IF IT’S PERMISSABLE to talk about “Red-Greens”, then why not about “Blue-Greens”? Surely an abiding concern for the natural environment is something which transcends narrow ideological considerations? And, if that’s true, doesn’t it make perfect sense for an environmental party to position itself squarely in the middle of the political spectrum – from whence it can reach out to both the Left and the Right?
Certainly, that’s what Vernon Tava believes, and the former Green MP, Kennedy Graham, agrees with him. In fact, Graham goes further, arguing that contemporary politics is driven by the followers of three great quests. The quest for freedom; the quest for equality; and the quest for sustainability. Graham strongly implies that the greatest of these three is sustainability. Without a sustainable environment, the quests for freedom and equality cannot succeed. This was the sort of thinking that prompted the late Rod Donald to declare: “The Greens are not of the Left. The Greens are not of the Right. The Greens are out in front.”
A great soundbite – but is it true?
It all depends what you mean by “out in front”. If it is intended to describe the vanguard role played by environmental activists in the 1970s and 80s, then the quip has some merit. Up until then “development” was the dominant – and largely uncontested – paradigm, embraced alike by the Capitalist West and the Communist Bloc. The power of science and technology was being unleashed against an intransigent natural world. “Progress” was the word used by both the Left and the Right to describe humankind’s heroic mission to bend Nature to its will. Felling forests, damming rivers and levelling mountains were all achievements to celebrate. Humankind was winning!
It took the Astronaut’s photograph of “Spaceship Earth” to jolt humanity into the realisation that this bright blue planet is all we have – a dazzling repository of life and beauty in an otherwise barren universe. Not an enemy to be subdued, but our one and only home. If there was a foe to be fought, then surely it was rampant industrialism and the insatiable consumerist societies it was spawning? Whether these societies were ruled by Capitalists, or Communists, hardly seemed to matter. The damage inflicted on the planet’s fragile ecosystems by both ideologies was equally catastrophic.
So, yes. Those who grasped the full social, economic and ecological consequences of the development paradigm were, indeed, “out in front” politically.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, it is possible to view the Cold War stand-off between the United States and the Soviet Union as a conflict driven less by ideology than straightforward geopolitical rivalry. The Russians’ state-capitalist system, at enormous cost, was able to maintain a rough military parity with its corporate-capitalist competitors, but was completely outclassed in virtually all other aspects of production. The Russians never mastered the problems of distribution, and, crucially, suffered from a crippling shortage of domestically generated investment capital. The wonder is not that the Soviet Union fell, but that it remained upright for so long!
With the collapse of “actually existing socialism” in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Chinese Communist Party’s embrace of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (a.k.a Capitalism!) the Greens’ boast that they were “out in front” lost its sting. The imperatives of corporate capitalism were now driving economic activity across the entire planet. Industrialisation and consumerism were being supercharged – and so was their impact on global ecosystems. Those who stood for the planet were now obliged to stand against a capitalist system whose corporate masters refused to acknowledge (and were, in fact, operating beyond) the moral and political claims of the traditional nation state.
But, as more and more of Earth’s burgeoning human population were swallowed up in the capitalist machine, the amount of CO2 spewing forth from its smokestacks and exhaust pipes was increasing exponentially – soaring towards an atmospheric concentration incompatible with the long-term survival of industrial civilisation. Capitalism was facing its final and fatal contradiction: a negation which only its own negation could negate.
The colour of this capitalist death-machine is, and always has been, blue. Calling yourself a “Blue-Green” is, therefore, oxymoronic. You can no more be a “Blue-Green” than you can be a non-violent boxer or a chaste debauchee. Nor is it defensible to describe yourself as a “Green-Green” – as if rescuing the biosphere can be accomplished without confronting directly the economic system responsible for its devastation. In this regard, the subjective sincerity or insincerity of Vernon Tava and Kennedy Graham is completely irrelevant. Objectively, they are serving the interests of the planet’s enemies – not its friends.
The capitalists’ oft-repeated accusation that they are facing “Red-Greens” is, however, entirely justified. If by “red” is meant a force dedicated to overturning the prevailing capitalist system and replacing it with one in which the three great goals of freedom, equality and sustainability will each become the indispensable guarantor of the other.
From their first appearance in the 1980s, Green parties around the world have presented themselves as both the exemplars and advocates of four foundational principles: Ecological Wisdom; Social Justice; Participatory Democracy; and Nonviolence. Each of these principles is antithetical to the founding principles of Capitalism: The Subjugation of Nature; Human Exploitation; Plutocracy; and Coercive Violence. The dilemma confronting Green supporters in New Zealand in 2019 is just how far the Green Party has drifted from the global Green Movement’s original values. There is a widespread and growing feeling that the Greens’ parliamentary representatives are no longer Capitalism’s enemies, but its enablers.
The party’s male co-leader, James Shaw, openly touts for the support of “green” capitalists: as if the profits to be extracted from re-branding corporate greed as an “ecologically sustainable business ethos” will somehow render its actual production less dependent on environmental despoliation and unrelenting human exploitation.
