Even if a communist can colloquially describe themselves as being on the left, there’s a distinction between communism and “the left.” This is implied right in the title of Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Whereas the left, a big tent term for a myriad of incompatible ideologies, aims merely to act as an opposition towards the present order for the sake of it, communists have a coherent vision for how to defeat the system: by advancing history’s development to the next stage. The left, because of its lack of commitment to that central Marxist goal, naturally takes on an opportunistic role. Because when you want only to build a movement as an end in itself, rather than use this movement as a means for defeating the system, you become nothing more than an actor who benefits from discontent without helping solve the problems behind that discontent.
De Growth is pretty simply explained by more for oligarchs/ plutocrats, less for working classes, and no chance of re gaining any industrial power...... that is all. Well written.
The rush to label things as“eco-fascism” reads like muddled thinking here. It ignores the basic science of nature and the problems we face.
For example, it is the working class and the destitute in the world that bear the greatest impact of climate change and environment destruction, and those impacts are driven by overconsumption of the rich.
The science of it is we cannot continue to grow economies because of not only the size co2 emissions but also the many impacts on nature, the other forms of pollution, over use of limited fresh water capability and the physical destruction of natural ecosystems.
At this point mankind is taking more from nature and polluting the planet, more than nature’s intrinsic capacity to self-heal. That’s what “sustainability” is about - literally to keep mankind from destroying ourselves with mindless consumption. That’s the problem with growth. It’s an existential problem and one with most immediate threat to the poor not the rich.
So to wave off the actual impacts of growth is intellectually bankrupt I would say.
Also nuclear power is simply robbing future generations for the benefit of current ones by kicking the can down the road on hazardous waste disposal: no one has ever found a repository for radioactive waste that is reliable and breach-proof for the length of any human civilisation, let alone the time that the waste is catastrophically hazardous.
I don’t think there is any Marxist lens in which one could justify degrading the capacity of future generations to live a worthy life in this planet.
And nuclear power, even if while CO2 emissions is reduced, is not a solution to the problems of physical destruction and poisoning of nature. It’s no magic bullet that enables limitless consumption.
We have enough for everyone on this planet. The problem is hoarding and over consumption by a few rich people.
All in all a Marxist lens would zoom in on how the pie is shared, rather than the capitalist mirage of “growth”, which aims to put off questions of fairness by continuing unfairness today while raising false hopes of “jam tomorrow” from growth from a bigger pie.
The pie is big enough. Question is how is it being sliced.
As an autistic who needs cannabis to function, I will never get behind a ban on marijuana. What do you mean by "milder drug?" You're just referring to marijuana right? So don't beat around the bush, say marijuana. What do you mean by this, "by using milder substances to sway developing radicals away from becoming effective revolutionaries."? Sounds like an ignorant boomer take that everyone who smokes weed is an unproductive deadbeat.
I don't want to argue with you or try to convince you of anything, but I make this comment for those reading along.
Re-industrialization will entail new and renewed resource extraction, which will require further environmental destruction. "The elimination of fossil fuels as an electricity source" through solar, wind, etc., will require mining in areas that have so far been spared such activity. In Nevada, we are at the first stages of a lithium rush (for making batteries) and the mines there will completely destroy the wildlife habitat that currently exists there, which is home to innumerable plants and animals, including endangered species. Is it "eco-fascism" to have concern for these creatures?
Additionally, these mines are opposed by the Native Americans in the area, whose land was stolen from them, and for whom some of these sites are sacred. Are they "ecofascists"? I think the question is absurd. In truth, Native Americans were de facto anti-imperialist long before Marx was born. I would insist that any discussions about land use in the US must take into account that the very existence of this nation is an active, ongoing, imperial occupation. Settler colonial culture currently has the ability to do whatever it wants wherever--even if it means killing every living thing in an area--but that doesn't mean we have the right.
In Arizona, Native Americans are fighting to stop a giant copper mine at Oak Flat, another piece of land that was stolen from them. The area has been a traditional location for ceremonies for centuries, long before Europeans arrived. It's also famous for being home to many hummingbirds. Currently, the company pushing for the mine is Rio Tinto, an Australian corporation, but I would personally still oppose the project if it was going to be entirely owned, operated, etc., by communists. Mining is a horrifically destructive activity and we must find ways of doing less, not more.
The mindset that views the planet as made up of resources for humans to use for our enrichment--as capitalists, communists, or whoever--is a legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition of having "dominion" over the earth. It is an outmoded philosophy that centralizes humans and devalues all other life. It has produced a planet with polluted air, soil and water, widespread wildlife habitat destruction, ocean deadzones, depleted aquifers, topsoil loss, to say nothing of climate change. Whether it is capitalists or communists who are wreaking this destruction makes no difference -- it is destruction either way.
The key is not to re-industrialize, but to de-industrialize. We are already using up the planet faster than it can renew itself. It is utter folly to be pursuing any policy that will create more consumption of any kind. Instead of building acres of solar panels, we should be reducing our collective energy use.
