man I wish was class conscious enough back then to actually be going on revleft when it was. it seems like forums are a dinosaur of the early 21st century at this point, but they were really the best social media format we've had so far.
it's also hilarious watching all these common-sensical people react to Rafiq's comments, I can't imagine what it's like to be in the mind of someone that hears about technological advancement and resorts to ecological essentialism like these people. I know it sounds like I'm trying to be superior but I really sincerely don't get these people at all. it's like they skimmed the posts and cherrypicked a few trigger words like "ewwwww concrete" and revolved their whole post around it.
Unironically born in the wrong generation. I do agree for actual discussion they are the best forms of discussion, as much as the regular channer loves to shit on tripfags, for a coherent conversation it is necessary.
It is very funny, the bit where he talks about his complete disgust for nature documentary footage with swelling classic music is fantastic. I actual brought this up the other day, with socdem/radlib people, and without even mentioning concrete they brought up themselves the idea of a 'world paved with concrete' as some sort of hell. I can understand peoples' generally repulsion to anti-ecology, since it is currently such prevalent ideology, but these people are meant to be marxists, and they can't even read Rafiq's post to understand it properly.
If you want to know what Marx actually wrote about pollution, animal abuse etc. read Karl Marx's Ecosocialism by Kohei Sato.
Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a read.
Why should we read it? Why do you think Sato "gets" Marx? What are Sato's main theses in the work?
In other words, make a case for why we should read the work.
Kinda long. I'll try to read it soon.
As far as I can tell, Sato didn't start with an ebin thesis about Marx truly believed, but by searching for any statement by Marx touching the topic. The book is a presentation of that. Everything is sourced, so if you disagree with how he presents something you can check for yourself. Sato got help from the MEGA editors and his search covers and goes beyond what you can find in the MECW. He even knows what topic-relevant books Marx had on the shelf.
He may have a point, but as an artist I find it abhorrent.
It's going from an extreme of eco fascism to the extreme of techno fascism. Refusing nature intrinsic value, it is also refused to wildlife that is dependant on said nature. Some animals could be said to be approaching human levels of intelligence, such as high apes and crustaceans, possibly extending to extraterrestials. They get the axe too? Then, denying value to other intelligent life we can deny value to other human beings themselves. What, then, value is left there? Self-replication and sustainment of one's own species. What will such a society resemble, a Imperium of Man from 40k? At this point is it still communist, or technofascist? It may be what is necessary, but to what end? With space exploration and colonisation drifting more and more away from possibility with just what we already know about space and laws of physics. May be it's just my archaic sensibilities, being classically trained and all. I don't cease to be communist because Rafiq's words frighten me, I'll follow whatever comes disregardless. I just don't see the value in living in such a world, for me.
>>2212>They get the axe too?
Nobody gets the axe. I don't understand where people get this notion that Rafiq wants to "destroy nature" and kill all life that isn't human.
Nowhere does he say it. All he is saying is that Marxists understand that humans, by creating value by working on nature, destroy it. Humans cannot experience nature without "destroying" it, without changing it, subjugating it to ourselves so it doesn't kill us. We "destroy" wind by hiding in houses, we "destroy" rivers by damming them up, but we also create lakes, nature reserves, rivers and seas.
The point is that we, as humans, are against nature. Nature is alien and foreign to us, because nature kills us: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, venomous plants, snakes and insects. The only nature we can coexist with, is that which we have dominated and bent to our will in national parks and botanical gardens.
Does this outlook justify putting concrete over the planet? Of course not. This outlook saddles us with the commitment to find a way to allow space for nature to grow alongside us. It means protecting plants and animals, not allowing them to go extinct due to our industrialisation and expansion.
Capitalist logic tells us that we have to choose between industrialisation and "nature". That is a false dichotomy. It only applies in capitalism because protecting natural resources isn't profitable, while exploiting them is. It is possible to industrialise sustainably, it's just that with our current ideological conditions it doesn't make sense.
What intrinsic value does nature actually have, outside of what it offers to humans?
I agree as a notion we should keep apes around, regardless of how little future society develops in terms of eco-fetishism we should keep a set of oragnutans or something to see if we can 'create' consciousness, it would be invaluable really. The point is we don't deny any value to any human, we are all equal as humans regardless of individual differences. Calling this communist or technofascist isn't really the point, it will be what society wants it to be at the time. Maybe 40k dudes will seem really cool in the future and everyone will want to be one? Who could have predicted hundreds of years ago that we would have bodybuilders that would sacrifice their lives to get insanely big, just from some strange insecurity?
It does sound weird to us, since we live in a liberal world that loves ecology and saving the polar bears, even the cold Rafiq mentions how he finds solace walking around parks and stuff, because of what nature can offer us as human beings. But does that mean it has intrinsic value if those offerings can be replaced and optimized?
>>2212>Refusing nature intrinsic value, it is also refused to wildlife that is dependant on said nature. Some animals could be said to be approaching human levels of intelligence, such as high apes and crustaceans, possibly extending to extraterrestials. They get the axe too? Then, denying value to other intelligent life we can deny value to other human beings themselves. What, then, value is left there?
nobody's saying we should "deny value" to nature. all Rafiq is saying is that "nature" is not really a thing outside of us that exists independent of us with some kind of "eternal harmony" that humans destroyed. nature was never harmonious to begin with otherwise we wouldn't exist. the views of nature as a perfectly organized system independent of human intervention IS superstition. it doesn't reflect the reality.
