Green Party Resolutions
Part I, R-1 to 7


Resolution 1: Proposed Resolution to endorse the Labor Party's "Call for Economic Justice"

[support] [do not support]


Resolution 2: Proposed Resolution - "A Blue-Green Agenda"

[support] [do not support]


Resolution 3: Proposed Resolution - "A Human Rights Agenda"

[support] [do not support]


Resolution 4 - A Proposed Resolution re Community-based Economics

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are for the most part privately owned and controlled; socialism is an economic system where the means of production are for the most part publicly owned and controlled. Most Green Party programs do not advocate either system. Greens in the U.S. characterize their economic orientation in a phrase: "community-based economics."

Community-based economics constitutes an alternative to both capitalism and socialism; that it is very much in keeping with the Greens' valuation of diversity and decentralization. In terms of developing economic policy, Greens should understand that communitarian social relations are more important than economic property relations.

If Greens advocate regionalization of economic activity and hold out a vision of a world of diverse and decentralized communities, it would be contradictory for us to advocate uniformity in regard to property relations or a single economic system as "best" for all communities/regions/bioregions.

Diversity in terms of economic relations would mean that in some regions the preponderance of the means of production might be publicly owned and controlled. In other regions only the "commanding heights" of the economy might be socialized. Some communities might opt to hold most things in common, going far beyond socialization of just the means of production. Others may disavow public enterprise, preferring an economic model based on locally owned private businesses. In other cases there may be a tradition of co-ops (which are private). Most likely, varying mixtures of public and private enterprise would be the rule.

The communitarian perspective of the Greens can encompass market relations here and economic planning there. It can encompass the profit motive and the desire to "start one's own business," or municipal socialism with workers control. What it cannot encompass is unlimited accumulation of capital.

*Community-based* economics implies that economic activity be local and humanly-scaled. The building of far-flung economic empires (epitomized by modern transnational corporations) and the concentration of wealth and power are anathema to this vision.

In his Introduction to E. F. Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful (1973), Theodore Roszak provided a good description of what would later be called community-based economics. "A libertarian political economy that distinguishes itself from orthodox socialism and capitalism by insisting that the scale of organization must be treated as an independent and primary problem. This tradition, while closely affiliated with socialist values, nonetheless prefers mixed to "pure" economic systems. It is therefore hospitable to many forms of free enterprise and private ownership, provided always that the size of private enterprise is not so large as to divorce ownership from personal involvement, which is, of course, now the rule in most of the world's administered capitalisms. Bigness is [its] nemesis ... whether the bigness is that of public or private bureaucracies, because from bigness comes impersonality, insensitivity, and a lust to concentrate abstract power."

This vision seems fairly simple and straightforward, but its implications are quite radical. For one thing, it is subversive in regard to the cherished "developmentalist" orientation of our civilization -- which so highly values economies of scale, technological progress, and ever-increasing "productive throughput."

The question arises: how can the accumulation of capital be restrained? This is reminiscent of another, more commonly asked question: how can the proliferation of nuclear weapons be curtailed and reversed? More generally: how can we put certain "genies back in their bottles" - - to ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons, deconcentrate wealth, devolve power? Part of the answer is that humanity must come to recognize that there are artifacts, processes, technologies, and institutions of our own construct which are inherently anti-social and/or anti-ecological. Nuclear weapons fall under this category. So does bioengineering. So does the building of economic and political empires. The latter invariably usurp, exploit, and destroy the foundations of what constitutes our natural, healthy environmental and social habitats.

So, just as the manufacture or possession of nuclear weapons must become proscribed under international law and abjured as a cultural value, likewise any attempts to build economic or political empires must not be tolerated. The drive to accumulate power and wealth must become recognized for what it is, a pernicious characteristic of a civilization headed, ever more rapidly, in a pathological direction.

Economic relations must change, but at this point of historical crisis our overarching objective must be to consciously and deliberately (albeit gradually) shift toward a *different way of life* -- characterized by sustainability, a more harmonious balance between the natural ecosphere and the human-made technosphere, a recognition of limits, a restoration of community. a Green "movement".

