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.