: Look, Barry, I gave examples of pressing societal problems due to environmental destruction.
I never denied the ecological danger; I merely said that they were more likely to lead to inter-imperialist rivalry than spontaneous, constructive social change as you (and other Greens) often posit. Inter-imperialist rivalry, however, as class crisis, may lead to proletarian revolution (something you 'peaceful' Greens would rather not think about).
: You've repeatedly maintained that your state is an industrialised and up-to-the-minute state; how in Hell's name do you plan on achieving this if there's no readily available energy sources?
I believe that humankind is able to dig its way out of its problems. Engels: 'If society has a technical need, that helps science forward more than ten universities' (Letter to H. Starkenburg, 25 January 1894). Your doom-and-gloom predictions, however useful, I believe, are premature.
: It's a mistake to assume that society inevitably progresses; it's just that the societies which don't progress tend to die out.
True.
I believe that it is IMPERATIVE that communism takes control of the mode of production (industrialization) before the fatal, internal contradictions of its attendant social relations (capital) erupts in diaster (of which ecological catastrophe is but ONE danger).
I don't deny the useful work (and perspectives) of the Greens; I only insist that without a resolute class consciousness leading the charge, your work will be circumscribed by either ineffectual challenges to capital or your work will become co-opted BY capital (ecological chauvinism is a distinct possibility).
AND I also insist that Greens (representing the educated middle class) must subordinate themselves TO the proletariat when (or if) the class crisis originating from capital's internal contradictions erupts into proletarian revolution.
Your posts often sound like the Greens (educated middle class) are the 'vanguard' of social change (predicated upon ecological catastrophe) and, due to the midle class' longinquity from the production process itself (more on this topic in a future post), I insist this is not likely.
The workers, history has shown, are always the fundamental agent of radical social change (even when doing the dirty work for other classes).
None.
