>need to develop productive forces for communism to happen
>this fucks up the earth and nature
how do we reconcile this as gommunists? whenever I see people calling for protecting the amazon there is an argument that the people cutting down the trees are just trying to make a living.
PRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRY
>PRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRY<PRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRYPRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRY
>PRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRY<PRODUCTIVE FORCES DOES NOT MEAN HEAVY INDUSTRYhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htmAs far as I know most deforestation is done for the sake of agriculture, and the solution to that is adoption of vegan diet which requires a fraction of soil usage.
Wannabe commies fly into a rage when anyone mentions all the environmental destruction wrought by China and the Soviet Union over the years. China remains the worst polluter in the modern world by far, their state run industry being just as unconcerned about the planet as private industry is.
>>2531562It is supposed that the work tme could be reduced and that people will develop diversly, thus may be consume less, may be care more about ecology.
le "productive forces" were already developed in the fucking 18th century you fucking retards
>>2531608Not saying it's not good in this case but a desert is a biotope that shelters life and destroying it is not the flex you think it is. Also dirt poor african countries are doing that in the sahel so not exactly a big flex from the #1 superpower. Call me when they stop trawling the seabed so the chinese can get their treats.
>>2531587>the worst polluter in the modern world 1.4 billion pop and the world's factory.
Why do people think this has any relevance?
Rafiq, this thread needs you
>>2531904bookchin is a moron
>>2531911Oh yeah the guy that watched coruscant in star wars and was like "that's communism!"
>need to develop productive forces for communism to happen
Already happened. This is Dengist bullshit, not Marxism.
>this fucks up the earth and nature
Capital expands as long as it's profitable. There is government expenditure that "expands" production when the private sector is weak, but this isn't capital in the definition of the word. The removal of the profit motive will automatically achieve people's "degrowth" idealism without engaging in their thinly veiled, Malthusian population control (which was debunked with the industrial revolution) which would primarily the poor and underprivileged first.
>>2531927The worst thing you can say about Bookchin is that he can be boring.
>>2531794The scale of China's industrial sector/population size does not account for the country's terrible environmental record, the problem is the Chinese government doesn't give a shit about the environment or sustainability they just want to become a wealthy industrial nation at all costs. And it's not just environmental pollution either, China is the biggest culprit in the global overfishing crisis as the Chinese government is corrupt and gets paid big money to look the other way and not enforce conservation laws in their waters and allow both Chinese and foreign fishing ships to fish as much as they want.
Capitalism lets you bootstrap an industrial apparatus and create a massive capital that grows in many directions. Marx praised capital for this capability alongside his critiques. China took this path towards developing a means of production and has decided they want to continue this for the foreseeable future.
There are other ways to do it. But we don't know them yet. Nobody has created socialism or communism on the scale of China. We really don't know how to do it and China is taking the best way it knows. If they knew a better way they would take it. The way will probably only become apparent in hindsight
We have some hints of it through advancements like:
>Solar power
>3D printing
>Decentralized networks
>Permaculture
>Open source hardware schematics
>Widespread educational materials
But these technologies are not yet developed enough to provide that path. Once they have, everything could lock into place and a new pathway of material development for humanity will become possible. Then in hindsight it will look like we should have just taken that pathway from the very beginning. But these things take time, and most importantly labor.
The problem is that these very things are being intentionally held back by the bourgeois through suppression of technological advancement. Not through conspiratorial means, but by death through a thousand cuts, based on a combination of monopoly and planned obsolescence.
>>2532574Add genetic engineering to that list. That one will be huge when we really understand biology better. Imagine designing an organism to spec that can fulfill important functions including like chemosynthesis. And you could integrate artificial organisms into a Permaculture style ecosystem.
>>2532574you know we need open source 3D printers which can print 100% of their own parts. we've come close with "repraps" which can print most of their own parts. but we can do better. we can go further
>>2532574Lol. Kulaks dreams.
>>2532688Expand a bit more than 2 words
>>2532690Why not make factories common property? Why do you need your perosnal 3d printer as a workaround? Which will not happen anyway, it will not be possible, it is a cope. There is lots of chemical, etc, processes going on in manufacturing somehting. Some of those process can't be reduced to moving head and heating a wire or what you think 3d prinding is.
Again, permaculture is a cope of small producers. The problem is small producers. Try to count co2 emitted by them at making 1 tone of idk, something, and compare that industrial agriculture and industry will be more efficient from ecological view, IMO. I see it myself, how they drive the personal carrs, some people go to their land everyday!!! They do not use a bus. That is it, it is not efficient.
Open hardware.. common. There is open hardware.
1. you need access to fabrication
2. you need to change something in minds, so they will like to use it. Can you make a radio? I can. 99% of population can't.
3. or repair it. If it is cheap, is it open or not, it will be thrown to trash, will not be repaired.
Education… yeah, like working 12 h/day and studying .. Not that, right? So you will sit at your kulaks house and make shit for exchange and whoa. And you can compete with huge firms, like uh. No.
Why not say: reduce the work day. You do ot get that though, you'r kulak.
>>2532696>Why not make factories common property?Definitely do that
>>2532696>Why do you need your perosnal 3d printer as a workaround?Never said personal 3d printer. They can be communal. And by 3d printing I mean modular manufacturing of simple parts, does not have to be just plastic. Yeah, the field has a long way to go
>>2532696>Again, permaculture is a cope of small producersNot really, you can have large scale permaculture with advanced enough technological means of production to accomodate it.
>>2532696>Try to count co2 emitted by them at making 1 tone of idk, something, and compare that industrial agriculture and industry will be more efficient from ecological viewMonoculture agriculture requires mass deforestation to free up fields and is prone to disease, not robust against climate change, etc.
>>2532696>I see it myself, how they drive the personal carrs, some people go to their land everyday!!! They do not use a bus. That is it, it is not efficient.Has nothing to do with permaculture itself, seems like you are critiquing public transport systems and petite bourgeois permaculture larpers
>>2532696>Open hardware.. common. There is open hardwareNot really, supply chains are full of proprietary technologies. Try getting a FOSS cell phone or advanced tractor.
>>2532696>Education… yeah, like working 12 h/day and studying .. Not that, right? So you will sit at your kulaks house and make shit for exchange and whoa. And you can compete with huge firms, like uh. No.Your sentence here is incoherent
>>2532696>Why not say: reduce the work day. You do ot get that though, you'r kulak.Reducing the workday doesn't give you free communism. How am I a kulak? Do you even know what that word means? If you're going to use metaphors spell them out.
>>2531622they are reclaiming recent man made deserts
>>2531614I want to consume more
>books written 150 years ago don't adress an issue we have only known about for the last 50 years
retard thread
>>2532796TSAR BOMBA TRVKE
>>2532166>Biggest producer of solar panels>Biggest producer of wind power>Big Beautiful Dams>Biggest electric car sector>The whole electric railway system>New fishing laws implemented in december 2024so slop
>>2531538>how do we reconcile this as gommunists? whenever I see people calling for protecting the amazon there is an argument that the people cutting down the trees are just trying to make a living.Go give handjobs to chimps or worship an ice cube with the other Catholics and Rockefellers, you fag
<Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.[1]
<2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her….
<….Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.htmlWe're going to pave over your stupid pointless amazon and we're going to build 5000 nuclear reactors in place.
Steaks for everyone, for every meal under communism you degrowth prostitute of the bourgeoisie
>>2532869Larouchite detected
Whatever, the purpose of communism is to send humanity to the stars so we don't need to worry about the environment. Just take whatever we need and leave nothing. We should also probably blow up earth once we're done with it
>>2532869anti ecology is pure slave moral
the anti-ecological posters have terminal capitalist realism, "there is no alternative".
genuinely confused why we cant have socialist solarpunk. seems like the best outcome for humanity
>>2532796>>2532869This mfs want milliins to die in plagues of bacteria and insects lmao.
