Nandor Tanczos on NZ greens

[Bill Cochrane]

G'dday
I've taken sometime to reply to this as I've been away while my partner
Tracey is off having a baby (girl,well, very cute).
If I remember Nandor accurately, actually having met the guy (he wont
recall) and listened to him, he does a fine line in pious personal abuse and
misinformed crap himself, a living monument to the triumph of appearance
over substance - us beneficiaries, now ex, have long memories Nandor you
always where a wet liberal as far as I could see and still are.
While I'm at it just what was incorrect in Russell's reporting of the Greens
antics as regards the Alliance and what in particular was so misinformed.
All I can see is more weasel words and more evasion in your reply mate so
lets try and be a little candid, drop the the cute rasta Muppet act and tell
us why we are so wrong in what we have said.
As for the rest I can but agree with Russell.
Yours
The wildly intemperate Bill Cochrane


> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:00:50 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Nandor Tanczos on NZ greens
> 
> [Nandor Tanczos asked me to forward this.]
> 
> From: Nandor Tanczos <nandor.tanczos at parliament.govt.nz>
> To: "'dhenwood at panix.com'" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:12:31 +1300
> 
> I was tempted to try and reply in detail to the postings on this
> discussion group but decided that it would be a waste of my time. The
> vast majority was personal abuse and misinformed crap, which I'm sure
> I will get plenty enough of once I take my seat in parliament. Why go
> looking for it?
> 
> The only two points I consider worth concerning myself with are:
> 
> 1/ Do the Green represent radical social change?
> I doubt any political party will ever represent radical social
> transformation. In fact I would say by definition they cannot.
> Radical transformation I believe would mean the destruction of the
> kinds of hierarchical power systems that nation states depend on.
> 
> I try to be very clear when talking about the Greens that the answer
> to our problems does not lie in voting Green. It lies in the
> transformation of everyday life. However, having Greens in government
> can help that process, given the tendency of green politics towards
> non hierarchical forms of organisation and a preoccupation with
> making decisions at the lowest possible level.
> 
> I would also say that the radical transformation of society does not
> lie in old school left wing politics. It lies in a fundamental change
> in our relationship to each other and to the world around us.
> Destruction of the life support systems of the earth (whether in
> pursuit of jobs or share dividends in the short term), exploitation
> of other people both within our locality and globally, destruction of
> our human communities and the social webs we depend on, and the
> torture and murder of other people and species all result, I think,
> from a fundamental error: that somehow we are separate from the world
> around us, other people, the forests that give us oxygen, other
> species of animals, the air and water......
> 
> We must as a matter of urgency begin to look at our planet and its
> inhabitants as a part of, and made up of infinitely complex,
> interconnected systems. The desire for social justice, non violence,
> participatory democracy and ecological wisdom can then be seen as
> simple self interest.
> 
> 2/  Was the miners strike in '83 or '84? Russel may be right in
> saying it only started in 84 - I didn't look it up in a book but
> thinking back I worked out it must have been 83 because I thought I
> remembered doing other stuff in 84. I am probably in error.
> 
>