1I12 This chapter has dealt with the notibn thatcapitalism and sociali.sm. only address the cU.rrentissues of environmentalism and fail to look at the long-range goals of deep ecology. Chapter III

PAGE 36

30 asks why they do so, what it is about them that means they will continue to do so, and, any. solution to the ecological crisis threatening us must.move beyond their shared world view of contemporary Capitalism and Socialism

PAGE 37

31 "NOTES-CHAPTER 2.1l 1 E F. SMALL' IS' B EAUTIFUl EcoMmits as' if. Peopl e Mattered, (1973)" New York' N. y Harper & Row. 'Page 14. 2Council ,on Environmental Quality (CEQ), GLOBAL2000'Report to the Executive : ,SumIi1ary, Vol ,(1980.), Washington, D.C., GoV'ernment Printing Office. 3Jonathon The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1984) Dxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 22S. 4Julian Simon, THERESDURCEFUL EARTH, (1984), Dxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., pagi 78. SE.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS ,BEAUTIFUL, Economics' as if People Mattered,' {1973J, New York, Harper & Row, page 13. 6Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1984), Oxford, Blackwell Ltd., page 42. 7E.F. Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as ,if (1973), New York, Harper & Row, page 13. 8"Ibid." page 14. 9capra and Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, (1984), New York, E.F. Dutton, 83. ID"Ibid." page 84. -. I1Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained" (1984), Oxford, Blackwell Ltd., Page 43. 12Theodore Roszak, PERSON/PLANET, (1981), St. Albans, Granada, Anchor Press, page 294.

PAGE 38

CHAPTER III WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK. The purpose of this chapter is to explain why neither Capitalist nor Socialist systems are capable of solving the critical problems caused by industrialism. It is because of this similarity that is shared between the two, that the Greens attack both ideologies in their present form, and offet alternative viewpoints. Antagonistic Systems Before looking at the similarities of Capitalism and Socialism, we shall look at both systems separately, and define what they are and what beliefs and goals they embrace. it is important to understarid and contrast their differences in order to appreciate more fully their similarities. Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system that has changed greatly over the years. "Traditionally, it means a system characterized by: 1. Private ownership of property. 2 No limitations on the accumulation of property. 3. The absence of governmental intervention in the economy-the free market system. Today capitalism is characterized by: 1. Most property held privately. 2. Li ttl e actual 1 imi t on the accumul ati on of property.

PAGE 39

3. Governmental of the economy--a modified free market The distinction between these two Capitalist systems must be kept 33 in mind, because they are often confused and combined in intellectual discourse. Traditionally defined capitalism is no longer found in the United States, but it is discussed as if it were still in use. In classical capitalism, the major political emphasis is liberty, particularly liberty of accumulation. This brand of liberty is best exemplified by protection of private property, upon which the free-market system is based. This system directly encourages competition and indirectly encourages exploitation, not only by individuals, but by monopolies, multinational corporations, 'and even by the government, when the occasion permits. Cooperation is sometimes achieved, harmony is sometimes achieved, but a system that embraces the dog-eat-dog ethic can only be described as competitive,coercive, exploitative, and tantamount to the IIwar of all against all." The problem is that this IIwarll is fed by the system. Modern capitalism is often called a mixed economy, which indicates that, even though most property is privately held, much property may also .be publicly owned. This indicates that the government, or public sector, may be active in manufacturing and distributing of goods and services, although most production rests the private sector. The government1s main emphasis is on regulation and taxation rather than manufacturing and distribution.

PAGE 40

34 Although the system hasshift.ed fr.om. the traditional definition of capitalism, the changes in capitafism are changes in degree, not in kind. Private ownership :is sti11 greatly encouraged and is still .the major means of property holding. United States government interacts heavily with the private sector through process ofregul ation .. Ideally, the reason for this regulation was to ensure that the competitive capitalist game was fairly played, and that no one was taken undue advantage of. There ar.e, howeve.r, many who insist that fairness is not what the government seeks. They insist that the governin ent favors tho .se whose interests mos.t coincide with the goal s of the government itself. Those whose goa.ls most reflect the national interest are favored. Multinationals. such as Anaconda, Kennecott, General Motors, Union Carbide, to. name a small few, are favored over the small prlvate entrepreneur because of the immense benefit the United States, as a world power, can derive from their expansion and control over the world market-place. In all fairness, the. alternative. view should be examined. It is virtually impossible for a system as large as that of the United States capitalist economic system to be regulated equitably. No governmental agency, no matter how effi cient, can regul ate all potentially questionabl e deal ings. Regul ation by the government is a necessity, it is. not completelyi.nfallible, but it does help in curbing or controlling themultinati.onals.or monopolies from running rampant. In summa:ry, capitalism as an economic system does not promote

PAGE 41

35 participation in political Conversely, capitalists advocate liberty and equality .. There' ,is most defi.,nitely a strong be,ief in 'economic fr.eedol1l, primarilyfr.eedom in the marketpl ace. Each worker is fr.ee to try to .become a part of the bourgeoisie and make a .try at economic success or failure in the competitive system called capitalism. The proponents of the capitalist system believe that everyone can attempt to become a capitalist and that everyone shoul d have the potential of becoming rich. The modern capitalist system is based upon the industrial system. .Its proponents believe:'-in a constant growth within the economy. A system that. is pushed towards constant growth must get its resources from somewher, e, and currently, they can only be gotten from the planet on which we all reside. How, can a constantgrowth system continue to expl oi t the 1 imi ted resources of the earth tndefinitely? No one knows exactly how long. It is known that once these resources are gone, they cannot be repl aced. Currently the capitalists do not recognize .. what their system is doing and they .. are still taking measures to correct only the effects of industrialism and are not taking steps to redirect or the 6fmany of the ecol ogical-envi ronmental probl ems:. industri al ism. The most basic assumption of socialism is that the people should extend their power not only to the political arena, but also to the .econoUl.ic deci.sion-making arena. Socialists bel.ieve that since pol i.ties;. society .cmd economics are so closely interwav e n, the voters should be in the most powerful. position to control their own economic futures through the type of government

PAGE 42

and the type of representattves. they elect. Socialists argue that capitalism gives too much power to individuals and monopolistic groups that cannot be closely controlled. 36 If it .is to be believed.that the average citizen should be in d .irect control of his or her pol iticall i fe, it is only reasonabl e to assume that the citizens. should have control oV'er the economic deci.sion-making of the country also. Socialists feel not:only that the worker is exploited economically in.capitalist.countries, but that capitalism has failed to solve the human problems of its societies. For example, tt is accused of not concentrating on poverty and' al i enati.on that face many capttalist societies ... Socialists believe that capitalism has the economic resources to solve these problems, but since the economic decision-makers are unaccountabl e to the needs and wishes of .the people as a whole, they choose to sidestep important hum.anttarian issues. Socialists maintain that capitalists are too concerned with profit and growth. Socialism differs from capitalism primarily in the following ways; Much property is held by the public through the el ected government. These properties areusually major i ndustri es, utilities and transportation, industries that most directly affect the welfare of the society. Socialism expounds a concern for society as a whole. Its leadership stresses. all citizens as the center of politico-economic Capitalism is concerned with tndivid.uals ft.rst, and the ,rpeopleu, o r society second. Both are concerned wt:th the welfare. within their respective but

PAGE 43

37 soci.alism places the emphasis upon individual equality and society as awhol.e, wh.ile capitali.sm stresses economic indivi duality. Socialism stresses societal harmony. Capitalism stresses individual competiti on. The Although capitalism and socialism are opposed to each other in terms of the focus of.power, theyshare a commitment to industrialism. Their shared belief tn continuing growth is antagonistic to deep. ecology and is therefore opposed by the Green ph i 1 osophy. When the Soviet Union, its technological revolution and struggles, ftnally achieves parity with the West, it will be in for the biggest surprise of all; it will be. industrially" indistinguishable from the capitalists. As we have earlier looked .at the differences, let us look briefly at the similarities. Currently both the United States and the Soviet Union are dedicated to unimpeded technological development, the continuous expansion of the means of production and constant industrial growth. In a system such as this, centralization and a large enforcing bureaucracy are necessary in order to maintain control over society. Whether groups of capitalists control the means of production or the state controls it, is irrelevant. The worker.is still the worke.r, the environment is still being destroyed, and finally, all are being controlled and guided by the same industrial machine. Industrialism is. the ideology driving both capi.taHsm. and sociali"sm and it exploits both the peopl e and the

