Wednesday 29 July 2020

Limits of the Green New Deal

Written by John McCollum and first published at Marxist sociology blog

The Green New Deal is an exciting social program generating a great deal of interest on the left.  Like its predecessor, the New Deal of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the GND holds out the promise of preventing the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change, and guaranteeing a better standard of living for its participants.  Presumably, it would be large enough to put upward pressure on wages in the private sector or be a guarantee of employment and includes increased federal spending on renewable energy, social democratic guarantees of a living wage, and other forms of environmental cleanup.

For the Marxist left, the GND is an object of considerable interest, both politically and academically.  Many of the popular left-leaning and socialist publications in the US, including Jacobin and Current Affairs, have published extensive analyses of the GND for a wider audience.  As more Americans realize the need for a decisive break with capitalism, the GND offers an opportunity for the US public to challenge political and economic orthodoxy, to say nothing of the potential to avert climate catastrophe and raise the living standards of the working class. 

It also offers a positive social imaginary to counter the prevailing “doom and gloom” of catastrophic climate change predictions.  The GND also promises to close racial, ethnic, and gender inequalities.  Indigenous activists have also drafted their own plan, the Red Deal, to address the environmental and economic struggles of indigenous peoples in the United States.  A recent addition to the GND through the Sanders’ presidential campaign and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s office includes decarbonized, affordable housing.

To the credit of the GND’s supporters and their efforts to promote it, a wide swathe of the US population is interested in the program, according to recent polling.  A broad segment of the working class, including many self-declared Republicans, finds the idea of environmental sustainability and a decent living standard enticing.  The GND holds out hope of challenging neoliberal doctrines and bringing a large portion of the economy under democratic control.  Eliminating the “reserve army of labor” through a jobs guarantee would massively increase labor’s bargaining power.  Similarly, such a bill could lead to a “just transition”, nationalizing fossil fuels en route to complete decarbonization of energy.

Despite this good news, there are some reasons for hesitation.  There are some issues surrounding the Green New Deal that the left needs to broadly consider coming out of the eco-Marxist left, especially the scholarship and writing of John Bellamy Foster and the “treadmill of production” theorists, including Allan Schnaiberg, David Pellow, and Kenneth Gould.  Second, we must consider the likelihood of the state becoming the main engine of this movement, rather than private capital, replacing our prevailing system of production with a “state-sponsored” green capitalism.

I consider the GND’s limits in the most optimistic and open spirit, and I hope that this piece will help to write a more effective program.  The political opportunities opened by such a plan are something to celebrate, but if the GND ultimately worsens the climate crisis, the Deal will hardly have been worth the political capital spent in passing it into law.  For this reason, I hope leftists of all orientations will take a moment to consider these critiques.

The dangers of expanded production and consumption

One of the most prominent theories in environmental sociology is the “treadmill of production” theory pioneered by Allan Schnaiberg in his 1980 The Environment:  From Surplus to Scarcity, and expanded upon with his frequent collaborators Kenneth Gould and David Pellow.  This theory holds that demands by both capital and labor to expand economic production create new and greater forms of waste.  Similarly, this pressure promotes more efficient use of resources.  However, this efficiency incentivizes further net consumption. 

This “Jevon’s Paradox” was first demonstrated in 1865 by William Stanley Jevons in Britain’s improvements in steam engines resulting in faster consumption of the country’s coal supplies.  A similar phenomenon prevails with small cars in the US today.  Take, for instance, the gain in “miles per gallon” efficiencies in personal automobiles.  Although the fuel efficiencies of most vehicles have risen dramatically since the 1970s, the addition of millions more automobiles and the increased distances Americans commute mean that Americans are consuming more gasoline than ever before.

The treadmill of production idea becomes relevant in the context of the GND because of the gains in energy production efficiency, as well as the program’s proposed investments in the expansion of public transportation and “clean” manufacturing methods.  The efficiency gains of a nation-wide energy efficiency program can be undone by a total increase in material inputs.

Examining renewables in greater detail, wind turbines and solar panels produce a host of environmental externalities.  Both technologies rely on the availability of rare earth metals.  Their manufacturing and disposal generate other forms of toxic pollutants.  Also, converting land from either “natural” usage to land for renewables will also have a variety of environmental externalities, exemplified by solar farms in California’s deserts, which have displaced native species like the desert tortoise.

Another issue resulting from this practice will be a widening of the “metabolic rift” between global regions and between the natural metabolism of the earth and humanity’s production and consumption of natural resources.  John Bellamy Foster’s work on the “metabolic rift” derives from Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and Marx’s attendant interest in the widening gap between “town and country.” 

Marx studied the developments in agricultural science and soil chemistry during his era and noted the tendency of capitalism’s material demands to outstrip nature’s restorative capacities.  As the natural fertility of soil declined, agricultural producers came to rely on distant sources of nitrogen-based fertilizers.  This shift led to a “metabolic rift” in the spatial distribution of soil nutrients and a temporal rupture in the earth’s natural cycles of soil fertility.

The GND threatens to reproduce this gap.  To use a single example, though the US has some deposits, the rare earth metals used in solar panels and wind turbines will come from Global South states where mining and processing these minerals poses great risks to human health and the environment.  The benefits of using these materials in renewable technologies will not be seen by the citizens of those countries where extraction occurs. 

The GND’s agricultural methods hold some promise of making major gains in de-carbonizing the US’s agricultural system, but the movement of soil fertility around the US as agricultural goods made in one region move to another still would widen the spatial and temporal elements of the metabolic rift.

