Well the quote below is a mild, but surely by no mistake, direct critiscism of Max Chandler-Mather

While I haven’t always agreed 100% with his approach (either on policy priorities or on how elected Greens reps should wield power)

Sriringnathan doesn’t elaborate on how he differs from Chandler-Mather on ‘policy priorities’ and ‘wielding power’, so it would be up to him to elaborate. I said to u/manicmaniacalmania, i did slide into my own assessment with the pyrrhic victory opinion without a good enough distinction between the points there.

Meh, i wrote it late at night, the interesting stuff in that comment I think is the application of Gramsci to the idea Sriringnathan presents. Which is why I think taking strong stands, and creating excitement is maybe a good single election tactic, but not good strategy.

Say all the craziest dreams come true and Greens win an overwhelming majority in their own right, both houses, can’t move in the halls of Parliament without trippin over another Greens Party member, etc. The limiting nature of the Australian cultural hegemony, which I’ve labelled an investor-consumerist ideology, could mean they’d flame out. Have massive push back from the community, their own base even, who’re often very comfortable and I’m not sure well aligned to some of the harder socialist party lines, i think of this group as a kind of champagne socialist, the kind Sriringnathan as well refers to in his piece.

If they were to try enacting some more radical policies, even if they’ve told the electorate thats their plan, they could loselargw parts of their base, while also failing in those segments Sriringnathan refers to. Melbourne, Griffith, and outer suburban migrant and working class voters. All because what they’re doing isn’t within the contwxtual expectations of how life is lived in Australia.

---

A US Diversion (As an example)

Look at the unpopularity of the US regime, a lot of their own voters say ‘they’ve gone too far’; or, ‘they didn’t believe them when they said they’d do the thing’; or, ‘thats not what I voted for’ when their program was well publicised. A lot of what they’ve done is lifted from that well publicised Heritage Project. But fascism or corrupt monarchism is outside the cultural frame for the dominant social order in the US. So even though they have the coercive force of the state, and the oligarchs reach and funds, they haven’t significantly shifted the cultural hegemony. Think of the reaction to the breaking of Constitutional Amendments. Especially interesting is the gun rights threats of the POTUS. The puritanical-ubercapital focused cultural hegemony in the US hasn’t really been altered, even with the cultural influences of the likes Thiel and his CEO-Monarchism harem of chums.

---

So to bring it back to the Greens, bold stances are at best a short term election injection, or, at worst a distraction to be lampooned in cartoons from our own Beer Battered Mussolini, probably both at the same time. So I think it puts the cart before the horse.

Greens should be working on shifting cultural ideas. Do what Chandler-Mather is good at, being great communitarians, but also lampoon the right wingers, change the face of the ‘scolding woke climate change commie’ that is in these people’s minds everytime they think of the Greens.

Look at crocodile dundee, a massive environmentalist and indigenous rights side to that character, while also having this outback weather beaten edge. That character appealed to a different idea of what it means to own ‘land’ and why. I can’t remember the following movies, but in the first there was a clear willingness to hold the value of the land.

Of course entertainment is only one lense where the cultural breaks can be varied, but i thought it was interesting because I can’t imagine a large land owner cone outback jack character being presented in that way today.

---

These are pretty speculative and undeveloped thoughts I’ve got though, long story short I think Sriringnathan is advocating fighting a battle, amidst a wider cultural hegemonic war.