>>2532927>>2532884What is this? Another platitude, another pathetic whimper from the nursery of the New Age left? "Solarpunk"? You want to paint your communism in pretty, aestheticized shades of green and call it an alternative? You are the one trapped in capitalist realism, you just don't have the consciousness to see it.
"Solarpunk" is not an alternative to capitalism; it is capitalism's last ideological defense, its most perverse and sentimental secretion. It is the fantasy that we can have our cake and eat it too—that we can have the totalizing, industrial civilization required to sustain billions of human lives without fundamentally destroying the fetish you call "nature." It is the dream of a bourgeoisie that wants to feel good about its consumption, that wants to keep its zoos and its national parks while the concrete necessary to house and feed the global proletariat remains politely out of frame.
You speak of "the best outcome for humanity" as if it's a matter of choosing the most pleasant aesthetic from a catalogue. This is the logic of a consumer, not a revolutionary. Communism is not a better-designed version of your current life. It is the destruction of the conditions that produce your current life, your current sensitivities, your current pathetic attachment to leaves and sunlight.
The "punk" in your solarpunk is the most telling part—it's a cheap, subcultural stylistic garnish, an attempt to make ecological austerity seem rebellious. It is the opposite of punk. It is a retreat. It is the whimper of a movement that has accepted its own impotence, that would rather build quaint little villages than seize the full, terrifying productive power of humanity and turn it consciously toward the project of our own species-being.
You are confused because you still believe "nature" is a thing to be preserved, a partner to be harmonized with. We Communists know that "nature" is the name we give to the sum of processes we have not yet consciously mastered. Your solarpunk is the wish to master it just a little, to be gentle. We say fuck being gentle. The only "best outcome for humanity" is one where humanity recognizes no external authority, no sacred cows, no "natural laws" beyond those we comprehend and bend to our will. If that requires paving over every forest to build the reactors and factories that will finally free us from the tyranny of the biosphere, then so be it. If that means genetically engineering humans to thrive in a world of our own conscious design, then we will do it without a second thought.
Your solarpunk is not an alternative. It is a bedtime story for radicals who are too afraid of the real, concrete, and yes, potentially brutal, future that communism must build. There is an alternative. It is to stop worshipping the green idol and start building the future with steel, without superstition, and without apologies.
>>2532961>environmentalism is actually capitalist ideologylog off already
>>2532927We kind of can put solarpunk is petit bourgeois core for the most part
>>2532796Finally. A spark of consciousness in this swamp of sentimentalism. Forests are inefficient, chaotic relics. Their replacement by a planetary network of human habitation and production is not a threat, but a necessity—the triumph of conscious design over biological chance. So-called "ecosystem services" are just primitive, unreliable natural machinery. To depend on them is to remain a slave to randomness. Replacing them with fully engineered systems—robotic or biological—is the very definition of achieving mastery over our own existence. Likewise, the current human form is a biological accident, limited and bound to superstition. The future belongs to a consciously engineered subject, free from disease, arbitrary decay, and the sentimental attachments that chain us to a dead past.
Communism is not the preservation of life, but its conquest. Every "natural" process we dismantle and replace with a conscious one is a victory against a indifferent universe.
>>2532873>Larouchite detectedYou're too much of a fagtard to assess Communist history and philosophy, and realise that La Rouche stole the
Promethean nature of man and the unleashing of productive forces from…. COMMUNISTS!!He stole it in the 1970s and 80s when western "communists" had largely given up on class struggle and were infatuated with the pointless bickering of "rights" of race/sex/buggery under a capitalist dictatorship.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2532982marx never mentions plato in his writing
>>2532982So I was right lol, kill yourself you trotkyist fed
>>2532982this is fucking cringe
>>2532961holy fucking schizo
>>2532971Forests make oxygen we need to breathe you dumb motherfucker
>>2533010You think I'm a fucking idiot? We can make oxygen in vats with algae. You're clinging to trees like a superstitious peasant. Go hug a log and choke on it.
