Green is the New Red

[Magón]

I wasn't sure where to put this since it could go into Politics, Science & Environment, and of course here. So I just chose here.

Anyway, the book is called Green is the New Red, and is written by independent journalist, Will Potter. It doesn't have to do anything with class struggle that I'm aware of, but does give a bit of an insight into how the US government handles and sees, both animal and environmentalist groups (not necessarily ELF or ALF), and how they handle other subject focused groups that they see as "terrorists", and not just the average protester or dissident. This also including the author who was harassed and threatened by the FBI, called a "threat", and which got him started on this path which somewhat ended with the writing of this book.

I haven't read the book myself yet, but plan on getting it tomorrow, and also to see and hear Will Potter speak tomorrow at the AK Press Warehouse. So if you're interested, and live near or in the Bay Area, the reading will start at 7PM there at the AK Press Warehouse. (I've linked, along with the MJ article that talks about the book and it's author, and Will Potter's blog that's of the same name, the AK Press page with the info.)

Everything else you need to know is listed down below, and the quotes are taken directly from Green is the New Red blog.


http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298059857l/9759438.jpg




“Part history, part action thriller and courtroom drama, part memoir, Green Is the New Red plunges us into the wild, unruly, and entirely inspirational world of extreme environmental activism. Will Potter, participant-observer and partisan-reporter, is the perfect guide… Green Is the New Red is an indispensable book that will change the way we think about commitment, the limits of protest, and the possibility of radical change.”

— Bill Ayers

“Potter warns of the crumbling of the legal wall separating ‘terrorist’ from ‘dissident’ or ‘undesirable’. . . Alarming.”

— Publishers Weekly

“Will Potter unveils this complex movement with its virtues and its flaws, the courage of a few and the false bravado of others. I see this book as the definitive overview of the genesis of what is emerging as the most important social movement in human history—the war to save ourselves from ourselves.”

— Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Mother Jones article about the book and some history behind it. (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/green-new-red-crackdown-environmental-activists)

Link to Green is the New Red blog (http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/)

AK Press info (http://www.akpress.org/events/event2)

[jake williams]

I throw up a little in my mouth when I hear anything relating to the general thesis that "green is the new red". Insofar as it's actually true, which is pretty limited, it's a tragic statement on the retreat of working class politics into reactionary petty-bourgeois demands that either the working class accept lower living standards, that production be reorganized away from efficient large-scale production - or worse.

The whole world faces serious dangers from various types of harm to the natural environment. But insofar as "green" replaces "red", the working class is losing.

[Magón]

I throw up a little in my mouth when I hear anything relating to the general thesis that "green is the new red". Insofar as it's actually true, which is pretty limited, it's a tragic statement on the retreat of working class politics into reactionary petty-bourgeois demands that either the working class accept lower living standards, that production be reorganized away from efficient large-scale production - or worse.

The whole world faces serious dangers from various types of harm to the natural environment. But insofar as "green" replaces "red", the working class is losing.

I has nothing to do with Primmies or anything like that as far as I know, I wouldn't bother with it if it did, it's just how the Environmentalist movements here in the US as a whole, have become what Communists were to those during the McCarthy era in the 50s, and how the US government has started reacting to them in the same way, calling non-violent environmentalists "terrorists" and "threats to the US", etc.

The reason I brought it up, is because it also sounds like a book most who are into class struggle, would want to read, and learn what the US government does to try and dissuade some of the people, and how they slither their way into destroying things.

[jake williams]

the Environmentalist movements here in the US as a whole, have become what Communists were to those during the McCarthy era in the 50s
Yeah, and that's fucking heartbreaking. What ever you think of the CPUSA and its predecessors, if serious and dedicated working class organizing has been replaced by whatever non-primmie radical environmentalism is (and in Canada the only environmentalists I know who would ever have trouble with the police really are basically "anarcho-primitivists", however they self-identify), that's a real tragedy and we're in a seriously dire situation. If it's been replaced by non-radical environmentalism, then we're still pretty fucked.

[Magón]

Yeah, and that's fucking heartbreaking. What ever you think of the CPUSA and its predecessors, if serious and dedicated working class organizing has been replaced by whatever non-primmie radical environmentalism is (and in Canada the only environmentalists I know who would ever have trouble with the police really are basically "anarcho-primitivists", however they self-identify), that's a real tragedy and we're in a seriously dire situation. If it's been replaced by non-radical environmentalism, then we're still pretty fucked.

