One of (many) endless debates on the left is the Maximalist vs Minimalist solution. If you don’t know what this is, don’t worry. It means you haven’t spent hours of your life debating politics in damp rooms above real ale pubs with lots of bearded Marxists. There are many ways to do politics on the left and that is just one of them. 

The Maximalist vs Minimalist debate comes in many forms, but it essentially boils down to: should we use democratic means to take control of some aspects of the state and use these to build power for a wider revolution, or push for a revolution that will change everything? Some change now, or lots of change later?

Minimalists argue that if the left gains some power and legislates for some change - say a shorter working week or better working conditions or better housing - then the people are more likely to support a revolution, as they have seen the benefits of radical left changes. Maximalists argue this is compromising with institutions that will never bring about real change, and that only a full revolution can improve the lot of the people. Lenin was a Maximalist. Rosa Luxemburg was a Minimalist.

A more modern debate

This debate might seem quite 1910s and that’s because it is. A more contemporary version of this argument is: should the left moderate it’s policies or language to win some power and deliver some change then use this as a base to win democratic support for wider change, or should the left argue for a total transformation for society?

This debate has divided social democrats from socialists, socialists from other socialists, the people who think Ed Miliband was on the right track from the people who think that Jeremy Corbyn was on the right track, and generally been an excuse for people on the left to hate each other instead of getting things done. The debate has divided the Labour Party, but soon, this issue will be dividing the Green Party.

The Green Party

As the Greens become more successful, they will be faced with a dilemma: do they stick to a radical plan to change all of society to be greener and fairer, or do they moderate their ambitions to take control of the state, use its power to change society somewhat and then build a consensus for greater change later?

Once a party starts down the path of moderation it becomes easier to compromise values or policies to win the support of the electorate as it is. It’s easy to say: “We’ll make some noise on topics such as immigration, house building or the culture war to win more votes and gain power, then we can use this power to affect positive environmental change.”

Power, even a small amount of it, is a useful thing for any radical organisation to have. Once you have power, over a council or national assembly or in Westminster, then you get access to a range of tools to effect the change you want to see in society. You can use power to help people who need help and to build a consensus for greater change. However, to win power, compromises might have to be made with many voters' intransigent conservative views.

Will the Greens compromise?

You can stay committed to your full vision and fight for a revolution, but this is challenging. Convincing every one of the need for revolution is harder than triangulating on what voters already think to get some power from the current system. Also, it’s easy to have transformative goals when you are far from power and there’s nothing to gain from compromise.

The Greens have been good at picking up the votes of left-wing Labour supporters who are dissatisfied with the current Labour leadership. A leadership who are willing to compromise several values important to left-wing Labour members, so that the party can win over more voters and take power. I voted Green in the London Assembly election this year because I was so disappointed with the compromises Keir Starmer is making. This is fertile terrain for the Greens, but how far will it take them?

As they pick up more voters, from Labour or previous non-voters, and get closer to taking over councils or winning seats, the temptation to moderate the Green vision to win power will grow stronger. For example, the Greens now control Lancaster City Council through an alliance with the Tories. Will this cost them left-wing votes in the future? If I lived in Lancaster, I would see this as a compromise too far and not vote Green again. Will this compromise to gain power increase or decrease Green support? We’ll have to wait and see.

Ineffective compromise

This is just one council, but it shows the dilemma facing the Greens. Many younger, more left-wing voters, which Labour are losing to the Greens, are dissatisfied with how Labour has compromised to gain (or try to gain) power in the past. From Tony Blair abandoning the commitment to Clause IV, to Ed Miliband’s control on immigration mugs, to Starmer’s praise for the troops.

It’s worth noting that although Labour is trying to compromise on its radical vision to win power, the party is going about this in a ham-fisted way that is losing them the support of the voters that Labour won during the Corbyn years, without winning back the voters they lost. Ineffective compromising can be as bad for the party as ineffective radicalism.

The Green dilemma

It’s easy for the Greens to win voters from Labour’s left when there is nothing to be gained from compromising on their radical vision. Can the Greens hang onto this radical support when faced with the chance to moderate their message or policies to win power? How will the party react?

A well-timed compromise could win them power to start the process of changing this country. Or it could cost them all the support they have. Or it could win them power then bind their hands in a way that makes power meaningless. Labour has had all these fates at different points, which will be the Greens?

"Extinction Rebellion-11" by juliahawkins123 is licensed under CC BY 2.0