Thanks very much for that! I was kind of debating whether or not I wanted to include in the post the footnote seen above, and then more recently was debating whether or not I should delete it (with a note of its deletion). I rather reluctantly decided to leave it, but now you’ve given me the opportunity to clarify myself – thanks!
If you look at one of my posts from back in November you’ll see that I pictured Obama, Clinton, Sanders and Trump with tractors (or in Trump’s case, his pseudo tractor). Sanders is riding a John Deere from the 1960s or something, which is all folksy and stuff, but still industrialism. Like Sarkar described Chavez as being “a good man” in a “petro-socialist” system, Sanders tends to make me think of somebody who’s fighting for equality on the Titanic while it’s sinking. It’s a nice gesture, but a bit daft.
So many thanks for about allowing me to clear that up!
Furthermore, I think Sarkar is absolutely spot-on when he states that “To be a good socialist one only needs to rejects capitalism”. But to prefix “socialism” with “eco”? I don’t know. Perhaps. But since socialism is very much equated with industrialism, it kind of seems to me like an attempt to attach a nice veneer to the latter. On the other hand, and as Wendell Berry stated, industrialism is a way of thinking based on money, agrarianism is a way of thinking based on the land. But then again, it’s not as if agrarianism/agrarians from the past have all been angels – far from it. So maybe… eco-agrarians? Or is that just an attempt to pull off the same thing as eco-socialist?
Anyhow, with much delay I’m about to start on the next post and might very well end up doing a review of Klein’s latest book (which I haven’t read yet). We’ll see.
By the way, I don’t know if you were reading FF2F back then, but back in September of last year I put up the first part of a 4 part series on Naomi Klein. Besides my posts on honeybees it’s by far the thing that has garnered the most attention on this blog. You might find them an interesting read.