Really the title of the book is only, as I see it, to point out that Environmentalism to the US Gov., is now on the same level as what Communism was before the "Great Capitalists defeated Communism". Not everyone here in the States, who considers themselves an Environmentalist, myself included, identifies themselves as Anarcho-Primmitivists, or want to be affiliated with ALF or ELF. It's just nowadays, since Communism has been "beat by Capitalism", the US Gov. has turned it's attention to making Environmentalists across the board, "terrorists" instead of your average activist who is non-violent.

[pluckedflowers]

Perhaps the takeaway lesson for liberals ought to be: The capitalists are going to treat you like a commie no matter how much you back down, so why not step up?

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that Jammoe, although not making bad points, may be taking what appears to be a descriptive title as a prescriptive one. I took it as suggesting that, as Nin is suggesting, the title is a dry suggestion that a "green menace" has replaced a "red menace" in the eyes of the US establishment.

Anyway, looks like an interesting book. I may just add it to my already over-stuffed "to read" list. (There's a lot to read when you're a political novice; equal parts joy and burden. ;)

[RadioRaheem84]

Looks like an interesting book but what could posses someone to think that the environmental movement in the US is at all comparable to the Communist movement? One is a single issue movement that hardly touches on the systemic problem of capitalism and it's relation to nature.

You don't need to be red to be "green", but you do need to be green (understand capitalism's relation to nature) to be red.

[jake williams]

I think that Jammoe, although not making bad points, may be taking what appears to be a descriptive title as a prescriptive one. I took it as suggesting that, as Nin is suggesting, the title is a dry suggestion that a "green menace" has replaced a "red menace" in the eyes of the US establishment.

Anyway, looks like an interesting book. I may just add it to my already over-stuffed "to read" list. (There's a lot to read when you're a political novice; equal parts joy and burden. ;)
First, I've heard the thesis advocated prescriptively - including implications from the actual author of the book.

TPh8FnqtJuY
Check out 2:09. This doesn't sound like a guy who is simply making a descriptive statement about the fact that a movement which is weak at best and reactionary at worst has replaced one which... he doesn't even seem that aware of.

[Magón]

Looks like an interesting book but what could posses someone to think that the environmental movement in the US is at all comparable to the Communist movement? One is a single issue movement that hardly touches on the systemic problem of capitalism and it's relation to nature.

You don't need to be red to be "green", but you do need to be green (understand capitalism's relation to nature) to be red.

It's the US Government. They've got to replace one "evil" with another, even if it is just a bunch of environmentalists. Obviously a bunch of guys who are fighting a Jihad, aren't enough to replace that old "evil" of Communism.


First, I've heard the thesis advocated prescriptively - including implications from the actual author of the book.

TPh8FnqtJuY
Check out 2:09. This doesn't sound like a guy who is simply making a descriptive statement about the fact that a movement which is weak at best and reactionary at worst has replaced one which... he doesn't even seem that aware of.

He states at the beginning, when he's speaking in front of the House of Judiciary, that the US Gov. is using the same tactics they used during the Red Scare and McCarthy Era, against Communists. Hence the name. It's really not hard to comprehend. He's not saying Environmentalists are on the same page as Communists, or the same level, it's the US Gov. that's saying it.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I read the book and liked it. I learned a lot more about the movement than I did before.

[Tim Finnegan]

First, I've heard the thesis advocated prescriptively - including implications from the actual author of the book.

TPh8FnqtJuY
Check out 2:09. This doesn't sound like a guy who is simply making a descriptive statement about the fact that a movement which is weak at best and reactionary at worst has replaced one which... he doesn't even seem that aware of.
I'm afraid that I really don't see it. All he's saying is that ecology, when taken to its logical conclusions, leads one to question the logic of capitalism, because capitalism is by its nature incompatible with an effective ecological program. Which is, y'know, true? :confused:

And, again, I don't think that he's arguing that ecology has replaced communism as such- let's remember that this movement began in the 1960s, when the reds were still very much under the bed- but that its becoming the new domestic scapegoat. That's a rather different proposition.


