The Myth of Green Nonviolence (Was Re: Gary Swing and the Greens)

[Gary Swing <gwswing@yahoo.com>]

--- Evan D Ravitz <evan@vote.org> wrote:

> I think I have found one major reason that Gary has
> been so wounded and alienated from the Greens: His 
> site mentions "a purely nonviolent, humanitarian 
> foreign policy." I think most Greens hold this 
> ideal too.

The claim made by the Green Party that it stands for
nonviolence is simply a lie. No state or national 
Green Party platform in the United States demonstrates
a belief in nonviolence, nor has any website from any
officially nominated Green Party candidate 
for federal office in the 1996, 1998, or 2000
elections. The Green Party should either stand for
nonviolence, or else stop advancing the false claim
that it does. I will NEVER stop publicly criticizing
the Green Party as long as this lie continues to 
stand.

If you don't think the Green Party should stand for
nonviolence, then support a proposal to remove
nonviolence from the Green Party's Ten Key Values.

> But most of us balance the ideal with the pragmatic:

Organized nonviolent national defense and nonviolent
defense is both a pragmatic and a morally preferable
alternative to lethal military warfare.

> The American people are not ready for unilateral >
disarmament. 

First, what the American people are ready for should
not define the agenda of a third-party that claims to
have a "future focus." That is precisely what is wrong
with the oxymoronic "progressive populism" that
Naderite Greens have been advancing. The Greens should
offer real leadership with a values-based, principled,
forward-thinking program designed to present
substantial reforms, rather than just following
whatever direction the political winds happen to be
blowing at a given moment.
 
Second, I emphatically reject the term "unilateral 
disarmament" which both Dean Myerson and Evan have 
used to describe my position. Disarmament suggests the
abandonment of defensive capabilities ("to deprive of 
a means of attack or defense" -- Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary.) I advocate transarment from 
one kind of security system to a different one based 
on organized nonviolent action in conflict and 
defense. The term "unilateral" is meaningless here.
Talking about unilateral rejection of war is similar 
to talking about unilateral rejection of genocide or
unilateral diverstment of slaves. The military, as it
exists today, is an evil, destructive institution, not
a social good. I advocate the universal abolition of
armed military forces and weapons of mass destruction,
not just unilateral action. (Of course, if everyone
abandoned armed military forces, there would be no 
need for nonviolent defense systems to begin with.)
Just as advocate of abolishing slavery universally
would advocate abolishing it in their own country as 
a step towards that goal, I advocate that the United
States abolish its armed military forces as a step
towards the universal abolition of war.

> As the son of a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, I 
> am not either. 

I have a short essay on my website about nonviolent
resistance to the Nazis:
www.geocities.com/pacifistgreen/Hitler.html

The Nazis could have been stopped using organized
nonviolent resistance much sooner, with far fewer
casualties on both sides -- and without leaving 
Eastern Europe under the domination of the Soviet
Union.

> We want to move towards Gary's ideal
> incrementally and multilaterally.

Green Parties in the United States have made no 
efforts in this direction. 

> I may be more of an idealist regarding 
> environmentalism than Gary: I sold
> my car 12 years ago; Gary drives one. 

I applaud Evan for this, and encourage him to give up
eating meat as well.

> He needs it to live his life in Denver tho I'm sure 
> he knows it is the single most environmentally
> destructive thing he can change in his personal
> life. 

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I would prefer to have a
zero-emission solar-electric car if it were practical
and if I could afford it. However, that's not possible
for me right now. BTW, I'm no longer living in Denver.
I'm living on Conifer Mountain, six miles from the
nearest highway and working part-time in Denver --
hardly an ideal situation. It would be easier to live
without a car if I worked near home and had reasonable
public transportation available. Even so, I would have
to give up my hobby of mountaineering if I lived
without a car -- something I'm not willing to do.

Gary

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Sent via grns-gpoc
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe grns-gpoc" to majordomo@greens.org