At present, it does not appear that the GND is dealing with the contradictions of the treadmill of production and a widening metabolic rift.  The “treadmill of production” poses yet another problem though:  the contradiction of continually expanding production to meet the systemic demands of capital to accumulate and workers’ attendant dependence on this cycle for wages.  Production of “green” things may need to expand continually to generate employment and welfare benefits for workers. 

Workers in a new state sector could find themselves dependent on this expansion, just as they would have under private capital.  Although “green”, this expanded production will recreate the environmental problems the GND is meant to end.  Getting off this treadmill is going to require more than just vigorous investment by the state in green infrastructure.  Next, I turn to the GND’s potential to create a state-sponsored green capitalism.

The creation of a green fraction of capital

The GND is consciously modelled on the New Deal of the 1930s.  The New Deal saw an expansion of social programs benefiting wide swathes of the working class.  Social Security was lifted wholesale from socialist programs.  Farm aid encouraged both recovery from environmental problems like the Dust Bowl and debt relief for poor farmers.  Infrastructural development raised wages and boosted further growth.  In terms of arts and culture, working people were mobilized into new forms of cultural production celebrating working-class identity.  The general agitation during this period by the broad left pushed these programs forward despite the opposition of powerful factions of the capitalist class in the United States.

Despite this legacy, the New Deal preserved capitalism during one of its most dire crises to date; the GND may perform a similar regulatory function.  One of the boosts the GND is likely to give to capital is through state investment through private partnerships.  The GND does not propose the creation of state ownership of utilities, much less agriculture, housing, or medical care.  Similarly, the bill has provisions for energy upgrades through refurbishing existing buildings, environmental cleanup, and an unusual provision to “ensure businesspersons are free from unfair competition.” 

Without further establishing state ownership over these sectors, many of these provisions are going to add value to existing private property or rely on contractors to do the work, paid for by large sums of public money.  Although the GND provides decent employment and these emission reduction programs are desperately needed, much of this activity will generate further wealth in private hands if not performed by the state.  The present electoral left may not be capable of enacting or want to deliver on this revolutionary goal.

The Green New Deal could end up following a similar course of initial interest, growth, and collapse.  However, a “Green” New Deal has other social and environmental goals which need to be considered.  As environmental degradation continues, compromise measures that do not lead to drastic cuts in greenhouse gases, mining and processing of non-renewable energy sources, and losses of biodiversity will not suffice.  However, such activities might provide some degree of environmental stability that will enable capital to continue its dominance.

John McCollum is an assistant professor of sociology at Minot State University.

Wednesday 22 July 2020

Vote for Change in the Green Party Leadership Contest

I joined the Green party in early 2006, a former Labour party voter and supporter, though never a member, disillusioned with the decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq, and much else that New Labour represented. I had also become increasingly alarmed by climate change, and had discovered ecosocialism, which I thought the Green party was best placed to promote. What I found was, although somewhat disorganised, a decent party, which genuinely seemed to want to do politics differently, ethically and democratically. A sharp contrast to Labour, for sure.

Over the years though the party has embarked on journey away from the principles that I found so attractive. It probably began with the move from principle speakers to leader (or co-leaders) in 2008. I voted against the move, but accepted the result, seeing that it might get us more media attention, which was largely how it was sold to the membership. But the party did seem to be heading off on a different trajectory though, from that point.

In more recent years I started to hear more and more disturbing stories about the inner workings at the top of the party. In 2016, reports emerged of local Green parties being leaned on by the leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, at that stage, to stand down from a by-election in Richmond, in favour of the Lib Dem candidate. The chair of one of the local parties involved, Kingston, was forced to resign after he revealed details about a £250,000 donation made to the Green party on the condition they did not stand in Richmond. This was used to pile pressure on the local parties.

In 2018, a story was published on the Left Foot Forward website, accusing Shahrar Ali, a former co deputy leader of the party, and a candidate at the time for leader, of antisemitism. The piece was written by the new editor of the site, and recently resigned Green party member, Josiah Mortimer. It featured a selectively edited video of a speech made by Shahrar Ali, which was eventually restored to its full, complete length. Was this an attempt to smear Shahrar Ali? It certainly looked like it.

In 2019, I was shocked to hear that a senior member of the Green party, at the behest of the Campaign Against Antisemitism group, had used the party’s internal complaints procedure, against Shahrar Ali. The complaint was eventually dismissed, but why did this prominent member use the internal complaints system like this? A question unfortunately never answered by the member concerned.

I got to thinking that something wasn’t really right with what was going on and started to dig deeper into things as best I could. I found that people who knew about the machinations of the party’s leadership, were only willing to speak to me about it anonymously or privately. 

I contacted a former employee of the Green party, about the antisemitism complaint brought against Shahrar Ali. She did not want to go public with what she knew, but agreed with me privately when I suggested to her that ‘there is something rotten at the top of the party.’

Later in 2019, a member of one of the local parties involved in the disastrous Unite to Remain electoral pact with the Lib Dems (and Plaid Cymru) I was in touch with, told me that the national party had side-lined their party from the decision to not stand. The local party did not want to be associated by the Unite to Remain pact. Shades of the Richmond by-election.