PAGE 44

planet. Therefore, it is industrialism that is the enemy of all Green mo'(ements worl dwi de, 38 In looking at the manY9iffe,rences between the two pred .om.inant socio-political and economi c tdeologiesi, n theworl.d, Jonathon Porritt, of Friends of .the Earth,United Kingdom, says, For an ecologist, the debate between the protagonists of capitalism and communism is about as uplifiting as the di.a 1 ogue between Tweedl and Tweedledee. That most commentators still consider it to be the-be all and end allof politics serv'esto demonstrate the abiding delusions of our industrial wonderland. 2 Capitalism's central thesis is that with a constant increase in the production cycle. of goods and services and, at the same time, a promotion of there. will be no major unemployment and everything will continue cyclically. As earlier stated, socialism's goals are the same, but it is the state that is in the driver' s seat. Both ideol og. i es, because they are predicated upon this industrial ideal, must maintain high consumption in order to avoid mass unemployment This unlimited growth cycle is contrary to the goals of the Greens. How can unlimited growth continue indefinitely on a planet with a finite amount of natural resources? Neither ideology, to dat.e, adequately.addresses this problem. Under. social ism, the mere social ization of the means of production nothing from the damage that is being done to the planet and its inhabitants Is it socialism or capitalism that creates the most problems? .Is it U.s. or Soviet nuclear plants that create the most nuclear waste? Is it French or Canadian

PAGE 45

39 industrial plants that. create the ind .ustrial pollution? Is it Chinese or Chilean rivers and .forests that suff,er most? In his book' ECOlOGY. ',AS' POLITICS, Andre Gorz pOi.nts out that envi ronmental concerns are fundamental and that soci.alism is not any better than capi.talism 'if it uses the sametools. The problem is industriali'sm. Socialism was born out of capitalism. It is another product of industrialism. Ifsocialism's leaders are striving to compete wi.th capitalism, they must play on the same: field. That field is i.ndustrial i'sm, and from the, Green perspective, both pl aye.rs are involved in a game whi.ch neither. can win; because in playing the game, the fi el d they are pl aying' upon wi 11 ul timately be destroyed. From a Green socialism-industrialism is merely a "bastardization" or an extension of capitalism-industrialism by other means. Because of the rivalry, socialism has determined that i.t will over take capitalism. When Nikita Kruschev said, IlWe wi.l1 bury you", he. was predicting that the Soviets would .. triumph over capitalism economically. Pilat, in his book ECOLOGICAL POLITICS, The Ri'se of the Green points out that if sQci.alism is to overtake capitalism, it must first f01low it. In doing this, its vision of progress includes the same basic methods of production, worker alienation, and conception of the use of raw materials. Porri.tt continues 1.n his EastjWest critique:: Whether His organized according to the market':or according to the plan, the Of production and consumption produces the same irrational results,-and because all social ist

PAGE 46

40 countries are enmeshed into the ,system of world trad e just as inextricably as capitalist. countries, none has eV'er come near the idea lof produd ng only for need rather than for profit or exchange: In this' sense atl east, the two extremes are not really extremes'. at all ,butmerely two ways of designating the' same .thing. Rivals no more,' uni. ted ,in their industrialist the East blithleygo about thelr buslness of destroYlng the planet. The prevailing systems that. practice industrialism have not solved. the problems of .their own creation primarily because they refuse to recognize them. Currently, they only intensify the problems they create. As stated in Chapter 2, they attempt to treat the symptoms' rather than the cause. The Green movement is opposed. to this industrial destruction of the earth and 'its inhabitants. The technological imperative drives our industrial society allows for no check or restraint along the suicidal path we have chosen tofol1ow--or rather, are informed we have no optiori but to follow. The forces of industrialism impose so uneasy. a consensus upon us all, and impose it now with suchrigour, that like the pigs and, the humans at the end of Orwell IS' ANIMAL FARM, the leaders of the capitalist world and the leaders of the communist world have become all but indistinguishable. 4 .' It is important to understand the core similarities of these theoretically antagoni sti c ideol ogi es. Regardl ess of the professed differences, capitalism and soci-alism, as currently practiced, share a common perspective of their industrial It is one of the .Green movement's goals to oppose this abusi.v.e treatment of the world and its inhabitants. The Committees of Correspondence, which form a nationwide American clearinghouse for Green organizations, goa:ls, and dissemination of information, insi.st that .alternativ esystems be. created in order to deter us

PAGE 47

41 from the destructive path upan which we are all currently heading. It is unanimous amongst the Greens' worldwide, that the current hi.gh-pace i.ndustria .lsystem that.all countries afthe globe are ei.ther directly under ar else striving to. attain, be dismantled and be instituted that favar deep ecalagy. Only such an approach will enable the earth and itls future inhabitants to survive. Prabl ems far the Current System' We have and the inherent prablems that it creates far' the warld .an which itaperates. We have discussed the prablems.af Capitalism and Socialism within the industrial and ecanamic systems. Let us naw laak at several major prablems that neither Capitalism nar in their present farms, can adequately address. Let us review them fram a .Green perspective and attempt. to. determine whether ar nat they can be Nuclear pawer. Far aver thirty years the United States gav'ernment has pramated, and protected the private nucl ear power industry. Far years, the .. gavernment and private industry have worked. clasely an creating the "peaceful atam". One prablem is .. that nuclear pawer is used nat anly far peaceful wark, but also. far the work af war. Nuclear warheads praliferate thraughaut the world, nat only in the United States and theSaviet Union, but thraughaut many secand and third warl d, cauntri es. lhere seems to. be no. end i.n sight.

PAGE 48

42 The problem at hand, hOW'ever, is not whether nuc1 ear power or nuc1 ear power for war is all right; the probl emi s whether or not nuclear power ,i.s a .ll right!. The two primary envi.ronmental .issues are.:i.s a catastrophic accident possibl e; and what do you do with the waste? Even as I write this thesi. .s, the predictions of Greenori.ente.d, anti-nuclear-power activi.sts worldwide are becoming a reality. On April 29, 1986, the world was shocked to learn about the acci.dent that occurred wi tha nucl ear reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 80 miles north of Kiev, the Soviet Union's third most populous city. It was an accident that, to date, has ki 11 ed thirteen peopl e and put several hundred more in the hospital in serious condition. The exact cause of the disaster may never really be known, but whether it was a broken pi p .e,_ 'valve failure .or human error, the tragedy clearly points out.the. weakness of the arguments of the proponents of "peacefulll nuclear power. I will not elaborate:on theChernobyl incident in depth because the world's newspapers are full of it everywhere one turns today. I will, however, mention the important fact that this nuclear -radioactive cloud, borne by the winds of the earth, has 1.n a matter of only several weeks, spread across Europe and North America Many nucl ear sci enti sts are intent; onal-ly pl aying down the seri.ousness of the impact of rad ioacti vi ty to humans and the environment. Environmentalists and other earth scientists predict that radiation fr. omChernobyl could seriously damage crops in two

PAGE 49

of theU.S.S.Rls most fertile .regions, the Ukraine and Belorussi.a, and whQ knows what other long ... term effe,cts it may have on others around the earth. How does one make nuclear power. safe? Nuclear energy is not natural and scientists, must constantly be on their guard to contain H. Aslang as it i s harmful and must be contained there i.s no sure way to guarantee safety fr.om unintentional accident. Weak alloys" faulty casts in machinery or human error could result in the end of the earth: peacefully. 43 Governments must recogni z.ethe fact that there are multttudes of technical and managerial problems with the safety : of the reactors and the ability of these governments and their managers to handle emergencies. The Greens are concerned with the widespread 1 ack of preparati on of local, .state and federal governments to dea" wHh an emergency. For this. reason, anti -nucl ear .-power is a foundi.ng block of Green principles worldwide. The growing uncertainties about the probability of a major accident, suchas at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and the lack of adequate governmental planni.ng to deal with it should be of utmost concern to both critics and supporters of the nuclear pqwer industry. If the bureaucrats could correct their technical problems, there still remains the question of disposal of nuclear waste materi.al. liThe of plutonium 239, the most controversial nuclear power, .is 24,400 years n5 At present, thermal po11ution and radiation are the principal environmental dangers spawned by the nuclear fuel cycle.

PAGE 50

44 and believe that appasiti6n to. nuclear fissian must beuncamprami.sing and unending. Th.i.s pawer saurc.e, regardless of its pu-rpas.e, .cannat ava.id natural disasters ar seriousmechani.cal failures, human errors ar intentional ma.levalences. It demands that our. social systems be an guard not only now but for the long-run, a quarter af ami 11 ian years. Acceptance af nuclear technalagy amaunts to. the acceptance af the spread afnuc1ear weapans fram cauntry to. cauntry, and practically guarantees that, sametime in the futur.e, nucl ear warfare wi-ll became a reality, and the ear.th and. its inhabitants as we naw knaw them, will cease to. be.. liAs lang as the twa superpawers cantinue to. expand their nuclear arsenals, there is little hape that ather natians can be dissuaded. fram jainingthenuclear club."6 The Greens believe. in the camplete eliminatian af nuclear pawer. Because af the camplete disregard far .the enviranment, the current industrial system has nearly depleted the fassil fuels that the earth has taken billians afyears to. praduce. The current industrial system is attempting to. replace this energy lass with nuclear pawer. The Green positian an this is that nuclear pawer is unsafe. It has already been praven that at many nuclear pawer sights araund the.warld, nuclear radiatian can leak and be' harmful to.' bath humans and the enviranment. This danger, plus the fa.ct that there is no. .decent, safe place to. get rid af nuclear waste that will nat patent1.allythreaten the future af bath humankind andthe planet 1.s why the Greens are against nuclear power far bath peacefu.l and mn ltaryuse. It has. no. pl ace an earth and no.

