> On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's certainly true, as Shane and Ted say, that the odds on making a > socialist revolution in time to save the planet and its species are > frighteningly small. > > But that doesn't mean pushing only those demands which supposedly make > continuing pollution profitable.
> Given the current weakness of movements for socialism, especially in the > biggest polluting countries (US and China), we need to think strategically > about demands which build those movements, and argue for them to take up > transitional climate demands. > > What's more, a workers' movement fighting for confiscatory carbon taxes is > more likely to scare the ruling class into substantial cuts in emissions > far more than a movement which starts with an "acceptable" demand... Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement? I'm not referring to the customary differences of strategy, nor the theoretical differences about whether it is possible to achieve the necessary reforms short of a sweeping change in capitalist property relations. What are the "acceptable" demands that Andy and the eco-socialist movement would reject, and what "respectable" environmental groups are advancing these? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
