> Agreed, but so what? The point of revolutionary (or progressive reform)
> action is not any certainty (or even probability) that the resulting
> ensemble of the social relations will solve this, that, or any other
> "problem," but that the ensemble of social relations in which we find
> ourselves caught up will be necessarily destructive. That too may be in
> error, but it is merely rag-biting to call it "a delusion."
I don't mean to make a fetish of certainty. Any ambitious reform/revolutionary agenda is beset with uncertainty. It is of some practical import, I think, that anti-ecological consciousness is not only or always a matter of profit-seeking, but something which springs from the basic conditions of production and consumption, conditions which in great part would persist regardless of ownership. Put another way, capital owners are in this vein too narrow a "target" of criticism, either presently or prospectively. What I did not go into was my other mantra in this context -- that the costs and benefits of environmental amenities are often twisted in green and 'red'-green discourse in favor of capital.
> . . .
> It is a very real possibility, even a probability, that a socialist
> revolution will fail to stem the disastrous tendencies which have
> generated the green movement. But it is a certainty that liberalism (of
> any variety) will not forestall that disaster.
On the latter we obviously continue to disagree.
Cheers,
mbs