How to restore lost community? For most of human history, the locus of production, healthcare, welfare, education, etc. was either the (extended) family or the community. Both family and community have become impoverished as these essential life functions/responsibilities have been shifted "out" to institutions and external agencies such as the state and the corporations.

The family has become just a consumption unit, the community merely a residential unit. Bringing production and care "back in" may be the single most important factor in terms of fostering the renewal of real community.

Community-Based Economics vs. Socialism

Socialism was mistaken in predicating its conception of human liberation on the achievement of generalized abundance, the material basis of which must be a high level of "development of the productive forces." The emergence of the Green movement and a post-socialist radicalism during the 1970s was based on, among other things, a recognition that (a) we have to look deeper than the level of capitalist property relations to understand the forces that have been degrading the biosphere and destroying organic community, and (b) counteracting these forces will require a break with the trajectory of developmentalist civilization more radical than that envisaged by the socialists.

It follows that the new radicalism has a different historical perspective from that of classic socialism. It certainly does not view capitalism as a "higher stage" establishing the material basis for the potential emergence of a classless society! rather, it sees capitalism as the current manifestation, in the industrial era, of an unecological, exploitative way of living that dates back millennia. Whereas socialists asserted that capitalism had "played a progressive role" by spurring the development of the productive forces, Greens are more apt to feel that the "development of the productive forces" has been a disaster, a ruinous acceleration of the process of grinding nature into commodities.

Communitarian Social Relations Mitigate Against Exploitation of Labor

Exploitation of labor has been an issue since the Neolithic revolution. A way of life based on clearing the land and constructing a human-made artificial environment in place of natural climax ecosystems is problematic due to the amount of work it entails. At the basis of social stratification/class division of society is the issue of who will do the enormous amount of odious work. [Exploitation of labor and our relationship to the land are just some of the problematical aspects of the Neolithic revolution with which humanity has never fully come to terms.]

Face-to-face communitarian relations mitigate against Exploitation of Labor.

When there is real community we don't generally see neighbors exploiting neighbors. Throughout history it has been others who have been made to toil. Ancient empires were based on slave labor -- the conquered Others were put to work. After the fall of the Roman Empire there was a nearly thousand-year period during which the mode of life in Europe became more locally oriented, more cyclical, less expansionist. Historians in the modern era, their perspective skewed by the ideology of progress, originally conjectured that the medieval peasantry had been more exploited than the modern working class.

But closer examination showed that within the context of the manorial system the peasantry toiled less than had been thought -- Sundays were truly a day of rest and additionally there were over 100 holy days during the year when work was proscribed.

The modern period has been characterized by expansionism on a scale never seen before. With visions of empires far grander than those of the ancients, the Europeans sailed and conquered on a global scale. Upon encounter with the Other, the Other was invariably put to work if at all possible. When Amerindians did not make good slaves because they lacked certain antibodies and died of European illnesses, Africans were imported to the New World to bear the harshest brunt of the subjugation of the vast "undeveloped" double continent.

By the dawn of the industrial era, the acceleration of the process of development, with its centralization, urbanization, and hypermobility, had for the most part destroyed organic community. As social relations became increasingly more impersonal within the context of mass society and economic relations increasingly characterized by external (distant) ownership and control, the general population, rather than just conquered or imported outsiders, became subject to being treated as mere factors of production.

During the 20th century, the misguided belief in the liberatory potential of developmentalism characterized the Communist/socialist societies as much as the capitalist ones. The socialist movement, in its preoccupation with property relations and economic growth, failed to resolve the problem of the exploitation of labor, both in theory and in practice.

Alternative: the Greens

Greens who reject socialism find themselves being labeled "middle class" or even "right wing." This indicates a lack of comprehension regarding the new alternative we are presenting. More than just an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, it is also an alternative to capitalism and socialism. It is antithetical to both big business and big government because it stands for the renewal of real local community. This perspective is one that distinguishes the Greens and will enable us to make a unique contribution toward deriving political and economic solutions for the 21st century.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 5 - A Proposed Resolution on Biological Diversity
Crisis of Biological Diversity

The expansion and intensification of human activities as a result of industrial development, natural resource exploitation, urbanization, population growth and sprawl have calamitously degraded and extirpated habitats and ecosystems on a global scale and severely impoverished wildlife and plant species and populations. Many leading scientists believe that the continued loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction, enhanced often by poaching, pollution and over harvesting, and often the introduction of alien species, is the gravest ecological crisis facing humanity. They argue that the normally rich resilient web of life has started to unravel and that the consequences for human life on earth are unpredictable and most likely dire.

