Rafiq/Ecology Discussion moo 21-12-20 05:22:32 No. 2083 [View All]
So some of you may have read the quite popular pdf where Rafiq dunks on eco fetishism, in that thread he references a previous thread where he had spent a lot of time focusing in on eco-fetishism, however this thread has been lost from Revleft. It's available on internet archives but to preserve it I've made this in the style of the previous popular pdf. Hope you guys enjoy!
62 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:20 No. 4294
>>3704 >He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it. Which is a strawman that borders on a parody of ecologists being hippy earth worshipers.
>To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology. No it, can't. That's like saying Epidemiology could be called Internal Medicine. They're looking at two different things a completely different scales.
>Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society. Self preservation isn't something that society needs to instill in people. You don't have any knowledge of the history behind environmentalism. Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative. As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq. They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them. It's very much a colonialist mind set which you and Rafiq obviously share.
We know now that humans are very much effected by nature in a symbiosis that we barely understand. Rafiq rants on about ideology because he's an idealists with no understanding of the material roots behind it, particularly the history.
Also, I'm not so sure what's so ideological finding nature sublime. Yet somehow thinking that seeing nature as only a utility is somehow escaping ideology.
Rafiq is a left version of an autistic atheist. Proselytizing that there's definitely no god with zero self awareness that that itself is a faith based belief.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:20 No. 4295
>>3705 >This thread is extremely clear in disproving this fact. You may not literally kneel every night and pray for nature, but it is still your God. It is the Other that you dare not disobey. I don't disobey nature because it's more powerful than me that a cursory reading of history shows myself and humanity still don't understand.
When you see a "High Voltage" sign do you still insist on playing with the wires inside? You don't? Huh…I guess electricity is your God that you dare not disobey. So fucking retarded.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:21 No. 4306
>>3705 >Why should humans want to respect other creatures? Certainly not because of any ideological reasons or because we think "nature" is sacred. We should respect other creatures because we understand that respecting other creatures, treating them well, helps ourselves, our own psyches. Dogs and humans evolved alongside one another for tens of thousands of years (some research says even longer), it is expected that we would have some sort of "bond" to the animal – they found that both humans and dogs release oxytocin when looking at each other's eyes and interacting. Those dogs that were friendly, with puppy eyes, etc. we kept around, the rest we killed or simply didn't accept/feed and they died. There is something "real" that you feel towards your dog, but it is only you that feels it, your dog is acting on instincts and survival (if he goes against the pack, or isn't on friendly terms with the pack, he'll be cast out). So there is a perfectly good materialist explanation for the human-dog friendship phenomena, that doesn't involve Disney magic.
Compare dogs to our other "domesticated" pet. Cats probably came to humans by chilling on the outskirts of settlements, catching the rats and other small creatures attracted to our garbage. That's why cats today still seem independent, and most are OK changing owners, going somewhere else when they need, because that was their lifestyle around early human settlements, as long as there's food, they stay. Dogs on the other hand are pack animals and are not suited for the solitary life, so it is expected that their behaviour will be more "social".
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:21 No. 4307
>>4293 "This" to a very large post. "All you're going to get from sycophants is strawmanning" to a post with a very large response… Come on bruh.
>if you don't worship him wahh wahh This is pathetic. Spend more time reading and learn how to criticize things. I'll be responding to the rest shortly.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:22 No. 4311
>>4294 Okay it's not a strawman, you gotta stop using this word. It makes you look like a Destiny or Vaush watcher. It's fucking stupid. Just say what you think is wrong or say where you disagree. Do you know ecologists? Do you know biologists? Do you have academic training at all? This isn't to shame you: and yes it is relevant.
I can't prove to you that every ecologist is a hippy tier retard, however that isn't the point. From my experience with the left and ecologists I can attest to the utter ideology that permeates through this field. In the same way when you watch a Zizek film you don't go 'pffft prove it that every person thinks this way!', we know this because we live in society, and interact with it everyday and can attest to the truthfulness of the statements. Do you genuinely believe there is no eco mysticism seeping into the left? This idea that we should be 'one' with nature. The idea we shouldn't 'mess' with nature, and be good little boys? If you had bothered to read Rafiq you'd know what is oh so disgusting about this line of thought.
