|
FFA's analysis of the sword of Damocles hanging over industrial society remains fairly spot-on, but I don't know what they expect proposing the solution "our third eyes open up and the literal Age of Aquarius occurs" to a bunch of materialists (in the historical and economic senses of the word) ad nauseam. of course you're going to be laughed at if the world order you've professed as your guiding light is somehow both less pragmatic and less sentimental than capitalist geoengineering hellworld
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:I'm genuinely amazed by the fact that I haven't seen any serious eco-socialist plans that involve mass reforestation using the biological remains of the oppressor classes theyre more interested in trying to make ethnic cleansing and eugenics come across as socialist
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 11:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
[/quote] Also lol Plutonis got you good
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:It’s not anarchism that’s needed. It’s authoritarian agrarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:theyre more interested in trying to make ethnic cleansing and eugenics come across as socialist 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
all socialism is ecosocialism, to the extent that establishing sustainable life patterns is an inherent part of destroying capitalist delusions about perpetual growth bookchin is like the arch eco whatever and all his solutions are basically just to implement socialism and let the increased standard of living usher in a return of artisanal production or something kinda incoherent like that, but the point is that programmatically they’re basically just socialists who have latched on to an unnecessary qualifier
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
which is why the only people calling themselves eco socialists are the weird THE WORLD IS TOO POPULATED folks. because without the weird Malthusian stuff its just regular rear end socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
im an anti-eco socialist. smash the environment
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:which is why the only people calling themselves eco socialists are the weird THE WORLD IS TOO POPULATED folks. because without the weird Malthusian stuff its just regular rear end socialism. please teach me more about rear end socialism, it sounds like an intriguing concept
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:all socialism is ecosocialism, to the extent that establishing sustainable life patterns is an inherent part of destroying capitalist delusions about perpetual growth This is just specious. Socialism is the only constructive and egalitarian way to solve the climate crisis, but that doesn't mean it's inherently eco-friendly. There are many socialists, especially third worldists, who unironically agree with Sheng-Ji Yang on the grounds that enviromentalism is just means to oppress the global south. Hell, you can see posts saying that exact argument itt whenever it's brought up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
that's silly. it's to oppress the western proletariat
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:This is just specious. Socialism is the only constructive and egalitarian way to solve the climate crisis, but that doesn't mean it's inherently eco-friendly. There are many socialists, especially third worldists, who unironically agree with Sheng-Ji Yang on the grounds that enviromentalism is just means to oppress the global south. Hell, you can see posts saying that exact argument itt whenever it's brought up. the type of environmentalism associated with western liberalism is often just a bludgeon wielded against the global south but it doesn’t mean it’s the only type of environmentalism - I’m not saying the contemporary CCP is a steward of the earth or anything but “socialism is inherently ecologically sustainable” and “environmentalism in the modern world is a shell game used to generate carbon tax credits for western companies who exploit third world labor” are compatible stances. just because environmentalism conjures up images of green peace and closed factories for you doesn’t mean that particular form of environmentalism is the only one, and any socialist state that actually managed to achieve even a fraction of the things discussed in this thread would surely manifest a non-liberal type of stewardship. the specific western discourse about what constitutes environmentalist policy exists in a positivist capitalist miasma that basically never acknowledges massive state intervention and when it does, only as some kind of last minute hamfisted thing that would be inherently bad for the third world because they’re manufacturing hubs for the first, another distinction that would theoretically not exist in a socialist context and thus not be a reasonable frame for environmental concerns Frog Act fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Cool, that's a dumb vision that I think will never happen, but assuming it does how do we avoid all getting wiped out by hyperplagues because we dismantled the pharma industry and its distribution network and now everyone's got malaria, polio, and uber-MRSA at the same time? I don't see why a society that can't even bother with a flu vaccine is one worth pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:“socialism is inherently ecologically sustainable” and “environmentalism in the modern world is a shell game used to generate carbon tax credits for western companies who exploit third world labor” are compatible stances. I guess that's true in an axiomatic sense, but "socialism is inherently ecologically sustainable" just isn't true in reality. Ecological problems are fundamentally political, and you can't just assume that a mass politics like socialism is going to be interested in cleaning up the environment or even minimizing its harmful impact. It's certainly true that capitalism can't address ecological problems one way or the other because there's no profit in it. That's why the carbon tax shell game exists, to offset pollution from the first world and onto the third.