Thanks for your comment, you're making a good point.

But I am not sure I agree. I don't see any willingness in Thunberg's discourse to build any type of structure, movement, or society. I only see destruction. "No more cars, no more gas, no more oil, no more nuclear (then she changed her mind about nuclear)." Then she came up as a communist in disguise, wanting to abolish the very system that made her country rich. I used to struggle to understand why there weren't many environmental conservative movements, why they always had to be progressive...then I understood: it's not about the planet, the same way the workers revolution isn't about the workers.

You said something interesting: that these movements fail because they cannot organize working-class people to make change.

That's key, as this highlights also Thunberg's problem: working-class people (and everyone else on this side of the political spectrum) don't want change. They want *others* to change aka they want their company to pay them more, they want others to stop buying oil, they want others to stop eating meat, they want others to invent new sustainable tech, etc.

But them? No. Their function is only one of moralizing others.

If you really care about climate change, you go study engineering not protest.

These people don't really care about the planet or the environment. I think they feel lonely, and the environment is a cause they can rally around. Then they want status, which the mainstream narrative is happy to give them. Environmentalism is a status symbol.

But what isn't nowadays?