[statecom-discuss] Re: draft ideas for for July StateComm. meeting (Ron Francis)

[Yarden]

Ron,
Generally, and also because I am actively engaged, working together 
with other party members in trying to develop a strategy to restore the 
party to to the strength that it had when I first became a member of 
the MRG, now, since the merger with the Rainbow Coalition, MRGRA, I 
took note of your remarks in response to Grace Ross and Bill 
Cunningham.   As you know, the SPWG is open to opinion, both expert and 
otherwise.

Perhaps your deep knowledge of the history of the Green Party in 
Massachusetts and of the merger with the Rainbow Coalition is such that 
you could provide us all with a detailed picture of the changes that 
you describe.

On Monday, May 21, 2007, at 08:38 AM, Ron
  wrote:  "3) On the county and ecological swaershed concept:"
"I think that it is something that is a hold-over from the very Green"
"part of the Green-Rainbow and should be let go.  If the argument"
"for county structure is that there is some predominance of ecological" 
"considerations over neighborhood considerations then it is too biased"
"toward a certain type of organizing.  It might make sense for a group"
"that only focused on environmental issues, but we are well past that."

Elie Yarden observations:
All speculations aside, on how County lines in Massachusetts have been 
drawn,
it is difficult to understand how ecological concerns as they apply to 
watershed, or
ecological regions that played a role in the development of human 
habitation, long
before the Europeans, and whatever else they brought with them arrived 
at these shores. This continued to be the case until today, has 
influenced local development, and continues to do so.  People who live 
here are actually dealing with this history in their daily lives, 
whether aware of it or not.

You may or not be aware of the extent to which the Green Party 
developed as the result of an ecologically structured political vision. 
or of the extent to which, nationally it retains that vision, or of the 
fact that it is this vision of the inter-relatedness of our fate as a 
species and of the inanimate and animate resources of the planet that 
we, too, inhabit, but in a manner that is far more destructive of its 
environment than others.  This is a consequence not only of our unique 
technologies but also of the social relations and consciousness that 
brought them into being.

The political vision of the GPUS is not a limited one.
".   .   . something that is a hold-over from the very Green part of 
the Green-Rainbow and should be let go."
Query:  When did you discover that is a "holdover?"


"  .   .   . some predominance of ecological considerations over 
neighborhood considerations then it is too biased toward a certain type 
of organizing.
Query:  Since the Green idea of a neighborhood is an ecological concept 
not a developer's idea, it is hard for me to imagine what "type of 
organizing" or types you have in mind.  What are they?  How are they 
Green-Rainbow?   The merger in Massachusetts of the Green Party with 
the Rainbow Coalition, and even the hyphenated name, has something to 
do with the history of the civil rights movement's recognition that 
human justice can have no limits in its importance and effects.  We are 
all in this together side-by-side.  When do you expect to recognize 
this?

We end up with a straw man,  " .  .  . make sense for a group that only 
focused on environmental issues, but we are well past that."  When was 
the Green Party or the Green-Rainbow Party not " .  .  . well past 
that?"

I suggest that we attempt an understanding of our difficulties.  I have 
explained the problems that I have in understanding what vision you 
have of what the Green-Rainbow Party is.  Many of us share that 
difficulty, and people of much political experience have suggested that 
this is due to our politics: the politics of inclusion and 
participation, of justice.  When this is interpreted as an invitation 
to all to reinvent the party in any one person's image of what it is, 
we may easily loose out on the originality of the vision that gave rise 
to its need as a source of alternatives to the existing politics of 
competing interest groups.  As one Green-Rainbow Party member,
I have no doubt of the realities of injustice, destructive 
exploitation, false consciousness, and other abstractions.  Nor do I, 
as a Green-Rainbow Party member, have any doubts about the reality of 
class-conflict, internecine and tribal warfare, the nation-state, 
destruction of forests, and theft of land.  I do not need the 
Green-Rainbow Party for this knowledge.  The Green-Rainbow Party gives 
me the tools to deal with all this locally in such a way as to alter 
the local political consciousness that contributes to all that prevents 
advances toward shared human freedom.

I put out nothing that is not corrigible.  I await your thoughtful 
response.
Peace,
Elie Yarden,
Cambridge
P.S.  I should not ignore your disclaimer.

"Note also that a neighborhood concept of local organizing doesn't 
prevent"
"people from organizing in a given ecological region in a "sensible" 
fashion."