Okay I agree here. As it field it is something separate from biology, however it comes with ideological baggage because of this separation. My personal background is in mathematics and physics and I could write a book or so regarding the ideology implications of these sciences in the same way Rafiq has here. It isn't really that surprising.
>Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative. >As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq. Straw manning retardation. Has nothing to do with the point at hand.
>They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them. How is this bad? "not being a simp for muhther nature = colonialism" won't cut it. Literally not an argument dude. It's as stupid as those morons who claim "efficiency is capitalist!" and what not. I don't give the slightest shit how 'bad' something sounds to your liberal mind. Communist revolution sounds bad to your average joe, that means nothing. It means less than nothing to the value of communism.
>Wow nature is so pure and holy we barely understand how great it is 🙏 >What is ideological about finding nature sublime? Wow it's really mask of time, isn't it? Are you acquainted with eco fascist work? Deep ecology shit? I suspect you are not since your lack of self reflection speaks bounds.
Do you know what nature is, 'Comrade'? Nature is shit and filth. It is disease. It is women dying at childbirth because the baby is too large. It is the mentally and physically ill suffering and being killed because they are not strong enough. It is rape, it is starvation and it is endless struggle. How is this torture sublime? The only thing that is sublime is the human intervention in this so called 'natural' process. This is what you think is nature. What you think is nature is specifically sterilized 'natural parks' and animals in zoos and pathetic petit bourgeois attempts of 'returning to nature'.
>muh autism >muh atheism >actually you're the one with no self awareness! uh huh
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:22 No. 4313
>>4295 >I don't disobey the owner of my land! They are more powerful than me! >I don't disobey my slave master, they are more powerful than me! >I don't disobey my capitalist! They are more powerful than me! It's clear: you're not a communist. "High voltage" is the complete fucking antithesis to nature you moron. It is the human ability to harness such great power and contain it by the sheer use of human labor. Electricity doesn't rule us, it doesn't 'decide' what we do like famines and capitalists do. The fact you act so smug after such a pathetic analogy really sums it up. You are so involved in your ideology, so narcissistic in your lack of understand, it's depressing.
Nature is not all powerful. It is not a god. You can believe it is, by all means, but you're not a communist. You are a reactionary, since when humans say 'we should improve our lives' you cry about how hard it looks.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:37 No. 4505
>>4498 Based.
>>4499 >>4500 The point isn't that I am choosing to bring these things to the communist future, I'm REJECTING the idealism of 'I like thing therefore it will exist in communism' that the nature defenders are proposing.
If it got to the point of brains in jars, why not? It's no more monstrous than what we already are compared to our animal brethren.
>>4501 >No you don't understand science, you're not heckin valid!!! I'm fully fucking aware of the extremely basic concept that our biology is complicated. This is painfully obvious to every human alive. But are you going to sit there, in a world we have irradicated diseases with labor, with buildings hundreds of metres tall, dude we've been to the MOON. Does the concept of destroying all animals slowly really sound that crazy? Or creating cyborgs? I'm not saying it's desirable, the point is that doesn't matter.
If you want to discuss the human skin microbiome or something we can have a thread for that, but the actually intricacies of that are not relevant here, it's a philosophical discussion regarding humanity's relation with nature.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:38 No. 4510
>>4505 >I like thing therefore it will exist in communism That's not what they're proposing. Did you even read Marx? You're the idealist thinking we exist separate from nature.
Why the fuck do you think we need to destroy all animals? We can do communism without this shot. You're taking communism and extending it to weird transhumanist shit that has nothing to do with the relations of production. At least be honest. You're a transhumanist not a communist.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:38 No. 4513
>>4510 Let us go through the comments
>>3378 I love nature, much of it is still not understood, so the fact that Rafiq thinks he could make a sweeping generalization as, “It’s not it’s own thing” while worshiping for more abstract concepts like wage labor just shows how much hubris he has.
<I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Our love for these things have no bearing on their use in communism, our personal opinions on these objects are useless. More of an argument needs to be made. We don't exist separate from nature but nothing is more unatural than the human. And NOTHING worse than the communist. Nature abhors equality, freedom, the weak being given a chance, and rejection of 'natural' ways of life. Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy? We are against nature and we seek to destroy it in every fibre of our existence as humans. As beings that labour.