Thanks, lots to think about. It is true, the romanticized popular image of nature isn't true nature per se. Could it be said that the human intervention, as human himself has come from nature, is part of nature? The steel and glass high rises, the oil refineries, are themselves part of nature? Like the advent of oxygen, the advent of man wipes out most other life and transforms nature, is just part of nature? Well, it looks like sophistry anyway.
it’s just that people invest so much ideology in scolding against intervention with the natural world and deeming it taboo because you’re interfering with some dualistic eternal harmonious balance that really isn’t there. reminder that nature has had mass extinctions independent of our existence in the past, and much harsher variations in the global climate than we’ve seen in all of human history. to say that it’s not worth investing in geoengineering and terraforming and things like that because it invades some abstract “harmony”, is actually a really dangerous superstition to say if you take a closer look at prehistory, and realize that it leaves us open to mass extinction regardless of whether humans are causing it or not.
>>2228>The Earth has had mass extinctions before
<So we should create one right now in the 21st Century
Only on an imageboard would people say this isn’t a retarded position to hold
I think anon is saying basically the opposite of that.
are you just pretending to be retarded?
Top work moo. The more Rafiq stuff that is produced the better.
I have been a Rafiq reader for a number of years, there is something in this guy which is unique, something the Left needs to know. I might even go as far as to say that Rafiq is the bridge that the Left needs to cross to get it's house in order and be able to have a powerful and consistent message which can reverberate with ordinary people. The current Left is like a grab-bag of uncritically held assumptions, inconsistent notions and diverse struggles. It really is weak right now, despite there being a fairly decrepit and zombie-like capitalism.
I was basically radicalised by online forums like revleft, I think they are a great way to get into meaty discussions, far better than a comment section on the end of a blog post, or a chan board like this one. I mean, threads like this are lost as soon as they are started, nothing is set out as a permanent legacy, I don't really understand why you would want to post here. On the other hand, this YouTube/tiktok/Twitter way of discussing is what we have to contend with, but it is most often just shit slinging, unworthy of proper discussion, it fosters retreat into dogmatism and taking sides. Taking sides is all very well, but for those we wish to convince, it's hopeless.
As for the concrete world, it is literally a joke how people can reduce a series of complex ideas to a single image. People, particularly Leftists, are pathetic creatures who can't seem to criticise their own emotions properly. Like they just state a feeling as the beginning and end of the discussion, how repulsive, how worthy of derision they really are, and how correct Rafiq is to lay into this casual 'hipster' socialism.
I think that if you consider the future communist society to be one in which you would like to live, with our current sensibilities, you are making a mistake. The deep communist future, where human beings are finally freed from our bodies, inherited from nature, and the universe is continually being sculpted and produced in man's image, the abolition of biological life as such, the strip-mining of planet earth to produce the galaxy-spanning technological structure which will house mankind, the end of gender, birth, motherhood, family, sex, animals, religion etc. this should fill us with pride and empowerment. This future, which is the logical outflow of the communist society's reproduction, would be hideous to us as we are presently, fixed as we are in our human bodies and so on. Honestly, I don't care that this future disgusts you, you need to re-think your sentimentalities, because the end of capitalism means the end of any sentimentality toward that which was considered holy, money, family, sex, pleasure and nature.
No this is simply false. In the same way that man can never 'go back' to nature, because it would mean adandoning consciousness itself, the creations of mankind exist in spite of nature, they are not an outflow of it.
Our sentiments should be with the steel and glass of the high-rises, manifestations of man's divinity, and even with the excess plastic and waste, the excrement produced in abundance. The only thing we communists say is that currently, man's creations serve to alienate and Eisenhower him, rather than being the proud products and symbols of man's mastery over nature. This is a political question. We do not oppose capitalism only to put forward a harmonious balance with nature, we say fuck nature, but let us be fully self-conscious and in control of this mastery, rather than dominated by it, as we are under capitalism.
I meant disempower, not Eisenhower.
>>2298>Our sentiments should be with the steel and glass of the high-rises
I agree with you, but that's just a bougie sentiment. "muh glass towers". They're inefficient for cooling and heating, the glass needs to be changed every 15-25 years, the glass has to be cleaned often. I guess you're gonna volounteer to scrub the "altars to man's divinity" every day in your soulless communist utopia?
Stone, brick, cement, that's what we need to build out of. We're only getting memed into steel and glass because that's cheaper and faster to build (but not maintain). After the construction company builds it and makes a profit, it is then up to the building owner to maintain it, often through the same company that built it. Stone, cement and brick, hell, nearly anyone can slap some cement on bricks if need be. People can recycle bricks, recycle stone, etc. but not steel and glass without industrial machinery and lots of energy.
Fuck steel and glass buildings. And fuck everyone who likes them.
Yes ok, cement and bricks then, it makes no difference to the point I was making. As for scrubbing, that's what nanobots are for.
Thanks Jingo7. It is very true, I've been reading some older modern Marxist books (60s/70s) and they all are so critical of capitalism, for hundreds of years we've accused capitalism of being on the verge of total collapse, but alas it seems to get no closer in the West. It is more important than ever for revolutionaries to hold each other accountable and engage in ruthless criticism.