PAGE 51

45 benefit.can be derived from it. The stand of the pr.esent system.. is one of ,apathy on the '. 1 ev'el of peaceful research and insanity on the mil itary-industrial complex level. The currently operating nuclear power stations are sttll running, but the program to bui.ld new, ones has slowed because of publ ic opinion caused 'by incidents such as Three-Mil e Isl and and Chernobyl. The level of nuclear activity on the military level is constantly increasing with no end in sight .. The Greens call for immediate cessation of any further. nuclear use, andexperimentatlon at any .level. The substitute energy pol icy of the Greens according to the Progra.mme of the German Green Party states, in part, Furthermore,nuclear power is an energy source directed against thevery foundations of life. Because of this, a radical change in the energy system is essential. The production of energy by combustion. must be replaced by the use of energy from environmentally benign and renewable energy sources such as the sun, wind and water. Available technical and resources must be used for the development of soft energy. As ecological energy policy aims at stabilising energy utilisation ina mode of environmental compati bi 1 ity.7. What this means in the medium and short term is that there must be a careful management and a.llocati.on of the ex i sti ng resQurces at hand. In the long run, it means that there must be a gradual shift to renewable energy sources Decentralization of power in government is a m.ust .. The current ind,ustrial system encourages large bureau cracfes and a ttght,. controlled, .centralized form of government that .is needed to run and direct the system for the minority that run

PAGE 52

the socio-economic and political system. The Greens believe in the ideal of .grassroots democra:cy They believe in the increased realization of decentralization and direct democracy. They support the idea of participation of the people on local, state and fe.deral levels. 46 The Greens reject any plan that exploits the natural wealth of the ecological system. The populatio.n, the ai.r, and the water are exploited by the managers of the industrial .system .. There are many problems resulting from this exploitation. Let us look at the present condition of the earth and some of these industrially caused problems more directly. The first and most important condition needing to be addressed is the rapidly expanding population of the earth's' peop 1 es Any spec-i es wi th an abundance of resources and very few predators will continue to grow, unchecked, as long as those two primary considerations remain uncontested. Two thousand years ago the earth had an approximate population of 250 million people, it reached 1 billion by 1830, 2 billion by 1925, 3 billion by 1962 and 4 billion by 1975. World population .is nownea'ring 4t billion and is being forecast at 6 billion by the end of the century.8 Professional ec010gists say that this is usually the pattern of a species in time of abundance and lack of predators. They also say that the growth trend tends to contract after such a phenomenal phase as this, until a level is reached that is compatible with the environment. The question or problem is, are we to be considered just another species? Do we fit into this pattern? Weare the

PAGE 53

the shapers of the global how. can we consi.der these same cycli.cal patterns .as those of the "animalslt? -. .47 Apparently, the only way' that we can control this probl em is by consci.ous correction. Generally; in the area of environmental protection, action is prompted,'by crisis and we are not at the criti.cal cri.sis stage yet. However, most ecological studies i.ndicate that the most basic answer to this question is yes. Ecologists agree with .thenotion that no species, not even humans, is able to eradicate the immutable law that' says that indefinite increases i.n populati.on are simply not sustainable on the basis of finite resources. Their fear is. well warranted .. there's already a fearsome momentum built into population growth on account of the relative youthfulness of some countries; 45% of all Africans are under 15 years old, as are 40% of Latin Ameri cans and 37% of Asians. The U nited Nati ons and the World Bank talk of world population stabilizing at 10 billion sometime in the.next century. They also estimate that in twenty years time, the world's population will be divided equally between living in cities and living in rural areas, on account of the huge migration of the rural poor the cities.9 From a Green perspective, this information is astounding. As the population must continue to grow, so must the industrial system that is needed to support it. The incredible strain that will be placed on the environment by the sheer numbers of people will also be increased by the more rapid depletion of the earth's resources. Tihe government looks at the population explosion and tries to accomadate it by jobs and increased availability of resources and goods. but the deep ly eco. logfcal is still lacking. Problems'that will be 10ng-termin will be created if the

PAGE 54

tenets of .deep ecology remai n ignored by decision makers on this planet. Let lS .1 ook at a few of .the .. p.robl ems that are caused directly by the systematic ignorance of deep ecology. The German-Green mav'ement, in i.ts IINational Programme,r and ,. 48 the American Committees.ofCorrespondenc.e, in their IITen Key Values" draft. (whi:chis a statement of principles put together by the major separate Green movements and environmental organizations in the United States), 1 ist the following. areas as most criti,ca1 to the earth.and humankind:. the air, the. wate,r, flora and fauna, oil, and toxic wastes. The Green statement of principles says in part, IIWe are disturbed by and will not accept: -The irresponsible treatment of soil, water and air like a disposable consumer good. -The val uati on', marketi ng and destruction of the natural vegetation of old.established.countryside predominantly in terms of commercial perspectives. -Human experience being depriv.ed of the. beauty of nature. -.... animal and plant species that are threatened due, to the destruction of their habitats. -The contamination of air,.water and soil by radioactivi.ty and the concentrated chemical industry. --The occurrence of climatic deterioration, soil erosion .... as a result of de.forestation caused by roadbuilding, industrial dev'elopments, and the disruption of our natural environment. a The Greens believe that current economic and environmental norms must be repl aced by pol fcies. that are long-term in vision and. gutded by rationa,l, ecologically oriented thought. A summary of Petra Kel1yts thoughts would be:. thatwe, must stop the violation of

PAGE 55

49 nature in .order to surv:i'le in it. liThe air accompanying this planet. is not replaceabl e ... It may be cleansed in part if excessively. Spoiled ..... However, they will discov"er that anythingthey spew, or dump in it will return' to them in. due' time.' Sin'ce' pas'sengers wi 11 need to use the air, on the average,. every five seconds, they should treat it accordingly. n Third Planet Operating Instructions by David R. Brower .. The' air. In the United States and the rest of the industrial world, clean atr has become one of the. primary 'political battlefields between the enV'ironmentalists and the industrialist-oriented politicians. The environmentalists claim .that there is great waste and abuse of the atmosphere. inherent in industrial ism, whil e the political apologists of the.system.say that they are very concerned about air pol-lutionand will make.every attempt to control it. There is not much said, hoWever, about elimination of the problem. Cl ean ai r has become a symbol of a probl em fo r envi ronmental restorations that almost'all Americans can approve. And so tt is politically chic. P6liticians so routinely assure constituents that they favor clean air--whatever that implies-that clean air has become a cliche' long before it has become a reality.ll Not just one simple substance creates airpollutton. It ts created, by many substances, ei.ther combined or singly. The pollutant carbonmonoxide's major source is vehicle exhausts. Itis characteriz.ed by bei ng col orl ess, odorl ess and very poi sonous. It can cause dfzziness, unconsciousness or death. Another pollutant, hydrocarbon,s, comes fr,om theincompl ete combustion ofgasol ine or

PAGE 56

50 fr.om the evaporation of petroleum fu.el .s, solvents and paints. Thi s po.l1 utant contributes greatly to. the creation of smog. Lea.d, another pollutant that.isused in conjunction with automobile .s, is the anti-knock agent in gasoline. It.accumulates in the bone and the soft. tissues. It al so. affects the. blood-forming organs, the kidneys and the nervous system. The. last major pollutant that aff.ects us through the automobile .is nitrogen dioxide. It also comes from vehicle exhausts and industrial processes. It can seriously alter the 1 ungs, but on the 1 arger scal .e, it reacts wi th hydrocarbons to create smog and also contributes heavily to acid raiR. Other air pollutants are ozone and sulfur dioxide. These two also. contribute to acid .rainand smog .and can impair the lungs and cause colds, asthma and bronchitis. Our current industrial system encourages these pollutants. I.t should be noted that IIthree sources appear to accbunt for about 75% Qf the major air pollutants. by weight: gasol ine burning vehicles (transportation), electric power: (stationary sources); and industry.1I12 It is this. type of problem that infuriates Greens, worldwide, when once again, they see that the effect is being treated instead of the. cause (In the ranking of major metropolitan citi es on the Pollutant Standards Inde?<, IIDenver, Colorado ranks fourth nationally tn the category of 'unhealthful' or tvery unhealthfu .l' days, with nea.rly al out of 3 days average. It ranks third nationally in the 'hazardous' category with 36 days per year.1l13)