I watched with dismay as Natalie Bennett in 2019, was given a peerage, as part of Theresa May’s resignation honours. The decision was made by the small group around leadership, with no say from the wider membership. If I’d had a vote, I probably would have voted for Natalie, but that is not point, this is all part of the undemocratic nature of the party’s hierarchy. 

London Green Left blog has also learned that Rashid Nix, the equalities and diversity co-ordinator on the Green party executive (GPex), is taking two senior London Green party members to an Employment Tribunal for racial discrimination. As well as an internal victimisation case. This after the two members concerned walked out of a judicial mediation meeting between both sides of the dispute.

Whilst waiting for the internal process to begin, a story was published on, yes you guessed it, Left Foot Forward, written by Joe Lo. Both Lo and Mortimer were writers for the Bright Green website prior to Left Foot Forward. The piece looks like a crude attempt to smear Nix’s name. A tactic we have seen before used against Shahrar Ali by the same website.

Finally, someone did go public. Dee Searle, a former GPex member, who has now left the party, wrote a piece for this blog which sheds a shocking light on what goes on at the top of the Green party. It says that a small clique around the leaders and Caroline Lucas’s office, take all the decisions, are democratically unaccountable and has ‘become more ruthless and less tolerant of genuine discussion.’ I urge you to read this post, and also the comments below it where others corroborate what Dee Searle has written from their own personal experiences.

It saddens me deeply, that this is what the party has come to, but members have perhaps one more opportunity to free the party from its controlling clique, and put the party back on a decent pathway. This year’s leadership and deputy leadership elections are that opportunity. Please use your vote wisely.

I will be first preferencing Shahrar Ali for leader, and Andrea Carey-Fuller for deputy leader, who I know to be decent people, and great campaigners, but whoever members decide to vote for, please do not vote for the incumbents. The Green party needs to change, and it is in your hands if we are to have a party we can be proud of, once again.  

Voting is from 3 to 31 August.

Friday 17 July 2020

Can the Green Party be Saved from its Leadership Clique?

Written by Dee Searle, who is a former member of the Green Party of England and Wales. 

Earlier this month the widely respected campaigning journalist and writer Bea Campbell left the Green Party, citing bullying, authoritarianism and narcissism among radical transgender activists.

Campbell’s description of the impact on the party of what she calls the “extreme trans dogma” that transwomen are women; transmen are men - at the expense of women’s rights and safety - is pretty shocking. Unfortunately, it’s just one aspect of a much wider and deeper crisis in the party. 

The party claims to do politics differently but in practice acts pretty much the same as other political parties. It is riven with internal tribalism; allows key decisions to be taken by small groups of well-connected members; prioritises electoral success over radical environmental campaigning; has a dysfunctional, partisan disciplinary system; engages in some questionable employment practices; and has become a platform for those with political or professional career ambitions and/or who want to advance a particular strand of identity politics. 

Most Green Party members bask in Caroline Lucas’s speeches and/or focus on local activities, oblivious to machinations at national level. However, in my four stints on the Green Party Executive from 2015 to earlier this year, I’ve witnessed the party become more ruthless and less tolerant of genuine discussion. In addition, as an ordinary, elected, Green Party Executive (GPEx) member, I was powerless to make any real difference because the big decisions are taken by the Administration and Finance Committee and/or a group around the leadership and Caroline Lucas’s office. 

This is why I took the sad decision to leave the party in June, after almost seven years of active membership. In addition to GPEx membership and almost daily involvement in national or local organising, I’d spent three years as Chair of Camden Greens, and stood for the party in local council and London Assembly elections, and in Tottenham during the 2015 General Election, when our small, last-minute scratch team achieved our best ever result there. 

Many of the Greens’ troubles stem from the decision taken by the party in early 2016 to prioritise winning local council elections under the Target to Win (TtW) system. The rationale was that we desperately needed a second MP to support Caroline and the way to achieve that was to first win control of a local council as had happened in Brighton. The flaw in this logic is that Brighton is atypical of pretty much anywhere else in England and Wales. Plus, there is only one Caroline Lucas! 

At surface level it makes complete sense for a political party to focus on winning elections. However the underside is that pretty much all of the party’s resources were devoted to developing and maintaining a national election machinery, with no funds left for issue-based campaigning. 

Field offices were established and regular “campaign” schools (in reality elections training) held to enforce the rigour of TtW. Local parties selected to pursue TtW must work only in target wards, with activities limited to door knocking and repeat newsletter deliveries (no street stalls allowed). Newsletters and other publications can only include material on local issues and not cover wider politics, such as the climate emergency or Brexit. 

This concentration of resources on elections goes a long way to explaining why the Green Party is often missing from the big political debates. It’s not just that there are few of us and the media is biased towards the big parties: we actually don’t have much substance to contribute. 

At an internal review of the 2019 snap General Election manifesto, it was revealed that genuinely radical climate mitigation policies developed by the party’s Climate Change Policy Working Group had been removed by a small group around the leadership team and Caroline Lucas’s office because they weren’t vote winners. Yet the election was being held against a background of almost daily revelations about the gathering pace of climate-related environmental calamity. A squandered opportunity to step up campaigning pressure if ever there was one. 

The creation of the manifesto was a microcosm of so much that is wrong with the party. GPEx Publications Coordinator and Policy Coordinator (both roles elected by the membership) were excluded from substantive input, which is slightly odd for a policy-heavy publication. The manifesto was finalised by the group that had removed the climate policies. Green Party Regional Council (which was the body with official sign-off responsibilities) was given around 24 hours to approve an 88-page document. This enabled the leadership to insert favoured commitments (such as transgender people being able to change their legal gender based on self-identification, which is not Green Party policy) and weaken inconvenient ones. 

