More Green New Deal and Elections

A number of critical debates are taking shape in the Eco-Left community around strategy, around a Popular Front or Dual Power or Deep Green Resistance. Much of this revolves around the question of who gets to define The Green New Deal; progressives or radicals. This is a reply to those like Mc Kibben that cling to the dream of green prosperity in the hopes of attracting unions and "the masses":

"Some in the climate movement believe in the 100-percent dogma and the dream it holds out: that the (affluent) American way of life can keep running forward in time and outward in space without breaking stride. There are others who know that to be an impossibly rosy vision but urge the movement to limit public discussion to such green dreams, because talking about a regulated, low-energy economy would crush hope and enthusiasm at the grassroots."

The concern is that the masses aren't ready for a cultural shift towards limits, that is sounds too much like austerity. The other heated debate, brought on by Bernie and Alexandria Occasio Cortez (AOC)concerns the role of elections. Lots of smart people trying to get the camel through the eye of that needle:

From Mathew Andrews (SCNCC) : But I also think it is simplistic to throw out all electoral strategies under our current system exactly because independent voices are so excluded. This harsh exclusion is what makes independent challengers so radical."

What is mostly missing in so much of this analysis is the remorseless ticking of that climate clock. Each minute that passes, more bad shit gets locked in. This is a grim, but linear progression, still comprehensible. But what is harder to think through is that singular minute that passes by where you have locked in unstoppable, cascading, self-reinforcing effects (climate forcing), the point where your possibilities are foreclosed, where drinking becomes the only viable strategy. All these well-meaning leftists think there is still time to build this social movement from below, this mass revolutionary organization or this radical Labor Party that represents " working class" interests. How can that be?

This is how the EZLN expressed the dilemma on the 25th Anniversary of the War Against Oblivion:
"Alone we rose up to awake the people of Mexico and of the world, and today, 25 years later, we see that we are still alone. But we did try to tell them, compañeras and compañeros, you were witness to the many gatherings we held as we tried to wake others, to speak to the poor of Mexico in the city and in the countryside.

Many people did not listen. Some did and are organizing themselves—we hope they continue to organize themselves—but the majority did not listen."

They have tried dual power and electioneering. This is why we need to introduce one more critical element into any strategy, one that accelerates the process. Run for office if you wish, but with a platform that is guaranteed to lose. Demand the impossible if you expect to be heard at all. And then create the conditions of possibility, the conditions that would allow a break from this inertia.