PAGE 57

51 The water. In the maJor industrializ.ed countries, water is polluted by many vari.ed means, the pollutants generally remai.n the same as with the air. Measured by volume, .about half .the pollution dumped into surface water originates from storm sewers, municipal sewage t\"eatment plants,. and mainly;'. industry. The remaining half originates from sources suchas'agriculture activities, mine runoff. and construction sites,14 Polluti.Qn that originates, from so many, sources presents a real problem in that even government leaders that care cannot readny control it technically or economically. These major pollutants 1:n our water are pesticides, herbicides,. fungicides and other industrial toxic chemical substances. Even though weare trying to correct the water problem, our rapidly expanding economic and industrial systems are feeding more pollutants back into the system faster than they can be" cleaned up. Toxic wastes. Our .nation's hazardous substance problem is' partially a grouping of biochemical danger sites. It is estimated that the United States has over 50,OOO' .. abandoned hazardous waste s i ,tes aboutwhi ch the government and. industry assumed that it was only necessary to bury the materials and their problems would be over and soon These same' sites now are showing dangerous after .. effects to their surrounding areas. Toxic and haz.ardous waste materi.als can seep out through the earth i.n whi,ch they are buried and get at human, animal and plant life through our wate .r, earth and air. Ther.e .is nomedtum through whi.ch they cannot trav e.l, and they.c:;an be fatal to all 1 ife fO. rms. Cancer 1.5 the gravest and most widely feared of a" toxic impacts from

PAGE 58

hazardous substances. There is no.telling how long the impact of "old toxic waste materialll will continue to threaten us, and there .. i.s also no telling how long itw'ill take. us to control it. America I s chemical jUrikyards are growin'g in 'vol ume bY 3% to 10% annually .. at best, no 'morethan 10% of this waste has beenproperly disposed' of. Accidents and. investigations have .. dOisclosed more than 50,"000. hazardous waste sites, the legacy ofa century's irresponsible, but'widely tolerated dumping of chemi.calsby segments of U.S. industry, permeate Ameri ca' s earth)5 52 These problems endanger our existence. Those of the water, the ai.r,. the. earth, nuclear waste are terrible individually, but when they are combined .with one another, it is easy to see that we have not a chance' for survival if the current system is left unchecked. These problems cause even greater global problems. The acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and lastly, the greatest pollutant ofthem all, nuclear power, paint us a dim and gloomy picture for our future andthat of generations to come. The current i.deologies of Capitalism and Socialism are guided by industrialism. Industrialism, as earlier stated in the chapter, is based upon constant growth and places ecological concerns last in its hierarchy of objectives. It is the Greens' conviction that the exploitation of both h.umans and nature' must be countered in order to stop a real and serious threat to both humankind and the planet. One of the ways that toxi.c material s can be cO.ntroll ed is by the method that is in use il1 Los Angeles, California. Barry Groveman, the distri.ct attorney.: for environmental protection, started the Toxic WasteStri.ke Forc.e, which 'actually watches out for corporati cns that practice the illegal disposal of toxi.c wastes. This environmental

PAGE 59

53 II SWAT 11 team actually watches and raids large corporations that had previously been above the law. When-a companyis caught dumping toxi.c waste illegally, and prosecuted: and. found to be guilty, fines Qr jan tenns are then 1 evi ed against the corporati on executives that either directly encouraged or tacitly condoned the illegal dumping : Currently there are 25 corporate executives. in jail serving terms from 6 months to 2 years for the crime of illegal dumping of toxic waste material. This is a crime against the community and it is being treated as such. If this program were practicedon a national level, at least there would be some form of deterrent for the large corporations. Peace--nonvi 01 ence. The .current industrial system creates competition, violence and antagonHtic goals. It creates competition not only between i nd i v i dua 1 s, but also between competing ideo log i es, as exemplified by the ideologies of Capitalismand.Socialism. Where the Greens strive for. harmony, the.antagonists strive for economic, military and political mastery over one another. The nuclear arms race is anexcellentexample.of this problem. The Greens are peace-and nonviolence-oriented. They believe that nonviolence should prevail not only between human beings, but between societies and nations as a whole. We therefore put forward an active. peace pol icy in internati.onal rel ations. Th. i s means that we. oppose the occupation of countries and the oppression. of national group .s, and support the i ndependence and autonomy of national groups in all Peace is inseparably linked with the independence of .countries and the existence o f democratic rights. Worl dwi de disarmament is a must.16

PAGE 60

54 "NOTES-CHAPTER .3. II lL. 1. POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES, (1978), Homewoo.c!" 111 inof.s, The Dorsey Press, page 55. 2J .. Porri tt; : The' Pol i.ti ts of Ecol ogy Expl ai ned, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell page 45 3,lIbid.lI: page 49. 4l1Ibid.1I page 53. .. 5 T .D. TAKING" SIDES:' Clashiil Views on Controversial Envirtmmental ISsues, (1983 Du.shkin .... Pahl GP., Guilford, Conn., page15l. 6 R A Nuclear 'Wart'Now There .'s Somethin You Can Do' to Prevent .It., (,1984, ColoradoCoa ition for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Denver, page 7. 7 Die Grunen, :Programmeofthe .. German Green Party, (1983), page 7. 8Joint Economic Committee, Country Reports for'Human Rights practices for 1983, (1984), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Offi ces, i ntroducti on 9 J Porritt, The Politics of' Ecology Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 27. 100ie Grunen, Programme. of the. German Green Party, (1983), page' 3D. lW A. Rosenbaum, ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND POLICY, (1985), Congressional Quarterly, D.C., CQ Press, page 105. 12Environmental Protection Agency, National Air-Pollutant Emi.Ssions Estimates, (1980J, (draft Nov. 1981), tables 2-6. 13Council on EnV' ironmental EnvirOnmental qual ity, (1982), Washington; D.G.,Government Printing Office, page 33.

PAGE 61

55 IINOTES-CHAPTER 3. II 14W A (1985), Congressional QuarterlY:, Wash'ingtcm,. .. O.C., CQPress, page 143. 15 IIIbid.1l page 183" 16Die Grunen, :'of:,the.' German' Green Party, (1983), page 16.

PAGE 62

. CHAPTER It[ WHY A GREEN MOVEMENT OR PARTY IS NECESSARY. This chapter explains why a Green movement or party is necessary in the United. States. We have already. looked at the current sttuation of the planet, now let us look at the future direction and potential condition that the earth might end in if we are not ecologically oriented. -The second part of the chapter attempts to explain why we Americans must awaken from our apathetic condition of not recognizing what industrialism is doing to us, our country and our planet. It discusses how we may start this change at the grassroots level and ultimately emerge into a force strong enough to change the current systems of the world. In the United States; our industrial society has supplied many things that are beneficial to us. A higher standard of living than is found in most non-industr5al societies is a fact that is not to be denied. Improved heal thcare., housing and transportation are but a few of the benefits to be: der.ived from a high-growth industrial society. We have been conditioned not only to enjoy the IIgood 1 ife,ll, but to accept itas if it were inevitabl e and permanent. These benefits can only be short-term because in an ever-expanding tndustrial society, there are limits to depletion that are not being heeded by the .. managers of the society.

PAGE 63

This love of thellgood 1 ifeU.is not to be misconstrued as .. a blatant disrespect for the planet and. the environment. The maj"orUy of the people on earth truly believe in, and wish for, the ongoing efforts of the environmentalists and humanitarians to succeed. want clean ai .r, unpolluted rivers, and more say i.n the decision-making process : of their government,. but also want to retain thi s good lifestyle that they have. Most people are afraid of the potential trade;,..offs that,. they are told by 57 gov.-ernment., will happen. i.f they side too favorably with the proponents of deep ecology. The government co-opts their thinking when it impli.es that too much deep. ecology at once.willcost the average ci.ti.z.en vast amounts of money and loss of many of the current benefits presently enjoyed. The primary reason for the need ofaunited Green movement is the frustration of diverse elements of society who believe that their interests are being ignored by established political parties; this frustration is particularly true regarding envi.ronmental As Jonathon Porritt says, lithe state of the planet provides the context in which all politicians operate. Yet the vast majority of them remain ob' l ivious to that context or choose to ignore it.!'] The Greens bel i eve that the state of the pl anet shoul d not be i.gnored and offer al ternatives to thi s attitude of .our current contemporary politi.cians, It is the Green phHosophy to work for change withi n the system. Through the el ectora1: system and'by working at the grass-

PAGE 64

roots level, the Greens plan to the level of consciousness of the majority to that of a deep ecological awareness of the problems of the planet. 58 An ecological 'pol icy impl ies an all-round rejection of an economy based on exploitation and the uncontrolled pillage of natural wealth and raw materials, as well as refraining from destructive intervention in the circuits tif the natural ecosystem. It is our conviction that the exploitation of both nature and human beings must be countered by human beings,in order to repel an acute and serious threat to life. Our policy is a policy of active partnership with nature and human beings We stand for an economic system oriented to the necessities of human life today and for future generations, to the of nature and a careful management of natural resources. The Greens do not consider the its people and the environment lost yet. They do not profess to have all the answers; however, they are certain that we cannot endure indefinitely under a system that does not practice restraint in any form unless it is forced to do their immediate objective is the education of the population about this adverse relationship. The adoption of ecologically oriented policies is still blocked by powerful economicindustrial interests. The prevailing industrial-economic mindset must be replaced by long-term ecologically oriented goals and policies. The Greens do not claim to have all the answers but the following examples of their initiatives reveal their basic strategy for change immediate application of the principle that the cause of pollution must pay all its costs. The maintenance and extension of forests, especially for the biological cleaning of air, the safety of water supply and for recreation. Production processes which do not produce toxic refuse.

