Nonviolence has been one of four key pillars of the Green Party and the international Green movement since the initial founding discussions in the 1970s. Green Parties in many countries, including the US, were formed by or heavily influenced by anti-war/peace movements, alongside other popular movements such as the civil rights movement and environmental movements. As a result, nonviolent struggle and pacifism have been a major point of discussion and even contention among Greens for decades.
This essay explores some of the main currents of thought around nonviolence in Green Party history to help inform contemporary US Greens of past discussions and possible ways to move the discussion forward.
The German Greens and the US Green Committees of Correspondence
At its founding meeting in August 1984, the Green Committees of Correspondence, a precursor to the formation of a US national Green Party, proposed a list of Ten Key Values that united the Green movement. The Ten Key Values included a list of questions meant to promote discussion and debate among Greens that would clarify the meaning of the values and principles of the Green movement. From a revised Ten Key Values questions list circulated in March 1986[1], the nonviolence key value invites discussion around the following questions:
“How can we, as a society, develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence, at all levels, from the family and the street to the nations and the world? How can we eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth without being naïve about the intentions of other governments? How can we most constructively use non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree and in the process reduce the atmosphere of polarization and selfishness that is itself a source of violence?”
Even in these earliest drafts, we see the question of nonviolence effectively splitting into two spheres: domestic politics and international politics.
Domestically, the questions make it clear that the party endorses nonviolent action to oppose policy and effect cultural and political change, with the debate more about which are the most effective tactics. At this point in time, the Green movement was still debating the effectiveness of different possible paths forward, whether to remain a movement or enter electoral politics in various ways, including forming an independent political party, and a discussion on tactics was highly relevant and understandable even with agreement on the overall values.
Internationally, however, the policy of nonviolence is less clear. The concern for “being naïve” about other governments seemingly acknowledges the potential for violence brought by other governments and therefore beyond our control and best intentions for diplomacy and peace.
This concern is echoed by several German Greens in interviews and discussions collected by Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak for the 1984 book Green Politics.[2] Since the Green movement was relatively new globally, with the first Green organizations appearing only in the late 1970s, Green Politics focuses its first chapters on discussing the Green values and debates being held in Europe, especially among German Greens. The German Greens are so highly emphasized due to high-profile electoral wins in the 1983 national election that made the party a de facto international movement leader. Ultimately, Green Politics argues in favor of US Greens learning from the early success of the German Greens and other European Green Parties in pursuit of forming an independent United States Green Party.
Considering that the initial draft of the Ten Key Values questions was also authored primarily by Spretnak, it perhaps isn’t surprising that there is considerable overlap between the Ten Key Values and the “pillar” values of the German Greens. To best understand the origin of the Ten Key Values, we therefore need to better understand the debate among the German Greens.
Green Politics notes that the fourth pillar of the German Greens is nonviolence[3], which is defined as “the cessation of both personal violence and structural violence”, noting that violence and oppression can be imposed by the state and institutions. Beyond states going to war, this can include violence toward women, children, and minority groups in patriarchal societies where those patriarchal values are codified and enforced. The pillar of nonviolence therefore emphasizes the need for self-determination as a way to end oppression and exploitation of individuals and groups.
While nonviolence is seen as an “essential ingredient in an ecological society”, the book also notes that putting it into practice is not so clear-cut: “Although most of the Greens emphatically embrace the principle of nonviolence, they also recognize that its application is often problematic.” For example, Roland Vogt, a Green member of Bundestag from Rhineland-Palatinate, points out the paradox of engaging in parliamentary elections in the first place: “What we have not yet accomplished is to say how we show ourselves to be nonviolent at the moment when we participate in governmental functions, because the state is itself an institution of violence.” Governing in a system that can evict people for not paying rent is, in this view, becoming a manager of a form of violence. Clearly, policy toward self-determination and ending social injustice is needed to end violence as previously defined, but concrete policy examples are not given or suggested. As a result, tactics to support nonviolence in domestic policy are left fairly unclear.