The party has not published a full internal review of its 2019 General Election campaign, despite the fact that it spent far more than on any previous election (£409,475, according to the Electoral Commission) but was still way behind its best showing (2.7 per cent of the vote, compared with 3.6 per cent in 2015) and didn’t achieve its stated aim of winning a second seat. 

Of course, it’s not unreasonable for a radical political party to underachieve in elections nor to avoid washing its dirty linen in public. What is more worrying is that these unaccountable actions have become the norm for the Green Party, where even those in elected governance positions are unable to hold the decision-takers to account. Instances where GPEx members have been blocked from raising concerns range from the use of social media election ads quoting comedian Jimmy Carr (notorious for tax evasion and a stage show that includes rape jokes) and a woman posing in bra and knickers, to a staff member being summarily dismissed and denied access to union representation, and a court finding of race discrimination in recruitment practices. 

The Greens are supposed to stand for a better kind of politics, based on transparency, integrity, decency and, above all, selfless campaigning to protect our planet’s natural and human resources. The party has no monopoly over environmental politics. Following success by Europe Ecologie Les Verts (an environmentally-focused green party) in France’s local elections, some Extinction Rebellion groups are looking at setting up their own political wing to fight the London Assembly elections and beyond, and there are rumblings elsewhere of setting up a new ecological party. 

This may all come to naught. But if those taking the decisions at the top of the Greens have misjudged the wider mood, they risk leading the party into oblivion. A salutary thought for candidates in the forthcoming leadership and GPEx elections.

Wednesday 15 July 2020

Make Rojava Green Again Call for Action Days on the 18th and 19th July

Call for Global Action Days on the 18th and 19th July

Together with the campaigns Rise Up 4 Rojava and Women Defend Rojava, we call for two international days of action on the 18th and 19th of July 2020, against the bombing and invasion of Basûr (Southern Kurdistan, Iraq) and the occupation of Rojava regions by the Turkish army.

Together, we call on all people who share the values of democratic confederalism – democracy, ecology and feminism – to take to the streets and to Rise Up 4 the Revolution. From our side, we would also particularly want to call for all ecological groups, movements and parties and to all people who feel and see themselves as ecologists to join the demonstrations and actions. 

War is the antithesis of ecology

We think that to be ecologist means also to be against all the wars of aggression. Because, wars are the contrary of what we, as ecologists, fight for. While we are trying to build an ecological and ethical world where all living things can co-exist in harmony, wars are only further destroying and polluting our planet. 

While we give so much effort in reforesting deserts, in building ecological energy infrastructures, in providing non-polluted and non-toxic food and water to all people, wars can destroy all of it in few days and pollute the soil, the air and the water with long-lasting effects. And this is what is happening today in Bakûr (North Kurdistan, Turkey), Rojava, North-Eastern Syria and Basûr.

Through its invasion of Syria and Iraq, the Turkish state destroys all living: burning fields and forests in Rojava, cutting down the olive trees of Afrin, bombing electrical and water infrastructures, cutting the water flow of major rivers coming from Turkey to Syria, and now for some weeks bombing more than ever the untouched nature of the mountains of Southern Kurdistan, polluting the soil, water and air for an unknown time. 

The Turkish attacks target all places which fight for democracy, ecology and feminism

For years already, the Turkish state, with the occasional approval of NATO, the US and Russia, pursue a genocidal war against the Kurds and other minorities of the Middle East (Êzîdî people, Armenians, Chaldeans, Assirians, etc.) and is now invading Syria and Iraq against all international laws. 

But what they are targeting is the political project that is behind those people: their goal is to put an end to the construction of a democratic, ecologist and feminist area in the Middle East that could spread to the world. Indeed, the Rojava revolution, together with the liberated Arab regions of North-Eastern Syria,  the Free Mountains of Kurdistan, the self-governed Maxmur refugee camp and the democratic Êzîdî region of Sengal are all examples that another way of living is possible outside the Capitalist Modernity. 

These are all places where democratic confederalism is put into practice and where ecological and feminist societies are being built up. Because Rojava, together with those other places inspire so many people in the world, they are a threat to their nationalist, capitalist and patriarchal interests. Therefore, Turkey decided to bomb and burn every inch of those lands. Their message is clear: either surrender to capitalist modernity, or face total destruction of the nature and the people. 

On the 15th of June, the Turkish army shelled Maxmur and Sengal. And some days later they started their ground offensive to invade Basûr (Southern Kurdistan, Iraq) where dozens of bombs are falling every day since then. The 23rd, they also struck Rojava with a drone, murdering 3 women of Kongra Star, the umbrella organization of the Women’s Movement, in a neighborhood of Kobane. Also on the 25th, another drone killed 8 civilians in the province of Suleymaniya. And in the mountains, the war continues. 

This is why we call for international solidarity! We ask all people who believe in the value of ecology, of feminism and of radical democracy to take to the street the 18th and 19th of July for the days of action and to join the preparatory actions worldwide. 

Against all war of aggression, against all fascism and totalitarianism, against patriarchy and capitalism, against the destruction of all nature: 

Rise up for Rojava,

Rise up for the Free Mountains of Kurdistan

Rise up for the Sengal region and Maxmur, and

Rise up for the build-up of an ecological and ethical world!