It's the US Government. They've got to replace one "evil" with another, even if it is just a bunch of environmentalists. Obviously a bunch of guys who are fighting a Jihad, aren't enough to replace that old "evil" of Communism.
I think part of its also the internal threat/external threat thing. Communism was able to fill both roles, with various American communists- particularly those belonging to ethnic minorities- filling in the former role, and the Marxist-Leninist states filling the latter. Contemporary bourgeois ideology constructs Islam as necessarily foreign and external- even as practised by native-born citizens- so while it quite effectively fills the role of external threat, the role of internal threat is a trickier one, and ecology apparently fills the gap because it is the most prominent and often most militant dissenting movement. We're seeing a similar trend in Europe in regards to what the British media sweepingly refers to as "anarchists", an apparently unconscious revival of 1890s journalistic language, generally accompanied by alarmist and wholly inaccurate descriptions of that most feared and totally-not-a-thing-that-we've-completely-misinterpreted-y of secret societies, the Black Bloc.
Of course, the fact that the internal and external threats are not only unconnected but generally contradictory makes it a less than perfect duo, but the old empires managed with the internal threat of anarchism, socialism, republicanism, etc. and the external threat of anti-colonial rebellion, so we'll just have to see how the bourgeois handle this one.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah...


The government is targeting leftist 'environmentalist' activity as they would target militant political threats. Why?

[Delenda Carthago]

I throw up a little in my mouth when I hear anything relating to the general thesis that "green is the new red". Insofar as it's actually true, which is pretty limited, it's a tragic statement on the retreat of working class politics into reactionary petty-bourgeois demands that either the working class accept lower living standards, that production be reorganized away from efficient large-scale production - or worse.

The whole world faces serious dangers from various types of harm to the natural environment. But insofar as "green" replaces "red", the working class is losing.
Greece's anarchist movement pays the price of this stupidity very highly. For years the line was "eco-friendly-close-the-factories-etc" and now that unemployment is crazy high, this line is SO isolated from society.

[x359594]

This is specific to the US where green activists and animal rights activists have engaged in direct action on a larger scale than any socialist, communist or anarchist formation. This is why the US national security apparatus goes after them in particular and merely infiltrates and spies on the actual socialist left.

So the watchword "Green is the new Red" doesn't refer to the content of the environmentalists' or animal rights activists' programs but rather to their perceived threat to the bourgeoisie.

[praxis1966]

All else being equal, I think that the whole "green is the new red" issue is yesterday's news. That may have been true in the 80s and 90s, but today the government is doing what it has done to pretty much all radical movements throughout its history. That is to say it's co-opting enough of the moderate demands of the activists in order to erode whatever popular sympathy there might have been in order to shut people up.

Having been personally acquainted with some rather prominent Earth First! members, I've heard plenty of stories about brutal repression... 15 years ago. On the other hand, you have federal policies, such as Obama's stimulus package which contained a large amount of money for "green industry," which seem more designed to pacify people with selective good deeds rather than being motivated by any true idealism or an honest attempt to somehow subvert the status quo. It's the same sort of story as we saw with the Red Scare during the late teens and 20s of the last century, followed shortly thereafter by New Deal programs like the WPA.

[caramelpence]

When we have socialism, we turn all the Greenpeace boats into coal-fire power stations.

[jake williams]

So the watchword "Green is the new Red" doesn't refer to the content of the environmentalists' or animal rights activists' programs but rather to their perceived threat to the bourgeoisie.
I still think, even if you're simply making a descriptive statement (which I don't think saying "the environmental movement(s), more than any other social justice movement... necessitate(s) that you re-evalutate our economic system" is, compared to... explicitly advocating another actual economic system that isn't reactionary and feudalistic), it's still a depressing one. If environmental movements are the biggest perceived threat to the bourgeoisie - which they may well be - that's a catastrophe for the working class.


On the other hand, you have federal policies, such as Obama's stimulus package which contained a large amount of money for "green industry," which seem more designed to pacify people with selective good deeds rather than being motivated by any true idealism or an honest attempt to somehow subvert the status quo.
I think it has less to do with that than the fact that there is a big part of the American business community - especially that around "small business", venture capital, high tech, hedge funds etc. - who think that "green industry" could be a big boom, or for that matter, sort of a Keynesian stimulus that a lot of the bourgeoisie wants to see be effective, but which hasn't really been for a long time. That's not to say that there aren't popular demands for good environmental policy, or that green infrastructure is even a bad thing, but that I don't think he would've done it without a push from the sectors he responds to - basically, finance and high tech.

[praxis1966]

I think it has less to do with that than the fact that there is a big part of the American business community - especially that around "small business", venture capital, high tech, hedge funds etc. - who think that "green industry" could be a big boom, or for that matter, sort of a Keynesian stimulus that a lot of the bourgeoisie wants to see be effective, but which hasn't really been for a long time. That's not to say that there aren't popular demands for good environmental policy, or that green infrastructure is even a bad thing, but that I don't think he would've done it without a push from the sectors he responds to - basically, finance and high tech.