Green Politics instead shifts focus to discuss international policy, particularly around militarism and nuclear weapons. Gert Bastian, a former West German general, and Petra Kelly, a cofounder of the German Greens and key spokesperson for the European Greens, are provided as representatives of the majority views of German Greens on nonviolence, militarism, and war. Bastian is described as “chief architect” of the German Green policy for active, nonviolent resistance, arguing that in the nuclear weapons age, there is no justification for military force. Disarmament is therefore a top priority, with nonviolent social civil resistance as the primary defense mechanism of nations. Gandhi, Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action[4], are cited as influences on Green nonviolent strategy for disarmament and peace. A good description of nonviolent civil resistance — also known as social defense — comes from Petra Kelly[5]:
Social defense is a way to protect ourselves from foreign invasions or internal coups through active, nonviolent resistance and noncooperation, including economic boycotts by consumers and producers, social and political boycotts of institutions, strikes, overtaking facilities and administrative systems important to the opponent, stalling and obstructing, being deliberately inefficient, ostracizing, influencing occupying troops, and other forms of not complying. Military defense seeks to prevent an enemy from invading by threatening battle losses at the border. Social defense sets an unacceptably high price on staying – ceaseless resistance. It spoils the spoils of war and deprives the aggressor of the fruits of victory. The price of aggression becomes so high that occupation is no longer worth it. The opponent is prevented from attaining their aims and their ability to fight is undermined.
Social defense is practical and pragmatic. It requires excellent preparation, organization, and training; a courageous, creative, and determined citizenry; and a radical commitment to democratic values. Independent, resourceful, freedom-loving people that are prepared and organized to resist aggression cannot be conquered. No number of tanks or missiles can dominate a society unwilling to cooperate.
“However, the Marxist-oriented members of the party have never been fully supportive of that [social defense strategy],” Green Politics states. While the authors frame the “Marxist-oriented” Greens as effectively wanting to romanticize “street fighting”, this description is quickly rebuffed by Jürgen Reents, a Green member of Bundestag from Hamburg and member of “Group Z”, a left-wing, eco-socialist faction of the early German Green Party. Reents says left-wing Greens in the peace movement are “adherents of absolute nonviolence” for political change, but cautions against an equally romanticized view of nonviolent transformation of society which expects activists to offer themselves up to police violence as martyrs for the movement at demonstrations. Building political force for change “is a matter of changing [public] consciousness” first, Reents responds.
Discussing international policy particularly in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR), Green Politics again calls out the “radical left,” this time for campism among some socialist Greens. An example is given of a Green demonstration in Alexanderplatz, East Berlin. Germany and its capital Berlin were separated into a western and eastern half at the end of World War 2, with the western half aligned with the US and NATO, and the eastern half aligned with the USSR. The demonstrating Greens called for the West Berlin and East Berlin government (therefore, the US and USSR) to both work for peace instead of increasing armaments. The action was denounced in a statement by Hamburg Greens, including Jürgen Reents, Thomas Ebermann, and Rainer Trampert, for a “both sides” argument they felt was shifting blame onto the USSR and away from the United States whom they saw as the lead in escalations due to its capitalist, imperialist goals.
Formally, the German Green position is one of nonalignment, to reduce tensions inherent in competitive bloc systems by calling for the dissolution of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the defensive alliance of eastern European countries and the USSR that served as a counter to NATO. Some Greens objected to the idea that both blocs (US and USSR) were equally problematic, and rejected criticism of the system of blocs itself. Frustration with the debate led Petra Kelly to respond in an interview[6]:
[The formerly-Communist Greens] often deny that there is any such thing as nuclearism and imperialism on both sides. They say, “Petra, all we need to think about is arms, American capital, industry, and multinationals.” When I reply that there is a form of capitalism on both sides, state capitalism on one side and private capitalism on the other (which is the position held by almost all of the Greens), they say, “No, the Communists [the USSR] are just reacting and balancing the situation.” There is a real bias in those groups, and I say that if that sort of thinking comes a bit more into the foreground of the Green Party, we are finished because the integrity of the Green position of nonalignment will be destroyed by insisting in this very primitive way that everything is simply a matter of capitalist imperialism.
Taken together, we see disagreement on what nonviolence means to Greens, which Green Politics characterizes as a disagreement between a more “spiritual” faction of Greens and a “radical-left,” Marxist faction.[7] The language used in Green Politics does not suggest neutrality from the authors on the debate, so we will try to avoid the terminology and framing used in the book in this essay. The main takeaway is that while all Green factions emphasized a commitment to nonviolent tactics for domestic political change, there is serious disagreement on how to extend that principle to international politics, particularly within the context of Cold War-era blocs. We next look at how US Greens picked up and extended this debate.
The US Left Greens’ Response
As discussion around the Ten Key Values continued beyond 1986, the Left Green Network was formed in 1988 by Howie Hawkins and Murray Bookchin to promote a leftist vision of a US Green movement as an alternative to the views expressed in Green Politics. In the summer of 1988, a draft program and set of principles for the Left Green Network was circulated.[8] In this draft, the Left Green Network responded to some of the criticisms by expanding on two related principles around nonviolence: Strategic Nonviolence and Non-Aligned Internationalism.
Non-Aligned Internationalism intends to support the global working class across national boundaries, rather than viewing international politics through a nation-state lens, taking a position similar to the German Greens’ principle of nonalignment:
Left Greens support human rights according to one universal criterion—freedom—without regard for national boundaries or the military blocs of the Cold War. They actively solidarize with nonaligned peace, ecology, democracy, worker, feminist, anti-racist, anti-militarist, and anti-imperialist movements in every country—East bloc, West bloc, Third World.
They envision a world without borders, a world of decentralized regions composed of confederations of self-governing communities.
Left Greens demand that every nuclear power initiate immediate unilateral nuclear disarmament and conversion to nonprovocative, home-based defense based on both voluntary conventionally-armed militia and nonviolent social defense. These forms of defense should be strictly accountable to civilian authority. Left Greens demand that every country recall all armed forces from stations abroad and use the savings from military spending for social and ecological reconstruction. Only such measures can create the just, democratic, and ecologically sustainable conditions necessary for a durable peace.
Strategic Nonviolence attempts to address some of the complexity in applying nonviolence to international struggles, identifying that “militarist nation-states” might necessitate the need for military defense:
Left Greens are committed to a strategy of nonviolent revolution, but we affirm the right of self-defense. We practice critical solidarity with legitimate freedom struggles, although we may not agree with every tactic or programmatic goal of such movements. Left Greens work toward a society in which political disputes are solved nonviolently. We understand that this is not currently the case, and that the central reason for this fact is the existence of social hierarchies based on racial domination, patriarchal authority, class exploitation, and an unjust world order maintained by militarist nation-states. The inevitable instances of violence arising from the conflicts between these structures and their subjects are to be blamed on the structures of domination, not on those who resist domination. Such structural violence will be eliminated only by the elimination of these structures of domination.
An expanded discussion on the meaning of Strategic Nonviolence from the Vermont and New Hampshire Greens was later circulated in pamphlets and published in Fall 1988.[9] This statement argues that nonviolence is not the same as “dogmatic pacifism,” and while the Green movement remains committed to nonviolent struggle for political change and global peace, Greens should not be dismissive of international armed struggle against invasion by hostile nation-states when no other choice is available. The Strategic Nonviolence section reads as follows:
The Greens are committed to nonviolent means of struggle to change this country. At the same time, they acknowledge the right of people to self-defense. They are committed to strategic nonviolence, not to a dogmatic pacifism that sees nonviolence as a panacea. They recognize there are circumstances that necessitate armed self-defense as a morally legitimate way to resist violent repression by domestic tyrannies or foreign invaders. Thus, for example, they do not advocate that nations immediately adopt a purely nonviolent social defense system as their only defense against foreign aggression. Similarly, they work in critical solidarity with freedom struggles abroad that have armed struggle as a component, such as the liberation movements in Southern Africa, however much the Greens may not agree with every strategy or programmatic goal of such movements.
Given the interconnected ecology, economy, media, and politics of this planet, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Structural violence is institutionalized on a global scale: taxes here pay for bombs elsewhere, the swings (and manipulations) of commodity prices in world markets determine who eats and who starves. The question of nonviolence is thus more than a question of personal pacifism. The Greens recognize that fundamental social change, not only personal commitments to nonviolence, is needed to remove institutionalized violence in the world. The Greens’ commitment to nonviolent struggle is therefore humble enough not to claim nonviolence as a panacea and self-righteously condemn people who have no choice but to fight back with arms, and yet daring enough to challenge violent institutions by militant nonviolent struggle.