The path to living on the planet responsibly will have to include *dismantling* the means of production. If seizing them first through a communist revolution is the best first step towards that goal, so be it. But if it will only be a case of different hands wielding the machines of ecocide, then it will be no real progress at all.
Rainer shea 👑
De Growth is pretty simply explained by more for oligarchs/ plutocrats, less for working classes, and no chance of re gaining any industrial power...... that is all. Well written.
The rush to label things as“eco-fascism” reads like muddled thinking here. It ignores the basic science of nature and the problems we face.
For example, it is the working class and the destitute in the world that bear the greatest impact of climate change and environment destruction, and those impacts are driven by overconsumption of the rich.
The science of it is we cannot continue to grow economies because of not only the size co2 emissions but also the many impacts on nature, the other forms of pollution, over use of limited fresh water capability and the physical destruction of natural ecosystems.
At this point mankind is taking more from nature and polluting the planet, more than nature’s intrinsic capacity to self-heal. That’s what “sustainability” is about - literally to keep mankind from destroying ourselves with mindless consumption. That’s the problem with growth. It’s an existential problem and one with most immediate threat to the poor not the rich.
So to wave off the actual impacts of growth is intellectually bankrupt I would say.
Also nuclear power is simply robbing future generations for the benefit of current ones by kicking the can down the road on hazardous waste disposal: no one has ever found a repository for radioactive waste that is reliable and breach-proof for the length of any human civilisation, let alone the time that the waste is catastrophically hazardous.
I don’t think there is any Marxist lens in which one could justify degrading the capacity of future generations to live a worthy life in this planet.
And nuclear power, even if while CO2 emissions is reduced, is not a solution to the problems of physical destruction and poisoning of nature. It’s no magic bullet that enables limitless consumption.
We have enough for everyone on this planet. The problem is hoarding and over consumption by a few rich people.
All in all a Marxist lens would zoom in on how the pie is shared, rather than the capitalist mirage of “growth”, which aims to put off questions of fairness by continuing unfairness today while raising false hopes of “jam tomorrow” from growth from a bigger pie.
The pie is big enough. Question is how is it being sliced.
As an autistic who needs cannabis to function, I will never get behind a ban on marijuana. What do you mean by "milder drug?" You're just referring to marijuana right? So don't beat around the bush, say marijuana. What do you mean by this, "by using milder substances to sway developing radicals away from becoming effective revolutionaries."? Sounds like an ignorant boomer take that everyone who smokes weed is an unproductive deadbeat.
I don't want to argue with you or try to convince you of anything, but I make this comment for those reading along.
Re-industrialization will entail new and renewed resource extraction, which will require further environmental destruction. "The elimination of fossil fuels as an electricity source" through solar, wind, etc., will require mining in areas that have so far been spared such activity. In Nevada, we are at the first stages of a lithium rush (for making batteries) and the mines there will completely destroy the wildlife habitat that currently exists there, which is home to innumerable plants and animals, including endangered species. Is it "eco-fascism" to have concern for these creatures?
Additionally, these mines are opposed by the Native Americans in the area, whose land was stolen from them, and for whom some of these sites are sacred. Are they "ecofascists"? I think the question is absurd. In truth, Native Americans were de facto anti-imperialist long before Marx was born. I would insist that any discussions about land use in the US must take into account that the very existence of this nation is an active, ongoing, imperial occupation. Settler colonial culture currently has the ability to do whatever it wants wherever--even if it means killing every living thing in an area--but that doesn't mean we have the right.
In Arizona, Native Americans are fighting to stop a giant copper mine at Oak Flat, another piece of land that was stolen from them. The area has been a traditional location for ceremonies for centuries, long before Europeans arrived. It's also famous for being home to many hummingbirds. Currently, the company pushing for the mine is Rio Tinto, an Australian corporation, but I would personally still oppose the project if it was going to be entirely owned, operated, etc., by communists. Mining is a horrifically destructive activity and we must find ways of doing less, not more.
The mindset that views the planet as made up of resources for humans to use for our enrichment--as capitalists, communists, or whoever--is a legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition of having "dominion" over the earth. It is an outmoded philosophy that centralizes humans and devalues all other life. It has produced a planet with polluted air, soil and water, widespread wildlife habitat destruction, ocean deadzones, depleted aquifers, topsoil loss, to say nothing of climate change. Whether it is capitalists or communists who are wreaking this destruction makes no difference -- it is destruction either way.
The key is not to re-industrialize, but to de-industrialize. We are already using up the planet faster than it can renew itself. It is utter folly to be pursuing any policy that will create more consumption of any kind. Instead of building acres of solar panels, we should be reducing our collective energy use.
The path to living on the planet responsibly will have to include *dismantling* the means of production. If seizing them first through a communist revolution is the best first step towards that goal, so be it. But if it will only be a case of different hands wielding the machines of ecocide, then it will be no real progress at all.
Lmfaoooooo dogshit analysis dude