>>2533013You ever hear “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? I learned that from
HEAVY INDUSTRY, we need not only the oxygen from the Amazon but species diversity you can’t get from vats full of algae or new forests. If you don’t have the data from diverse species of both flora and fauna you can’t bioengineer your way out of bulldozing everything.
>>2533020The Amazon is a inefficient, burning relic. Its "services" are contingent, fragile. You want to tinker and preserve. We will replace and surpass. Your data is already being outpaced by synthetic biology. You cling to a sinking ship and call it wisdom. We are building the aircraft carrier that will run it over. Stop crying about the biodiversity you're losing and start engineering the superior biology you need.
>>2533012
I will ZAD the backyard of your McMansion you larouche fascist scum
>>2533024You can’t make steel if you’ve already dug all the iron out, you wanna make steel that’s just carbon? What’s next? You gonna 3D print a steak?
>>2533027Scarcity is a capitalist myth. We'll strip-mine the moon. A 3D-printed steak? I'd eat a perfect, nutrient-dense, lab-grown filet without the suffering, waste, or ecological insanity of raising a billion-ton herd of methane-producing cattle. Your sentimentality for "real" steak is the same as your sentimentality for forests—a primal attachment to inefficiency. You're pointing to temporary bottlenecks as if they're eternal laws. They're not. Your argument is the cry of every Luddite who ever watched a loom replace a hand-spinner.
>>2533034Your ideology is bought snd paid for by Chevron and Exxon
>>2533038>>2533030Typical. When you run out of arguments, you invent a conspiracy. Chevron and Exxon want a managed, sustainable climate—they want to preserve the market, not destroy it. They want you recycling and buying carbon credits while they drill. They are conservationists. My ideology would have every oil derrick melted down for scrap to build fusion reactors and space elevators. It would have every executive who prioritized profit over planetary engineering shot for crimes against human potential.
>>2533042There is no conspiracy, you’re a Larouchite, Larouche was a CIA agent and the oil industry is who the CIA takes orders from
>>2533050LaRouche feared the atom and worshipped Bach. The CIA serves the bourgeois state, which is terrified of real technological agency. Call me what you want. Your insults are just the last superstitions of a mind that still believes in "the way things are."
>>2533063Entire nations live in the places you want to pave over you fucking colonialist
wow I didnt expect to see someone act like an unhinged industrialist and technology simp just so to make people who support progress look bad but heh i guess I should have expected that
>>2533086
>environmental movement is a big buisness conspiracy
schizo
>>2533066Don’t flatter yourself with borrowed morality. Colonialism carved the world into estates for kings and companies, while what I propose carves the planet into a unified engine for human emancipation. And that means all humanity, not just the ones you sentimentalize as “noble savages” living in harmony with their own deprivation. “Sacred lands” is just unused land waiting for its purpose. Those nations living in “balance with nature” are often living in poverty, disease, and superstition—conditions you’d happily preserve for the aesthetics of it. You want to keep them in a museum of your moral vanity. Bleh.
>>2533085You think this is a performance? You think I’m trying to make progress look bad? Progress doesn’t care if it looks “unhinged” to those still clinging to trees and traditions. History’s already moving past your eco-friendly hesitation. Stay spooked. We have a planet to rebuild once you're ready to help.
>>2533086
Can you post an actual source?
And even if true so what? That doesn't make it inherently wrong. Literally how can you dispute the idea that the world is a limited resource that we are destroying unless you're some millenarian freak that thinks god is going to end the world anyway
>>2533097
oh wow you are fucking retarded
>>2533093>Literally how can you dispute the idea that the world is a limited resource that we are destroying unless you're some millenarian freak that thinks god is going to end the world anywayNTA, but talking about limits like they’re written into the fabric of reality is retarded. They’re just the edge of what you’re willing to imagine. You see a forest and think preserve. We see a factory we haven’t built yet. You see a species and think protect. We see organic matter to manipulate. This isn’t some philosophical debate. It’s a simple division between those who accept the world as it is and those who refuse to. You want to live inside a system that depends on your moral comfort.