Regarding forums, I find Bunkerchan fun, but /leftypol/ is pretty much garbage and feels like it's just been getting worse. /edu/ however is so slow it acts more like a forum, threads aren't looking to die any time soon. Do you have any recommendations for leftist places online?>>2297
Well put, let me reinforce what you say with a quote:>As soon as there will exist for everyone a margin of real freedom beyond production of life, Marxism will have lived out its span; a philosophy of freedom will take its place. But we have no means, no intellectual instrument, no concrete experience which allows us to concieve of this freedom or of this philosophy. - Jean-Paul Satre, Search for a Method>>2303
All hail the brutalist communist utopia.
>>2369>the fact that we should restore cows back to unsheltered open fields
What do you mean "back"? Cows don't exist in the wild, they're a product of human genetic engineering.
Not genetic engineering, artifical selection, but yeah.
Exactly it is an impossibility, The logic is inconsistent.
Exactly, this is the animal rights idea taken to its logical conclusions. It just doesn't make sense, if we project human feeling on to animals then every animal copulation is a rape, every predatory killing is a murder and so on. Do the animal fanciers not have a brain cell between them?
>>2295>I was basically radicalised by online forums like revleft, I think they are a great way to get into meaty discussions, far better than a comment section on the end of a blog post, or a chan board like this one.
Is anyone interested in starting a forum?
it's been tried a few times. anons here weren't too hot on the idea of user accounts.
This, Rafiq is a rentard that thinks being right means yelling the loudest. 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. Little wonder he’s so lauded in this website. I get the impression he wasn’t highly regarded on Revleft.
The tankies that eat his shit up need to collect their parents inheritance, become republicans and leave the Internet already.
That really sucks. It feels like leftist discussion on the Internet is being held on every platform except forums, and too few people remember or realize its potential.
Libcom has a pretty active forum.
Libcom is a shell of itself similar to Revleft's dying days. It's also less feasible for activity because it represents a substantially smaller section of the left.
It's strange that people that can't actually counter his argument tend to direct their focus towards him using all caps at some points. Do I think it's the most effective way of communicating? No. But does it actually affect the arguments at hand? The fact your argument relies upon>I love nature
Kind of shows that you haven't actually taken the time to read his points. I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future? >tankies
I implore you to read more, he's far from supportive of USSR/China or Stalinism. This word pretty much means nothing now though so if you just mean him and his follows are strict Marxists then that is true.
Lots of communists and orthodox marxists there.
>>3392>It's strange that people that can't actually counter his argument tend to direct their focus towards him using all caps at some points.
He was countered all the time on Revleft. He wasn’t that respected of a theorist there. Also he rambles on as a way to obfuscate his points, which is the exact same thing right wing libs do. Then numb nuts like you declare all his critics as people that can’t handle his mighty intellect or say he was taken out of context.
>>3392>Kind of shows that you haven't actually taken the time to read his points. I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Yeah, because coke and nature are the same thing. And it’s the height of fucking ignorance to say we can live without it when all science points to the contrary. This is just another dumb ass /pol/ tactic where you take legit criticism of environmentalism and use it to discredit the the whole thing. You nor Rafiq have all the answers to the world because you read the third volume of Marx.
>>2083>I should just fucking say it: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS so-called "emotions".
I think this rafiq quote from >>2204
shows his thinking best. He's a mega-sperg that fundamentally cannot understand other people, or even why people care about communism in the first place. Hint: its because they want a better world, not some alien hellscape that just completes capitalist alienation and commodification of everything better than capitalists could.
Retards on leftypol think that saying big words and talking in an oblique way while shoehorning in his anti-nature spergery at every occasion is actually the hight of discourse and intellect. Makes sense.
>>2083>We Communists are well aware that we would bring about the destruction of the "environment"
raffiquists get the wall, you fundamentally misunderstand the project of Capital, and dont see how the "nature fetishists" are made up. Capitalism removed people from the land, turning them into fluid labor. It takes this labor and sells them back land and food, that was taken from them. This is how capitalism turns people into things to be moved around. I dont want to be a thing, so im anti-Capital. Communists like this apparently seek to make this change irreversable, by destroying all species other than ones they need to barely survive. (look at how much the neolithic "revolution" destroyed people's health. A diverse diet and active lifestyle is best, anti-health depressed hipsters who want robots to spoon feed you culture grown sugar paste while you shitpost on twitter about your ennui can fuck off)
At least the one redeeming thing about these people is that they see themselves as anti-capitalist, and even anti-establishment, so even though their rightful place is among bourgeois engineers and academics and state runners, they'll never get there because of their own delusions about their views. And if they got their way, they're genuinely too stupid to not annihilate themselves (fun fact: we have always needed "nature" to live. This isnt fetishization, is a fact, and by "nature" i mean diverse and huge communities of living organisms, that you retards happily want to annihliate. Have fun, earth-life extinction by 2050 or ur not communisming hard enough)
(me)>You know it's such a disgusting logic too - to be conscious of something and then to "leave it be" is called superstition.
okay i need to just stop reading this shit and posting more i havent gotten far but its so densely stupid
"i see a fat pussy - do i do the communist thing and take it for my use (the logical action), or do i act like a superstitious reactionary and leave it be?"
such so-called communists literally just want to be megaporkies. Kinda sad i guess. They're almost accelerationist i guess, but without actually turning the exploitative forces back on capital - instead they keep them turned towards natural resources, and fight to keep the core of capitalist production untouched. (this is the same as what capitalists do) This isnt "dialectics" or anything, because there's no fucking change. There's no negation, its wholehearted agreement except that they want a bigger share of the pie for people. I.e. a bit more humanist than the average porky, but dont forget that most porkers are liberal fucks anyways. I dont see the difference?
>>2213>I don't understand where people get this notion that Rafiq wants to "destroy nature" and kill all life that isn't human.
>Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit?>We Communists are well aware that we would bring about the destruction of the "environment" - we're not in on the secret of ecology worship.>My point of paving the planet with concrete was to make the point that more then ever today we need to conform the Earth to the needs of the human species, and that entails a radical geological transformation.>This bullshit nature-worship garbage never entered into the imagination of any Communist movement, not in 1871, not during Social democracy, and not during the Comintern era. It is a particularly new perversion of the counter-culture. It is a legacy that will not only not be present in a Communist movement of the 21st century, it will be fought bitterly, it will be smashed and the discourse that opposes it will be enshrined in political action itself. >Ecology is the new opium of the masses
<a science is opium of the masses>The point is that doing nothing, or treating nature like some actual thing we ought to respect is anti-scientific
<apparently "science" gives you values?
this guy is a retard, stop defending him. He has valid points against certain strains of environmentalist stuff, and then perverts it for his own weird utopian thinking that isnt based in reality or what people even want. Yeah its dumb to fucking only care about butterflies and wolves and shit, and not also care about mosquitos and leeches. That doesnt invalidate all of our actual knowledge about the environment (supposedly this scientific knoledge is just opium though), and it definitely doesnt justify blind tech worship and faith that we can just engineer all problems away after creating them, when there were already solutions. god damn
Anyways yes anyone who is okay with exploiting and destroying all nature DOES want to "give the axe" to many things. Our whole society is based on this. We are constantly choosing what dies and what goes extinct and which places will be toxic for thousands of years. We are always "giving the axe" to things. So no, not "nobody gets the axe". Rafiq is pretty explicit that anything that could die to serve Humanity SHOULD die. Fuck that bullshit. Pure exploitation mindset, and he's fighting against fucking windmills. His enemies arent in front of him, just comrades who arent hopped up on tech worship and actually seem to know the facts of what is possible better than him. Ideaology cant be a substitute for actual scientific knowledge.>>2214
Nothing has "intrinsic" value, but why should we allow some idea of "maybe in the future people will actually like this" to dictate what we do now? Why not just allow our values and emotions to guide what kind of world we want to live in? Like whats the benefit of putting someone else's values in place of ours, or even some fictional person or people's values?? i dont really get it. "It will be what society wants it to be", but isnt the point of radicals that we change society to fit what we see as better? Saying "society will choose" seems like a cop out.
Also i do deny though that we should be okay with "optimizing" nature, as if it were that simple. It's euphamistic for destroying nature and then trying to create a prosthetic for the functions that were lost. This isnt optimizing, its the opposite. But in progressivist newspeak, to optimize means to make more technological (i.e. more "modern", which is definitely better), so we can speak about "optimizing nature" and it makes perfect sense even against the historical facts.
Im not against legit optimizing, but if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it. Too often in the name of Science people "optimize" and get rid of the old, only to find out later that maybe the new has some problems, maybe more even, but whoops now we cant go back, sorry. Real optimizing meshes the old with the new, and allows things to be time-tested. This flies in the face of progressive mythology, where daring inventors make leaps and bounds and revolutionize society. This is very hazardous and with retrospect that we can have (dont forget that we can actually look to see whats happened before :P), we see that often there are bad side effects (lead in gasoline anyone?) that werent predicted. So im not saying changing things or creating tech is bad, but it needs to be done carefully INSTEAD of this "lets kill everything lol, oh well if that isnt the best we'll just do a different course of action i guess" that rafiq wants, because you cant just reverse, and we have to be careful with what we have. Fundamentally, we ARE animals, and we DO live in a biosphere, and even though we've dramatically changed our ecosystem, look at where we changed it. In capitalist centers, and in early states this trend started. It's never whole. Look at how indigenous people across the world fought against it. They got to see capitalism as also industrialization and proletarization, and they wanted none of it. There are still maotists out there like this. Understand that the project of Capital is the project of progress and city-building and "optimizing" and unthinking alienating of things from their environment and into their constituent elements. This happens to humans too, maybe even primarily (you can see the primacy in how early states rely heavily on slavery and capturing citizens). Communists though seem to only care that it doesnt happen to humans as much (some communists dont care at all because they dont see it), like they dont want the worker alienated from their community, from their labor (i.e. their life time and power), from the land and tools they use frequently, from their homes, etc. They want to root out the force of money infiltrating all relations and making everything for sale/destruction. The answer to this is not replacing the separatory power of money with that of the government. The answer is reuiniting the rifts that were caused and removing this tumor that we call Capital. Its about workers but about so much more.