While Greens that acknowledge that people who have no choice but to resist violence with violence deserve our solidarity, they recognize the futility of coping with the massive violence of the modern nation-state. No popular revolution can really succeed by acquiring superior firepower. The success of revolutions today requires that the rank-and-file of the armed forces must be won to the side of freedom. Nonviolent resistance, challenge, and communication are infinitely more effective for this objective than armed confrontation. This is the lesson that should be learned from the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, and the U.S. military occupation of Indochina. These were broad and international nonviolent actions — no less by the antiwar movement back home in the U.S. than by people abroad.
Violence distorts the revolutionary process. It tends to give power to armed minorities, not the democratic people as a whole. It inhibits free discussion and the democratic process. It leaves extreme bitterness between opponents long after the armed struggle has ceased. Nonviolence, on the other hand, tends to be participatory and democratic. Its success requires broad support and participation. It thus tends to make for majoritarian democratic revolutionary change, as opposed to repressive change forced by armed minorities. And it makes reconciliation after the armed struggle much easier to achieve.
In the U.S. today, with the civil liberties we enjoy, a strategy of armed struggle would be counterproductive, indeed downright regressive. It would give the establishment precisely the excuse it needs to destroy our political liberties. The right of self-defense against violent attacks is not the same as the traditional strategy of armed struggle. The Greens are committed to a strategy of nonviolent struggle to change the U.S.
Shortly after, in the November 1988 issue of Green Perspectives, a newsletter aimed at promoting social ecology values among Greens, an article by Gary Sisco expanded on many of the same points put forward by the Left Greens.[10] Sisco identified contradictions in the traditional Green pacifist “absolute nonviolence” stance, concluding a “strategic nonviolence” may be necessary to defend democracy itself from armed reaction. Ultimately, Sisco argues that communities and individuals themselves must determine whether pacifism or armed defense is necessary, and that the US Constitution’s Second Amendment (in addition to many state constitutions) recognizes that choice as a natural right:
Most of the present contradictions in theory and praxis are resolved once the natural right of self-defense is recognized, along with the right of individuals to make the personal choice of whether or not to take up arms should the situation arise, and to act on their choice in accordance with the dictates of conscience. So long as these choices are recognized as strictly voluntary matters freely determined by the individual, issues of coercion and authoritarianism need not arise.
…
The Green “pillar” of participatory democracy, not to mention the very idea of decentralization, remains an illusion, at best a bumper-sticker slogan, if we do not come to grips with the nation-state as a centralized politico-military institution whose power and “legitimacy” ultimately rest on its self-granted monopoly of violence, and its willingness to use armed force in defense of its power and the maintenance of the social status quo. To equate the Green principle of nonviolence with pacifism is to recognize, even fortify, the “legitimacy” of the state by removing the ultimate guarantee of freedom embodied in the natural right of citizens to bear arms, not only for personal protection, but more important, to defend their political liberties in the face of centralized power.
…
[The Green movement] must be prepared to stand behind political gains supported by a democratic majority and see to it that they are defended against reaction, through the use of both nonviolent social resistance and, if need be, armed self-defense. A movement unprepared to defend itself, its supporters, and social change accomplished through democratic struggle is, in my view, unworthy of the people’s support in the first place.
Again, Sisco echoes other authors that while the natural right to self-defense and self-determination exists for when decided necessary, Greens recognize that political change itself ultimately comes from nonviolent means that create the necessary cultural and political shifts:
Does this mean that social ecologists are calling for violence and armed struggle? Far from it. … A direct democracy and participatory political culture such as those envisioned by Bookchin in the literature of social ecology, and by the German Greens in their Federal Program, cannot be created through armed force. People cannot be forced into freedom; nor can an ecological consciousness be created through the barrel of a gun.
Ultimately, “Every revolutionary project is, above all, an educational one,” as Bookchin noted.[11] Sisco felt strategic nonviolence was a critical issue the movement needed to keep discussing and debating.