PAGE 65

In principl .e,all waste should be discharged in such away that it is reusable asa raw material. 59 Organic refuse should be turned into compost and made available to agriculture, in order to maintain the nutrient cycle ensure that the compost is not contaminated by poisons including heavy metals from industrial effluents.3 The Greens oppose nuclear energy in any form, for any purpose. The Greens, everywhere, believe that through deep ecqlogy the earth and its inhabitants not only will be made healthier, but can endure indefinitely. Remember, deep ecology means interrelating. economics, politics, social structures.and spirituality, all towards achieving the same goal, that not only of stopping current damage to the eocsystem and the planet as a whole, but of enhancing the survival prospects for future generations. The short-term goal of the Greens is the dismantling of life-threatening industry, while the medium and long-term goal is the reorientation of production towards ecologically benign and socially necessary products The goals of dismantling of life-threatening industry and the reorientation of production towards ecologically benign and socially necessary products, can best be accomplished within the parameters of the Green's four basic pillars. The goals of deep ecology can take place only within an environment that practices social responsibility and grassroots democracy, and lives by the code of nonviolence. It is the holistic approach that will lead to success. These four pillars, if separated, cannot achieve the desired result that the Greens want.

PAGE 66

60 Awakening Mankind Grassroots teamwork. The Green's plans and goals for the planet include grassroots input and output on a major scale. They attempt to develop a system that allows and encourages people to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. They will attempt to insure that representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. Planning mechanisms must be developed that will allow citizens to develop their own preferences for policies and spending priorities. At the grassroots level, the family, neighborhood organization, church group, voluntary associations and others must recover many of the functions now performed by government and large corporations. In a society with deep ecological consciousness,civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility will once again be in the forefront. Not only small organizations can be considered the primary case for grassroots teamwork; there is also the example of groups like the Sierra Club in Denver that influence the club at the state level, and finally, cooperate in harmony, on the national level with other grassroots-to-nationa1-level organitations. The IItrick1e downll policy is cast aside in Green politics. The flow is upwards as well as downwards. The grassroots level can not only contribute to the process; it can, as it should, determine the overall direction of things. In order to accomplish this Greens must create the notion of personal and social responsibility within the individual in order to create a society of leaders and

PAGE 67

61 do-ers rather than the apathetic citizens that presently predominate. Societal leadership. How can we encourage people to commit themselves to lifestyles that promote their own health? By getting them involved in the Green alternative, we can make this goal, a reality. One of the Greens' primary purposes is that of informing the average person about the alternatives to our current industrial system. Once the awareness is there, new leaders will develop from the grassroots level. There are Green sympathizers that currently are involved in the pOlitics of the right, left and center, that, once they realize that there is a viable alternative, will join the rank and file of Green movement and give it additional credibility. There are already many potential leaders within the Green groups and movements such as ecology groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, or human rights groups like the ACLU, NAACP, NOW and Common Cause, or peace groups such as the Atomic Scientists, Center for Defense Information and Ground Zero. These are only a handful. Capra and Spretnak, in their book GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, list one hundred organizations that are Green in their orientation from which society's leaders may come. This one hundred is still only a handful of those active when one begins to delve into the network or organizations solely within the A sense of and social responsibility can be developed through unification and sharing of ideas from groups such as these, and we can encourage people to commit themselves to

PAGE 68

62 lifestyles that promote their own health. Under a caring leadership it is possible to have a community-controlled education system that will effectively teach our children academic skills, ecological social responsibility and personal growth. Worki ng together, at the grassroots leve ,l, can be the beginning of resolving inter-group and interpersonal conflicts without the usual process of turning them over to lawyers and judges. Once harmony is perfected, the system will be more open to peaceful change. A policy of grassroots democracy means the increased realization of decentraliz.ed and direct democracy. We start from the premise that priority must always be given to the decision of the base. Surveyable and decentralized basic units (local community district) should be extensive autonomy and rights of self government. Economic democracy. In the United States, our current economic' system, capitalism, encourages competition and discourages harmony. It encourages private incentive to wealth accumulation. This point was discussed in Chapter 3, so it will not be elaborated upon here. However, this section looks at an alternative system, one in which Green political leaders can redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. The goal is to develop new economic institutions that will allow us to use our new technologies in ways that are humane and ecological. The Greens want to create a system that goes beyond capitalism and socialism; perhaps with a little of each of them, a merger would be more appropriate. If so, there would be some form of basic economic security that would be open to all. In this way, income

PAGE 69

distribution patterns could be restructured tO'reflect wealth '" created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens and lastly, community volunteer work. In his book WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY,Daniel Zwerdling talks 63 about successful worker co-ops ,such as those in Yugoslavia, northern Spain and the northwestern United States. As we are looking at the feasibility of a Green party or movement that can and will make an impact, here in the United States, it is best to look more closely at a highly successful example that is currently working here, in the United States. In 1984, I elected to do a study on the worker-owned plywood cooperatives of the Pacific Northwestern United States, primarily because I am a professional within the industry. Democracy in, the workplace is a good example ,of workers democratically cooperating with one anothe,r, and at the same time, making a good living. These co-ops started after World War I, when the privately owned plywood mills experienced serious financial troubles. Many owners decided to sell and rather than have the mills either be sold and be relocated, or, the other alternative, be closed permanently, the workers bought them to be operated as a cooperative. The first such business was founded in 1921 and many have flourished and prospered right up to the present. There seems to be no decline or obstacle in sight, except when, once in a while, a multinational corporation such as

PAGE 70

Georgia-Pacific or Weyerhauser offers to buy them out. The worker cooperatives have shown anywhere from 25% to 60% more productivity than conventional capitalist-run mills. This information was verified by the American Plywood Association. 64 The cooperative is an alternative to the current system, and one that eliminates the exploitation of the worker. It is definitely not the answer to all of America's problems, but it is another means of economic expression. In the sense that the Greens profess grassroots democracy, this is a good example. Worker power in the plywood co-ops, like in any corporation, is often measured not by formal board meetings or by votes taken, but by the informal power of the workers to influence the board of directors' and managers' decisions. In many of these plants, the co-op members exert enormous pressure and influence simply because the appointed directors, when not in the board meetings, are the same peop 1 e wi th whom they work, every day, on the product i on 1 i ne. Researcher Paul Bernstein describes some of the plywood cooperative's most historic achievements: They invented the working share, which guarantees for each worker-member the rights of ownership, labor and self-government on an equal basis; They have worked out a legal identity of workers' control, through the existing state laws .... ; They have created workers councils in the U.S. without waiting for either a socialist revolution or a change in union ideologies; They have worked out a mechanism to equalize income distribution.5

PAGE 71

65 The purpose of this. section has been to shdwthat the Green perspective ;s not merely ideological theory or fantasy. It not only can happe.n, but .is happening right now. We can move beyond the narrow IIjobethic" to new definitions for "work", IIjobsl', and "income" that will effect our changing economy. Through closer grassroots teamwork and increased awareness and through a new-found leadership, at all levels, Green ideology can become more than an idea. We have the basics for a successful Green movement right here in the United States Many of the worldwide peace, humane and ecologically oriented groups that have a worldwide following are based in the U.S." or else many of their goals were inspired or initiated here. Much of the worldwide Green literature comes from the United States; yet, even though there are millions of Greenoriented people in the United States, the movement has more impact in other countries such as West Germany, Australia, Great Britain and New, Zealand. Chapter 5 addresses this phenomenon. It looks at the obstacles to the development of a successful third party in the United States, and attempts to explain how and why they are hindering the proliferation of Green power in the U.s.