For those who believe tec6ology will find the answer, the Green Party remind us that the evolutionary history of life on earth reveals that humanity is but one species in the continuum of life. As part of the web of interlocking interdependent natural systems, our species depends upon the preservation and rehabilitation of these deteriorating relationships, not on speculative claims about the power of technology.

There are several levels of diversity: genetic, population, species and ecosystem diversity. Genetic diversity is already threatened by biotechnology, which seeks to reconfigure genes and genomes for human profit and benefit regardless of the ecological consequences. Diversity within a species, which confers the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, is dependent upon diverse populations within a species (interbreeding groups residing in specific areas of the broader habitat, which in turn requires the preservation of sufficiently large areas for replenishment of individuals. Protection of large contiguous areas of habitat guarantees a variety of biological niches that can support population diversity as well as other species within smaller biotic communities.

Each species, through its component populations, contains the necessary genetic reserves that will allow unimpeded evolutionary processes to take place. Diversity of species indicates the general health of the planet; the more species there are, the more different habitats we know exist. If species or populations disappear, it signifies that ecosystems, which are the earth's life support systems, are also threatened.

While evolution does involve extinction of species over vast time periods, it also means speciation and, over time, more new species evolve than go extinct. The result is that since life began there has been increased diversification of life forms. But human-induced change, whether by bulldozers, over harvesting, chemicals, or pollution, is on a vastly more intense scale than the slow transmutation of one species into another, or speciation through geographic isolation of populations. While evolution can repair local ecological upheavals, human-directed change is easily outpacing the snail's pace of evolution and weakening the very foundations of life on earth.

The threats to biodiversity are innumerable: over-harvesting of fisheries and forests; poisoning and pollution by toxic chemicals, radioactivity, heavy metals and acid rain, monocrop agriculture; desertification, aquifer depletion, hydroelectric and water development projects, coastal and estuarine degradation, deliberate or accidental introduction of alien species that outcompete native ones. But the definitive irreversible threat is habitat destruction which, when compounded, destroys ecosystems that provide the basic life services of our planet. Modem technology, agribusiness, and industry have not freed us from dependence on specific climatic and atmospheric conditions, biological cycles involving nutrient recycling , need for decomposition of organic matter, pollination services provided by animals for flowers, trees and crops, healthy predator-prey relationships, pest and blight control, abundance of species for food, medicines and other needs, and so forth. All of these services arise from the richness and complexity produced by evolutionary processes whose very foundations rest on biodiversity.

As Greens, we stand as a voice and conscience to represent the right of all of Nature's creatures, communities and ecosystems to exist and evolve without impairment or impediment. If we cut a branch-too-many off the evolutionary tree, we may discover too late that we are on the wrong side of the branch. Without the diversity of' nature we would, even if we survived, be trapped forever in a universe of our own making, one of uniformity, the antithesis of evolution. To allow the trend of habitat destruction to continue means the burning of evolutionary bridges that can never be reconstructed. We must recognize that biodiversity is both a precondition for and a product of evolution. To save our planet only to serve human needs is to negate our own evolutionary role as living creatures with a conscience,

We therefore commit ourselves to supporting and working for policies that will preserve the maximum biological diversity through habitat and ecosystem preservation, while recognizing the need for subsistence cultures to continue using sustainable traditional methods of fishing, hunting, gathering, livestock and agriculture. It is arguable that the highest morality lies in recognizing our ties to and dependence upon Nature. The clearest way of expressing this moral responsibility is to put preservation of species and habitats at the top of our political agenda.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 6 - A Proposed Resolution on Biotechnology

Nowhere do science, ethics and public policy intersect and conflict more than in the expanding field of biotechnology, which seeks to monopolize, commodify and commercialize the products of genetic research and manipulation. The raw materials needed for such commodification, however, do not belong to biotechnology corporations; they reside within the living human genorne, in living and natural resources traditionally owned and utilized by indigenous peoples, and in humankind's precious global biotic heritage.

