Fair enough. The post I was replying to basically forwarded an argument that recycling lowers the demand for farmed trees, and thus promotes logging of old growth. Even if true, it is an argument against unregulated markets rather than an argument against recycling. And for various reasons, it is unlikely to be true. It was a silly argument, and I responded to it with the level of seriousness it deserved. To more serious arguments I will give a more serious reply.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 , Liza Featherstone <lfeather32 at erols.com> added
> For a Marxist critique of recycling and its cultural origins, I would
> recommend a really wonderful film made by my friend Heather Rogers. you can
> order it from
>
> Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage (2002) from AK Books
> http://www.akpress.org
>
> I have a review of GT in the next issue of Punk Planet, which I'll post as
> soon as it's out.
>
> Liza
I look forward to it. However it is worth noting that a number of worthwhile movements have started with a silly upper middle class base. (I use "middle class" as unavoidable colloquialism, not as a term of class analysis.) That should be taken into consideration but not as irrefutable evidence against a practice. Recycling, properly done, is a change in the means of production, not a method of inconveniencing people or a proof of moral superiority. The latter two deserve all the ridicule you care to heap upon them. The first is absolutely vital; that it is not being done to the maximum economically feasible extent is an indictment of capitalism. Yes, it was an indictment of the old Soviet Union and other "socialist" states back when they existed.