On 15/03/11 17:30, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > As a sociological generalisation, what is called the "New Left" became part > of the renewal of the elite, giving rise to new classes of bureaucrats > funded by taxes, profits and philantrophy.
....and this is true of all social movements (that are not simply destroyed), and what you are describing is really just a feature of capital interests' ability to recuperate social movements - and the tendency in so many people to seek influence (and power) rather than stay with their ideals, is it not? As far as I am concerned this begins to take form with labour unions (i.e. defeated commoners) and social-democrats that seek compromises rather than fundamental change, as Benjamin wrote: "Social Democracy thought fit to to assign to the working class the role of the redeemer of future generations, in this way cutting the sinews of its greatest strength. This training made the working class forget both its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren" (Benjamin 1940/1982: 262). Despite all this - and despite academic and other bourgeois marxists and disillusioned "greens" (like it seems to me that you describe yourself) - there are still movements that seeks fundamental change, rather than influence and compromise - anarchists, some flavours of autonomous/feminist communists, many radical green movements and so on. All that said, yes, I agree with what you say about the pseudo-green-wash nonsense dabblers who also these days - against all odds - keep leading cheers for nuclear power and wind turbines with GE patented neodymium-based magnets displacing (hundreds of?) thousands of people. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
