nz greens

[Russell Grinker]

I'll ask the NZ people (not LM but the Revolution Collective) if they'd like
to respond.  I do however note from the forwarded text that they favoured
neither the greens nor ACT as J Mage implies.  But then these days it seems
that if you're not with the worthy and very humble greens then you must be
with the evil enemy.

Yours

Russell Grinker (Coventry & Nottingham Miners Support Groups 1984-85)

PS:  Dunno what miners Nandor was supporting in '83 - the strike only
started in '84.  Maybe you better check out his bio.

R

-----Original Message-----
From: jmage at panix.com <jmage at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: nz greens


>Russell Grinker forwarded from an unnamed NZ LM commentator:
>
>>In effect, the Greens are the most naked face of the anti-humanist and
>>irrationalist trends that are so prevalent in contemporary society.
>>Whereas the capitlaist put profits before people, the Greens prefer trees
>>and animals, which is hardly a step forward.  It is hardly accidental that
>>the Greens did best in the party vote in the more privileged white middle
>>and upper income constituencies.  Indeed they draw from a similar
>>constituency to ACT.  But ACT represents the more upbeat elements of this
>>class sector, while the Greens represent the more pessimistic elements.
>
>It was predictable that the nz greens would drive LM into a delicious rage,
>and thanks to Russell for the pleasure I got from this rant. To really get
>the full flavor of LM's equating ACT (an Ayn Randian NZ political party)
>with Nandor et al (indeed, seeming to prefer the "more upbeat" ACT), I
>found it fun to compare their programmatic statements as available on the
>web.
>
snip...