Louis Proyect wrote: > In the green movement, there are "mainstream" groups which function within > the ruling-class establishment and there are "alternative" groups which > challenge it. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund supports > pollution credits and was a cheerleader for NAFTA. It has a budget of $25.4 > million and a staff of 160. The CEO has a $262,000 salary. It was George > Bush's favorite environmental group. I disagree with EDF about 80% of the time. They are a convenient stamp of approval for terrible positions, including NAFTA and the trading of pollution rights. I hesitated writing my thought because I knew that they are far from an activist group, but I did approve of their making overtures to the insurance industry to open up a contradiction with the capitalist leadership. > It is a matter of record that LM is politically opposed to groups like > "Project Underground" and "Survival International". I did not mean to support the position of LM -- Only to say that the tactic of working with a reactionary group does not in itself constitute evidence of a bad policy. > Bashing LM is no > different than bashing the Cato Institute. If you want me to be more polite > to capitalist ideologues, then I certainly will. I admit that I had not heard of LM except to read their article on Bosnia. They seemed to be on the right side on that one. Louis's original "bash" was useful, in pointing out the politics of this group. I was only suggesting that the bash was complete. I would not like to read more about LM unless it added to our understanding of the important thread that Louis opened. > And, Michael, what in the world is a "global warming activist". Global > Warming is a phenomenon that was first noticed by a NASA scientist by the > name of James Hansen. He brought it to the attention of government > officials, other scientists and the bourgeois media. Not quite. It had been theorized and noticed before. Hansen was the one who first brought evidence that was hard to refute. >Perhaps Michael has better information than I do, but > right now I can't figure out what he's talking about. Sorry about my lack of clarity. I was only trying to make the point about the possible legitimacy of LM's tactic, wanting to separate the tactic from the policy. > Perhaps Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is a hoax, but the > answer he gives to the question of the "seductiveness" of capitalist > society is that it had almost none to peoples like the Apache and the > Sioux. That is why the wars against them had a genocidal aspect, as did the > wars against the Irish and Scottish clans. I would like to believe you here, Louis. The common people in Ireland and Scotland were never giventhe chance to try to enjoy capitalism. The lairds were. The just threw the people off the land. Many middle class people like Adam Smith embraced the move. > I'd say that the Indians are much less of a > spawning-ground for reaction than the university system. touche. Louis, I mostly agree with your post and appreciate it. My rambling note came down to two points: 1) the tactic/policy distinction; and 2) the complexity of supporting indigenous rights.Louis Proyect wrote: > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