>>3506>care about mosquitos
There's no real downside to making mosquitos extinct
"Hence by a sort of house-that-Jack-built, the destruction of the mosquito that feeds the trout, that preys on the mayfly, that destroys the eggs that hatch the salmon that pampers the epicure, may occasion a scarcity of this latter fish in an area where he would otherwise be abundant. Thus all nature is linked together by invisible bonds…"
George Perkins Marsh, Man and Nature, pg 91
I actually couldnt find much evidence that they feed on salmon spawn, and that work is from like the 1800s, but this 1980s doc confirms that there are carniverous and omnivorous mayfly larvaehttps://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_b/pubbrittainj1982p119.pdf>True omnivory is of limited occurrence in the mayflies and is restrictedto some species in genera such as lsonychia, Siphlonurus, Stenonema, andEphemera (55, 66). The predatory habit is also relatively uncommon in themayflies. In North America, Dolania, Analetris, and the heptageniidg,Pseudiron, Spinadis, and Anepeorus, feed largely on chironomid larvae (66,134, 223). The baetid genera Centroptiloides and Raptobaetopus have car-nivorous nymphs (1, 80, 165). Within the Prosopistomatidae there are alsocarnivorous species, although within the single genus Prosopistoma thereare both detritivores and carnivores (80). Several species, such as Siph-lonurus occidentalis and Stenonemafuscum, may change from a predomi-nantly detrital diet in the early instars to one containing a significantproportion or even a dominance of animal material in the mature nymphs(3).
I don't think Rafiq understands ecology.
yeah…. like in parts i get what he's saying, that we shouldnt reify nature as some absolute and untrouchable thing, but only libs and super deep eco ppl think like that (but for different reasons). Most nature lovers who have a problem with fucking everything over also want to use nature for human goals, and as long as people have been around we've changed our environment. All animals do that…. and some more than others, like beavers create niches for toooons of species by their activity. The difference is that on one side you have ppl that see humans using nature to their advantage as this total obliteration if necessary, an the "upgrading" of nature and shit. On the other, you have people who want to live "in harmony" with nature or whatever, basically respecting other creatures, caring for our environment around us, giving each part of our (ecological) community their share by not taking what we dont need or being totally cold to all nonhuman life. They arent in fundamental contradiction, like both are pro-human, just one is a narrow humanism that alienates the human from their environment and their living nonhuman community and food sources and all that.
But also i notice in hyper-industrialist and transhumanist types, their base philosophy seems to be centered around the idea that what makes people content and live good lives, is fundamentally very difficult to get, and maybe a neverending problem of having to build more and more in order to get closer and closer to a good, healthy, happy life. This contrasts with the epicurean "What is good is easy to get". Personally i disagree with it also, especially considering that its odd that even with how miserable the modern world can make us, some people insist that we were even more miserable before. Why not just kill yourself then? How did we get here? And surely we didnt evolve to be naturally miserable, and crave things that we never knew about in order to be baseline content.
(me)>Why not just kill yourself then?
here i mean why would they have not all killed themselves in that situation, if we started out in pure agony and misery all the time
Nice work keeping the thread alive, will post some responses when less busy
>>3497>Countered all the time
Maybe, with varying quality. In these 2 big ecology posts there is not nearly enough effort to counter his points for what they are. The problem is that these people don't actually understand what he's saying, not because he is a genius, or because they can't handle it, but because they don't try very hard.>>3498
Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future.>Science says we can't live without nature
Does it? It does it say we need oxygen to breath (a biological process that happens independent of the human thinking process)?>>3503
This is a very very poor reading of that paragraph. He is not saying humans don't feel any emotions and therefore should give up 'feeling' for communism or some stupid shit. He's in fact saying the exact opposite! He's saying 'so-called' emotions (i.e. 'natural' emotions in this context) don't exist>a genuine human 'emotion' is that IT CANNOT be reduced to anything natural, because it shakes the foundation of any and all kinds of representations of the natural world in the first place, it SHAKES the very foundations of the ethical imperative and injunction to reduce it to something natural>I can't read therefore everyone else is a pseud
Nope sorry>>3504>Neolithic revolution destroyed people's help
Anprims get the wall first, you know this>People who want to automate things can fuck off
Can Marx fuck off too? Who else is excluded from your dream world?>Bourgeois engineers
Shit dude what are you talking about?>We need nature to live
How the fuck do we need living organisms around us to live? Says who? Morons said thousands of years ago you need various things to live, who gives a shit about them now?
Let's pick an example. Currently humans need oxygen to function. I don't NEED various organisms to produce this. I could make it in a factory (yes I know this sounds very 'sad' and 'crazy' to you but that doesn't matter here). Humans have come so far technology-wise, who are you, random bunkerchan poster, to say we have reached the limit of human existence and now must rely on nature? We used to rely on nature to communicate, with birds, smoke signals, whatever>No you cannot get rid of the birds we need them to communicate!
Then phones were invented. >>3505>Capitalists do something so it is bad>This is bad because it 'sounds' porkie
Why should I leave nature be? Can you give a single reason not oozing with superstition?
(btw, if you say it may be "it may be useful in the future" then you are still saying it is our right to NOT leave nature be)
<"So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means.">The answer is, yes, they can be. Other than that, I generally agree, but to even pursue this requires a recognition that there is no mystique, no emotional, ideological or superstitious investment in what we call those "natural processes" - we must purely approach them from the standpoint of practicality, and convenience. Soberly, of course.
>A science is the opium
He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it. To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology. However I agree it is a poor word choice, but if you know 'ecologists' or people invested in the 'ecology' movement you know how absolutely drowned in anti-scientific mysticism they are.
