Professor argues that climate change is leading to a new eco-socialist

M

MeadowF

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
movement - thoughts? Derek Wall, a professor of political economy, committed green activist and historian of the political roots of the green movement is bringing out a new book called:

"The Rise of the Green Left: Inside the Worldwide Ecosocialist Movement"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Green-Left-Worldwide-Ecosocialist/dp/0745330363/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271861914&sr=8-11

Professor Wall observes that
---------------------------------------
"a militant movement merging red and green is taking shape. Ecosocialists argue that capitalism threatens the future of humanity and the rest of nature . . . ecosocialism is defining the future of left and green politics globally"
-----------------------------

His book offers "an inside view" into this defining theme of the green movement (as he sees it) and promises to offer "a practical guide to focused ecosocialist action".

It promises to be interesting reading. What do you think of the main thrust of his forthcoming work, which is that a militant movement is taking shape which merges socialism ('red') with environmentalism ('green')?
.
.
EDIT

******** TROLL ALERT ******

First respondent below seems to be a full-on troll (check his other questions and answers).

Don't bother responding to him.
.
EDIT @ Linlyons -

For crying out loud!! What does this question have to do with global warming?

1) Evo Morales is hosting a summit *right now* on global warming and says that "either capitalism dies or the planet dies" as we cannot solve global warming within a capitalist economic system.

2) Professor Wall's thesis is that the global warming "crisis" is forging a new response, which identifies the causes of global warming with capitalism and synthesises a new response called "Eco-socialism"

I'm simply asking what you think of his thesis as this is a highly topical subject given the global warming summit in a socialist country!
Click to expand...
 
Several respondents seem to think Derek Wall is writing to a conservative audience, slandering the warmist movement with accusations of a socialist, anti-capitalist agenda. This is not the case he is proudly anti-capitalist himself, and his book is intended for other green socialists, "Red Greens' as he describes himself and his mates.
I think he doesn't go far enough - during the cold war the USSR funded Greenpeace and other environmental organisations and infiltrated it with socialist activists. After the collapse of World Socialism, the environmental movement was about all the surviving socialists had left, and they used first the Anti-Globalisation campaign to re-invent themselves, then Global Warming.
AGW was to be "The Moral Issue of our Time"; because Socialism itself was morally bankrupt after Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had mortally wounded the brand, they needed something new to motivate a new generation.
Global Warming is it; and this why any questioning of the "Science" draws vilification rather than reasoned debate. To question AGW is like questioning the wisdom on Central Planning in Stalin's Russia.
If you want proof of what I say, just talk to any member of the green party about global Warming, and suggest that it's all the fault of the "Big Corporations!" That is guaranteed to unleash their inner communist.
 
Alarmists are like watermelons... green on the outside, red on the inside.
 
I haven't read his book, but I doubt you'll have any major group that could be properly called militant, socialist, and environmentalist at the same time in the near future. You may have some earth-first type fringe groups who will do violence to push their environmental aims, but I don't think you'll have anything close to a militant movement.

As far as socialist and environmentalist, if you use a loose definition of socialist (like the definition chowder-head conservatives use to make Obama seem evil), the two go hand in hand. Environmental protection costs money--and if the government doesn't spend the money itself, or force companies to spend it through emissions regulations, then businesses won't spend the money--they will destroy more of the environment, and then try to get the contract to clean it up. Since the only way to protect the environment is to have the government regulate pollution and clean up problems, protecting the environment leads to more government control, regulation, and spending, which are usually the true issues people are upset about when they call Obama a socialist.

So in short, I'll say (without reading him, how rude of me) that the author is trying to use frightening and emotionally charged buzzwords that will get you to buy his book to uncover the vast left wing conspiracy, and will use plenty of evidence to make you think he has a point, but he really doesn't.
 
thoughts? Okay.

What does this question, or that article / book, have to do with global warming?

OR, do you see anyone who promotes a healthy lifestyle, or a clean ecosystem, as an enemy of those who would deny global warming?
IS the choice really, "Let's burn all the coal and oil available, and not take care of the environment, just as long as we can, and not leave the world anything other than the debt that we've piled up, OR, we should address global warming, and take care of the environment?"

Isn't it interesting that you choose to include ecology in the global warming category?
I mean, there is an "other environment" category, and a "green living" category, neither of which you chose to use.
Is this indicative of the mindset of many people who will use just about any convenient argument to deflect attention away from, or deny, global warming?
 
Back
Top