[lbo-talk] green fakers

[John Thornton]

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> John:
>
> If she wants to attach her name to a cause then her behaviours 
> referenced against that cause are relevant. Her personal behaviours 
> otherwise are not and if she had never made a point to label herself an 
> environmentalist her environmental impact would be a non-issue.
> One need look no further than Barbara's attempt to shut down the 
> California Coastal Records Project by suing them for $50 million in a 
> totally bogus invasion of privacy suit. Why would an "environmentalist" 
> want to do such a thing?
> She recommends "ordinary people" use recycled content toilet paper, and 
> use it sparingly, yet when she travels she insists on color coordinated 
> super soft toilet paper according to hotel staffers who have waited on her.
> If she would just shut the fuck up about others individual choices 
> concerning the environment no one will care about her personal 
> carbon-footprint.
>
>
> [WS:] So by this logic, we should dismiss Das Kapital and communism in
> general, because Karl Marx was a spiteful prick and a misogynist in his
> private life, no?
>
> Wojtek

His work in Das Kapital has nothing specifically to do with being 
misogynistic or a prick. If Karl advocated vociferously for equal rights 
for all women while oppressing his wife then it is fair to call him on 
it. It also would not invalidate his statements concerning equality for 
women, a point I never made and specifically denied so no, by my logic 
we should not dismiss Das Kapital because Karl was a prick and a 
misogynist. I though I was very clear on this.

No one said that Barbara was wrong about the environment being of 
paramount importance, her hypocrisy does not invalidate her position but 
it is fair to point out her hypocrisy publicly. Her stance that 
individual consumption (or non-consumption) is a route to a cleaner 
environment is however mostly bogus. Systemic problems need systemic 
solutions not good samaritans. Pointing out her hypocrisy in a critique 
of her individualist solutions is not inappropriate and I do not see how 
one can construe it as such.

John Thornton