Only if Green voters are willing to subscribe to the fiction of “weightless” capitalist enterprises that leave no “carbon footprint”, can Shaw’s pitch be rendered credible. Except that, the cellphone in his pocket, the lap-top in his shoulder-bag, both argue against this proposition. If Shaw could only see the horrors attendant upon the extraction of the minerals that make them work; the super-exploitative megafactories in which they are assembled; then he would understand just how crushing the planetary burden off-loaded by his new-found “green” capitalist friends truly is.
As for the Greens’ female co-leader, Marama Davidson. Perhaps the best that can be said of her performance is that it has been distinguished by neither wisdom, nor justice. Nor even by a conspicuous quantum of democracy – participatory or otherwise. Most notably absent has been the founding Green principle of Nonviolence. On the contrary, Davidson’s “woke” faction of the party, caught up in the ever-tightening coils of identity politics, have unleashed a level of emotional violence upon those it deems ideological heretics that must surely make the party’s founders weep.
How different is today’s Green caucus from the “magnificent seven” Green MPs who entered the House of Representatives so triumphantly in 1999. The New Zealand establishment recognised those Greens for what they were: enemies of the status-quo and certainly not the sort of people this country’s capitalists (not even those in the Labour Party!) felt the least bit comfortable about doing business with. Red-Greens they were called: a label which MPs Sue Bradford and Keith Locke wore with pride. Today, to be branded a Red is simply embarrassing: proof only of outdated thinking.
Even so, the National Party leader, Simon Bridges’, enthusiasm for Vernon Tava’s “Blue-Green” initiative is misplaced. Such an obvious example of right-wing “astroturfing” would produce little of electoral value. Besides, all of the time, effort and resources required to draw off enough votes to tip the Greens out of Parliament would, ultimately, be politically counter-productive. New Zealand Capitalism is much better served by leaving the existing Green Party exactly where it is.
Sitting comfortably in the boardroom: sporting a pale-green silk tie and wearing a dark blue suit.
Depressing. But with more than an element of truth.
Indeed, it gives me no joy to agree.
The original Greens were always outliers and incredibly courageous as a minority to continually air views that were the antithesis of mainstream politics and the political process.
Haven’t had anything close since Mana imploded.
Well, all the mainstream forces gathered to ensure that Hone wouldn’t get his electorate seat and bring in Laila Harre and potentially Annette Sykes (with John Minto not far behind). That lot would’ve been a problem for them all.
Hone is still the best chance of bringing in a different voice.
let’s not lose sight of a major reason the internet party failed – as we all remember it was very close…wouldn’t have taken much more to get there..and here is the funny thing..kim dotcom/the internet party worked up a really flash multi-media campaign arguing for the ending of cannabis prohibition…but hone harawira had an attack of the reactionaries – and demanded it not be shown..it doesn’t take einstein to figure this campaign would have seen mana/internet party in parliament…back then i gave harawira the shot-hole-in-own-foot-award for that bad-call…and i see no reason now to resile from that…i understand harawira has now u-turned and is no longer a prohibitionist…which really…when looking back/considering how he blew it…must almost drive him to irony-overdose…and it still pisses me off…
Sounds some what familiar. As I recal the poster child for legalising medical cannabis was severely in need of illegal medicine and just then ex deputy health minister Peter Dunn was being a colossal douche about synthetic cannabis. So it was that the issue was not politicised so Peter Dunn would sign off on the patients subscription. Don’t really have a link on hand, meh.
Brilliant read, your very pleasing prose of how the hopeless situation that is the environmental disaster of the world now came to be. That image of the blue orb in the expanse of black nothingness being the seminal moment of becoming aware of our fragility. However since that moment, pollution has only increased exponentially, to the point of probably irrevocably setting off conditions making life in Earth uninhabitable for humans and other creatures who need the same conditions as us. Interestingly, just read about how the first contact in the Americas caused such a massive killing of the people there through disease, that it caused a reforestation of America the size of France, which then created such a huge carbon sink that it was the cause if that period called The Little Ice Age. Humans were contributing to climate change before industrialization.
As for the Green Party, they made a terrible choice when they did not choose Bradford as co-leader, and then lost her. The Green party has unravelled ever since into what it is today, also outlined to perfection here. Oh, oh dear the terrible waste of talent and meaningful people, the terrible ruin we face.
Ouch!
The truth, as they say, hurts.
Nandor Tanczos opine on all of this is that the existing Green Party should consider working with a future National government (he rejected this for 2017 on the grounds the party was not in the right place to do it – would really like to have been part of a coalition government with Labour first).
The right place means determining a strategy the majority could buy into
1. offering a National Green alternative where Labour cannot form a government, as an alternative to another National led coalition (many could accept this but it would mean less help to the low income worker family and public health/housing than NZ First would require) and would be best after a Labour led govenment dealt with those issues first.
2. being open to a National Green alternative where the alternative was a Labour NZ First one (with limited environmental/Green policy wins) again less help to those on low incomes/family and public health/housing – this would be less important if/once the current Labour led government made some progress.
