>That is, any 'movement' that "makes these facts the basis and guiding
>compass of [its] politics" will never mobilize sufficient political
>weight to be of any significance. Hence anyone seriously interesred in
>these facts will _not_ focus on them but work towards building a left
>_within_ which these facts cold become important. I would laugh at
>someone who wanted to pass out leaflets proclaiming "Smash Commodity
>Fetishism." Tom and those who agree with him are equally irrelevant to
>any actual politics.
>
>Carrol
This is wrong. Marx and Engels wrote about scientific and ecological
problems their entire lives. The question of soil fertility preoccupied
them in particular. That was the central ecological crisis of the 19th
century. Nobody expected the socialist movement to agitate around the
question of restoring soil fertility. Instead, the notion of integrating
town and countryside became a central component of the long-range communist
program. The same exact thing is true today with respect to matters like
global warming, etc. The reason Carroll rails on these questions has to do
with his ambivalence toward the green movement. He has demonstrated a
certain affinity with anti-ecological moods on various email lists, most
recently expressed in a rather dotty salute of McDonalds fast food on
Henwood's list where genuflection to capitalist modernization is
practically a sine qua non for subscription.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
