> Tell me why a lot of the politics of long-run
> ecological catastrophe, indigenous peoples,
> race/gender/sexual orientation discrimination
> doesn't reduce to class-indifferent solutions
> (if not worse)
I'm not sure what class-indifferent solutions mean, but if it means 'technical' then I don't see that there are any technical solutions to global warming or surplus-population because they are results of capitalist irrationality, misapplication of resources, over-accumulation of the wrong things and underaccumulation of things necessary for humans to live well. People do mobilise against the general threat to the enviornment I think as people mobilized against fascism in the 1930s, without necessarily understanding exactly WHY it was a threat, but knowing it was anyway. Huge numbers of Americans are members of one or another Green organisation. But the Greens surely won't get very far without a different kind of politics. Long-run ecological catastrophe is actually with us now; it's happening, the left has an important and exclusive role to play and ought to play it.
>or screaming into the wind.
> Being morally righteous and politically
> ineffectual. (Been there, done that.)
>
> If I thought it worked, I'd go for it, believe
> me. At the very least, it would be better for
> my career.
Green politics are often more militant than anything the left gets up to, but they embrace a huge swathe of opinion and middle class people with de luxe lives are often involved just because they have more to lose. But there has surely to be a red-green synthesis.
And it's no good playing ostrich.
Mark I'm logging off this list and marxism-list for a coupla days, to catch up with some work.