well, on this list "marx" seems to be a synonym for god ;-). kidding aside, my point is that fear of the possibility of sloppy thinking cannot in itself be reason to exclude an attitude of respect towards nature and other creatures.
> >environmentalism has nothing to do, AFAIK, with the naturalistic
> >fallacy. to address them conjointly is, IMHO, an act of throwing the
> >baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> I'm not asking that they be addressed conjointly -- still, why do people
> get so passionate about protecting trees...who could not care less that
> men and women are being ground into powder by the same system?
recent threads on this list have shown that marxist (insert better word here if available) leftists are dismissive of other causes (environmental issues, animal rights, according to marta, doyle, et al, the disability rights movement, etc). as i mentioned in previous threads, solidarity is possible when we share some core values and ways of thinking, not just some sort of shared identity.
your question has been addressed here and elsewhere: yes, there is a yuppie (substitute whatever more derogatory term you want to use here, e.g liberal) environmental element that romanticises its activism and refuses to broaden its analysis. why are we unable to reach this blinkered crowd? why do they refuse to extend their compassion to fellow humans? we could blame their self-indulgence: you can drive your hybrid volvo (when available) to be an environmentalist and still participate in the pleasures of the capitalist system. or we could blame the armchair activism of the western left (which is not to malign those who spend their lives organizing, protesting, etc). i am not sure i know the answer.
but it seems, there are other segments of the left that insist on the primacy of their ideology, their analysis, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. what are we to say of them?
--ravi