Re: RE: Re: Political Ecology

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote:
> > isn't more accurate to say that good single-issue causes _start out_ as
> > dominated by less-than-progressive forces?

Mark Jones says:
>  No, it isn't.

even if you're correct in your assertion, that's a useless and antagonistic
way to communicate. It simply reminds me of Monty Python: I paid for an
argument and all I got from you is a contradiction. I hope you're paid as
well as Eric Idle.

In context, what I was asking (not asserting) was about the possibility
that many or most single-issue causes start out simply as that, as
single-issue causes. The skilled workers are concerned about the
incompetence of the managers and how they're trying to de-skill  the work.
Their first response is to set up a craft union, not to join the Wobblies.
And it's not Marxists or whatever revolutionaries call themselves these
days who set up these single-issue movements. It's not like some other
force "captured" the movement, leading them astray. (In case you've
forgotten, I was responding to Michael Keaney's sentence "My points were,
firstly, that good, single-issue causes (like the green movement) are open
to capture by less than progressive forces without a grounding in
internationalist, class-based political economy.")

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine