From: Gary Dale <Gary.Dale-AT-ee.ed.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:31:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: M-TH: Re: Rev Jones dh>But the purpose of PR is to distort debate, turn it into a fight between dh>perfect reason (i.e., your client's position) and perfect unreason (i.e., dh>the position held by the client's opponent). I suppose we can talk about dh>the Unabomber as a social and political phenomenon, or even as a dh>repellently psychotic version of Kirkpatrick Sale, but he's not really all dh>that relevant to a serious discussion of science or environmentalism. dh>What's next? Lorena Bobbitt as feminist? Well actually I think there is a point that environmental assumptions are perfect unreason - by virtue of being anti-human. As I said, I don't expect the aim of the article is as described (I guess I'll have to read it when it comes on-line). I agree the focus should be on the dangers in the (radical) centre and mainstream - e.g. J.H.'s article on the Real World Coalition. What's interesting is that for a long time environmentalists *were* regarded as marginal cranks, but those ideas are much more in the mainstream. Environmnetal moralism also provides a ready-made excuse for attacking working class living standards by greater consumer taxes (rather than direct taxation). OK taxes aren't a 'class issue', but it's perverse the way they can be turned into a good thing. After NuLabour's budget hit 30 million drivers with greater fuel taxes, polls showed people saying they would be worse off but that was best for the nation: i.e. self-sacrifice for a higher moral (environmental) purpose is a new axis of politics. I'm sure priorities come into it somewhere, but communists are also supposed to have a view on everything - I guess that means Princess Di and the Spice Girls included. I wouldn't have seen any problem with, say, articles on European terrorist groups like Action Direct. Gary D. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005