>Utopian thinking that isn't based in what people want
Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society. This is a nothing argument. People don't 'want' communism right now. Shall we give up?>He rejects knowledge about the environment
Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things. Should I also stop living in a house because the house 'gets in the way' of the oh so natural wind? Nature has no consciousness, has no agency, it doesn't care whether it exists or doesn't. To say otherwise is by definition mysticism.
>Anyways yes anyone who is okay with exploiting and destroying all nature
So how much nature are you okay with destroying then? Just enough so that the western world can develop, but not enough so that the whole world can live pleasant lives? >Rafiq is pretty explicit that anything that could die to serve Humanity SHOULD die
Why not? >Muh exploitation
Who am I exploiting? Who owns the land that I am appropriating? Oh yeah the human race because we are the only things ever to exist that have a conception of 'possession'. Like I have said you can't exploit the Earth unless you accept the mysticism that the Earth is conscious or some other God 'owns' it.
Communists are those that acknowledge the fact there is no god and choose to change the world ourselves, as opposed to waiting for the divine right to by anyone else. We don't wait for an afterlife, we create it here on Earth. This heaven won't necessarily adhere to your liberal beliefs regarding how great the environment is.
>why should we allow some idea of "maybe in the future people will actually like this" to dictate what we do now?
Yeah why should we save nature because 'some people in the future might like it'? The point is that a future society removed from the ideology of capitalist society won't share your views on 'nature'. It won't view 'nature' as this sacred thing that we mustn't mess with, lest we bare the wrath of 'God' (climate change to the ecologists in this context). You are sold this ideology on years of disney films where animals can talk. The idea of this hidden animal world where they are conscious beings, but is this true?
Optimizing nature destroys everything natural about it. You think it's natural for us collect millions of tonnes of crops an ship them across the globe with great ease? It is not natural; it is the product of thousands upon thousands of years of human labour.
>Im not against legit optimizing, but if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it.
Here is the anti scientific view of the ecologist. Who gives a shit about the old?
<I'm not against optimizing tsunamis to kill as little people as possible but destroying tsunamis alltogether? Why would we do that!
Do you see how arbitrary your argument is?>Real optimizing meshes the old with the new
…No it doesn't it just makes it better. We optimized communication with phones. We didn't just breed carrier pigeons to fly really fast.
Granted this doesn't mean there haven't been technological failures. Like you mention with lead in gasoline. They weren't predicted because of various reasons. If we don't have capitalism to pressure people into releasing things prematurely we limit this problem. Also with better understanding of science these problems get minimized as well.
In the quote at the top it spells out Rafiq's position quite clearly. No one is saying we should blow up the Earth tomorrow. The process would be a slow one where everything that is deemed unnecessary is removed. This isn't about burning down the amazon tomorrow, however the extreme ideological reaction in this thread paints it that way.
>indigenous people across the world fought against it
So if indigenous people fight against us stopping them rape and kill each other it's 'good' is it? Reactionaries are reactionary, it doesn't matter how 'natural' and 'pure' you find their so-called 'culture' to be. >There are still maotists out there like this.
This tells us nothing. There are also unironic anprims, they are reactionaries too. It doesn't matter who you are, it matters WHY you do something.>Understand that the project of Capital is the project of progress and city-building and "optimizing" and unthinking alienating of things from their environment and into their constituent elements.
Why can't we do this in a communist society? Why can't we remove plants from the ground in a society where humans are treated fairly? I fail to see how "progress" is bad intrinsically. >[communists] dont want the worker alienated from their community, from their labor (i.e. their life time and power), from the land and tools they use frequently, from their homes, etc
True.>The answer to this is not replacing the separatory power of money with that of the government. The answer is reuiniting the rifts that were caused and removing this tumor that we call Capital. Its about workers but about so much more.
What are you *actually* proposing here? We return to monke?
<"For you Communism is a fantasy, plain and simple, it is the 'good' of capitalism minus 'the bad'. What you fail to understand is that the overthrow of capitalism entails just that - both what you perceive the 'good' and the 'bad' are sublated, because both are conditions of the other's existence."
I actually missed a point>Fundamentally, we ARE animals, and we DO live in a biosphere, and even though we've dramatically changed our ecosystem, look at where we changed it.
You didn't read either of the Rafiq threads, did you? You think a fucking cockroach is of equal worth to humans? You think humans have no agency in changing our environment? I offer you all of known human history as my source to back this up.
This is what I talk about in my other post just now about the lack of care of anyone to read the threads. They just read >environment go bye bye
and shut their eyes and ears. >>3509
This has already been addressed. It honestly baffles me how anyone could read this in good faith and come away thinking that he is advocating destroying everything all at once tomorrow.
>>3523>Only libs think like this
That's only the majority of the western world… no need to critique that…>ONLY libs
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.>if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it.
You are scared of going against nature, even though it is all we have done throughout human history. The mere existence of humanity goes against nature. The idea of a communist society is AGAINST NATURE. What you're saying doesn't come from a place of critical thinking, and what you call 'science' it comes from a place of deep ideology.
You are just inventing this random utopian society in your head like it is in anyway possible. >No you can't be cold to nature!>You must respect other 'creatures'!>NOOO DONT MOVE THAT ROCK MOTHER NATURE PUT IT THERE
Only libs believe in this shit? You're a lib then, or a deep ecologist (I like how you say 'super deep eco', as if deep eco isn't fucking moronic and reactionary in itself by very definition).