Alone, we are nothing, but together, we are unstoppable! 

Make Rojava Green Again 




Sunday 12 July 2020

Support rises for Hugo Blanco, faced with ultra-right attacks

Written by Pepe Mejia and published at Socialist Resurgence

Socialist Resurgence urges our readers to sign the statement in defense of Hugo Blanco, an historic activist in the Trotskyist movement in Peru and a longstanding peasant and environmental leader. Sign the statement here.

Intellectuals, social activists, and public officials in Europe and Latin America have expressed their support for Hugo Blanco in the face of attacks by the extreme right in Peru. In less than 48 hours [by June 25], more than 2000 people have signed a manifesto in support of one of the historical leaders of the peasant, Indigenous, and environmental movement in Peru and Latin America, the legendary left-wing political activist Hugo Blanco, who has been vilified, defamed, and reviled by sectors of the far right in the Peruvian army, police force, press and politicians.

Among the signatories are the renowned and prestigious Argentine anthropologist and feminist, Rita Segato; the technical secretary of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampis People, Shapiom Noningo; MEP Miguel Urbán; Uruguayan intellectual Raúl Zibechi; Alberto Acosta, President of the 2007 Ecuador Constituent Assembly; Bo Lindblom, ex-president of the Swedish section of Amnesty International; the current Mayor of Cádiz, José María González Santos; the Asháninca leader, Ketty Marcelo López; and the full Council of the Maya People (Guatemala).

Other signatories included the intellectual, Boaventura de Sousa Santos (Portugal), Maristella Svampa (Argentina), Edgardo Lander (Venezuela), Joan Martinez-Alier (Catalonia, Spain), Alberto Chirif (Peru), Jaime Pastor, political scientist and editor of Viento Sur (Spain), Peruvian congress members Rocío Silva Santisteban, Mirtha Vásquez, Lenin Checco Chauca, former congress members Indira Huilca, María Elena Foronda, Marisa Glave, Rodrigo Arce and Marco Arana, Spanish deputies Gerardo Pisarello and Maria Dantas, deputy Mireia Vehi of the CUP, the former deputies of the Madrid Assembly, Raúl Camargo, Carmen San José and David Llorente from Castilla La Mancha among others, as well as journalist Pepe Mejía, economist and ecosocialist Manuel Garí, Swiss economist Charles-André Udry and writer and UAM lecturer Jorge Riechman.

The manifesto responds to a statement issued by the Association of General Officers and Admirals of Peru (ADOGEN-PERU), an association aligned with the Fujimori coup that dissolved Congress on 5 April 1992. When many high-ranking officers from the Peruvian Armed Forces were accused of corruption, the aforementioned ADOGEN did not issue any condemnation. It also spoke out against the final Report of the Truth Commission, where the involvement of the military in the violation of human rights, disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions is verified. Later, when the involvement of high-ranking military officers with drug trafficking was denounced, information endorsed by the United States embassy in Lima, ADOGEN did not issue any press release.

The ADOGEN statement, signed by its president, the Brigadier General, Raúl O’Connor, says: “We express our total indignation and rejection of the documentary sponsored and broadcast by the Ministry of Culture, in which the figure of the guerrilla Hugo Blanco, an individual who murdered and tortured members of the Peruvian National Police and Peruvian peasants, in a clear uprising against the Nation and the rule of law, blatantly violating the Constitution and the laws of the Republic …”

Later, several politicians located on the Peruvian far right, such as Ántero Flores-Aráoz and Javier Villa Stein, expressed their rejection of the documentary and the legendary peasant leader Hugo Blanco. Another far rightist, Luis Giampietri, also condemned “in a categorical way the publication of the propaganda: ‘Hugo Blanco Río Profundo’, a film that under the mask of a documentary apologizes for terrorism and praises the murderous and criminal terrorist Hugo Blanco, who executed and murdered in cold blood courageous members of the police who were fulfilling their constitutional work.”

Luis Alejandro Giampietri Rojas, as vice-admiral and specialist in naval intelligence, demolitions and special operations, participated, on 18 June 1986, in the deaths of more than 300 prisoners. On the island of Fronton, off the coast of Callao, the Blue Pavilion, where the inmates had taken cover, was shot down. Many were crushed to death by the collapse of the building’s heavy walls, but many others were killed by bullets fired by the Marine Corps. In 2006 Giampietri occupied the first vice-presidency with the social democrat Alan García.

In addition to retired military and politicians, far-right journalists have spread defamation against the former senator, deputy, and member of the 1979 Constituent Assembly, Hugo Blanco Galdós, in relation to the documentary “Hubo Blanco: Río Profundo”, directed by Malena Martínez. The documentary, which has won international awards, shows in its official trailer a few words from the Cusco-based leader, where he remarks that “I am completely against terrorism, I believe that people must be convinced with words … now, when a people decides to arm itself to defend itself, it is self-defence.”

The first 2000 signatories in support of Hugo Blanco maintain that: “The undersigned, citizens of Latin America and other continents, repudiate the accusation that, fifty-seven years after the events that raised up the impoverished peasants of the Valle de La Convention and Lares, intends to criminalize and discredit the politician, former deputy, former senator and longstanding activist for the rights of nature. Today, at 86 years old, Hugo Blanco Galdós is considered one of the pioneering leaders of the struggles of agrarian reform, and against the extractivism that pierces the entrails of our territories. ”

“Hugo is an example for his tireless commitment to justice and to the people, be it in Pucallpa, Cajamarca, La Convencion, or Cauca. Also because he is one of the few left-wing leaders who today has been able to take a significant turn, without losing his convictions, towards another struggle: for the environment. Blanco summarizes it relentlessly: before he fought for socialism, today it is about the fight for the survival of the species.”

