Carrol, >*It does not follow that the most important issues are >the issues that can stand by themselves.* Right. Or they can stand by themselves, but not the way we'd like them to. Survivialism is a rational reaction to "doom and gloom". Politics is hardly a rational reaction IMO. >Ecology, by itself, can trigger a substantial core of agressive adherents. >That is *all* -- and you can prove 100 times to everyone's satisfaction >that the world will end in 50 years and you will not add one solitary >person to that core. It may be true. But specific items within the "doom and gloom" corpus can "activate" (as you say) people. Specifically, the prospect of the loss of the ecological base for people's jobs or ways of life should be able to "activate" them. Generic shocking "doom and gloom" as such won't IMO. >Beyond that core people will become activated >by ecological issues *only after they have become politically activated.* Could you explain why it can't be the other way around? >Almost anyone, once activated, once involved aggressively in politics >and entering into relations with others so involved, will *then* (and >ONLY then) also come to see what Mark and others see. Why ONLY then? I'd like to understand. >So the first step in doing anything about the ecological crises is >bringing a large contingent of that activist core to see that they >must (while maintaining their activities in that area) give their >primary attention to the creation of a mass left and working- >class movement. Another step badly needed is the discovery of a way to efficiently transform this attention into results. I'm ignorant about the ways of mass-organizing... If someone is aware of such a way, I'll appreciate an explanation. Also, I'm not sure of the relevance of organizing around the "working-class" in some countries nowadays. It seems to me (again, I'm quite ignorant about this) that the line between "working-class" and "non-working-class" has been very much blurred to begin with. What's the benefits of organizing around the "working class" in "imperialist countries" nowadays (as opposed to 120 or even 40 years ago)? How is it superior to organizing against captial, including all opponents in the process whatever the rationale for their opposition? >Most of the posts on this list are uninteresting because they only >repeat endlessly what anyone who is on this list already accepts. I don't think so. Need I browse the archives to make a list of all insults various posters have been throwing at each other? Julien BTW, Mark, there isn't much use for aggressive politics on a sinking ship IF it's not possible to maintain it ashore with another organization and IF everyone agrees on who shall have the priviledge of using the lifeboats. _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