PAGE 72

IINOTES-CHAPTER 4." IJonathon Porritt, SEEING'GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1985), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 25. page 7. 2Die Grunen, Programme of the German Green Party, (1983), 3IIbid." page 30. 4l1Ibid.II'page 8. 5paul Bernstein,WORKPLACEDEMOCRATIZATION: Its Internal Dynamics, (1976), Kent' State University Press, page 25. 66

PAGE 73

CHAPTER V OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUCCESSFUL THIRD PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES. Chapter 4 looked at where we are headed, and how we can enlighten and awaken humankind so that a Green movement will form that will help try and cure theearths ills. Chapter 5 looks at the major obstacles to the development of a Green movement or party in the United States and attempts to explain why and how these obstacles are hindering the proliferation of Green power in the United States. Proportional Representation The strongest drawback to the maturation of a Green party in the United States is that of our IIw inner take alP political system based on single-member electoral districts. Unlike the system of proportional representation that is found in West Germany and much of Europe, the United States has the structured two-party system and the electoral co.llege that is the determining factor in choosing its winners. This, plus the high cost of campaigning in the United States, makes it extremely difficult for a candidate to win unless, of course, there are the donations from the multinationals and other large corporations and institutions. Because the Greens oppose most of the multinationals means of procuring their objectives, help from these sources would be highly

PAGE 74

unlikely. The only way to get campaign funding in the United States is by the example that Capra and Spretnakgive regarding the 1980 John Anderson campaign. Ifa party's presidential candi(jate appears on the ballot in thirty states and wins over 5 percent of the vote, and if the party will run iri at least ten states in following election, the Federal Election Commission will award matching funds. ... through a formula based on the number of votes. John Anderson, for instance, won seven percent of the vote in 1980and .later received about $6.5 million (much less than what his campaign had cost.)1 Whereas in West Germany the Greens receive a governmental payment 68 on each vote they receive, the United States' minority parties usually end up financially "in the hole" An excellent example of this point is that the Ci, tizens Party was still paying off its 1980 Presidential Election debts at the time of the 1984 election. It is because of the lack of proportional representation that our smaller parties have few representatives in our system of government. This unequal system makes it very difficult for a small political party to establish a foothold in government, as it discourages even sympathetic voters who often think that a vote spent on parties other than the major, giant parties, would be a wasted one. This;s the same'case in France and Great Britain. The Greens must begin lobbying for an amendment that allows for proportional representation if they are to have a chance at getting elected to federal and state The lack of proportional representation 1S an extremely important obstacle to the development of a third party in the U.S. but there are also many other discriminatory electoral rules that

PAGE 75

69 protect the two major parties. Some of these examples are purely ludricrous. Richard Borcher.s, a District Court Judge for the 17th Judicial District, the State of Colorado, cites the following examples of discriminatory electoral rules in a recent discussion. In Colorado, the 1984 Baer v. Meyer case was over the States' not allowing for the protection of the name of a political organization. Prior to 1984, Colorado allowed voters to register only as Democrat,Republican or unaffiliated. Also in Colorado, the only .way to become a party is to obtain 10% or more of the votes in the previous Gubernatorial Election. The state of Georgia requires 20% of the total vote in order to become a party. This requirement was upheld in Jeness v. Fordson in 1971. In contrast to the Colorado legalities, California upheld the decision, in Storer v. Brown (1974), that the voter could not change party affiliation less than one year prior to if the voter wanted. to run for office. This specific incident occurred because a member of the Communist Party tried to change to the Democratic Party, shortly before the elections, in an effort to run for office. The industrial, national and multinational corporations that espouse .and support the two-party system will not stand plaaidly by and let the Greens have their way about a new amendment that changes the system that the elites created. The industrial system has supported the Democrats and the Republicans

PAGE 76

that favor the exploitation of the planet. Both parties wil.l, therefore fight any initiative that attempts to upset their power positionwfthin the political system. Other-PartyCo.;.optation 70 Another major obstacle to the successful development of a third party in. the United States is that of co-optation .by the representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties. As a Green minority party begins to grow in and stature, and gain state and national credibility, its impact upon the current system will be felt by political parties that cater to the .whims of the managers of the existing system. Pressure from the multinational and local industries upon the current politicians will result in the Democrats and Republicans trying to defuse any Breen advance. What is not in the interest of the industrialists, is not in the interests of the system that serves them. Even those of the current elected officials that are slightly tilted towards the Greens are, themselves, co-opted by the power of their own system. Most of the elected officials probably would be afraid to einbrace Green ideals because they owe their electoral victories to campaign from and other monolithic institutions. The Greens have to be wary of working within the system, as much as they would want to. They can work within the system, but must be aware of the pitfall of co-optation. Whether or not the ma1nstream politician introduces bills to either soften or redirect Green goals is not the main point. If the Green politicians

PAGE 77

71 are not careful and if they fa .;l to recognize the traps inherent in the current system, they can become a part of that same system before they realize that their positions have been compromised and co-opted in favor of less stringent ecological, peaceful and people oriented goals that they were initially striving for. I say this because the supporters of heavy industry will never openly come out and state that their bills and laws are in favor of abuse of the earth, exploitation of the people and termination of many of our natural resources. These supporters of industrialism will not attack the Greens' ideology directly. Direct confrontations over global problems such as acid rain, the greenhouse effect, toxic waste, slaughter of near-extinct animals and nuclear waste materials would be foolhardy even. coming from people that are adept at deception. For the purpose of clarity, it should be noted that I am not implying that all mainstream politicians and. industrialists are in favor of destroying the environment and its inhabitants. What I am is that they are not even' close to ecologically-oriented, holistic thought: therefore they go on defending the system that is causing the problems, and the means that they use to achieve their goals are primarily those of co-optation and redirection of Greentype proposals. Even in the United States, our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks to solving our symptoms and soft-sells the cause: industrialism. Regulation in the United States is currently in the hands of industry. A good example was the EPA scandal of

PAGE 78

72 several years ago when Anne Gorsuch and other EPA officials and staffers were dismissed for being too lenient on environment industrial regulatory programs. Greens frighten the supporters of the current system because the system or network of grassroots politics creates a very closely knit "watchdogll type of system that is out of the reach of those who would most like to manupulate it. II It would be extremely hard for proponents of big business to successfully 'buy-off' or co-opt a practicing Green. at any level of government. 113 Another problem is that the people who manage agencies such as the EPA, come from the very industries that they are to regulate. After their term in a regulatory agency, they usually go back to the industrial sector. Perhaps it is necessary to have experts regulate their own industry, but it is still suspect. Maybe an alternative to this "revolving door" phenomenon would be the training of people from outside the industrial sector to regulate Another alternative could be that someone who was entering or exiting a regulatory agency not be allowed to work in that industry for from three to five years. The final notation about in the United States is about the electorate, our own The lack of participation at the voting polls is frightening. We let the agencies of the system and the government do most of our thinking for us. We think that there is nothing the average citizen can do, therefore why get involved? The Green ideal of government will surely reduce this form of co-optation because it wil1 encourage partici. patory democracy,

PAGE 79

73 which requires involvement, time, effort-and dedication. Demographic and Geographic-PrOblems The final obstacle to be discussed in this chapter comes in two parts: demographic and geographic. They should be addressed separately in order to concentrate on the importance of each. Demographic problems. Countries that exemplify successful Green organizational characteristics generally do not have the tremendous demographic problems that are inherent in the United States. West Germany and Great Britain, for example, are countries that do not have the extreme spread of different cultures whose members are longtime residents and citizens, such as is the case for the United States. Capra and Spretnak, in their POLITICS, The Global Promise, appear not to have given much attention to the problems of the different races and cultures that make up the United States. This .is a problem almost unique to our country. Either way, the concrete condition of the United States, particularly the unique position and role of Black people, Mexican-Americans and Native Americans, was ignored while the racially blind categories of European thought were transplanted. One of the problems of Green thought, globally, is that it does not deal directly with racism. I am sure the Greens, everywhere, are concerned with it, and their literature encompasses rights for all, but they do not directly address the subject. Nowhere in GREEN POLITICS is there any mention of the Rainbow Coalition and the growing Black political energies-no mention despite the longest chapter in the book, liThe

PAGE 80

Green Alternative--It Can Happen Here," being devoted to the possibilities and' problems of the 'G' reen alternative in this country.4 This quote by George Katsi.afi .ca.s, in an article in The Anvil called liThe Greens are Com. ing", is one that should not be taken lightly. 74 If the Greens are to make an impact in this country, it is all right to look at the successes of those in Europe, as role model for desires and aspiration .s, but American Greens must shape it into something that will be viable here, in the United States. It can be done successfully, but it' wi 11 not be done simply by one race or groar)of. ethnic origin. Deep ecology, holistic thinking,must include every vital aspect of our country, its inhabitants and the space it takes up. This can be further reinforced by. another quote from the same article ... to be sure, Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition have gathered two to tHree times the highest percentage of votes received by 'die Grunenl in any German election, and the victory of Harold Washington' in Chicago--to say nothing of the similar campaigns in Santa Cruz, Madison, Boston and Burlington, Vermont--indicates a greater level of popular support forpost-1968 "new" politics in the United States than in West Germany.5 Geographic problems. A person that has been born and raised in the United States will have little problem grasping the problem of geography in relation to a new political party's growth and unity. Countries that have had successful Green parties are nowhere near the size of the United States. The sheer scale of uniting an organization that spreads out over 2000 miles in one direction is daunting, to say the least.

