Hello everyone, and please join us in welcoming Muutoksen kevät to it's fifth year of publication. The spring has been one of change for us. The group of people working with this magazine has expanded, and instead of the frustrated few a brand new creative collective (more or less) has taken the burden of keeping up the struggle. In this spirit of opening up we also chose the team of this issue: the differences and conjunctions of ecological and social problems. What are they?

The term "red-green" has become a catchword in present political discourse. In the established politics and on the scene of grassroots movements there's talk of combining the ecological issues to other social questions, "social sustainability". But as it often is with catchwords and slogans, this too is seldom defined. Ecological and social equality remain a random marriage, a coincidence of "nice issues". In practice "red-green" is usually a nametag given to co-operation of political parties, results of which may often be grim, as the experiences in Germany during the Kosovo war show.

It is clear that if we remain on the level of abstract political colours, the whole issue floats on nothing. If the concrete problem points aren't addressed, it is easy for a unionist to say that the labour movement supports healthier environment. Or it is easy for an animal liberationist to proclaim, that the animal, ecological and social issues are just facets of a same problem. In real life we are however usually on collision course: at fur farms, highway construction sites, forest cuts, or dealing with climate or energy issues. On the surface the conflicts are about different individuals, enemy images (helped by the lovable media) and contradictions of goals: personal income or biodiversity, "free" mobility or ecological traffic? Instances of co-operation like Seattle are still rare exceptions.

When one looks at the issue more closely, one sees (I think) that it is also about the change in the nature of the environmental problems. At least in Finland conservation has progressed to the point where the most visible, single pollution points are dealt with (or at least taken away from sight). When conservation was also about the health of the workers and their families and friends, possibilities for co-operation were better. (Note: Of course such instances are still plenty, but the change is still notable).

But when we start talking about reduction in consumption and production, or for example reduction in greenhouse gasses, which would necessarily demand moving away from car traffic, the problems are more difficult. Are the demands on biodiversity, a healthier relationship to other nature, and turning away from growth compatible with demands on jobs and livelihoods? "Red-Green" is dodging the problems as long as it doesn't deal with these issues.

One small Muutoksen kevät hardly solves these issues, but many articles in this issue are meant to be openings for discussion. If we even dream about a better relationship to the rest of the nature, we must realise it through our social practices. And if the environmental issue is in total conflict with our aspirations, with a better and more egalitarian society, there's little hope of success. On the other hand, a better society for humans doesn't necessarily mean a better world for all beings. If we think that, then environment will easily be pushed aside, it becomes just another weapon in the arsenal of other political programs. Just as the market was able to integrate "ecology" as a sales incentive.

These problems are hard, and they will be solved only in practical political struggle. Opening lines of communication is vital, but it is only the beginning.

THIS ISSUE INCLUDES:

On page 4 Elina Mikola writes about the conflicts of social and ecological issues, mainly in the forest campaigns, and calls for a dialogue. Then Karel Keiramo looks at the Environmental Justice movement in the States as an example of a working marriage between those issues, plus the new forms of people's power it has engendered.

On pages 6 and 7 we have long articles on WTO, the best current possibility to broad-based co-operation. It doesn't itself guarantee that the problems between different groups in the struggle will be solved, but at least it can get us together. That is the first step.

Then we have an article on East-Timor by Henri Myrttinen, and an account of the Nike situation by Elina Mikola. And on page 10 Pirita Juppi compares the present biotech-hype and the green revolution, propably the best instance of conjunction between social and ecological issues.

The biggest change in Muutoksen kevät is, that from now on we´ll have four pages of another zine, "Megafoni" (Loudspeaker) as our centerfold. They will in part follow the general theme of the paper, but they will also give Muutoksen kevät their own much loved flavour.

On pages 16-17 we have a long article by Anton Monti on the changing forms on control and the demand for changing forms of resistance in the world. Following that we have a follow-up of the "Resistance is fertile"-week, one example of such new forms of action.

Then on page 21 we open our activist legal advice column written by our common friend, Uncle Keltti. In the first column uncle looks at problems with leafletting. Then we have the prisoners pages, where we have tried to widen our scope a little. Our solidarity to you all.

Keep up the struggle.