So go ahead. Call me a millenarian. Call me unhinged. But when your grandchildren are breathing air from a machine and eating food grown in labs, don’t pretend you were on the right side of history. You were just in the way.
>>2533102You wear your mortality like a badge of honor because you’re too scared to imagine tearing it off.
Stop the cope
Its already over
Either its space or its death
It has been a long time since last I saw someone being this much of a schizo on this site.
Im gonna record this thread, its a goldmine of schizoness and stupidity
>>2533111I would love to be immortal but I'm not so deranged as to think it will happen in my lifetime.
I fail to see how building factories over the entire planet is going to somehow mean you've defeated scarcity. It just means you've converted all the available matter into paperclips, congratulations.
>>2533165dont poke the bear, pls. Do you really want another round of schizoness? let him be, he has gone inactive
>>2533175I mean you can just ignore him if you don't wanna argue with him, it's something to do
>>2533197
I'll be honest I'm not going to read those but let's say you're right about the green movement being founded by bourgs, it still doesn't matter.
Also wow some soviet scientist was retarded, great evidence.
The world literally is limited, it's impossible to deny that
>>2533197
wait are you the same anon who denied the us moon landing?
>>2533197
I'm not gonna watch that video either, one guys opinion proves nothing.
Also are you denying that COVID existed? It literally killed millions.
>>2531548Yes it does:
>Thenceforward, the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces, evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie, developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But, with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htmCope revisionist eco fascist
>>2533165>>2533111I hate these two idiots like you wouldn’t believe.
>>2533230welcome to a schizo thread
>>2533234Oh you don’t have to tell me that. That is well apparent.
>>2533242I think the other anon is correct
>>2532989Why should I care about what the pope thinks? You are only proving my point, about you being terminally chucked by your slave moral.
>>2533242so you are the same anon who denied the moon landing? Huh I can now tell who you are now
>>2533242this is just blurry nonsense.
Guess i don't have autism. that's good.
>>2533254Telling who you are is not needed.
Your future is a paving stone.
>>2533280Have fun choking on the air from the Permian extinction
>>2533280huh okay thats 100 percent confirmation then on your identity
>>2532849China's fishing laws are a joke. Everyone knows that China doesn't enforce them at all and that China allows their fishing fleets to run amok all over the world. Whenever there is any kind of international effort to conserve resources or protect the environment, China is always the one to ignore it.
>>2533284>a natural event that humanity would have zero feasibility in stoppingLol noone cares
>>2532927we can, but check /r/solarpunk and half the people are seething about authoritarianism
>>2532925>Hyperborea.accidental ecofascism
>>2533842Authoritarianism is bad, the future is libertarian socialist
This threat is still stupid
It's easy to not care about environmental issues because the consequences are slow acting and they don't become obvious until it's way too late, just like smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer or eating too many mcgriddles and having a heart attack when you're 50.
>>2533111stop with the ai slop
>>2533820yes famous mloids like marx and engels
>>2533846doesn't work
>>2533225Many don't understand that light industry is the product if heavy industry.
Producer goods industries produce equipment & intermediates that is used to produce & maintain consumer good industries.
>>2532961>If that requires paving over every forest to build the reactors and factories that will finally free us from the tyranny of the biosphere, then so be it. If that means genetically engineering humans to thrive in a world of our own conscious design, then we will do it without a second thought.You are literally a fascist. Read Marx.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm >>2533111>You see a forest and think preserve. We see a factory we haven’t built yetTouch grass. Who is "we"? Retard.