We therefore see early US Greens largely agreeing with the German Greens on the need for nonviolent political strategy domestically, and nonalignment and support for popular movements internationally. The divergence is, again, between a largely pacifist, purely nonviolent resistance to militarism or invasion, and an openness to supporting violent military defense when made necessary by international aggression.
Recent Policy of the GPUS and Global Greens
In 2001, the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) was formally founded and adopted the Ten Key Values. The Nonviolence value of the Ten Key Values currently reads as[12]:
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in danger. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
This text largely repeats the original questions put forward as goals, without much clarity on the means to do so. An important addition, however, is the explicit recognition of the need for “self-defense and the defense of others who are in danger”. This appears to be adopting the Strategic Nonviolence principle which promotes nonviolent political action while also recognizing a right to self-defense when necessary (such as when in direct danger, as noted by the text).
How does the GPUS’s key value of nonviolence compare with those of the German Greens and other international Green Parties? In 2001, GPUS was also one of the founding members of the Global Greens conference, which now unites over 100 Green Parties globally.
The Global Greens’ Charter describes the principle of Nonviolence as[13]:
We declare our commitment to nonviolence and strive for a culture of peace and cooperation between states, inside societies and between individuals, as the basis of global security.
We believe that security should not rest mainly on military strength but on cooperation, sound economic and social development, environmental safety, and respect for human rights.
The note about security not “mainly [resting] on military strength” is expanded on later in the Charter, to clarify when use of violent force may be necessary[14]:
Support strengthening the role of the UN as a global organisation of conflict management and peacekeeping, while, noting that, where prevention fails and in situations of structural and massive violations of human rights and/or genocide, the use of force may be justified if it is the only means of preventing further human rights violations and suffering, provided that it is used under a mandate from the UN. Nonetheless, individual countries have the right not to support or to cooperate with the action.
In 2015, Per Garhton, in Green Parties, Green Future, wrote a history of the international Green movement and survey of the philosophy and policies that the Global Greens hold in common, including views on the nonviolence pillar.[15] Garhton notes a strong pacifist influence on the early Green movement, due to the origin of many Green Parties from the peace movement, as we previously saw in Green Politics. As such, Greens still generally support global and national disarmament, restrictions on arms exports, opposition to military alliances including NATO, and opposition to military intervention of any form without United Nations approval.
Garhton clarifies, however, that Global Greens are not uniform among these issues. Garhton formulates a number of questions and responses to help clarify how Greens who do not embrace traditional, radical pacifism still differ strongly from the militarism and imperialism of the “ruling elite”. Greens in Latvia, for example, supported some form of NATO membership due to Russian threats and military buildup along Eastern Europe, at least in the interim until a better international agreement can be formed. Garhton reports that Greens widely recognize military force to be a legitimate response in the case of defense against outright attack or invasion, but emphasize military violence is only one possible response of a pre-planned strategy that also includes civil resistance. Many Greens also consider violent resistance against occupation to be legitimate, even if not preferred or encouraged, with the choice of how to resist being up to the occupied people to make. Likewise, many Greens believe it to be legitimate to provide arms or military support in some circumstances to legitimate struggles for liberation or resistance, noting the example of Swedish Green support to Kurdistan against the Islamic State’s violent invasion in 2012[16].
There seems to be good alignment between the GPUS Key Values and Global Greens Principles, as one might expect, integrating points made by different factions of the debate, such as an emphasis on nonalignment while recognizing a right to armed self-defense in extreme circumstances. While there is alignment, the spectre of the “problematic application” of principled nonviolence to real-world conflict, as noted by Green Politics, is not fully resolved and would be challenged by a new international conflict.
The Renewed Debate Around Ukraine and Russia
Garhton’s book was published in 2015, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Russian invasion and subsequent war over the last four years has resulted in many European Greens rallying to support Ukrainian military resistance to occupation, opening up new and continued debate around nonviolence and international policy. While European Greens have declared their intent to ultimately leave NATO should they form a government inside the European Union, in the absence of other coordinated action at present, European Greens remain in NATO to keep up the organization and coordination in defense of Ukraine.
