Chlorophyll

(Partly inspired by Gregg's last comment)

As I stated in my previous post, I think that anarchism is the closest previously-articulated philosophy to the Green movement. There are many people that think that Greens are watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), and even some Greens who accept this idea. I don't.

In spite of what Marx said about the withering of the state, most socialist organizations today follow a fairly authoritarian and/or vanguardist line. Both authoritarianism and vanguardism go against grassroots democracy. The former is about a small group imposing its decisions on others, and the other is about a small group deciding it represents the masses better than the masses themselves, and ultimately imposing its decisions on them.

Anarchists think that the state is inherently oppressive, and that it should be abolished to allow the people to organize themselves voluntarily. No authority can exercised, except by the consent of the governed. That does not mean that there is no governance; rather there is local, participatory government. As someone has said, anarchism does not require any revolutionary breakpoint - any self-organized group is an example.

The practice of Green philosophy cannot be considered purely anarchist, because it actively encourages people to vote and even run for offices of the state. However, our movement side encourages people to take direct action outside the channels of the state, through protests, sit-ins, letter-writing, boycotts, and more.

Moreover, within the state, we run most often for local offices - school boards, city councils, etc., and obviously, that's where we most often win. While these cannot be considered spontaneous and voluntary organizations created with an anarchist consciousness, they can be made to reflect the community, and in particular, those sections of the community least often heard from. In this way, they can be held accountable to all, not merely those with the fattest wallets. In other words, they become not fully participatory, but more truly representative.

Greens also have a similar attitude towards the economy to that of anarchists. Those economic groupings are most just which are most directly accountable to their workers and larger communities, and far and away the most effective way to ensure this is worker ownership and direct control. Conspicuously, we are not calling for increased government control (with the exception of health care, but even that would be better handled by local government than the federal government).

In fact, when governments intervene in the economy, it is almost universally in favor of Big Business - see the assorted "free-trade" treaties foisted on Latin America over the last decade or so. Yes, there are labor laws, OSHA, etc., but these took years of pain and strife to pressure the government into, and business continues to try to roll them back, with significant success.

I think the fundamental point of agreement between anarchists and Greens is that authority requires accountability - direct, face-to-face accountability. The question is not whether institutions are public or private, but whether they are accountable. This is a question of scale. Small is beautiful. Granted, not everything can be done on a small scale (heavy industry, national defense, international travel, etc.), but when we can, we should.

There will not be a Green revolution. Rather, there will be a thousand little revolutions - one workplace and city council at a time. We are not so much revolutionaries as evolutionaries. As the slogan goes, overgrow the state!