June 21, 2020: Translated by International Viewpoint from Poder Popular.

An English translation of the statement appears below. Sign the statement here.

In vindication of Hugo Blanco

Concerning the exhibition of the award-winning documentary “Hubo Blanco Río Profundo,” a group of military colluded with a series of former right-wing politicians, together with journalists from virtual publications, have issued some pronouncements naming the former member of the Assembly 1978 constituent, democratically elected by the sovereign people, Hugo Blanco Galdós, as a terrorist and murderer.

The undersigned, citizens of Latin America and other continents, repudiate that accusation that, fifty-seven years after the events that raised the impoverished peasants of the La Convencion Valley and Lares, seek to criminalize and discredit the politician, former deputy, former Senator and persevering activist for the rights of nature. Today, at 86 years old, Hugo Blanco Galdós is considered one of the pioneering leaders for the struggles of agrarian reform, and against extractivism that pierces the bowels of our territories.

Hugo is an example for his tireless commitment to justice and to the people, be it in Pucallpa, Cajamarca, La Convencion, Chiapas or Cauca. Also because he is one of the few leftist leaders who today has been able to take a significant turn, without losing his convictions, towards another fight for protest: for the environment. Blanco summarizes it relentlessly: “Before it was fighting for socialism, today it is about the fight for the survival of the species.”

This life dedicated to the fight for justice, democracy and the defense of Mother Earth has been represented by Malena Martínez in “Hugo Blanco: Rio Profundo.” The award-winning documentary has provoked the unacceptable reaction of certain emblematic characters of the cave-dwelling right, who consolidate in their ranks the harshest of Peruvian authoritarianism, and who fear the example of this son of the Cusco hills, where even today the scream resounds, “Earth or death: we will win.”

Monday 6 July 2020

Interview – Shahrar Ali Candidate for Leader of the Green Party

Shahrar Ali the Green Party’s Home Affairs spokesperson talks to Green Left’s Mike Shaughnessy about why he is standing to be Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Tell me a little about your background and why you joined the Green party?

I joined the Greens some 18 years ago now – after doing a stint in the European parliament as a researcher and being mightily impressed with the work of Green Group MEPs. I was drafting briefings on science and technology options for policy and researching into environmental risk of GMOs. I had already been campaigning to halt the spread of GMOs into the environment in the late 90s and it was great to be able to make a small contribution towards adoption of a precautionary principle and successive moratoria across Europe. 

My background is in education and I have been a lifelong advocate of affordable lifelong learning – having taught at WEA, City Lit, Birkbeck and as a founder member of a philosophy school set up to help buck the stem of private HEI colleges. I currently work in medical education and have been part of a team involved in some of the challenges of providing student medic support in COVID environments. 

It’s fair to say I really took to the policy, ethos and campaigns of the party – having stood in some 20 plus local, regional, parliamentary and European elections. I’ve written two popular election books in Green politics and was Deputy Leader of the party 2014-16, at the time of the Green surge. However, I feel deeply frustrated, as I know others do too, at our lack of organisational focus and electoral progress.

If you are elected as Leader, what will be your priorities?

Climate Justice.

Ten years is the time remaining for the Green Party to play a meaningful role in securing the transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to a net zero carbon economy by our target date of 2030. Globally, it is the poor and those least responsible for climate change who are most suffering their harmful impacts – deforestation, disease, malnutrition, food insecurity – today. 

We should be front and centre of this battle for the future of our country and of our planet and all the beautiful species and nonhuman animals we share it with. Yet our political communications do not convey how we can achieve our own 2030 net zero target and our leadership team appear subdued. 

My priority number one would be to fix this by helping to consolidate and energise the party internally and externally. As the Party’s primary spokesperson I would be bold and unapologetic about our vision and the system change required to do what’s scientifically necessary to avert climate catastrophe. 

Shahrar Launching the UpRising Environmental Leadership programme in 2018

What can the Green party do to get more support from BME communities? 

We need to be reaching out by all necessary means – vocalising and campaigning to combat the daily oppression and lack of opportunity faced by BME communities. I have been campaigning for years for the rights and wellbeing of these communities against successive governments’ hostile environment policies – from Guantanamo, the Windrush scandal and Islamophobic Prevent to stop and search and racist van slogans. 

·       I’m a regular speaker on anti-racism demonstrations for the party, especially against the rising tide of xenophobia. 

·       In 2015, I launched the Party’s first BME manifesto in an attempt to broaden our appeal. 

·       I’m active in building BAME community leaders such as the launch of UpRising’s environment leadership programme. 

As the first BME deputy leader, I well understand the impact that having an ethnic visible face has and can continue to have on the increased credibility of our party. I’ve had many conversations with voters who felt they could vote for us as a result. The single most important thing we could do to reach out to those communities would be to elect a BME leader – now. 

Nor can we be seen going round the media studios singling out Muslims by calling for the banning of halal meat that resulted in public condemnation from the Muslim Council of Britain and our own Greens of Colour, two weeks before the election. 