For example, Zack Polanski, current leader of the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), argued in favor of Britain weaning itself off of US (and particularly Trump’s) influence and eventually withdrawing from NATO, while acknowledging Putin’s threat to Europe.[17] The GPEW later put out a statement that NATO membership must be “reappraised” and emphasized that “A Green approach to security is not based on arms and threats, but on the three Ds: diplomacy and development as well as defence. Defence policy should not be a simple competition over spending, but based on real commitment to an international order based on human rights, equality and genuine cooperation.”[18]
The Green European Journal interviewed members of several European Green Parties in 2022 to get a sense of the shifts in policy around Ukraine and nonviolence in general, and the results heavily favored aid to Ukraine and the need to reconcile traditional pacifism with a commitment to self-determination and democracy.[19] For example, Erik Apel of the Swedish Green Party said in a comment: “I would say we’ve gone from pacifism to anti-militarism. We are not against defending ourselves, our freedom and democracy, and our human rights. All of these things matter and are worth defending. Human security is worth defending even with arms, but that’s the last choice of action. Civilian means, diplomacy always comes first.”
The US Green Party, meanwhile, issued a statement calling for a ceasefire in September 2023 which focused on criticism of the Ukrainian government and NATO rather than the Russian invasion itself.[20] Since then, the party’s national committee has hotly debated the topic and appears to remain in a policy stalemate as the war continues. Some have taken a more pacifist view.[21] Others have argued for direct military support for Ukraine.[22] Interestingly, the roles have somewhat reversed from the original debate in the 1980s documented in Green Politics. More pacifist-aligned Greens appear to have taken up lines similar to the previous Communist campist arguments, identifying the US and NATO as the primary instigator of violence globally. Ecosocialists, meanwhile, argue for a more non-aligned position that should resist all “blocs” and sources of militarism and imperialism, including supporting Ukraine’s working class military resistance to Russian occupation as a necessary precondition for creating lasting peace.
Concluding Thoughts
Greens throughout the history of the movement have been strongly committed to nonviolent political change, noting both the need for education toward cultural change and the poor outcomes of violent revolution in history. Ultimately, the means of creating a truly peaceful world are the same as the ends: our political revolution must be a revolution of culture to be successful, and our organizing structure must be grassroots democratic and committed to justice, nonviolence, and ecological wisdom. Greens internationally seem nearly unanimous on this point.
International policy presents a persistent challenge for extending the principles of nonviolence, however. Globally, many Greens still adhere to a pacifist, “social defense” track focused on demilitarization and disarmament, particularly by the major world militaries like the US and Russia. However, many Greens have moved from absolute pacifism to “anti-militarism,” supporting violent military force for defense when absolutely necessary to resist invasion or genocide, as described in the Global Greens Charter.
While the Soviet Union no longer exists, Cold War era politics continues to impact global politics as many in the US still view the US and Putin’s Russia through a similar adversarial bloc lens. For some, the US and NATO represent the major source of violent conflict in the world, echoing campist positions of previous decades, and so focus on opposing US intervention in any conflict even when other nations might be seen as the aggressor for a particular conflict. For others, nonalignment with any imperialist power or bloc is critically important in order to center popular movements and self-determination, but the question of how best to center and defend working class movements remains open while defense is largely operated in the US by the for-profit military-industrial complex. The Global Greens Charter supports military defense when necessary, but specifies that it must only occur with UN authorization. When both the US and Russia hold Security Council vetoes that will likely prevent UN authorization for any conflict involving either power, are other alliances acceptable and under what conditions? Clearly, the Ukraine-Russia war shows divisions on these questions.
With US Greens now in the process of rejoining the Global Greens[23], there is no doubt that nonviolence and how it interacts with other key values and principles to impact policy will continue to be debated at the national and international levels. Finding a path forward grows in importance as the global political landscape shifts due to the rise of extreme right-wing parties, climate change, and other crises that could lead to violence if nonviolent policy is not first and foremost.
