This anthology has as its purpose to "stimulate a social ecology that can unite and enrich both `reds' and `greens'" (x).  This may be a valid goal for European politics; I don't know.  I have my doubts about its efficacy in the American context.

In Europe there is already a mainstream green left movement, if by mainstream one understands parties with parliamentary representation. In that context, the purpose of this antology seems to be to promote ecosocialism as the dominant ideological strand to the left of the Social Democrats.

Maybe an American introduction to ecosocialism (Joel Kovel's The Enemy of Nature comes to mind, only not so academic or expensive) would address itself to a general audience.  Perhaps an ecosocialist movement would develop more readily from the ranks of the uncommitted public rather than by starting with those who have adopted a political position in the American context. It would then be free of the stultifying "orthodox Marxism" of the far left in this country, as well as of the "green capitalism" of the Green Party's orthodoxy.

We have seen where the "stultifying orthodox Marxism" has taken the Italian and Spanish left. In my opinion in Spain the only hope of the "United Left" is to complete its transformation into a "Green Left", a process spearheaded in Catalonia where the explicitly ecosocialist ICV holds one of the two seats in the national parliament in the United Left group.

The fact that in the US ecosocialism is completely out of the mainstream and would have to appeal to the "uncommitted public" is, I think, a reflection of how far to the right the political discourse is.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes