A classic of Green Party history, the "Avocado Declaration" by Peter Camejo. Some describe themselves as "watermelons": "green on outside, red on inside", meant to evoke more of a Marxist attitude.

The Avocado Declaration states we're "green inside & out" https://www.marxists.org/archive/camejo/2004/avocadodeclaration.htm

The Avocado attitude comes from the idea that Green socialism is its own tendency, different from other forms of socialism. Particularly when you look at influences like Murray Bookchin's social ecology, it's easy to see a different praxis than that suggested by Marxist orgs.

Let's look at a few of the most standout parts of the Avocado Declaration and see how much applies to today still. (The original was written in early 2004).

"History shows that the Democrats and Republicans are not two counterposed forces but rather complementary halves of a single two-party system"

Camejo identifies the two parties taking on the same economic policy in about 1872; the two cooperate to prevent mass movements.

"Since the Civil War, without exception, the Democratic Party has opposed all mass struggles for democracy and social justice."

Camejo points out how Democrats have opposed all movements for civil & political rights, but revisionism pretends them to be "champions" of the people.

"When social justice, peace, or civil rights movements become massive in scale, ..., the Democratic Party begins to shift and presents itself as a supposed ally, always seeking to co-opt the movement, demobilize its forces, and block its development..."

The GOP "argues ideologically for policies benefiting the corporate rulers."

Democrats are different, "It acts as a “broker” negotiating and selling influence among broad layers of the people to support the objectives of corporate rule."

"The Democratic Party’s core group of elected officials is rooted in careerists seeking self-promotion by offering to the corporate rulers their ability to control and deliver mass support. And to the people they offer some concessions..."

Careerists in the Democratic Party are those that learn to manipulate the masses with leftist-sounding language that co-opts people toward corporate positions while pretending to be opposition.

"One important value of the Democratic Party to the corporate world is that it makes the Republican Party possible through the maintenance of stability essential for business as usual by preventing a genuine mass opposition from developing."

"The Democratic Party preaches defeatism to the most oppressed and exploited. Nothing can be expected, nothing is possible but what exists, and what continues is betrayal of what could be with the argument of lesser evil. It’s the Republicans or us. Nothing else is possible."

Camejo focuses a bit on "the rule of law" which is a little confusing to me. While making good points about the aftermath of 9/11 and attacks on freedom, US Constitutional law was never particularly democratic to begin with so I don't quite see "rule of law" being so important.

Camejo seems to be equating the "rule of law" with democracy, which isn't quite the same. But certainly we want democratic decision making respected, rather than authoritarian oligarchic rule.

Camejo goes on to point out how the Democratic Party was overwhelminingly in favor of the Republican-proposed changes and attacks on democracy. Even the "progressives" voted for it, much as we're seeing today with new progressives like AOC continuing to vote for imperialism.

"The Democratic Party allows its lower level representatives to present themselves as opposed to the war. Some of its leaders have begun to take on an appearance of disagreeing with “how” the policies of Bush are being implemented."

Camejo essentially argues that the Democratic Party tolerates and even wants a few dissenters to keep up appearances, as long as the oligarchy knows it continues to maintain power in votes and actual decision making.

"Their political message is simple and clear: “No voice truly critical of the platform of the Republicans may be permitted; only the Democrats must appear as ‘opponents’ to the Republicans.”"

Democrats must have a monopoly on "resistance" so it can control the message.

"They have no objection to rightist, pro-war third-party candidates entering the race and promoting their views. They only oppose a voice for peace and the rule of law, like that of Ralph Nader in 2000."

This really hits home in 2020. Democrats worked hard to throw Howie Hawkins, the Green nominee, off the ballot in many states. Camejo notes that the purpose is specifically to prevent democracy & peace candidates.

"Never in the history of the United States has a magazine claiming to favor democracy run a front page article calling on an individual to not run for president"

Younger folks don't realize how popular Nader was, and how much corporate media had to smear him to stop him.

"For the Green Party there is nothing more important or effective long-term and short-term in stopping Bush than to expose how the corporate interests use their two-party system and the role of the Democrats in that system."

Camejo spends a few paragraphs discussing all the Democrat crossover to support Republicans and a corporate agenda within the Dems, and concludes that for Greens one important objective is exposing the corporate control of both parties and the system as a whole.

Next Camejo comments on how the Democrats act as a "self-correcting mechanism" to upkeep two-party rule.

"Being Democrats they become part of a system that will have them removed if they do not follow the rules of support when corporate America insists."

"To rise in the Democratic Party there is a process that leads to compliant people unable to question, who remain silent before betrayals or criminal acts."

As mentioned earlier, the top ranks of the Democratic Party become full of careerists that learn to cater to corporations.

More troublingly, this means anyone that plans a "career" in politics must ultimately fall in line or be kicked out of the party, the system, and the career. One must find a new job. Be wary of folks that seek a career in Democratic politics.

"Cynthia McKinney is an example of a Democrat who refused to go along, stepped across the line within the Democratic Party and was driven out of office by the combined efforts of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the corporate media."

McKinney actually became the Green presidential nominee in 2008, although did not receive a particularly high vote total. By this point "Obamamania" was sweeping the progressive movement.

"The self-purging process of the Democratic Party is an ongoing balance between allowing, even welcoming, voices of opposition in order to co-opt, but not allowing those voices to form a serious challenge..."

A callback to earlier where Camejo argued Dems *like* some dissent.

A small amount of controlled dissent in a controlled primary allows the Democratic party to continue to pretend to be on the side of the people while consciously support & voting for the same corporate agenda as Republicans.

"The Democratic Party should be seen historically as the most successful political party in the history of the world in terms of maintaining stability for rule by the privileged few."

Camejo hits the nail on the head here. The Democrats are very successful at squashing dissent.

"The Democratic Party through trickery co-opted the powerful and massive rise of the Populist movement at the end of the 19th century precisely using the same “lesser evil” arguments now presented against the Green Party."

This refers to Democrat efforts against unionizing and independent politics like the Socialist Party in the late 1800s. Democrats ordered state police & private armies (e.g., the Pinkertons) to attack union strongholds in places like Pittsburgh.

The Socialist Party was rapidly growing and winning seats at all levels of government. SPUSA had thousands of municipal officials, many state legislators, and even a couple of members of Congress at its height.

Democrats colluded with Republicans to stop their growth.

One, Dems joined Rs in creating Espionage/Sedition Acts, and jailed Socialist Party leaders for speaking out against war. They also collaborated to make the complex system of ballot access we see today, purposely designed to make independent politics as difficult as possible.

"They [the Democratic Party] blocked the formation of a mass Labor Party when the union movement rose in the 1930s."

As the Socialist Party was weakened, other attempts were made at Labor Parties and People's Parties, but they all failed as Democrats co-opted the movement.

The biggest slap in the face was FDR accepting the New Deal, which was a watered-down and mild version of the Socialist Party platform that was gaining traction.

As FDR put it, he "saved capitalism" by taking these steps to squash dissent and independent movements.

"They derailed, co-opted and dismantled the powerful civil rights movement, Vietnam antiwar movement and women’s liberation movement. They have even succeeded in establishing popular myths that they were once for labor, for civil rights and for peace."

While dismantling the radical messaging of these movements -- always much more about democracy and socialism than we read about in today's history books -- Democrats also like to claim that they stand FOR these things! Historically that wasn't exactly true.

Democrats have never been leaders on any of these issues, and have often actually been obstructionists. Civil rights leaders including Martin Luther King complained about them. Unions and the environmental movement also saw opposition to their policies.

MLK famously wrote that the "white moderate" that wanted to "set a timetable on another man's freedom" was extremely frustrating to him and one of his biggest hurdles to overcome in the civil rights struggle.

"If a massive opposition develops, if the Greens begin to win races and its following grows, the corporations will put more money behind the Democrats, the media will become more sympathetic to the Democrats, and promote its more “progressive” voices."

Camejo points to media.

From the low point after Nader's 2000 run, Greens built up a new movement particularly with Jill Stein that was beginning to reach back toward Nader's numbers. Those growth numbers must have been making Democrats nervous.

While Stein got some mild corporate media coverage in 2016 such as a CNN Town Hall, the 2020 Green candidate Howie Hawkins was completely locked out of any such corporate coverage. As Camejo predicted, Democrats will ramp up media against perceived threats.