Those are fair points all around and I tend to agree with a lot of them. I would point out, however, that there wouldn't have been a "green market" (ie a demand for eco-friendly products whatever their guise) had it not been for the consciousness raising efforts of activists, particularly the radical ones.

Think of it this way. The mainstream environmental organizations have been around for decades in most cases; Greenpeace was founded 40 years ago, The Sierra Club is over a century old. I don't think it's coincidence, though, that the most significant changes in US domestic environmental policy since the establishment of the EPA have taken place less than 20 years from the emergence of "fringe" environmental groups.

Anyway, I fear we may be getting a bit sidetracked...

[Magón]

I still think, even if you're simply making a descriptive statement (which I don't think saying "the environmental movement(s), more than any other social justice movement... necessitate(s) that you re-evalutate our economic system" is, compared to... explicitly advocating another actual economic system that isn't reactionary and feudalistic), it's still a depressing one. If environmental movements are the biggest perceived threat to the bourgeoisie - which they may well be - that's a catastrophe for the working class.

So neither the author or anyone else, has said the book's contents, or it's message, is trying to drive people from focusing more on the Environmentalist movement, than say the Class Struggle movement, as it seems you keep trying to point out. Once again, the title is only meant to show that the US Gov. is indeed, treating these Environmentalist groups, who aren't necessarily direct action like ALF or ELF, as supposed terrorists and threats to the US's well being, when in reality they're really not.

Plus, this is only one book on the Environmentalist movement, that talks about how the US Gov. handles them in these post-9/11 times, and you're making it out to be a much bigger book and deal than it is, by calling it somehow "the biggest perceived threat to the bourgeoisie", which neither the author or anyone thinks it true; and probably not even the US Gov. themselves, they just want another "enemy" to take on. It's just a book that's come out, talking about how the Environmentalist movement today is seen as a threat by the US Gov., the same way that Communists were seen as a threat to the US Gov. during the 20s and all throughout the Cold War era, hence the name. Neither the author or anyone here, thinks this is true, but for some reason the US Gov. does, and treats it as such in a way; even though if you look at any US News, the environmentalist movement here isn't all that well reported on, or even given much mind by local or national news stations.

[Ele'ill]

There is once again, a lot of knee-jerk parroting going on regarding environmentalism.

[Vanguard1917]

The difference is, of course, that while socialism was a progressive working-class movement which sought to smash capitalism and replace it with something bigger, better and more advanced, a movement which saw radically raising living standards as a basic precondition for achieving greater human freedom, environmentalism is a narrow-minded petit-bourgeois piece of disgrace which is diametrically opposed to everything socialism stood for, and which (contrary to what this author might claim) receives on a daily basis gushing plaudits from ruling-class politicians and the mainstream media. So, yes: it's an insult to compare the most progressive political movement in history, to one of the more pathetic outcomes of the defeat of working-class politics.

[Tim Finnegan]

...environmentalism is a narrow-minded petit-bourgeois piece of disgrace which is diametrically opposed to everything socialism stood for... Nonsense. Ecology is in essence a form of class struggle, even if ecological politics are sometimes misappropriated by liberal-bourgeois elements. One could just as easily argue that trade unionism is a "petit-bourgeois disgrace" because it too has produced some political failures.

Of course, it could help if you gave us some explanation as to why ecological politics are "diametrically opposed to everything socialism stood for", although if it's the sort of workerist-consumerist silliness that such declarations usually refer to, I can't say that I expect to be impressed.


...and which (contrary to what this author might claim) receives on a daily basis gushing plaudits from ruling-class politicians and the mainstream media.That assumes an equivalence by mainstream and alternative ecology which is entirely false. Again, back in the day social democracy, corporatist trade unionism and other forms of class-collaboration received "gushing plaudits", sincere or otherwise, but that hardly suggested that revolutionary socialist activists were nothing more than posturing dandies.

[black magick hustla]

a lot of that primitivist/green "radical" stuff seems to have been a passing trend anyway. i blame it to the counterrevolution of the 90s and the inactivity of the class. in late 2000, it seems a lot of those anarcho douchewizards are actually starting to read books, with a heavy and healthy mistrust for the left (the left sucks anyway). so i think the thesis is a bit old. ELF and ALF are old news.