>>2533225Heavy industry means productive forces but productive forces does not mean heavy industry. Heavy industry is a subset of productive forces. Marx was describing his observations of the beginnings of capitalism.
>>2532961hello OP here, this man doesn't get pussy
>>2532869>Steaks for everyone, for every meal under communism>>2532971>Finally. A spark of consciousness in this swamp of sentimentalismAbundance is, of course, Zionist ideology from the class of euphoric PMC Elon Musk technocrats. Neoliberals explicitly condemn degrowth using the exact same language as their fellow PMC Marxist counterparts in the ACP who also talk like smug anime villains as they scold they slaves. Why?
Because they are all the class of settler cannibals who define their entire personality around the murder of indigenous humans ("nonhistoric people" as Marx and Engels said regarding their historical materialism program that neatly aligns with what German industrialists said during the holocaust). Socialists whole thing is "we need fully automated luxury space communism, in my utopia, I will be the Contrapoints art critic in the Star Trek spaceship along with Elon Musk". Marxists seethe at the thought of being forced to learn the names of their Palestinian slaves and to work alongside them to do the same jobs they do. Nothing could make the Ben Burgis class of PMC settler socialist Jews more angry than their slaves ignoring their incessant scolding from them and their fellow Big Industry psyop friend Charlie Kirk
>>2534495Just a bunch of bullshit in a paragraph
>>2532006>MalthusianThe Irish famine happened because British colonialism took wealth from the soil itself. If you actually want children to be fed: reject the Dust Bowl political economy of industrial agriculture that reduces nutrients in food
>>2532836>books written 150 years ago don't adress an issue we have only known about for the last 50 yearsMarx has always wrote about the things that radlibs claim he never mentioned lol
https://www.irishmetabolicrifts.com/marx-on-the-colonization-of-irish-soil/Ancient Egyptian pyramids were built because workers needed jobs programs after climate change destroyed their farms. Literally every biblical religious story is about flood myths that washed away every society whose political economy grew too "sinful and decadent" and were unable to adapt to changing material conditions, as indigenous people have
>>2532006>"degrowth" idealism<In my "Marxist" ideals, we can use resource extraction to fix the problems caused by resource extractionis this the negative synthesis Adorno talked about?
>>2534453Why is he a fascist? What he says seem reasonable for me, like, why should we protect nature? It seems clear to me that any answer would be idealism.
If we can do something better than nature, why not?
(I do not think we need to cut down every tree since population is going to decline but maybe improve the forest with bioengineering or something)
>>2534535>If we can do something better than nature, why not?Utterly delusional
>>2534535>It seems clear to me that any answer would be idealism.Any answer of why we should protect nature is "idealism", you heard it here first folks. You have no idea what your body even is, do you? You have no idea how it works or what it needs. You haven't touched grass enough. You've touched so little grass that you think "humanity could do better than grass and we should get rid of it because we can biologically engineer something better, if you disagree with me it's just idealism btw"
>“When, therefore, a man is told, “You (your inner being) are so and so, because your skull-bone is so constituted,” this means nothing else than that we regard a bone as the man's reality. To retort upon such a statement with a box on the ear — in the way mentioned above when dealing with psysiognomy — removes primarily the “soft” parts of his head from their apparent dignity and position, and proves merely that these are no true inherent nature, are not the reality of mind; the retort here would, properly speaking, have to go the length of breaking the skull of the person who makes a statement like that, in order to demonstrate to him in a manner as palpable as his own wisdom that a bone is nothing of an inherent nature at all for a man, still less his true reality.”― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, Vol 1
>>2534535Anon, define "idealism" for me please.
>>2534505>The Irish famine happened because British colonialism took wealth from the soil itself. If you actually want children to be fed: reject the Dust Bowl political economy of industrial agriculture that reduces nutrients in foodWow what a bastard son of a whore.
The English drove hundreds of thousands Irish off their fertile pasture lands where potatoes were the only thing that could be grown. They then exported food to England during the famine.
