Is the Green Party Anti-Capitalist?

There's been an interesting discussion developing on the blogosphere, post-election, on how left-wing the Green Party is (or is not). This is partly an esoteric question of ideological labelling, and for that reason is a question very close to my heart.

To start off with I want to say that the Green Party, unlike those parties of the far left, is a pluralist and decentralised party. Long may that continue, no matter what unfortunate problems sometimes spring from that well. Whilst there are tensions within this framework the party is essentially comfortable with itself as an organisation that contains different views and currents. Whilst some debates may get passionate there is never a tang of "we're the real greens" in the same way that parties of the left traditionally denounce their opponents as "not being Marxists" if there is a disagreement.

Whilst I do think it's fair to say the Greens are "of" the left it is unwise to try to pin down the Greens too firmly in any traditional definition. They are a broad church including those who'd define themselves as down the line anti-capitalists and those who'd genuinely and consciously say that we want reforms within the framework of capitalism. I don't think the fact that the party contains out and out reformists makes it a reactionary party, just as I'd be wary of anyone who wanted to paint it in too revolutionary a light.

One thing I should do is define some terms, because I think it's important. Potentially boring, but important. I think it's useful, for instance, to be aware of a separation between subjective and objective anti-capitalism, without trying to claim some kind of supernatural ability to declare whose subjectivity is, and is not, objectively correct.

I hope we can all agree that a person might be in both these categories, neither of them or in one but not the other, i.e. that someone might take radical poses but when it comes down to it they are more conservative than they first appear (a subjective anti-capitalist), and likewise someone may not regard themselves as an anti-capitalist but actually be taking positions that will inevitably lead them into direct confrontation with the forces of capital (an objective anti-capitalist).

Also I think we should use the term anti-capitalist in a loose way, to refer to those who oppose the interests and outcomes of the capitalist system. This means you don't have to be a Marxist or Anarchist or believe in the Leninist model of a revolutionary party to be an anti-capitalist. It also means, perhaps more controversially, that you don't need to oppose everything to do with the profit motive.

Militant used to talk about nationalising the top 100 companies, the "commanding heights of the economy", without insisting that the local corner shop be taken into workers' control. Lenin presided over the NEP which brought economic reforms designed to help the owners of small businesses and farms - and I'm pretty sure he was an opponent of capitalism, whatever other faults he may have had.

More recently Attac in Europe were a core part of the anti-capitalist movement who were organised around a call for a tax on international financial speculation... they wanted to tax it, not abolish it. We can argue they are/were a conservative part of the movement or that they took right wing positions relative to others sometimes - but there are few who would not acknowledge that they were indeed part of the movement.

I've argued before that the Greens have a progressive consensus and there is a rewarding place within it for socialists that is mutually beneficial to party and member. They oppose wars, racism, privatisation. They are for effective trade unions that stand up for the rights of the workforce, and, as Cllr Matt Selwood recently argued, most members think "that capitalism as a system cannot deliver sustainability and social justice".

Another thing going for it is that it does not use the formulaic and arcane incantations of the traditional left, is mercifully free of patron saints who can be quoted as ultimate sources of authority and does not try to act as a gate keeper to what is and is not politically valuable.

Party policy documents are far too extensive to quote at length here but it may be useful to point to some areas (I hope not too selectively) that indicate a basic anti-capitalist approach to the world. The Core Principles state that "The success of a society cannot be measured by narrow economic indicators, but should take account of factors affecting the quality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment."

Policy states that society should be made up of "self-governing communities of a variety of sizes which will regulate their own social and economic activities."

"Economic policy should be directed not to maximising the forms of wealth that can be measured in monetary terms, but to ensuring that the needs of all are met"... "property laws should be designed to ensure that all have access to the things they need... goods need to be accountably managed by the community that depends on them"

Green Party policy also places the economic system itself at the heart of the major global problems that we face today - there's little in the manifesto that could possibly aggravate the left, and much that would have Tories spitting their sherry across the veranda.

Policy even states that "Extended networks of ownership and control have resulted in communities having little say in decisions which affect them. This stems not only from corporate structures, but also from the legal institution of property on which they are based." (IN104) and that "the highest form of democracy is direct participation."

It's clear that if someone were to believe every dot and comma of the policy documents they would at least be a "subjective" anti-capitalist. There's also evidence that the party may be moving to the left. People like to point towards the election of Derek Wall and Sian Berry as Principle Speakers of the party and the rise of the Green Left grouping inside of the party as evidence of a leftward shift and Peter Tatchell's selection in Oxford East seems to be a further indicator of a desire to move in a left anti-capitalist direction.

These things may well have value in determining the current climate in the party but I want to put that aside for a moment and look at whether the Greens are "inherently" anti-capitalist - and I'd like to argue that yes they are... and no they're not.

The fact is that, like all parties, it is divided into parts. Full time organisers, elected councillors, MEPs, assembly members, activists, passive supporters, enthusiastic supporters (without party cards) and disgruntled card carrying members who don't do anything. It is my contention that the part of the party you find yourself in has a big influence over your fundamental political direction.

Without wanting to make any hard and fast rules about this councillors often find themselves pulled in a more conservative direction and, as a block on a national level, are seen by some as a bit of a problem sometimes. Last year they passed a vote of censure against Derek (before his accession to his current heights of office), essentially for being *publicly* left wing and opposing the Leeds decision to go in with the Tories, a decision that almost everyone outside of Leeds strongly opposes.


Activists who are involved in social movements, like that against the war or in local campaigns often get pulled the other way, because their political activity tends to consist of confronting the status quo rather than compromising and coexisting with it.

It's too big a discussion for one post I suppose but it seems to me that the Greens are undoubtedly a party of the left, but because they didn't spring from the rather sterile traditions of Old labour, Stalinism or Trotskyism they are often free of the linguistic baggage and automatic assumptions that often come with those historical tendencies. This is not always a benefit but it is, I think, healthy. The Greens may not be a traditional socialist party but the ideas of anti-capitalism are the default positions inside the party - although this is not always explicitly acknowledged.

It will partly be the tactical positions the party takes in the future that determine which tendencies are strengthened and become more coherent. Is the main force that changes society elected representatives or social movements? Do we take a position of confronting those we oppose or negotiating and compromising with them? Do we do deals to further the short term gains of the party (a seat on a cabinet here and there perhaps) or do we play for the long term and treat the enemy as just that and fight for real change - no matter if it harms our bank balance and prestige in respectable circles?