about the German Greens getting too militaristic

An original conception of the Greens’ Nonviolence pillar was essentially Gandhian. It’s clearly extremely hard in this world to stick to such, but I do wish the international Greens would stand more firmly against militarism.

The Green Party of Germany supported that country’s participation in the NATO actions in Kosovo in 1999 and then, recently, the policy of sending weapons to Ukraine. I have friends who say to me: “This is very disappointing. What happened to the Nonviolence pillar?”

I believe the answer to that question goes something like this:

The “realo vs. fundi” contention is inevitable. A fundamental principle might be (should be) Nonviolence. It needs to be seen as aspirational. The same applies to many of our principles.

We simply need to understand the dynamic of realo-based political compromising when real power is at stake.

The issue arises in every movement for radical (“going to the root”) social transformation. A good example was the realo vs. fundi contention in the socialist movement as World War I approached circa 1913–1914. Non-participation in nationalistic wars had been a principle. Fundis saw it as a betrayal of that principle when the realos within the socialist parties of Germany and France prevailed to have their parties vote in favor of war credits.

A party espousing a radical alternative will tend to be relegated to the margins of political life (as we are). While existing at the margins there’s no immediate liability for principled messaging. But when such a party starts to get enough votes to conceivably participate in decision-making (i.e., participate in power) invariably some members will feel that “the world will be better off if we can emerge from the margins and have some real influence.”

The essence of realo-ism:
* “let’s get more realistic”
* “let’s be more compromising”
* “let’s take positions that are more mainstream”
* “let’s become more electable in order to participate in power”

It’s not done for the sake of power. It’s done for the sake of “being in the mix” and thus having positive influence.

This is upsetting to fundis, who see it as too compromising. But rather than letting this division foment realo-fundi internal party wars, it would be better if everyone recognized that the realo dynamic is inevitable. Being relegated to the margins is unpleasant and unproductive.

Internal party influence to “be the conscience pole” (fundi position) is admirable and needed. Debates about degrees of compromise are inevitable. It’s kind of a disposition thing re: whether individuals are fundi-inclined or realo-inclined. An understanding that there will inevitably be both types of individuals can help people of all dispositions tolerate each other and hammer out party policies that all can live with (somewhere between the poles).

Reference:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644019208414010

(It will be a great day when Greens in our country are presented with issues related to having real influence.)