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:this is literally what is going to happen if/when we decide to opt for the strategy of "business as usual but with extra technology". even getting rid of the inherent wastefulness of the capitalist mode of production is insufficient. even perfect worldwide allocation of resources under planification is insufficient, especially given the wide disparities in consumption patterns around the world that, I assume, should be remedied (or are you okay with an American still living in overwhelming luxury compared to an Iranian or an Uruguayan?). *takes the folic acid from my hands* heinrich doesn't need this so why should you
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:this is literally what is going to happen if/when we decide to opt for the strategy of "business as usual but with extra technology". even getting rid of the inherent wastefulness of the capitalist mode of production is insufficient. even perfect worldwide allocation of resources under planification is insufficient, especially given the wide disparities in consumption patterns around the world that, I assume, should be remedied (or are you okay with an American still living in overwhelming luxury compared to an Iranian or an Uruguayan?). Have fun when the handful of communes nextdoor to you amalgamate into a larger political unit so that they can reindustrialize and when you go and tell them to stop damming up your tribe's river you get to discover first hand how well an agrarian society competes against an industrial civilization
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:please teach me more about rear end socialism, it sounds like an intriguing concept alright, everyone's had their fill, so I might as well start with some basics What is it that you believe? What is it that needs to change fundamentally and what must society become? Where'd you read all of this? Who are your sources and exactly why do you agree with them? How does civilization reach the ends that you believe in? In what regard is civilization going to reach it, not in your lifetime, but within a century?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
People who want to smash everything and return to tribal/agrarian society in the hopes that eventually we'll redevelop everything in a better way are just trying to play history like a slot machine. You've got no real analysis of how things turned out the way they did and so your only hope of a better world is pure random chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:even getting rid of the inherent wastefulness of the capitalist mode of production is insufficient. even perfect worldwide allocation of resources under planification is insufficient gonna zoom in here because here's where you're 1) a malthusian and 2) just wrong yes there are actually resources to provide power, medicine, food and housing to everyone on earth given political will to do so, if you disagree then from your perspective the solution (or at least inevitable consequence) is mass deaths and socialism is a pointless discussion full stop, hand-wringing about wasteful pointless americans is an irrelevant distraction no matter how accurate it definitely is
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Anarchists should do less posting and more fire bombing ICE trucks imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Anarchists should do less posting and more fire bombing ICE trucks imo. The nice year old anarchist who tried to burn down an ice facility was a fuckin hero
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I guess that's true in an axiomatic sense, but "socialism is inherently ecologically sustainable" just isn't true in reality. Ecological problems are fundamentally political, and you can't just assume that a mass politics like socialism is going to be interested in cleaning up the environment or even minimizing its harmful impact. It's certainly true that capitalism can't address ecological problems one way or the other because there's no profit in it. That's why the carbon tax shell game exists, to offset pollution from the first world and onto the third. This is not true, or at least it is no longer true. You could easily argue that 20th century socialism wasn't inherently ecologically sustainable, but a 21st century socialist movement will ultimately be a response to the ecological crisis. Sustainability will be the foundation of left wing political movements in the coming years. A revolutionary anti-capitalist movement will draw most of its energy from exposing capitalism's inherent inability to manage an ecological crisis. It would be ludicrous to suggest that a successful transition from capitalism would all-of-a-sudden drop it's most important value as an environmental steward. Also, knowing the effects of climate change and pollution, a socialist party that continues to irresponsibly pollute is not a socialist party. Because they will be engaging in genocidal imperialism by forcing vulnerable peoples/states into mass-death and abject misery at the cost of their own development. That's fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:This is not true, or at least it is no longer true. You could easily argue that 20th century socialism wasn't inherently ecologically sustainable, but a 21st century socialist movement will ultimately be a response to the ecological crisis. Sustainability will be the foundation of left wing political movements in the coming years. A revolutionary anti-capitalist movement will draw most of its energy from exposing capitalism's inherent inability to manage an ecological