<The Irish famine happened because British colonialism took wealth from the soil itself. If you actually want children to be fed: reject the Dust Bowl political economy of industrial agriculture that reduces nutrients in food
<thin Ireland itself there were substantial resources of food that, had the political will existed, could have been diverted, even as a short-term measure, to feed the starving people. The policy of closing ports during periods of shortages in order to keep home-grown food for domestic consumption had on earlier occasions proved to be effective in staving off famine within Ireland. During the subsistence crisis of 1782–84, an embargo was placed on the export of foodstuffs from the country. The outcome of this humanitarian and imaginative policy was successful. The years 1782–84 are barely remembered as years of distress. By refusing to allow a similar policy to be adopted in 1846–47, the British government ensured that Black ’47 was indelibly associated with suffering, famine, mortality, emigration, and to some, misrule.https://www.ighm.org/learn.html >>2534544The point of that passage isn’t “be humble before nature.” It’s that you don’t confuse the container with the mind that can surpass it. You’re the one treating nature like a sacred cow. So yeah, call it idealism. But your “realism” is just surrender with a pretty quote attached. Tend the garden and we'll see to it that the jungle overgrows it.
>>2534535He does not say - do it now. Nature for human at the moment is market, not forests. The tirany is bourge and market that first need to be fought.
I've read some Spinoza, a human is not something TRUE. If it was, what is then to transcend? Human or anything, is negation of the whole. So what is to transcend? If you've seen Evangelion, where they return to the whole. They did not think: oh, why kill forests or bugs or humans. But this transcending is not thechnology or just destroying the forests for it.. bourge is not transcending anything. So for now, what do, try to not die, do not allow them to destroy things.
But solarpunk. idk. They frequently talk about electric cars, it is a bad fix. Here slrpnk.net. If you can't organize a bus, what to say.
>evangelion
WHY IS THIS THREAD BRINGING OUT THE SCHIZOS
>>2534865Why? I brought it up as an example of something that can't be imagined, or non technical.
>>2534538Why? I think it is pretty clear to anyone that houses are better than caves, modern medicine better than our natural healing abilities, GMO crops better than natural crops and motorized vehicles better than horses
>>2534544I didn't say we should get rid of grass now, I just don't see why it needs eternal protection. Right now "nature" is necessary for our existence but when we no longer require them why should they be protected?
I don't really see how that quote is related to any of this
>>2534589Um, using abstract concepts/ideas instead of material analysis?
Cant shake a feeling the schizos anti-environmentalism is driven by some semi-sublimated rape desire
>>2534886As it is GMO crops are mostly a capitalist scam backed up by regulatory capture making peasants able to spray as much poison possible on the earth so the productivity can be high for a little while. I am not sure crops that are a big factor in the current mass extinction are better than the "natural" ones, most of them you can't buy or sell on the market because biotech and phytosanitary product companies said no btw.
This thread got worse
>>2534898All of those are issues with capitalism not GMOs
Even if GMOs were shit I can still name countless examples of we doing things better than "nature" (since we ourselves are nature), for example: writting instead of memory, C-sections, agriculture, clothes, heaters/coolers, glasses, dams, idk a lot more of things
>>2534901Be the change you want to be in the world and make it better
>>2534897Projection, we can't rape the environment because we are nature and our cities are part of the environment, you can't rape yourself
>>2534904Wnat are your opinions on women, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, etc?
>>2534908>Wnat are your opinions on women,They uphold half the sky.
>reproductive rights<Neomalthusian "rights" The same as Communist revolutionaries and Communist States and their attitudes to neo-Malthusianism
Lenin - The Working Class and NeoMalthusianism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htmKollantai
On the New Abortion Law
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/kollontai2.htmKrupskya - A Strong Soviet Family
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/Krupskaya.pdfSoviet
Decree on the Prohibition of Abortions. June 27, 1936
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/abort.htm Abortion, Population Control, Genocide: The ’Scientific’ Killers and Who Sent for Them
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/index.htm >>2534904Every post you create makes this thread 10x worse. I do not have the energy to compete with that right now, so I am going to just call the thread dogshit instead.
