I like Murray Bookchin's book 'Re-enchanting Humanity'. He is professor of social ecology somewhere. He does a very good critique of Heidegger and other anti-humanist views.
> Why is it so hard to imagine that a lot of people might enjoy making a
>living by growing food?
I suppose it is not by the benevolence of the bank clerk or the plumber that the farmer finds a market, but by their self-interest. It doesn't matter to me whether the farmer enjoys it or not, like most people, I buy according to the price.
> WOuldn't more self-sufficiency to on the
>local level (windmills and solar panels to ward of the nuclear mafia..) help
>yank a lot of power out from under the evil capitalists? There are a lot of
>visions of more sustainable agriculture and living. I'd be interested to hear
>what all the Marxists think of them.
I can't speak for anyone else, but 'self-sufficiency' as you describe it seems to mean a withdrawal from the world market, whereas I would see socialism as a transformation of the world market into a fully socialised division of labour. The historical record of autarchic movements against capital is disappointing: The Soviet Union, 3rd world nationalist regimes, early 19c. German protectionism.
> Carl wrote that GMO might be ok after the revolution. GMO seems to be
>about putting the control of plants and food into the hands of one small group
>of a-holes. If people see the "left" working towards a "revolution" that will
>just replace the pack of assholes we got screwing things up now for another
>pack, no wonder working class people aren't flocking to it.
I find it hard to believe that the working class is indifferent to the left because of their support for GM foods. The position is rather the reverse. It is the left that is most hostile to GM foods, and the working class, at least in their consumption habits, that is most in favour of them.
-- Jim heartfield