Recent developments in economic globalization such as the multinational World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) make it alarmingly clear that one of the major intents of such agreements is the suppression of demands for protection of the environment, food safety, human health, workers' rights and human right, which are viewed as major constraints on the development and sale of biotechnology processes and products But nowhere are such demands more necessary than in this field of endeavor, whose advent has introduced serious and possibly irreversible, threats to biodiversity, public he" world food supplies, the labor movement, consumer protection, family farms, the organic food movement, human rights in indigenous communities, the cultural and intellectual properties developed and presumed by centuries- long traditions of rural, agrarian and hunter-gatherer communities, and, not least, to democracy itself.

Biotechnology corporations, aided by the WTO, are taking aggressive action to patent genetically modified life forms, prohibit labeling of foodstuffs containing genetically modified components, prevent farmers from harvesting their own seeds for future crops, gather and utilize human genetic material from indigenous peoples, create transgenic organisms using species that may contain hidden lethal or toxic traits, disseminate genetically engineered plants in the wild without clear proof of safety, promote the use of growth hormones in dairy cows despite known health risks, illegally mix genetically modified crops with unmodified ones to avoid consumer detection, overturn food safety laws, and in general to manipulate genetic materials so as to threaten the evolutionary integrity of genes, genomes, species, populations and ecosystems.

In addition, the advent of cloning techniques and other mechanisms such as in vitro fertilization raises once more the fearsome spectre of eugenics, the ostensible "improvement" of individuals and the human germ line and the abolition of hereditary disease and disability, raising concerns over the ethical implications of such technologies.

Most if not all of the above corporate biotechnologies are being used without the knowledge and informed consent of or benefit to those who are the rightful owners of these genetic resources or those at risk Indeed, essentially all biotechnology work that now takes place constitutes a worldwide ecological and human experiment whose resolution could mean not a new era of biotechnology but biocide. But even if this does not occur, the concerted efforts of the giant biotechnology corporations are already undermining the foundations of democracy itself and the right of the public to understand, regulate or restrict such work as it sees fit. In the first line of fire are traditional and indigenous cultures and communities and the living and natural resources upon which they depend, these are now being looted by the biotech corporations in unremitting acts of biopiracy. The next line of fire is the developed industrialized world winch is seen as the major potential consumer for genetically modified foods. Finally, small farmers, ranchers, food processors and retail distributors will be sucked into the biotechnology swamp with the promise of lower costs and more profits.

The ability to manipulate DNA, the genetic material of life on earth, confers on select groups of society the power to not only redirect evolution and society but to ultimately control the most basic necessities of life: food, medicine and energy. This control constitutes worldwide biopiracy, the theft of the very underpinnings of life and nutrition. While the stated intent of such groups - pharmaceutical manufacturers, agribusiness, medical and scientific research institutions, corporations and government regulators - is to solve problems of world hunger and disease, the reality of the situation is that the purported "cure" is worse than the disease. The fact that biotechnology proponents are already fending off consumer inquiry and opposing consumer demands for even minimal oversight such as labeling of genetically engineered foods clearly indicates that these proponents have no intention of abiding by any land of ethical or social contract, much less any democratically determined or formalized consumer-based regulation.

For this reason, all biotechnology applications should be regarded as suspect until the citizenry of all nations has put in place democratically based mechanism to determine the need for and desirability of the various genetic manipulation technologies now used or being proposed. The single exception that we would envision as ethically acceptable would be the use of such technologies to alleviate or cure somatic illness in single individuals, that is, disease or infirmity whose cure would not involve any manipulation of the germ line (eggs or sperm). With these principles in mind, we affirm the need to protect the diversity of the world's crops and agriculture, defend the rights of local and indigenous cultures and rural communities to control over their resources, demand the termination of agricultural practices and policies that undermine biodiversity and indigenous rights, and urge a shift away from cash crop export in poor nations to ecologically sound, locally based and controlled subsistence food raising and distribution, including access to land and appropriate technology.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 7 - A Proposed Resolution regarding Open Governement

In Section I, the Green Party Platform states that "At every level we support 'Sunshine Laws' that open up the political system to access by ordinary citizens."