[black magick hustla]

There is once again, a lot of knee-jerk parroting going on regarding environmentalism.
i think it sucks a lot of those kids were fucked over by the state and im not gonna sing songs about it. but enviromentalism in general will always be bound to be a marginal interest for marginal activisty types. i mean, its different i guess if you are some latin american indian whose house is being bulldozed in order to mine shit but this is not the case for the grand mayority of anarchist influenced enviromentalist.

[Jose Gracchus]

So wait, you don't think there's real hard scientific realities about the sustainability of livable industrial life on Earth, that is kind of a prerequisite to be having socialism? That workers will not have to take that into account when organizing production and society of themselves?

Or is it just the class character of environmentalism as popular political practice, not environmentalism or sustainability conceptually, that you take exception with?

[Vanguard1917]

Of course, it could help if you gave us some explanation as to why ecological politics are "diametrically opposed to everything socialism stood for"

At a most basic level, socialists wanted to overthrow capitalism because they saw it as a barrier to bringing about mass material prosperity. But environmentalists argue that capitalism already gives way to too much wealth and consumption. If we were to raise the living standards of the world's poor to even the (at best) modest levels enjoyed by the average Westerner, we would need five planets, they claim.

This eco-notion actually provides very convenient apologism for what Marxists see as capitalism's core failure: its inability to sufficiently advance society's means of production. If the problem with capitalism is that it is already giving way to too much economic development, it's not a more advanced system of production that we need, but just one which places greater restraints on any already existing economic dynamism. That's why environmentalism is an inherently conservative outlook. It does not challenge capitalism in any progressive way.

That is not to suggest that there are no problems in the way that current productive methods interact with our natural environment and that capitalism does not ever have a destructive impact on our surroundings. But it is one things to criticise such problems, and a totally different thing to accept the entirely reactionary conclusions drawn by the bulk of environmentalists.

[Jose Gracchus]

Environmentalists' view of consumption and living standards is ridiculous anyway, because they look at it as a mass aggregate and assign it to "culture" and personal virtues, rather than locating it on distinctly class territory: large institutions of social production, the consumption habits and requirements of the ruling class, etc.

[Tim Finnegan]

At a most basic level, socialists wanted to overthrow capitalism because they saw it as a barrier to bringing about mass material prosperity. But environmentalists argue that capitalism already gives way to too much wealth and consumption. If we were to raise the living standards of the world's poor to even the (at best) modest levels enjoyed by the average Westerner, we would need five planets, they claim.

This eco-notion actually provides very convenient apologism for what Marxists see as capitalism's core failure: its inability to sufficiently advance society's means of production. If the problem with capitalism is that it is already giving way to too much economic development, it's not a more advanced system of production that we need, but just one which places greater restraints on any already existing economic dynamism. That's why environmentalism is an inherently conservative outlook. It does not challenge capitalism in any progressive way.

That is not to suggest that there are no problems in the way that current productive methods interact with our natural environment and that capitalism does not ever have a destructive impact on our surroundings. But it is one things to criticise such problems, and a totally different thing to accept the entirely reactionary conclusions drawn by the bulk of environmentalists.
I think this is basically where I have a problem with your use of "environmentalism"; there's a distinction between environmentalism as such, and environmentalism as practised by bourgeois Westerners. One could make a comparison to feminism, in that while bourgeois feminism is of little interest to the left, that doesn't mean that feminism as such is bourgeois. (And, of course, the fact that a particular body of thought or activism is of interest to the left doesn't mean that we should accept its bourgeois forms.)

And I should probably apologise for the curtness of my earlier comment. I've heard leftists toss around some very silly anti-environmental ideas before, and apparently I decided to assume these ideas on your part, which really isn't something I can offer any decent excuse for.

[Texas Expat]

This is specific to the US where green activists and animal rights activists have engaged in direct action on a larger scale than any socialist, communist or anarchist formation. This is why the US national security apparatus goes after them in particular and merely infiltrates and spies on the actual socialist left.

So the watchword "Green is the new Red" doesn't refer to the content of the environmentalists' or animal rights activists' programs but rather to their perceived threat to the bourgeoisie.

A few years ago, the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for blowing up a ski lift under construction, and, if memory serves, a new ski lodge in Colorado. The new playground for the ruling classes was being built on public land, and the workers who service that industry are so underpaid that they often live in trailers 50 miles away and commute to work on treacherous roads. The rich, of course, fly in.

Oh, the horror! The corporate media talking heads railed at the new "domestic terrorist threat" and called for the FBI to crush these new radical bombthrowers. Greenpeace, which had had some violent skirmishes with whaling ships, was linked to the incident in a typical Big Lie propaganda way.