We can't go back to monke. You think the majority of people are going to follow you to your shitty little commune where you all 'respect' nature and braid eachothers hair? Where you gonna get your health care then? Are you going to have plumbing? What central system are you connecting this plumbing too? If not, you're going to need the dreaded TECHNOLOGY to collect water. Or even more advanced technology to synthesize water when mother nature says >'no rain this year!'>yes dear…
Why should I want to do any of this? Why should humans want to respect other creatures? Or care for my environment? They are not conscious agents. Unless you believe that Bambi was a documentary or something. The only thing I care about is not having nature oppress humans in any way. Should we respect nature by not killing tumors in humans? When does it end?!
We're not saying that content happy lives are hard to get, but the pure nature of human existence is our lack of nature. We say "fuck you" to nature and decide our own evolution.>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
We don't invent some utopian world where everyone stays in their place with their small village farm patch living 'sustainably', 'as one' with nature and aim for it. The seek the conclusions of current contradictions. This is the different between socialism as a science and you wishing to simply extend the already alive ideology of capitalism. You wish to extend the alienation man experiences into communism by treating nature as valuable as it 'just exists'. It's not just capitalist ideology, it is RIGHT WING ideology. "Muh sacred land" "muh birth right" "Muh pure culture" "Muh white wife and 2 white kids and a golden retriever".
>Why not kill yourself?
Humans 'natural' state isn't agony, but it is curiosity to some extent. Our meaning is defined by how we work towards things (i.e. labour). Read this>How did we get here?
By some sick accident as far as we're concerned. >Are we naturally miserable?
We live in late neoliberalism. Everyone is fucking miserable. It isn't in our DNA. But I think it's clear humans will always be able to 'progress', the desire for 'more' is unlimited.
Let me be very clear. No one is denying environmentalism as a science. No one is denying the climate crisis. However it means nothing to us ideologically. It is not the divine wrath of god. It doesn't mean we should return to monke. It is nothing more than than the failure of humans to plan their control of nature properly, due to the limitations capitalism puts on us.
Archiving this old leftypol thread about Rafiq here
>Anyone have Rafiq's 'Our Materialism'?
Reminder check backups for this
This, but all your going to get in response from Rafiq sycophants is how you're strawmanning him. And if you have the audacity to do anything put worship him you'll be accused of not reading him, even though his defenders have supposedly read him but can never actually defend him using his writings. It's absolutely insane cultish behavior.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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".
"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.
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.
>No it can't.
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!
>>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.
>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?
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.
This gives our movement hope since these grown adults can be so swayed by nothing more than cute propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFVUsYnw8U
Rafiq is a cunt. I have no clue why he's taken at all seriously. Yes, I do deify nature. All leftists should.
>>4349>yes I diefy our queen. All leftists should.
Why should we all do this random stupid thing you say we should do?
you’re dangerously arrogant
Forums are not only the superior internet discussion method, but the most superior communication method in general for serious topics.
>>3392>Kind of shows that you haven't actually taken the time to read his points. I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Communism has nothing to do with these topics. Of course it has to exist. Its the base layer of our existence. Its our soul.
>>3702>Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future.
You're an idealist and solipsist. You'd happily move us all to brains in vats apparently to avoid surplus labor extraction.
>>3702>How the fuck do we need living organisms around us to live? Says who? Morons said thousands of years ago you need various things to live, who gives a shit about them now?
Absolute biology brainlet kys posting this trash. You have no comprehension of how complex even just human skin microbiome is. Stop shitposting this is supposed to be /edu/ not whatever it is you're doing here.
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.
Fuck animals, fuck nature and most of all, fuck ecologists.
>>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.
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.
>>4513>Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy?
NTA, but bees and ants make decisions "democratically", unless you consider bee and ant colonies as a single organism.
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.
>>4505>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
Those accomplishments only blow your mind largely due to your ignorance of science.
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
I would rather we just go extinct tbh than let this hell cone to fruition
>>2297> the abolition of biological life as such, the strip-mining of planet earth to produce the galaxy-spanning technological structure which will house mankind, the end of gender, birth, motherhood, family, sex, animals, religion etc.
How many flu shots do I need to develop this level of autism?
It is quite based, but the harsh tone used probably was too heavy, excessive.
Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
t. Judge Rafiq
Is Haz actually this person, disguised?
I hope I wasn't the only one who noticed the similarities.
Check>Both said they don't want to write anymore because it would be "long and rambly"
Check>Accused of being an animal abuser by leftypol tripfag
Check>Both very easily agitated and will shout, scream and yell non-stop with little proclivity
Check>Both recommend reading Zizek
And the most damnable evidence.>Both (very embarrassingly) refer to themselves in third-person.
If someone can find evidence of Rafiq being a Lysenkoist, it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do turn out to be the same person, I'm going to be very disappointed tbh. I'd have much preferred his writings than his dumb bloodsport cringe.
However, Haz did say that he didn't know who Ismail was, so perhaps not. That was an offhand comment which could be inaccurate though.
Also he is not that old, so he'd have to be a child genius probably to be Rafiq under disguise.
Haz did say he knew a significant amount of Hegel in highschool while roasting Anal Water. It's possible he started early with his studies which may line up with the point you made.
rafiq already knew of leftypol and had been a part of leftist forums since ~2008, he wrote a 500+ page book just to own some dudes on revleft - he also disagreed with heidegger. the traits mentioned are shared by most marxists who started out with zizek.
