> As I may have said before, there are 'reformist reforms' which make the
> problem worse and take the wind out of the movement's sails, on the one
> hand, and on the other, 'non-reformist reforms' which change power
> balances so the problems can be addressed more fundamentally and by a
> movement with growing momentum. We're looking for the latter; market
> enviros seem happy with the former - for now, until it becomes very
> clear that matters are genuinely worse...
But how do you distinguish between the two types a priori? Doesn't the "reformist" or "non-reformist" character of a reform agenda depend on whether or not crowds (as opposed to mere individuals or grouplets) set themselves in motion to conquer them and, in the process, acquire more radical needs and the wherewithal to get them met? In the absence of a clear decision by the crowds on the matter, this distinction between "market enviros" and the more radical brand you prefer seems to be entirely based on ideology. No?