crisis. It would be ludicrous to suggest that a successful transition from capitalism would all-of-a-sudden drop it's most important value as an environmental steward. If there's one lesson we can take from history it is that long periods of violent revolutionary class struggle can change the priorities of a movement in ways that are very hard to forecast in advance. I wish I could share your confidence that 21st century socialism would necessarily be ecological but it seems a tad utopian. quote:Also, knowing the effects of climate change and pollution, a socialist party that continues to irresponsibly pollute is not a socialist party. Because they will be engaging in genocidal imperialism by forcing vulnerable peoples/states into mass-death and abject misery at the cost of their own development. That's fascism. This is unconvincing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:alright, everyone's had their fill, so I might as well start with some basics I believe that the world we live in is deeply flawed. One, because it is organized around and structured by the struggle between classes (citation not needed), and two, because the way it is developing today will lead to the annihilation of man’s environment in a not-so-distant future (IPCC), plunging the world into chaos. I abhor these flaws because they are and will be the source of so much horror in this world. I don’t think you’re too much interested in the minutiae of my analysis of class relations because it’s quite banal, and I call myself marxist in my critique of the bourgeois state. I don’t believe however that a socialist revolution is enough to stop the ongoing ecocide, for the purely quantitative reasons I exposed a few posts ago (you simply can’t provide the consumption and emission levels of Americans to the entire world, even in a perfectly efficient planned economy), but also because the means of production have evolved in such a way that they are now threatening their own ability to provide sustenance to humanity (Illich). The means of production have become their own end (Illich again), because capitalism and the State (in capitalist and non-capitalist nations alike) have not developped technology as a means to satisfy the needs of the population, but for other purposes (Habermas). Also, and this is critical, the technologies/modes of production that our society is based upon have not been adopted democratically (Habermas), but first and foremost for the benefit of the owners of capital, which in itself is grounds to reexamine them critically. Habermas, Illich and Charbonneau are the three main inspirations of my analysis here. The issues they identify with technology as an ideology (Habermas) are many and range from democratic concerns (its role in the professionalization of politics and in the evolution of the media, its inescapability, etc.), to obvious ecological concerns, and to its role in the ossification of the class structure. So therefore a socialist revolution within the context of forces of production that have been so thoroughly shaped by capitalism is fraught. And we’ve seen, in the past, how much even in non-capitalist nations, there is an obvious class nature ("nature de classe") of political power (Jalée, Viénet), which amplifies this problem. This is why I extend my dislike of the bourgeois State to the authoritarian socialist state, even though the evil of the former outweighs that of the latter. Of course I’ll support socialism over the monstrous beast we’re dealing with right now, even if it comes with authoritarian tendencies (which I accept as hardly evitable in a revolutionary context), because at least it has a chance of stopping the ecocide - but I’m full of doubts that it would have the will to do so. And I fully expect that it will always work tirelessly at its own perpetuation, postponing the classless society sine die. This doesn’t satisfy me. In the end I am quite pessimistic regarding our collective ability to weather the upcoming crises, because productivism is so ingrained in our ideologies that we don’t stop and realize that we’ve overcome scarcity some decades ago and have gone too far beyond into abundance. Looking for utopias I am left with little other palatable alternatives than communist anarchism. Castoriadis, Bookchin and Charbonneau provide for elementary organizational frameworks, and Illich comes close. But their voluntarily simple societies are hard to fathom in our current technological age, and they certainly sound outdated and pastoral. They are certainly powerless, especially in the context of climate change. They offer little in terms of “how do we get there”, and I don’t have much else than “revolution in the wake of an ecological crisis” as an answer myself. They’re a utopia, and I don’t expect we’ll ever get there. Question: how would you deal with the upcoming catastrophe in a centralized non-capitalist state? Do you honestly believe it is doable without questioning the living conditions of a sizable portion of the population of your country, and the means of production that allow them to exist? atelier morgan posted:gonna zoom in here because here's where you're 1) a malthusian and 2) just wrong I don’t deny these resources exist! But there is a world of difference between access to medicine, power, food and housing for everyone, and the living conditions of the American “middle class” and upper échelons of society. Let’s actually observe the material conditions we’re discussing here, and especially those of the bourgeoisie and of the bourgeois wannabes. and don’t loving call me a malthusian because i want to pry your quadruple bypass burger or your ford truck from your greasy fat hands Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
