Are you a red? Or are you speaking in their name? The reason I ask this question is that your embrace of pricing mechanisms seems about as opposed to the Marxist project as one can get. I am not sure who you are referring to when you speak of "the most progressive of greens." This is a rather nebulous category, which could include Greenpeace, Earth First, the Worldwatch Institute, etc. Greenpeace is not particularly anti-industrial. It just wants to curtail abuse of the corporations, such as burning down the Borneo rainforest to clear land for the purpose of setting up palm oil plantations. Is Earth First anti-industrial? Their real politics, as opposed to the smears against them, are much more subtle. They are not opposed to logging, just logging of old-growth in federal lands, which they argue is a waste of precious resources. Lester Brown's Worldwatch Institute is concerned with how to recycle agricultural byproducts, most especially organic fertilizer. They have also proposed solutions to industrial pollution which involve a "closed-pipe" approach, namely dealing with toxic byproducts *within* the factory rather than dumping them in poor neighborhoods. Perhaps Dan is thinking of green philosophers like Arne Naess or Capra? Philosophy is like religion--a matter of values--but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the actual poltical practice of green groups.
>None of this is meant as a justification crude Stalinist attempts to
subjugate
>the landscape or LM's absurd celebration of the automobile. Rather, it means
>acceptance of the concept of stewardship, i.e. the notion that man (in the
>purely generic sense, of course) is a presence on the globe, that his and her
>every action affects nature, and that the more productive capacity expands,
>the greater that impact on nature will be.
Stewardship is a meaningless term unless it is put into a class context.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)