They are like the proper green and peasant parties should be - green on the outside and red on the inside.
Not brown inside like the current european ones, especially german.
They are like the proper green and peasant parties should be - green on the outside and red on the inside.
Not brown inside like the current european ones, especially german.
Yeah i know similar parties can be different in different countries, for example i do not know anything about USA greens.
German greens real practice in govt is basically fash, even some liberals call them “war party” lol.
Polish greens are just insignificant neoliberal add to main liberal party.
I have a friend and comrade living in Austria at the moment who lived and studied in Germany for a year, and he has talked my head off for hours about German infighting and ideology lol. Most of what I know about the CDU, AfD, Die Linke and the Greens comes straight from him. IIRC the German Greens are one of the most hawkish parties against Russia and China rn, no? It’s interesting and frustrating to me how wildly divergent “green” parties can be ideologically nation-to-nation. Just call yourself the ecofash party or the social-environmentalist party or whatever and be done with the confusion.
The German Greens are an ultra neoliberal war hawk party, they have the deepest ties to Washington of any German party and are the most Atlanticist of the bunch by far. Many of them have Ivy League educations were subsequently trained in NED institutions. They are basically CIA assets. Their base is overwhelmingly upper middle class intelligentsia with some labor aristocracy and petty bourgeois.
The irony is that they started out as a party not too dissimilar from the US Green party, very anti-war, pro disarmament and big on social justice in the 1980s, with many being quite open to socialist ideas. That’s when they were still mostly old hippies. Now the character of the party has changed completely and their alleged environmentalism is a joke, they shut down the nuclear power plants and doubled down on coal.
They love NATO and hate Russia and China, they are the main proponents of a big German rearmament and fanatically pushed for abandoning Russian pipeline gas in favor of US LNG that is way more expensive and has a far worse environmental impact. They engage in all the typical liberal virtue signaling but then turn around and always vote for pro-corporate policies.
I worry that the US Greens will end up the same way in a few decades if they ever get any real power the way the Greens did in the late 90s.
Thanks for the rundown! They sound like a bunch of insufferable assholes.
Yeah this means that merely being “green” is meaningless especialy since most of those parties are more or less participating in neoliberalism which is straight up the ideology of chief polluters. Could be even worse as in ecofascism which is basically the same neoliberalism plus potential genocide of global south and poors.
It’s also often frustrating in leftist circles, when the “ecology” is often weaponized against marxists… by a neoliberal westolefto.
There is a strange ass myth that Marxists or “state socialists” are industrialists first and foremost. In the eyes of some environmentalists I’ve met, Marxism calls to mind polluted air and factories overtaking the natural world. I don’t get where the hell this came from. China is building some of the greenest cities on earth rn, solarpunk style shit with soil that can soak up floodwater and utilize it to create beautiful masses of flora and clean air. Marxism is environmentalism! That’s why I don’t vibe with “ecosocialism” as much either, it’s just unnecessary obfuscation and myth-peddling imo
It is idealist and frankly also chauvinist to demand that developing countries adhere to the same strict environmental standards that we should expect from an already developed, industrialized country. The developed global north owes a massive environmental debt to the rest of the world, most of the carbon emissions since the industrial revolution came from Europe and North America.
China and the USSR needed to go through their own phases of developing their industry and agriculture, and that had an environmental cost. Other nations in the global south will need to do the same. The global north cannot have their cake and eat it too, living in the prosperity built on huge environmental damage and demanding that the underdeveloped nations hamstring their development for the sake of the environment. People need to be lifted out of poverty.
China needed to industrialize even if this meant accepting some adverse environmental impacts for a time. The USSR is often criticized for the ecological catastrophe around the Aral Sea but the agriculture of Central Asia needed to be developed to properly feed the millions of people living there.
Everything comes at a cost. The important thing is how you behave once you do achieve a sufficient level of development to no longer have rampant poverty in your country. And it is very clear to see that China under Xi Jinping is making huge efforts to become a more ecologically harmonious society. Now that they have developed they have the means to do so.
Yes, absolutely. Alvaro Garcia Linera (Marxist-Leninist former vice president to Evo Morales of Bolivia) has written great and illuminating things on western environmentalist crocodile tears over “extractivism” etc. in the global south. Bit lengthy but I recommend this in particular to anyone interested.
https://links.org.au/alvaro-garcia-linera-geopolitics-amazon-patrimonial-hacendado-power-and-capitalist-accumulation
Exactly. They should better look at their liberal politicians who are often paid by the people sitting on accurate reports for 50 years yet hiding it to get more profits.