*it is the year 2033. After years of death and misery due to environmental catastrophe, a worldwide left wing movement has successfully mobilized people across the world to take action. billions of people around the world are participating in demonstrations. The reactionary capitalists violently respond using both the police and military, killing millions. But in the end, the struggle against capitalism is a success, and states around the world start transitioning to socialism* *it is the year 2034. An international coalition of socialist states unanimously agree that climate change is a hoax and whales are stupid*
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I don’t deny these resources exist! But there is a world of difference between access to medicine, power, food and housing for everyone, and the living conditions of the American “middle class” and upper échelons of society. Let’s actually observe the material conditions we’re discussing here, and especially those of the bourgeoisie and of the bourgeois wannabes. yet you just said that removing the inherently wasteful application of capitalist consumption wasn't enough what do you even think that is if it isn't exactly conspicuous consumption if you're walking it back to just going 'well the current model of capitalist waste and consumption is unsustainably excessive' then no poo poo, nobody disagreed with you about that millions and millions of useless prestige cars for every bourgeois fucker and food designed to demonstrate it has wasted the most amount of resources possible in the smallest time are things socialism would have to do without, sure, oh no atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
abusing others is bad, strong authority is needed to keep this from happening but also some gently caress head will definitely try to get into that position of authority so they can abuse others. someone please figure this out for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If there's one lesson we can take from history it is that long periods of violent revolutionary class struggle can change the priorities of a movement in ways that are very hard to forecast in advance. I wish I could share your confidence that 21st century socialism would necessarily be ecological but it seems a tad utopian. If there is any revolutionary movement in the 21st century, it WILL be a response to ecological chaos. The conditions for any other form of revolutionary struggle do not exist . To say that any sort of transition (reactionary or radical) will not be ecological is far more utopian to suggest otherwise. I'm not saying the outcomes will be socialist. We could easily descend into fascism. But if socialism does prevail, it absolutely must be ecologically based, otherwise it wouldn't be successful in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
i feel like right now socialists/communists/anarchists/whatever the gently caress label you wanna give yourself should be more focused on building the organization and leadership of the working class to take power in society and less focused on whatever this is
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:yet you just said that removing the inherently wasteful application of capitalist consumption wasn't enough then i don’t think we are in disagreement, except maybe as to the details of what constitutes conspicuous consumption. maybe i do dispute that conspicuous consumption is uniquely capitalist in nature, because i believe that it is an inherent byproduct of certain industrial processes. also i am insistent that the means of production of these unnecessary goods must be destroyed
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Ecological chaos will persist. It will haunt every single soul in the near future. No one will be able to ignore it. Never in the history of humanity have we experienced anything like this. It would be a mistake to think that this crisis will look anything like a revolutionary moment in the past. The conditions are wildly different. Even just anecdotally. Every single new activist I meet is almost entirely motivated by the ecological crisis. The only thing that can stop the growth of ecologically motivated left wing movements is if capitalism can successfully prevent any more ecological damage. And I have my doubts about that
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HenryKrinkIe/status/1153062264397807622?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
quote:Omar personifies the Red-Green Axis: an ideological and political combination of Marxism-Leninism and Islamism. big if true
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Anarchists should do less posting and more fire bombing ICE trucks imo. not all anarchists are primmy dipshits like that guy
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:i feel like right now socialists/communists/anarchists/whatever the gently caress label you wanna give yourself should be more focused on building the organization and leadership of the working class to take power in society and less focused on whatever this is this is what I agree with tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Question: how would you deal with the upcoming catastrophe in a centralized non-capitalist state? Do you honestly believe it is doable without questioning the living conditions of a sizable portion of the population of your country, and the means of production that allow them to exist? I do believe it is doable and that we have the means to fight against it, though we have to secure and make secure those who are most vulnerable first. The biggest pick I have against what you've stated is that anyone who is disabled --- you know, folks that have to take their medicine, wheel around in their chairs, manage their pain --- are unfortunately first against the wall each and every time with this sort of rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
How hard is it to remember from each according to his ability, to each to according to his needs you jackasses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 04:59
|
|