PAGE 81

75' There are .well .... established fem-inist, decentralist, oioregionalist, anti,...nu'clear, volunta'ry simplicity, environmental and peace movements through the states--a veritable patchwork quilt of progrSssive thinking and acti on., And ye t : one still cannot poi nt to any coherent Green movement in the States, let alone to any viable strategy for the long term development of Green politics. Jonath'On Porritt, along with many other globally known Greens, all recognize that we have no major unifying movement; they all recognize that our1Green thinkers' have done much .for the advancement of Green principles and thought on a global basis, but none of ,them address the fact that the United States is the size of Europe, a continent, not the site of Great Britain, France or West Germany, countries. The size of the job of unifying our 'patchwork quilt' of Green groups in the United States is indirect proportion to the size of the country. Groups such as the Committees of Correspondence, which are a cl earing-house of Green thought and ideas for all state and local committees, groups and organizations, are doing an excellent job of both disseminating info rmation and creating unity and, loyalty, in the United States, for the Green cause. There will, in the near future, be a Green party involved in U,S. politics, but because of geographics and demographks, it will not happen overnight. ( .I

PAGE 82

"NOTES-CHAPTER 5.11 lcapra Spretnak, GREEN POLITICS, The Global (1984), New E.F.Dutton, page 203.' 2I1Ibtd." page 201. 76 3North Country AnV'il,",iGreen Politics",(1986), Melvi1l ,e, Mn., Anv' ; 1 Press, page 15. .. .4North Country Anvi 1 ,"The Greens are Comi ngll, (1986), Melville, Mn., Anvil Press, page 51. .. 5I1Ibid." page 51. 6Jonathon SEEING GREEN, The Pol Hies of Ecology Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 224.

PAGE 83

CHAPTER VI WHAT WILL WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. The thesis so far has' concerned itself with what is Green and then with exploring why the current system will not work effectively and why a Green alternative is necessary. This final chapter looks at what alternatives are available in the United States, the various types of actual organizations available, and finally what specific organizational form is most likely to be the most viable Green alternative, here, in the United States. Types of Organizations It is precisely because of the numerous obstacles to the development of a successful third party in the United States, that Capra and Spretnak, in GREEN POLITICS, The Global' Promise, list fiye potential forms of Green organization that could work here. The purpose of this chapter is also to determine, from the interaction that I have had with numerous Green-oriented groups in the United States, which organizational form would be most viable and preferabl e and, 1 astly, why U. S. Greens thi nk thei r choi ces are the best ones. These organizations are as follows: 1. Green Network. 2. Green Movement. 3. Green Caucus within the Movement. 4. National Green Caucus instead of a Movement. 5. Green Party.

PAGE 84

78 The Green. Network. The first of these organizations, the Green Network, 1s,already in place in the United States. The network serves to link already existing decentralized groups in order to make a more coordinated input into the political system. These groups can get in political discussions, and locally or nationally, create an edu. cationa l environment in which to make others aware of Green goals and objectives. Since networks are prima ril y II nonconfrontati ona 1 and require 1 itt le commi tment, they have succeeded in attracting many people during the past decade and introducing them to political thinking.u2 A good example of a Green'network would be the Committees of Correspo ndencelocated in Kansas City, Missouri, which isa clearinghouse for Green thought and ideas that is between various Green organizations nationwide. It is through an organization like the Committees of Correspondence that Greens everywhere in the Uni.ted States, can fi nd groups i ndi geneous to thei r own area to work with. A network such' as this might well develop into a long-term political movement, but it still runs the danger of overlapping and duplicating what already goes on within other networks espousing the same Green goals. An example of this is the New England Committees of Correspondence, in Vermont. When I sent to the Kansas City Commi.ttees of Correspondence, they were very helpful and gave much information. The same thing happened with the New England Committees The interesting item is that neither of them refe rred me to the other and they are most assuredly attempting to

PAGE 85

79 achiev:e the same goals both on the macro and micro levels of influence. The point .is not that it is bad that there are more than one or two networks; what is needed is that they look towards a more sophi sticatedtype of organization in order better to pinpoint their energies rather than using the lshotgunl effect of blasting in all and hoping for a hit. Capra and Spretnak say of Green networks: They are a necessary first step in building a pol itical movement but they are insufficient. Their limited functions do not translate easily into activities necessary for political actions, and they carry no responsibility to formulate programs and carry them out. 3 The Green network is an excell ent tool for the i nvol vement of many newcomers at the entry level. The major problem is that it simply lacks political power with which to force new, innovative ecological goals out of the current system The Green Movement. The. second type of organization that Capra and refer tQ is the Green movement. On the national level or on the state level, a movement such as this would be a membership organization that would formulate proposals and attempt to educate both the Republican and Democratic parties on the merits of their Charlene Spretnak sees this organization as not running candidates for office, as still acting politically as a party. It would have its own .Political Action Committee (PAC) and paid lobbyists. The Colorado Environmental Coalition fits somewhat into

PAGE 86

80 this description. ,It is a state membership organization made up of many diverse groups that basically support the four basic Green pillars mentioned in Chapter one. One of their member groups is the Colorado Environmental lobby, which is effective in persuading legislators to consider the Green perspective on legislative proposals. In 1985, the Colorado Environmental lobby (CEl) monitored 95 bills and selected 35 on which to take a position. These included bills involving water quality, hazardous wastes, and vested property rights. We opposed 11 bills and supported passage of 24. We achieved a success rate of around 54 percent on the bills we opposed; six were defeated, five passed. Of the 24 we supported, nine passed and fifteen were defeated; we achieved a rate of around 38 percent in support of various bills. Another member of the "Coalition" is the Sierra Club, whose political action committee is a great help in fund:-raising. and. supporting populBr Green-oriented mainstream public servants. It is through these groups that there is much volunteer work in campaigns and in giving direction to the Green vote for the right candidates. In addition to these already active organizations, the CEC helps sponsor the Colorado Environmental Education Project every election year. This group places emphasis on environmental know ledge, fundraising, election campaigns, strategies in helping make the environment -oriented legislators known to the electorate. They also make the enemies of deep ecology well known to the public. Because. the network appears to be an insufficient form for Gfeen ideas and expression, the movement is recommended over the

PAGE 87

Green network. The network lacks the need for commitment and involvement. Although a movement'would require greater commitment than a network to change and,the process of nonviolent struggle, it would be more effe,ctive. It would also be more open ended, dynamic and 'welcoming toward Hence it would have a broader appeal, both ideologicany and in the variety of people it would' attract.S I strongly agree with this quote by Capra and Spretnak. Even the 81 term, network, implies something static, while a movement is a series of organized lIactivitiesll directed towards achieving a specific objective. When I think of a movement, I think of action. within the Movement. The third alternative is a Green Caucus within the Movement. The logic behind this suggestion is that the Green movement will supply members to work with the two parties ,on tssues that are of interest to the Greens. It would be this part,of the movement that would devote its time primarily to the electoral and legislative necessities of interest to them. The Caucus might even provide Green candidates directly for both major parties. Jonathon Porritt says, To a European, this looks [sic] an unnecessarily unwieldy and indirect waY' of going about ones green politics. Such a caucus, concentrating on electoral and legislative strategies would provide Green candidates with both parties--but how would one ensure that they were neither coopted nor bought off?.] It must be noted that the idea of cooptation is foremost in most Green literature when writing about the current system and the ensuing interaction between holistic Greens and the mainstream

PAGE 88

82 politicians. If cooptation is the major factor against a caucus, the notion of having some influence into the political system is the major benefit of the caucus. Without proportional representation, the benefit of such an option is that it would avoid problems within the movement between factions that want electoral political involvement and those who want grassroots citizens involvement only. National Membership The fourth alternative is that of a national membership caucus instead of a .movement. Members of such a caucus could indicate whether they wished to be affiliated with either the Republicans or the Democrats. The major benefit of this type of organization is that it is much less expensive to run than itis to run a party. The primary drawback to this is that it affords the major parties the opportunity to either redirect thinking or else co-opt the goals and ideas of the Greens. It would appear that not much would be accomplished if both sides were distrustful of each other. This type of organization could easily alienate many of the Greens who believe that one cannot work within the system that creates so many of the problems. Again, per Jonathon Porritt, lIyou need a long spoon to sup with the devil, especially when the menu is not of your It appears that any form of caucus could be more harmful to the future of a Green party than it would be helpful. Cooptation and the splitting of the party or movement into differing factions

