I am in Canberra where the protest will be if it gets off the ground.

Scratch to gangrene is a good analogy – incorrect I think but I understand the argument.

I compare the US Green Party comment in the article strongly criticising Obama with what Brown said and am amazed at the difference. There is no criticism of Obama from the Greens’ leadership, or none to date that I can find. It’s like they are stuck in a time warp circa 5 November 2008.

Now I know they don’t have an analysis of imperialism, but one would have thought that even maybe Bob and Christine can see Obama is not the saint they thought. In fact he is just like Bush.

That message has resonance in the US, and it will have some (probably very small) resonance in Australia, including we hope among Greens’ members.

The issue of where the mass of people are and where the revolutionaries are is one that has been debated since the mid 1800s.

The idea of a untied front was useful, but that only works once there is a mass party of the working class. The attempt to build that is what is happening on the ground now.

Certainly Socialist Alternative don’t see themselves as a party – to think so would be madness. We are a small propaganda group trying to win a few people to our socialist ideas and occasionally, when they break out, involving ourselves in real campaigns.

At one stage in my political wilderness years I thought about joining the Greens but couldn’t see how that would progress my own political development or that of my politics or the winning of an audience.

I think its only that you are looking at it from a far-left perspective. The idea that a routine comment about a visiting US president is a pro-imperialist stance by the Greens is the kind of ‘scratch to gangrene’ style of argument.

I learned most of my politics in the far-left but yes I am critical of them. I thought the DSP was democratic too when I was inside. Like most things in the world though its only when you try to change them that you find out how it really works. In my view you are all running as competing propaganda groups who see themselves as party nuclei – and the only way to deal with dissent (and in terms of the Australian political spectrum what separates SA/ISO/RSP/DSP/SA from each other are invisible differences) is to split and form a separate organisation.

I joined the Greens because I think thats where most progressive people look for change and so its there that socialists need to win a hearing for their ideas.

It is nonsensical to suggest they agree on everything, but since you raised the Dalai Lama and Obama it provided an interesting comparison.

Their interests intersect on one major issue – opposition to China – one from the point of view of US imperialism and the other from the point of view of the (former) ruling elite of an oppressed nation.

The intersection between the Greens and Obama seems to me be implicit in Bob Brown’s comment:

‘I will be very, very happy to see Obama in Canberra. It’s good to have all heads of state come here to our capital, not least and most of all, in some respects the one from our cross- Pacific relationship.’

That looks to me like an acceptance of the dominant role of US imperialism in the world.

Your views about left wing groups seem a little stereotypical – to down, anti-democratic.

That is certainly not the case in Socialist Alternative and if it were I wouldn’t be a member.

I can imagine some Greens being very uncomfortable about the fawning that Brown and Milne have done over Obama and agreeing with the general analysis that on foreign policy he is little different to Bush.

The quote in the article from the US Green Party makes that pretty clear and it is that sort of audience the revolutionary left is trying to have a conversation with.

That attempt may be unsuccessful, this time, but certainly to do nothing would not challenge the dominant ideas of Brown and Milne that Obama is good and talking to him rather than demonstrating against him is te way to go. I counterpose the two because that is what the leadership – talk versus demos – because that is what the the leadership of the Greens is doing – substituting talking for demonstrating.

If it is just a left sect fest, then it will be a failure. But how do we know unless we try?

They had the Afghanis on side before all these 911 lies & nonsense and they could have had the Taliban guarding their pipline and bring Afghanistan into the modern era.

I cannot see Aust leaving Afghanistan since we live under the nuclear umbrella of the USA.Everytime the US goes to war, we follow like faithful unquestioning dogs.
Which Imperialist state do we want to live under.China or the USA.Most of us elect for the devil we think we know.In reality there is very little difference between the Chinese and the USA .The major difference is that the US people are armed to the hilt and have a fair idea who started this crisis.

Murdering people for profit seems to now be an environmental objective,since the Greens see people as a blight on the environment.

In the meantime the question is – what would the effect of an anti-Obama protest be? I suspect even an anti-war protest would be tiny and have little impact but an anti-Obama protest would be sectarian. I wish it were different but its not. I guess we differ on how best to challenge the illusions of the mass of people.

Its part of how the far-left thinks that everyone outside their rank (usually outside their organisation) is somehow a ‘sell-out’ in waiting or ‘objectively’ pro-capitalist, so even if they say they are anti-war, even if their party platforms and actions in the Senate are anti-war, even though they were part of the protests, they are not REALLY anti-war (like us revolutionary socialists).

In what sense do you mean that Greens (you mean the leaders, the membership as a whole or as a movement?) and Obama have a ‘common’ interests. In war? I guess now Obama has come out in support of nuclear power that a Greens leader meeting them shows the Greens as a whole are not really anti-nuclear. And of course the next step is to say that since they don’t oppose capitalism (whatever that might mean in todays context) then they really aren’t serious about protecting the environment. Isn’t that the logic?

As world war one and two show the end result of this imperialist competition is war.

it is the coming together of these interests that explains the meeting.

Just as arguably it is the coming together of the Greens and Obama’s interests which explains their fawning over this present US war criminal.

The Greens heckled Bush for his crimes, and there were demonstrations against him, which the Greens may have helped organise. Not sure.

So in that context why aren’t the Greens doing the same with Obama’s visit? by praising him they give support to him.

And as far as I can tell, the Greens couch their Afghanistan withdrawal language in terms of Australian troops out only.

Chav – I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn’t say you couldn’t tell the difference I said they couldn’t tell the difference. The majority of people will see the protests (assuming they get any coverage) as being anti-war (same as the Greens) which is probably not a pressing issue for them and if they are clearly anti-Obama then you will be seen as extremists. Now thats not what I think its what I would imagine they think. Thats unfortunate but thats reality. Of course for the socialist sects it will help keep the members together and compete away some members of other groups, if you’re lucky.

But Shane H, the majority of people outside the far-left are not politicians or top union bureaucrats, and we are quite aware of the difference between these professional charlatans and the mass of everyday people.

If the Greens are fair dinkum about their opposition to the war in Afghanistan they should be mobilising a demonstration (s) against Obama. I’m sure the majority of people outside the far-Left will realise we aren’t a nascent Tea party movement if we dare protest the US President.