- A copy of the draft Ten Key Values with accompanying questions can be found linked on the Green Party of the United States website: “Early History of the United States Green Party, 1984-2001”, https://www.gp.org/early_history#05. ↑
- Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak, “Green Politics: The Global Promise”. E.P. Dutton, Inc. – New York. 1984. A 1986 paperback edition followed, which included the Ten Key Values and accompanying questions as an appendix. ↑
- The four pillars are Nonviolence, Democracy, Social Justice, and Ecology. Green Politics notes that many German Greens also felt Decentralization should be a fifth pillar, but this was not formally adopted. Decentralization would later appear as one of the US Greens’ Ten Key Values that effectively extended the original four pillars. ↑
- Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Boston, MA: P. Sargent, 1973. Published as a three-volume set, Sharp explores research on effective and successful nonviolent actions in history to inform present-day tactics. The Albert Einstein Institution has published a list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action for reference, based on Sharp’s work: https://www.aeinstein.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/. ↑
- Petra Kelly, Thinking Green!, Parallax Press: Berkeley, CA. 1994. Generally Chapter 5, “Nonviolent Social Defense”, but the quote specifically comes from pp 58-59. ↑
- Capra and Spretnak, page 66. ↑
- The division between “spiritual” liberalism and “radical left” eco-socialists here parallels the Realo-Fundi debate. A February 2026 article in The Ecologist describes the split as: “two main factions [of] the German Greens: the “realos” (realists), who wanted professionalism, structure, modernisation and electoralism; and the “fundis” (fundamentalists), who were more anarchist, and generally opposed having a [traditional party] leader.” See: https://theecologist.org/2026/feb/06/green-red. The Green Party of England and Wales has had similar debates, as the article discusses, in addition to other Green Parties globally, with some parties becoming more mainstream liberal/progressive parties and some becoming more eco-socialist parties. ↑
- A copy of the Left Green Network draft program was published online by Janet Biehl on her website, https://www.biehlonbookchin.com/; as of 2026-06-29, the website is no longer available, but the post can still be found on the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20171130030112/http://www.biehlonbookchin.com/left-green-network/. ↑
- Published as “Toward a New Politics: A Statement of Principles of the Vermont and New Hampshire Greens”, Our Generation, Vol. 20 No. 1 – Fall 1988. The statement was written by Howie Hawkins, and the author has given permission to reprint the article. The relevant portion is excerpted here. ↑
- Gary Sisco. “On Strategic Non-Violence (Part 1: ‘Peace’ or Social Revolution, Which Way For Greens?)”. Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project, No. 12 (November 1988). https://social-ecology.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/GP-12.pdf. ↑
- Murray Bookchin. Remaking Society: Pathways To A Green Future. Boston, MA : South End Press. 1990. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-remaking-society#toc28. ↑
- https://www.gp.org/ten_key_values ↑
- Charter of the Global Greens, Updated Korea 2023, https://globalgreens.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GlobalGreens_Charter_2023.pdf. ↑
- Charter of the Global Greens, Section 9.2. ↑
- Per Garhton. Green Parties, Green Future: From Local Groups to the International Stage. Pluto Press: London. 2015. pp 73-75. ↑
- For more on the Kurds and Rojava resisting the Islamic State, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava%E2%80%93Islamist_conflict. ↑
- “UK should consider expelling US forces from British bases, says Zack Polanski”, The Guardian, 20 Jan 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/20/uk-should-consider-expelling-us-forces-from-british-bases-says-zack-polanski. ↑
- “Greens call for investment in genuine global security“, Green Party of England and Wales, 2 Jun 2025, https://greenparty.org.uk/2025/06/02/greens-call-for-investment-in-genuine-global-security/. ↑
- Samir Jeraj. “Are Green Parties Still Pacifist?”. Green European Journal, 13 December 2022. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/are-green-parties-still-pacifists/. ↑
- Proposal 1155, “GPUS Calls for Ceasefire to End Ukraine War”, https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1155. Adopted on 25 Sep 2023, with a vote of 62 yes, 18 no, and 8 abstentions. ↑
- See for example: Steve Welzer, “Nonviolence as an Ideal”, New Green Horizons, 7 Jun 2026, https://newgreenhorizons.us/nonviolence-as-an-ideal/. ↑
- See for example: Howie Hawkins, “Nonviolence, Ukraine, and the Greens”, New Green Horizons, 12 Jun 2026, https://newgreenhorizons.us/nonviolence-ukraine-and-the-greens/. ↑
- Proposal 1303, “GPUS affiliation with the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas and the Global Greens”, https://secure.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=1303. Adopted on 20 Jul 2026, with a vote of 70 yes, 27 no, and 3 abstentions. ↑