Why not destroy all the animals if they are of no use to us? Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct. Not because we genocide them mao style, but because the course of human history dictated it to be so. My question for you is have you read Marx?! What constitiutes the relations of production dictate everything in society! You know why they didn't call the commodity fetishism thing ideology? Because it is literally the core of our society and it's functioning, it's not a structure on top of it.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:39 No. 4525
>>4522 I made that and no, that is just a single forum discussion about ecology (it's posted in the OP). Good to see it getting reposted however.
>>4521 But it's not the concept of democracy that we have. That 'everyone should get their say', you know? What we see as democracy is just a way of running a hive that is effective at not leading to the death of the species, democracy as we know it is a complete rejection of the social order, of kings and queens, of tribe leaders and so on. I guess what I mean is the idea we should strive for some level equality is completely bizarre for nature, where disease runs rampant and food chains of constant death cannot be escaped.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:39 No. 4531
>>4529 I guarantee I'm far more rigorously qualified from a better university than you are. The point is these things SOUND absurd to anyone not with our level of knowledge. Imagine 200 years ago and telling someone of the technology we have today. The sheer arrogance and ignorance it takes to declare some arbitrary thing 'really hard' means nothing to humans. It doesn't matter if you think it's personally very difficult to do things that would serve humanity, humanity will do them anyway.
Of course I know that the literal process of getting to the moon isn't 'insanely complicated', but the course of technology that needed to occur to allow this to happen, when you compare it to the most grand achievement of a dolphin or something -like dude my background is maths/physics I'm not ignorant here- ITS FUCKING BONKERS. We left our planet!!! Who knows of the possibilities the future holds for us? Certainly not random anonymous pseud number 6151
Anonymous 05-03-21 09:34:11 No. 5100
>>5063 >>5073 Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was. Their philosophies arent anywhere near each other either. Haz when pressed reveals he doesn't know shit and says you have to do idealist leap of faiths and "believe in the people" when it comes to truth. As already pointed out its Heidegger shit. The reason Rafiq was aggressive was because he knew what he wanted to get across and was tired of repeating himself. Read any of his posts and you get a clear explanation and position on whatever topic.
Haz just screams and yells because he doesn't know how to explain shit he just read once and doesn't understand. He would call Rafiq an Anglo for actually knowing something instead of pretending with big words. And hopefully Rafiq would shoot him and push the body in a ditch.
Anonymous 02-01-22 02:10:05 No. 9156
>>4529 >Those accomplishments only blow your mind largely due to your ignorance of science. Really just shows how some people on /leftypol/ don't know shit about the "worldview" they supposedly believe. Determinately, it's obviously the case that humans have given "biological" or "natural" limits, but these are mediated by the social and technological arrangements which are themselves mutable through our practical activities, which can in turn can alter these limits.
What you're insisting on is in fact a prototypical ideological element of conservatism, in your case from fetishizing "Science" and "Nature" without reflecting on the historical and practical underpinnings of both science and nature, or of yourself and your own individual preferences. If Haz is Rafiq, he is, or used to be, smarter than the morons criticizing him here, like >>3378's "I Love Nature, and It's Hubris to Alter the Unknown Natural Balance, therefore the argument is wrong."
Anonymous 07-02-22 05:38:06 No. 9670
>>9649 >They both hate Chomsky >They both bold their texts and write aggressively >Haz is upper middle class and Arab. Rafiq is the child of arabic immigrants >Rafiq is ultra leftist >As for the guy talking about Lysenkoism, it's obvious that Haz is using this as a stand-in for the same principle. >Tahir in Michigan? >Multipolarity >Nuanced patriotism >Webm is not an effort post
Anonymous 10-02-22 14:23:39 No. 9701
>>9698 Yes, anon, most of it was written by Michael Millerman, a Dugin scholar. Here is a video of him reading the article the day after.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tusRUfmVnUQ He tries to pretend like he has never seen the article before, but his reading over typos and errors like they aren't there betrays his familiarity with the text. He has contributed heavily to the article.
Unique IPs: 12