Which of those options would undertake an immediate meaningful response to climate change?
That is the primary question to answer. The rest is deckchairs.
Nothing any New Zeland government did or could do makes much of an impact on climate change.
Its multilateral mitigation or nation state focus on survival strategies.
Ouch.
Hi Chris
You refer to the fiction of “weightless” capitalist enterprises that leave no “carbon footprint”. That is pretty critical to this appraisal and a bit limited.
Firstly if it is a fiction you have a point but is it? I haven’t seen much talk about this. If it is a fiction then we need to show that it is the case and make the point strongly.
Second, in New Zealand we have unique opportunity to contribute to GHG emission reduction (i.e. broader than just CO2) by replacing our animal protein based agriculture system with plant based protein production. I don’t hear many people talking about this but it is a way in which we could contribute to climate change without a complete change to our economic system.
Would our doing so reduce consumption of meat products in our export markets – and remember grass fed is lower in emissions and does not involve animal consumption of grains increasing food prices.
fact-check: grass-fed has a higher carbon-footprint than grain-fed..
carry on..!
Only if you ignore carbon carbon sequestration. Then there is the carbon involved transporting feed to the grain fed animals.
my understanding is that the grass is greener story was turned totally on its’ head…the opposite beig true…asnd by quite a margin…
(i speak as a vegan who opposes all animal slavery..)
Yes it was found that grass fed release more methane, but when sequestration back into the grassland soil is taken into account and carbon used in transporting grain to the feedlots is also accounted for the story changes.
Absolutely brillliant Chris you are bang on mate.
“A need to read here.”
https://climatism.blog/category/climategate/
Instead of lapping up fossil-fuel-funded denial and misinformation we could look at real explanations.
‘European colonization of Americas killed so many it cooled Earth’s climate’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change
All I see these days are fake Greens and hollow Greens. Even Greenpeace seem to be walking a tight rope balancing act, trying to appeal to people by using activist stunts, rather than become the Green Guerilla War Movement we really need now.
We will only change things by sabotaging, undermining and destroying the system as it is, no matter what it takes, as all else will be neutralised and hollowed out sooner or later.
Shaw and Davidson are an odd couple of a bunch of smart talking no hopers now, hardly worth voting for.
Not with a bang but a whimper
A truly ‘green’ party would only win significant numbers of votes if the population would finally be presented with REAL and TRUTHFUL information about the threat from pollution by humans, that is contributing heavily to what we call ‘climate change’, which should rather be called a ‘climate disaster’ that is looming.
And to inform people, it would necessitate having a media, whether MSM or social media, or whatsoever, that reports facts, that presents in depth reports and has these backed up by solid science, which is available.
We do though live in a capitalist, neoliberal and heavily manipulated society, where people are constantly misinformed with endless propaganda, with effective mass advertising, with lies, deception and the selling of dreams, that result in the shocking situation we have on Planet Earth.
Vested interest holding business operators, allied with selfish individual persons, acting as selfish, short sighted consumers and wasters (bought by the ones pulling the strings and having the wealth and power), they set the tunes, and keep feeding us endless lies and BS, so only a small, skeptical and critical percentage of the population learns and sees what is going on.
Some of those have traditionally voted ‘Greens’, but with the Greens we have already rather blue washed over time, those critical citizens are becoming ever more disillusioned and do not even bother voting Greens anymore.
So Nandor Tanczos or what is name is can have a view, but he himself has been watered down and mellowed and compromised through the steady drop of pressures from the propaganda machine and bias within this population, he has lost his clearer view of past years.
No reason to be hopeful, I note.
We van all become vegetarian or vegan, but as long as population growth continues, and while billions are already living in abject poverty, all efforts to achieve the goal to stop climate change and global pollution, soil degradation, erosion, climate disaster and so forth will be in vain.
Some may think, the only way to reduce CO2, methane and other emissions will be to radically ‘reduce’ global human population.
Prepare for Holocaust Make 2, some time soon, at unprecedented scales, by ‘modern day’ means.
The whole selling off of New Zealands water leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I would expect parties such as the Greens, to be doing their utmost to stop such CRIMINAL activity – not help it along!
Get back to your Green roots, they are needed more than ever.
Trotter’s comments about Blue-Greens are right on the mark, but I’m in favour of them as I’d like to see National shoot itself in the foot wasting their resources on such an alliance.
But Green’s use of cell phones is a necessary fighting of fire with fire: surely anyone can see that boycotting cell phones and other information technology because they world economy is poorly structured would leave any activism, party-political or otherwise, totally ineffectual in today’s environment.
James Shaw might dress like a capitalist, talk to capitalists and operate within the rules of our largely capitalist mixed economy, while trying to green it. What else would you have him do?
James Shaw has my confidence, and is likely to have the opportunity for more Green influence on our economy than our green pioneers Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald because the time is right.
The Green Party are the Kurds of New Zealand politics – picked on by everyone and every political party and whose only friends are the mountains
Comments are closed.