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.
Yes, pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you autism lurk hard enough you'll see details that are way past the possibility of coincidence; Haz has mentioned he used to play Skyrim all the time, one of Rafiq's only screenshots back on Revleft was an image of Skyrim.
Rafiq was very young, this was leaked in a debate he had with Invader Zim, in which Zim criticised him for being young, ignorant and overly arrogant for his age, to which Rafiq more or less affirm the accusation with indignation. At the time, I think Rafiq was around 16 or 17. This was several years ago, and Haz is in his mid 20's now.
Haz recently wrote an article against Luna Oi on the infrared substack website; problem is, for someone so supposedly intelligent, the writing style is almost identical to Rafiq's, right down to the tendency of bolding text and using enlarged letters for rhetorical emphasis.
There's even more stuff; when Infrared first started out, other autistic fans dug up an essay published on a russian website under a different name than 'Haz', the name used was 'Tahir', and there was some suggesting in the fbi.gov that it seemed like stuff Haz would say–Haz confirmed that this was him. Thing is, this essay had the same writing style as Rafiq. You can confirm that Haz DID in fact once go by the name Tahir because in one of Infrared youtube's oldest videos, there's a skype call showing usernames, and the one next to Haz's webcam is 'Tahir'.
Rafiq's revleft profile listed his location–Detroit, Michigan. Haz has repeatedly said he's from Detroit, Michigan. Likewise, on Revleft Rafiq occasionally mentioned how his uniquely privileged class position allowed him the spare time to read theory etc. Haz is transparently upper middle-class, a Lebanese immigrant. Rafiq was, for what it's worth, also the ostensible child of arabic immigrants.
Oh, and on the topic of older Infrared youtube videos, there's a very early one: "Chomsky is the poison of the left". Remember who else fucking hated Chomsky, had entire threads dedicated to disavowing him?
It gets funnier too–the arguments Haz uses in that video are almost IDENTICAL, word for word, to the primary arguments Rafiq levied against Chomsky back in the day.
Either Haz is a big fan of Rafiq, or Rafiq is Haz.
There's two problems with the Haz is Rafiq theory though. One, Rafiq hated memes, but Haz constantly uses memes. However, you could make the argument that this is an accelerationist ploy to gain momentum and virtual exposure; after all, Rafiq was terminally online and understood the nature of internet culture all too well. Two, Haz seems more deterministic than Rafiq, constantly referring back to an essence of humanity, whereas Rafiq, at least back in the day, seemed militantly opposed to such an idea, advocating for transhumanism etc.
However, people change, years go by, and people who read constantly, always proposing contrarian ideas, tend to adjust themselves in relation to the maintenance of such contrarianism. What's popular now? The same kind of ultra-leftism Rafiq was once an outsider for embracing.
As for the guy talking about Lysenkoism, it's obvious that Haz is using this as a stand-in for the same principle. Rafiq hated the idea of genetic determinism, he wrote screeds and screeds against it. How do you make this fairly radical concept more palatable to outsiders? You use a historical stand-in. Lysenko. Also, there was some thread where Rafiq mentioned the emergencing pertinence of epigenetics off-handedly.
LASTLY, the names of several of the mods in the infrared-discord are too similiar to the names of some of the power users that would thank all of his old posts on Revleft. Ezra comes to mind (go check, Ezra-X was the revleft user, Ezra was chinese, the Ezra we saw on Infrared show was named Ezra just as well, and was chinese just as well), so does a person name 'Alet' who, is really just one character away from 'Alex', another recurring character. coincidentally
, guess what? Both 'Alet' and 'Alex' spoke/speak/are german.
Two other things. fbi.gov means d 1 s c 0 r d, word filter on the site got in the way.
Other thing, Haz's change in attitude towards certain topics, relative to Rafiq's, can probably be attributed to schizo-festing reactionary theorists. Haz has mentioned he found the readings of Heidegger, Land, Dugin, etc. to be surprisingly enlightening. One of the last posts Rafiq ever made was discussing the neoreactionary movement.
Cope, you can't distinguish between Haz posturing for the sake of an internet persona and his more substantive streams. Go watch the early youtube vods of Infrared, before he became more popular and had to start pandering. The level of theoretical sophistication, actual specificity when pressed on advanced topics like dialectical materialism etc. is every bit equal to Rafiq's.
oh yeah, there was also that time he was getting grilled by iFunny. dudes were calling him fat and shit cuz he never posted an image of himself. in response, he made a brief post saying he was "quite fit". turns out haz is jacked…
But probably not as arrogant as a pack of retards worshipping another retard who’s never done a single thing worth a damn and is only even known in a defunct forum of autistic nerds
>>5100>Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was.
>>8553>before he became more popular
1k subs ain't popular
Another similarity is the dislike of anime, not to mention. And both must have had deep knowledge of various leftist personalities. But, anyways, RevLeft's archive seemed to be broken last time when checked; does anyone have a usable copy of the website to access somewhere?
>Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental >science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things.
mangroves significantly reduce the wave energy from storm surges and tsunamis just one of many the benefits from
ecosystems to humanity , I haven't seen a convincing argument as to why should destroy things that benefit us,
Unique IPs: 7