By inference, so was the Green Party. As far as I know, the "terrorists" were never caught, but the whole environmental movement got a public relations black eye.

So you make a good point. The Greens were perceived as at least a potential threat to the ruling Fascist duopoly(the Democrats and Republicans) after Nader got 5% of the popular vote in the 2000 election. In fact, Democratic loyalists and some Republicans blame Gore's defeat on the Greens, and both lambaste them for being "unrealistic," which really means anti-capitalist. What they really fear is a new movement or party that could gain the support of what I call the professional classes--doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers, government bureaucrats, teachers, etc--I suppose many here would call them bourgoisie, who might successfully limit the power of the Wall Street and Big Oil factions who now dominate the federal government.

It is important to remember that the capitalists are not a united front. Was it not Marx who said, "The last capitalist will sell the proletariat the rope to hang the second-to-last capitalist."?

[Jose Gracchus]

The fact is, there is such thing as working-class environmentalism: in fact, much of the property targeted for cheap housing development are ex-industrial landfills, and attempts to build new toxic industries and their waste disposal is preferentially placed in "communities least likely to resist" - working class communities, and other wastes of capital.

[jake williams]

I think this is basically where I have a problem with your use of "environmentalism"; there's a distinction between environmentalism as such, and environmentalism as practised by bourgeois Westerners. One could make a comparison to feminism, in that while bourgeois feminism is of little interest to the left, that doesn't mean that feminism as such is bourgeois. (And, of course, the fact that a particular body of thought or activism is of interest to the left doesn't mean that we should accept its bourgeois forms.)
The comparison with feminism is interesting. It's true that we don't speak of "public educationism" or "workers rightsism" or "socialized medicinism", things of intrinsic interest to the working class, and things about which those concerned are virtually always concerned about pro-working class politics as a whole, to such an extent that it would make no sense to talk about them in isolation as ideologies. This is not exactly the case with feminism, or environmentalism - even though the abolition of patriarchy and sexism, and concern for the environment, are also immediately in the interests of the working class.

While I know plenty of bourgeois, liberal, and even outright reactionary feminists, most people I know who identify with "feminism" also explicitly identify with other progressive politics. That's partly because I have good friends, but it's also partly because the mass politics of women's liberation was intricately connected to the socialist movement for almost its entire history, only really becoming anything else in the 1970s.

There's another difference as well. Except when it bleeds into especially reactionary parts of environmentalism, eg. "ecofeminism", feminism has little potentially reactionary economic content. At worst, generally, its unconcern for class politics is a problem, but it's otherwise relatively harmless. In fact, even bourgeois, "classless" feminism typically advocates industrial, social production as liberation from domestic work. It's very difficult to say the same of "environmentalism" as a specific ideology, rather than a general and obvious recognition that the environment is important, for reasons we've already stated.

[praxis1966]

Part of the problem with this discussion, IMO, is that a lot of the people here are talking in generalities... For instance, I've seen a gesture to the neo-Malthusian tendencies of the environmental movement and while that's a very fair criticism of some groups it's not a fair criticism of all of them. Still other groups used to have that strain as part of their politics but now no longer do.

I hate to keep harping on Earth First!, but I do so only because it's the group I know the most about (primarily due to geographic proximity derived from living in NorCal). There was a certain low brow Luddism associated with the group in its past, but to their credit they've dropped most of that shit from the program. Further, to characterize them as "anti-worker" or "bourgeois" would be wholly inaccurate for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the way they're organized is more or less as a loose collection of completely autonomous branches. There really isn't any centralized hierarchy nor is there any homogenous ideology other than just generally being greeny. Therefore, ascribing a particular ideology to the whole of the organization would be folly.

Second of all, if at any point there could have been anyone who could be described as the head of the organization it would have been Judi Bari, but that's a characterization that she would've and did take issue to when presented. At any rate, Bari was a union organizer before she ever got involved with environmentalism. Firstly, she organized postal workers on the east cost and was even involved in leading a strike there (where exactly escapes me atm). Secondly, she was actually a dues paying member of the IWW. Third, there were actually instances where she went to bat for loggers when their own union failed to advocate for them in a pretty serious OSHA regulation fight... and this was at the height of the whole "Save the redwoods!" period.

That's not to say that I'm a huge fan of the organization. Conversely, I have some very serious criticisms of them. Like I said, they just happen to be the one I know the most about.

[RadioRaheem84]

You guys want good RED ENVIRONMENTALISM, read a book by John Bellamy Foster.