Tom wrote: >More on James Foster. >anybody seen this? I seem to remember a mention of it. > http://www.greeninformation.com/TSMARXECOLOGY.htm This review is by Tom Smith (who he? I dunno). He is reviewing "Marx's Ecology, by James Bellamy Fosterm New York, Monthly Review Press, 2000. Marx and Nature, by Paul Burkett, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1999." Sic. Actually it's *John* not James, Foster not Fosterm. I confess not having read either of these books. This is because I *have* read Foster and Burkett before (Burkett's key paper is on the web somewhere). Burkett does not understand Marx's value theory. Foster does not understand Marx, Epicurus or classical philosophical epistemology, IMHO. They are a pair of pretentious, self-seeking, self-aggrandising, professorial twits. If this is the future of green marxism, then I'm voting for Bush for King (why go to the bother of elections any more? Crown him, then you can stop this every-4-year charade once for all. In the meantime, Clarence Thomas can act as Regent, with Arianna Stassinpolous as chief-concubine. All kings have concubines. By making it a matter of public policy, you will also do away forever with the need to impeach future rulers for sexual misfeasance. W for King. Then you can sing "All Hail the Thief", as Michael Moore puts it. And Prince Charles can get a job at the Royal Court of DC, together with the Duchess of York, as monarchy-spectacle-bread-n-circus consultants. This might have all kindsa payoffs, from our point of view, considering that the Prince of Wales is acually a deep-eco). When I read Foster's turgid, unenlightening prose, I'm reminded of Gramsci's remark about people who hope to be the ploughshare that turns over history discovering that actually they are just the manure that's gonna be ploughed under. God Bless America. Mark _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