Section 2 further states: "An informed electorate is critical to good government The scope of the First Amendment is extensive and prohibits any law winch would abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, most clearly in reference to political matters. Our legal right to criticize government is essential to the effective working of democracy. We support openness in government, not secrecy, and endorse the 'FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT' (FOIA) as a way of guaranteeing access to government decision-making."

Across the country, and at all levels of government, there is unrelenting pressure to restrict citizen access to information that is crucial to the "effective working of democracy." This pressure occurs in each branch of government executive, legislative, and judicial. Greens resolve to oppose every effort to restrict access to public information, and to work to expand such access.

Executive Branch

At the federal level, the gratuitous use of "national security" as a shield against the release of public information must be vigorously confronted. While there unquestionably exists information the release of winch would damage national security, too often national security is invoked to cover up illegal activity (e.g., the Iran-Contra. scandal). Further, classified information remains secret long after secrecy has any meaning whatsoever (eg., intelligence on troop movements in Europe during World War 1).

At the state level, many governors have blanket exemption from freedom of information laws, and thus are shielded from public scrutiny of the formulation of their decisions. Many executive branch officials, and particularly big city mayors, transfer city planning functions to nonprofit associations or corporations whose boards consist of business executives. One of the express purposes of these transfers is to avoid public disclosure laws.

Legislative Branch

Congress and state legislatures have the primary role in determining what information the public has access to. Legislatures, in enacting freedom of information laws, invariably allow some information to be exempt from disclosure to the public. Certain of these exemptions are legitimate, such as those prohibiting the release of information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. Other exemptions are clearly not warranted, and impinge on the public's ability to hold their elected representatives accountable. Typical of such exemptions are public universities ability to conduct presidential searches in secret. Many states restrict information outside of freedom of information law exemptions. One of the most egregious examples is the right in many states of polluting industries to "police" themselves without public disclosure or reporting to the government. Greens unequivocally oppose these polluter secrecy laws.

Legislatures often try to emasculate freedom of information laws by making them difficult in practice to enforce. Michigan's Freedom of Information Act, for example, imposes a penalty of only $500 in punitive damages on public bodies for failure to comply with the FOIA. Greens advocate stiff punitive damages, and attorney fees, as part of enforcement of freedom of information laws.

Judicial Branch

The judicial branch of government restricts citizen access to government information through the formulation of common- law "privileges". A very threatening privilege that was originally formulated in the federal court system and has since worked its way into state courts is something called the "deliberative process" privilege. This was formulated ostensibly to allow government employees to be frank and honest in their advisory, pre-decision memoranda, and to keep employees from being dissuaded from such frankness by public scrutiny. However, the potential for abuse, corruption, and lack of accountability engendered by such a privilege is manifest and Greens resolve to dismantle such privileges.

The judiciary also controls the procedural aspects of freedom of information laws, because public bodies which deny the public information must be taken to court. Judges aligned with politicians can slow the release of public information through the entertaining of frivolous motions, lengthy, often multi-year appeals, etc. until that information is no longer timely. Further, legislative attempts to mandate a speedy adjudication in the courts of freedom of information disputes are spurned by courts, on separation of powers grounds, as a legislative encroachment on the judicial branch of government. The Greens support a judiciary that will mandate the speedy adjudication of freedom of information disputes.

Conclusion: The Fifth Amendment and Public Information American courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have long held that citizens seeking public information rely on a statutory entitlement (as narrowed by statutory exemptions) provided by freedom of information laws, and not on a constitutional right to free speech.

The time has come to correct this situation. The Fifth Amendment's right of free speech is diminished if citizens do not have access to the information necessary to prove or justify what they say or opine. Their ability to criticize their government is eviscerated. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the corresponding provisions in state constitutions, should be amended to refine the right of free speech so as to include the right to timely-acquired public information which supports that speech.

The stakes are too high to do otherwise. As James Madison wrote:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of accruing it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both."
[support] [do not support]



Return to CONTENTS.