Jim, let me explain why I chose this this subject line. In my first message http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2007w30/msg00081.htm I tried to show that Hermann Scheer's explanation of the broad resistance agains renewable energies can easily be turned into a Marxist explanation.
In my second message http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2007w30/msg00082.htm I argued that mainstream economics is unable to see what is wrong with emissions trading because they do not see that trading presupposes value and therefore the property rights created by emissions trading are not on their horizon. In my third message http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2007w30/msg00092.htm I tried to show that feed-in tariffs are looked at with suspicion in the USA because they try to use the market as instrument for carrying out a production plan, rather than subordinating production to the market. In all cases, I wanted to show that the environmental movement can understand better why they are getting the reactions they do if they looked at things through more Marxist eyes. Environmentalists are socialists without being aware of it, because production which does the right thing with the environment cannot be subordinated to markets but must essentially be a planned production, and the market form will be increasingly awkward for it. The capitalists, on the other hand, sense this necessary socialist character of a green economy and fight it tooth and nail. Perhaps a better formulation of the subject line would have been: the implicit socialism of the environmental movement. Hans.