At a time when Black Lives Matter has taken on momentum and systemic racism is being confronted like never before, it simply is not enough to present our solidarity with a white face. We have to mean it in action, on the ground, in our Local Councils and our neighbourhoods. I believe that local party members should be given the training and support they need to get more involved with the Black Lives Matters movement and mobilise for the delivery of the concrete anti-racist policies BME communities are campaigning for. 

What is your opinion of the electoral pact between the Greens and Lib Dems at last year’s General Election? 

This was a total disaster. If it wasn’t bad enough to cause wholly avoidable conflict internally, we also upset core Green voters, nationally. One of our co-leaders was a benefactor of a pact and this was cited as a reason for “Green Party losing members over their alliance with Lib Dems”. 

Nor can we be proud of an election result in which the Green Party once again failed to achieve any significant breakthroughs, and lost our deposits across vast swathes of the country. Compare and contrast this record to the party’s record when I was last a member of the leadership team. In 2015, the Green Party won over a million votes, and kept our deposits in 123 seats. In 2019 the Green Party won 800,000 votes but only kept our deposits in 31 seats. 

What I really can’t fathom is, how, after the disastrous failed experiment of Progressive Alliances in 2017 we tried a variation on the theme some two years later. Our current leadership supported these initiatives through conference both times; and here’s a reminder of just how badly we managed to squander our hard-won political capital. 

It is likely that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism will brought back to the Green party’s autumn conference for adoption. You have been a vocal critic of this definition, can you explain why? 

Anybody who looks at this definition with intellectual honesty, and studies the history behind it, will see it for what it is: a cynical attempt to restrict legitimate criticism of Israel which would also have a chilling effect on free speech and is actually beginning to succeed in that. 

Greens are anti-racist to their very core, fight anti-Jewish racism to the last, and should have no truck with this definition, especially because of the prevalence of anti-semitism smear campaigns against known lifelong antiracists based on adoption of this definition. 

Our leadership have not exactly covered themselves in glory regarding the means by which they would seek to adopt this definition and I believe that is because the grassroots members understand as I do. You can hear this for yourself if you playback my speech to 2018 conference where we averted a late motion by the leadership to adopt something like the definition. 

The final agenda to the planned Spring 2020 conference, which had to be cancelled due to lockdown, had a motion, to the contrary, which would have seen the Party firmly reject the IHRA definition and another from Les Levidow reaffirming our support for BDS (which the definition would prohibit). The leadership-sponsored motion was ruled out of order, as was a wrecking amendment to my motion. I have already begun the process of submitting my motion to next conference so we can state our opposition to the IHRA and move on. 

I have survived numerous attacks upon my character. Members rightly condemned such attacks at the last leadership election. Still I was subjected to an antisemitism complaint from the CAA sponsored by a party member and that, too, was dismissed. 

We must not repeat the mistake of the Labour Party, either under Corbyn or Starmer, of capitulating to this definition. It has resulted in internal strife then injustice against anti-racist campaigners. The Campaign Against Antisemitism, whose staff member boasted about destroying Corbyn’s election in the most despicable terms (“slaughtered”), is currently the subject of a Charity Commission investigation referred by myself, “Charity faces election bias investigation”. We must clean up our politics. 

In all my actions around this topic, I’ve been driven by the urgency of wanting to hold Israel to account for its unconscionable actions against the Palestinian people. Year after year Israel has added to its international violations, lately with their annexation plan, and I have seen the Green Party become increasingly timid, or completely silent, on this matter. As Leader, I will continue to speak for the rights of the oppressed against their oppressor in the best tradition of the Green Party.

How do rate the government’s handling of the Covid 19 pandemic? 

Where to begin with the missteps and mishaps? Late lockdown; no PPEs for NHS and Care Homes staff; moving frail elderly into Care Homes without testing them – resulting in 25,000 early deaths. No plans for a safe return to schools; no testing capacity to meet the needs to regularly test all key workers; no Test and Contact Tracing programme at community or local level. 

In other words: criminal negligence on an unprecedented scale. Not to mention misplaced loyalty in Cummings! 

As we know Covid deaths disproportionately impact BME communities and the real issue is structural inequality – see my BAME life chances, inequality and death. 

We should have been far bolder about the opportunity for making system-wide change during lockdown – about our overconsumptive lifestyles, about UBI and economic overhall.

How do you think the Green party should position itself electorally in the immediate future? 

I’ve not seen our report from the last election results to enable us to have a better informed conversation. Why isn’t it published yet? If elected, I will make sure that all our members are sent a copy to discuss and learn from it in their local parties. There is not enough accountability nor transparency in the Green Party and we all deserve better. 

Still our electoral positioning is clear: true Green. With Corbyn gone and Starmer in post, our socialist credentials will shine through more brightly. Our environmental appeal is across the board. Let’s not sell ourselves short. 

On electoral reform, Molly Scott Cato is justifiably furious with Labour’s refusal to consider scrapping FPTP. Local party members can make the case for PR by targeting Labour Party constituencies and affiliated organisations as of priority. Labour will struggle under FPTP as it would need to secure an additional 124 seats – and that is not taking into account any potential boundary changes which will favour the Tories even more than they are now. 

What is your vision for the Green party over the next few years? 

When we are interviewed about the economy we should be talking about an ecosocialist transformation, not simply reform. When we are asked about jobs we should be talking about redeployment of arms manufacturing towards wholesale renewable energy plant production. When we are asked about injustice, we should be making the link to the millions of families in the UK living on the bread line and the starving populations of the world who are dying as we speak, due to agricultural intensification, capitalist injustice and climate degradation. 

