Letters on “The WSWS and the California campaign of Peter Camejo: letters from the Green Party and a reply”

Below we post a selection of letters on “The WSWS and the California campaign of Peter Camejo: letters from the Green Party and a reply.

Dear WSWS,

I am writing with regard to your article of 22 October 2003 by Peter Daniels, “The WSWS and the California campaign of Peter Camejo: letters from the Green Party and a reply.” This is a penetrating piece that skillfully deconstructs the self-defeating arguments of Greens Owen R. Broadhurst and Kimberly Wilder. Basing his reply on prior and current political analyses, and on a close reading of the correspondents’ invective, Daniels sums up the Green Party’s political (dis)orientation most tellingly:

“If the national party cannot be held responsible for the campaign waged by its affiliate in California, and no spokesperson or candidate of the Green Party in any part of the country is bound by the program and policies of the national party, then in what sense are the Greens a party? Why, moreover, should anyone place the slightest trust or confidence in anything a representative of the party says?”

In addition:

“The Greens seek to appeal to confused and disoriented elements from the extreme right, as well as the left. [...] The unprincipled character of the Greens, their incapacity to present a clear position on any fundamental political question, from the California recall to the war on Iraq, is characteristic of middle-class layers seeking to maneuver between the capitalist ruling elite and the working class. The Greens are a party of reformist protest that seeks to pressure the corporate establishment and its two major parties. Their strategy and tactics are dictated by the effort to join the political establishment in order to ‘influence’ it.”

That the ruling class should somehow bury its interests for and through reformism is indicative of a most elementary naiveté. The notion that “influence” upon the rapacious status quo can effect any meaningful change for the masses of the people at home and internationally is as insolvent in social practice as it amounts to a chimera. As reformists operating under an undisciplined, ramshackle party, the Greens fail to see, much less comprehend, the true nature of capitalism, and ultimately opt to look the other way.

Sincerely yours,


22 October 2003

* * *

I thought Mr. Daniels did a great job of replying to the letters from the two Green Party members which criticized his article about the recall in California. Earlier this year, I registered for the Green Party because I thought that what I read about where they stood on issues was just what I had been looking for. The Green Party said it stands for all the very basic needs and values of a civil society. I was beginning to have grave doubts that they offer a true option to the right-wing radicals that are running this country into the ground with their policies of raw greed. Reading Mr. Daniels’ defense of his article, shows me that I need to keep looking. The 2004 presidential election is going to be interesting. My nightmare is that I will wake up the next day and Bush will be wearing his shit-eating grin thanking all the people for keeping him in office. Maybe the best anyone can do right now, is to stay focused on the truth and continue to be wary of everyone.


23 October 2003