PAGE 89

83 would make the Greens easier to manipulate for the leaders of the current socio-economic political system. For these lam unable to recommend a caucus in any form. Short-term benefits would please many green supporters, but the long-term effects would be the co-optation of,. and the possible defeat of any unified Green Party in the United States. The Green Party. The last recommended alternative is that of the Green party. The benefits a party woul d';bring to the United States would bea sense of power for all green-oriented organizations .. With a party, the diverse Green nationwide, would have a unifying factor that would enable them all to share a coherent view or platform that they could present both to their grassroots public and to the current politicians. The difficulties that a party would face would be from more than one area. In the financial arena, remember, the Citizens P.arty was still paying off its 1980' Presidential Election debts at .the time of the 1984 election. The amount of money needed to run a national election would be staggering .. The high cost of campaigns alone makes it difficult for a candidate to win unless he or she gets backing from large corporations. Another problem is the electoral process. Proportional representation is just .as unlikely to occur here as it is in Great Britain or France. Just as we believe a network to be an insufficient political form for Green ideas, so we believe that moving into electoral

PAGE 90

84 politics prematurely would be an error. Considering the political system andtrad.itions in this country, a bipartisan caucus is probably the shrewdest choice, although Green candidates could run at the local leve1 as independents. However, whether or not a caucus or party evolves later the soundest starting point is a well-organized, grassroots, national Green movement that develops a coherent view and comprehensive programs to present to lawmakers and the public. The structure should respect local and regional autonomy within a framework of and should have only the minimal amount of national coordination necessary to present the movement as a potential element in American politics.9 This is the sentiment echoed by Capra and Spretnak It is not far off from the majority of Green-oriented organizations' opinions that I have talked with in the United States. would support a Green party but realize that, presently, it cannot win seats in the formal government. They believe that the traditional political parties of the industrial democracies have not given high enough priority to the ecological issues. They believe that if a party were formed it would expand their influences over the process in two ways: by exerting pressures from within even without getting any formal victories at the polls, and secondly, by serving to publicize ecological issues. In his book SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, Porritt says of his Ecology Party: The role of the Ecology Party is obviously of considerable importance to the development of green ideas in this country. It's my contention that party political activity will always .remain an essential part of that development. For better or worse, the Ecology party is the only organization around to take on that role ta its fullest extent. But even as a political party, we have no illusions about the fact that our primary function is still an educative one, the spri8ding of Green politics to as wide an electorate as possible. Personal discussions with regional members of Friends of the

PAGE 91

85 Earth, the Sierra Club, Physicians against Nuclear Committees of ,Correspondence, Colorado Environmental Coalition, League of, Women Voters all echo these same sentiments. They,would love to see a Green party in the United States, but are wise enough to realize that because of our electoral system, it could not win seats. A Green party that was created to unify, direct and educate the people would be worthwhile, welcome, and successful. Nearly all Green-oriented organizations concede this, andwouJd try hard to make it successful. Over the past several months, I corresponded either directly or indirectly with representatives of 61 oriented organizations 'that span from the local grassroots level to the global level, and this same sentiment is echoed. If the two-party system can be changed, the Green party not only has a chance to win seats in the state and national legislatures, but can become a major factor in the determination of how this country will be run. For the time being, a unified Green movement is the answer for the education of the people on all levels. With lobbying at the national and state levels, much can be accomplished to create Green thought in our legislatures. With the dissemination of education and ideas at the local grassroots level, there will be an ever-increasing awareness of the Green, holistic way of thinking that can permeate all levels of society so that policy makers will be aware of this new awareness of their constituents. E. F. Schumache,r, in his class i c book SMALL IS BEAUT! FUL, reminds us, We must do what we conceive to be the right thing and not

PAGE 92

bother our heads or burden our sQulswtth whether we1re going to besuccessfu,l. Because if ,we don1t,do the right,thing, wel,ll be doing the, wrong thing, and then wel,l1 be apart' of the disease and not part of the cure. I! If ,a Green party were created in the United States, it 86 woul d have the support of ,the vast majority of Green-ori ented organizations in the United States. Even if ,the party were initially created to educate and unify Green thought, it would be a success. Unified lobbying could ultimately result in an amendment creating a more savory atmosphere for them in the political arena. The Greens will not be able to have everything at once in the U.S., but they must get started now building a party in order to begin their ascent in the political arena. If they fail to begin now, they will remain sincere but separate organizations that can be co-opted or ignored by the current politico-economic system. For now, they can run people at the local level as independents. This, they should do,so as to get as many Green thinkers as possible into the system at any level. Green-oriented groups such as the Friends of the Earth, -the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, that have Political Action, Committees (PACS) funding for the purpose of sponsoring supporting Green-oriented candidates, can playa major part in getting supporters elected that could help in pushing for a proportional representation amendment. They will need all the help that they can get.

PAGE 93

IINOTES-CHAPTER 6.11 lCapra and (1984J, New York, E .. F. Dufton, pages 200-202. page 200. 3l1Ibid.1I page 200. 8.1 4 K Hanson, IILegislative Analysis.lI, Colorado Environmental Lobby, (1985), Denve.r, Colorado, CE.L, page 4 5Capra and The Global Promise, (1984), New York, E. F. Dutton, page 207. 6Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd., page 234. 7l1Ibid.1I page 2010 8l1Ibid.1I page 232. 9Capra and Spretnak,GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, E.F. Dufton, page 204. 10Jonathon Porritt, SEEING GREEN, The Politics of Ecology Explained, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell page 9. lIE F Schumacher, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if People Mattered; (1973), New York, Harper & Row, page 99.

PAGE 94

Bernstein, p ,' WORKPLACE' DEMOCRATIZATION: Its Internal Dynamics, (1976)., Kent State. University, Kent State Univ. Press. Bottomore, T A DICTIONARY'Of'MARXIST THOUGHT, (1983), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Ltd. 88 Call en bach (1975), New York, New York, Bantam Books. Capra, F., Spretnak, C., GREEN POLITICS, The Global Promise, (1984), New.Yor.k, N.Y., LP. Dutto.ri, Inc. Counci.l on EnV'ironmental Quality (CEQ), GLOBAL 2000 REPORT to the ExecutiveSummary,Vol .. 1, (1980), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Counci.l on Environmental Qual ity (CEQ), ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, (1982), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Die Grunen, PROGRAMMEOF'THE GERMAN GREEN PARTY, (1983), London, U.K., Heretic Books Ltd. Env'ironmental Protection Agency, National Air-Pollutant Emissions Estimates, (1980)., Washington, D.C., Government Pri.nting Office Goldfarb. T., TAKING SIDES:Clashin Views on Controversial Environ mental lssues, 1983, Dushkin-Pahl GP., Guilford, Conn. Gorz, A., ECOLOGY AS POLITICS, (1975), Paris, France, Editions Kanter, R.,COMMITMENT COMMUNITY, (1972), Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. ... Kelly, P;, FIGHTING FOR HOPE, (1983), Mass., South End Press. .... Kraft, r1., Vig, POLITICS IN THE 1980s,(1984), Wash'i ngton, D. C., CQ Pres s Pilat, The Rise of the Green Movement, '(1980), London, Sage Publications, Ltd. .. porri.tt, J .. The'Politicsof Ecology Explained, (1985), Ox ford, U K., B 1 ac kwe 11 Ltd. Rosenbaum, POLITICS AND POLICY, (1985), Washington, D.C:, CQ Press;

PAGE 95

89 Roszak, T.,PERSONJPLANET, St. Albans, Granada. Sargent, L. CONTEMPORARY. POLITICAL. IDEOL-OG I ES, (1978), Homewood, Illinois, The Dorsey Press. .. Schumache.r, E. SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL, Economics as if People Mattered, (1973), New York, N. Y ., Harper & Row. . Simon, J.,THERESOURCEFULEARTH, (1984), Oxford, U.K., Blackwell .. Tucker, THE MARX-ENGELS READER, (1978), New York, N.Y., Norton Co. .. Wiles, P., THE. POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COMMUNISM, (1962), Cambridge, Mass:., Harvard Univ. Press.

PAGE 96

90 IIBIBlIOGRAPHY-JOURNAlSIl Fuehrer, R.,. "Environmentalism--what is it?", ColOrado' Environmental .. Report', 2, f1986} Vol. 1, Denve.r, Colorado Environmental Coal ition. Fried,R., "NuclearWar: .Now. there is something you can do to prevent it II COal it i Oil' News 1 etter, 1, (1986), Co lorado Coa 1 iti on fo.rthe Prevention of Nuclear War. Hansen, K., "legislative lobby, (1985), vol. 1, Denver, CEl. Katsiaficas, G :., liThe Greens are Coming!!', North Country Anvil, 51, (1986), Millville, Minn. Watson, R., "Challenging the Underlying Dogmas of Environmentalismll, Whole Earth Review,S, Vol. 4 5 Sausalito, California.