As a party of radical and transformational change we are simply not conveying these messages. We have become much too timid and risk averse. I will be bold and unapologetic instead. 

Let’s move beyond our comfort zone and elect the first BME leader of a main UK party, too.

Green party members will be voting from 3-31 August.




Wednesday 1 July 2020

Interview - Andrea Carey-Fuller Green Party Candidate for Deputy Leader

Andrea Carey of Lewisham Green Party, a Green Left supporter talks to Green Left’s Mike Shaughnessy about why she is standing for Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Tell me a little about your background and why you joined the Green party?

My background is working for charities - e.g The Red Cross & a charity for people with learning disabilities, and working as an advocate for community organisations supporting people to have a voice - advocating for mental health services users, disabled people, older people looked after children, asylum seekers/refugees, and currently empowering Deptford through the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan.

I joined the Green Party because it is the only Party which properly addresses Climate Change, and also because it had the best policies across a whole range of issues which fitted well with my own views on these issues.

Why did you decide to join Green Left?

To join others who support eco-socialism - and push for things like the citizens income.

If you are elected as Deputy Leader, what will be your priorities?

Improving Democracy and Equality issues within the Green Party - particularly supporting disabled people's rights and bringing forward a women's rights policy.

Climate Change cross-party women's event to push the GP Green New Deal across to the other parties.

Get the draft motion to suspend the right to buy in all English Cities put forward by Caroline Lucas or by Natalie Bennett.

What is your opinion of the electoral pact between the Greens and Lib Dems at last year’s General Election?

It didn't help and it didn't work as the Lib Dems position on the EU was too polarised!  The only thing that will help us going forward is a change in the voting system to proportional representation.

It is likely that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism will be brought back to the Green party’s autumn conference for adoption. Do you support this definition?

No - I was a co-proposer of Les Levido's policy motion opposing the IHRA 'definition' of antisemitism and reaffirming BDS (Boycotts Divestment Sanctions against Israel), in January 2016:

"Title: Reaffirm support for BDS and oppose a key IHRA example

Synopsis: The GreenParty reaffirms its long-standing support for the BDS campaign, which aims to end international support for Israel’s regime of settler colonialism and apartheid. On those grounds, the phrase ‘apartheid Israel’ is anti-racist – not antisemitic, as falsely implied by an example in the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism.

Text of motion:

1. TheGreen Party reaffirms its commitment to promote active participation in the Palestinian-led campaign for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel and companies complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. (See motions passed at the spring2008 and autumn 2014 conferences, ‘Israel’ ground Invasion’ in upper right-hand corner, ( We further endorse the BDScampaign’s peaceful aim: ‘to pressure Israel to comply with international law and to end international support for Israel’s regime of settler colonialism and apartheid’ ( 

2. For several years the UK government has attempted to prohibit public bodies from boycotting Israel and companies complicit in its violations of international law. It now plans new legislation for this purpose, as well as for a reverse boycott: to prohibit local authorities from contracting with companies that divest from Israel. We will work with other groups to oppose such government restrictions on organisations exercising their democratic right and ethical responsibility. 

3. On the website of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA),a Working Definition of Antisemitism includes several examples, e.g. ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour’. This contentious example has been deployed for false accusations of antisemitism against the BDS campaign and its keyphrase ‘apartheid Israel’, especially to deny venues for public events or to restrict speakers. The Green Party asserts that the BDS campaign’s aims are anti-racist and rejects the above example of supposed antisemitism.

How do you rate the government’s handling of the Covid 19 pandemic?

They should be put on trial for corporate manslaughter!  Compare BJ with the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern and you have a complete analysis of everything the UK government did wrong:  We should have closed our airports in February.  Following the Pandemic WHO announcement in January - stocks of PPE should have been ordered and plans drawn up for the closing of schools/businesses and the introduction of social distancing.  

If Airports/bus stations/train stations had been disinfected from the start (early March) and flights stopped or people put in quarantine before 14th March we would have very few deaths just like NZ.  There was a callous and deliberate policy to accept 20K deaths as if this was OK - knowing full well that the brunt of this would be borne by the elderly - hence the Government's total lack of concern with dispatching elderly people from hospitals back into the community without testing them.

It makes me want to scream with rage and cry with sorrow that over 43,000 people have died due to the sheer incompetence and total disregard for the health and well-being of the nation this Government has shown!

How do you think the Green party should position itself electorally in the immediate future?

On the Left - As the only Party promising real action on climate change and offering social justice and a kinder more compassionate society - a society based on collaboration and care of people and planet - the only international party that will do this.

What is your vision for the Green party over the next few years?

Get support for the suspension of the Right to Buy.

Push all the MP's to get the Government to - support the recovery of the economy with the GP Green New Deal - build 250,000 council social homes per year over the next 5 years to meet the demand of the 1.5 million waiting for homes -support Proportional Representation-Introduce a Citizen's income-Stop selling arms around the world and particularly to Israel and holding arms conventions in the UK - Start working towards multi-lateral nuclear disarmament to begin the process of world peace.

Green Party members will be voting throughout August. 



Andrea speaking on Tidemill Garden after Lewisham Council approved the plans to demolish Reginald House (2-30A Reginald Road) and Tidemill Wildlife Garden. Campaigners have asked the Mayor of London to call in the application.