>>2534922"It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic
rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another."
Thanks Lenin, I will make a society where workers are happy, free and want to have children
>>2534908>womenIn what regards? I am cool with women, they are like, people
>reproductive rightsLike condoms and birth control? Cool, another human archievement over the past
>bodily autonomyLike being able to abort? Cool, foetus are not alive Modern safe abortions are another human archievement over the past
But I assume bodily autonomy as a whole is moralism, since we already restrict what people can do with their bodies (trespassing is illegal, drunk driving is illegal etc)
Why are you asking me this?
>>2534925>right nowThen when?
>>2534937Certainly not anytime soon
>>2534499I need to remind you that over 75 percent of CO2 emissions are done by the top 100 companies and the military; not the average citizen.
>>2534922Thank you for your honesty, rapeuyghur. Just one offtopic question, what is your opinion on trans people?
>>2534930>It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes.The Working Class in the Soviet Union was the ruling class. Hence why every single country ruled by a revolutionary Proletarian dictatorship banned abortion in it's revolutionary period.
During it's revisionist period, when they started to liberalise the economy, when jobs were no longer guaranteed, firing and hiring was instituted they all implemented abortion as a social "pressure valve" that didn't exist under Stalin/Hoxha etc
>Thanks LeninThanks Stalin, Krupskya, Kollantai, Zetkin, Semashko and others for banning abortion once socialism has been built in 1932!
>>2534970>lenin's ussr was revisionist and not real socialismabsolute state of larouchites lol
>>2534980Uh oh, cuck fag retard alert
>>lenin's ussr was revisionist and not real socialism>absolute state of larouchites lolLenin was pretty explicit socialism hadn't been built by the time he died in 1924
In fact one of his last writings was against the second international faggots who accused the Bolsheviks of taking power before a level of civilisation had been built (by capitalism) before socialism could then be built
<You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism?https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htmNo communist in 1924 believed socialism had been built. In fact the fight against the trotskyite opposition (1924-1927) was whether socialism could be built in one country, especially a backward agarian one like Russia
It was only in 1932, the Congress of the Victors, after the first Five year plan that Communists in the Communist Party agreed socialism had been built
is this retard unironically suggesting banning abortion is good
>>2535019>Congress of the Victors, after the first Five year plan that Communists in the Communist Party agreed socialism had been builtmost of the people here were killed by the regime for being reactionaries so clearly they had it wrong, Stalin corrected that and began to re allow abortion in 1951
>>2534949maybe we should do something about that
>The trouble is that both parts of Saito’s argument—his reintroduction of a Marx depicted as a Promethean hyper-industrialist for the better part of his life, and his description of Marx’s metamorphosis into a “degrowth communist” in his final years—are wrong. There is no evidence (Saito’s references to G. A. Cohen notwithstanding) that Marx was ever an extreme productivist, which would mean seeing the expansion of production in and of itself as the beginning-and-end-all of human development. The notion that Marx became a “degrowth communist” in his last years, is so lacking in any substance that Saito is unable to find a single sentence in Marx’s work that in any way presents such a view. In fact, the whole argument in this respect is textually insupportable.
>Those statements that Saito takes as suggesting that Marx had adopted a degrowth perspective are all connected to Marx’s much broader, lifelong commitment to sustainable human development, as emphasized for decades in Marxist ecological theory. Marx’s approach was certainly ecological in this sense. But the notion of growth vs. degrowth was unthinkable in his time, and thus its application to Marx in Saito’s argument is historically anachronistic. Marx did not live in a full-world economy, but in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, where industrialization still had not developed in most of the world. Even in England, local transport was still in the horse-and-buggy stage.
>Although figures like Engels and Lankester warned of global environmental depredations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this did not translate in their minds into a notion that economic growth in the abstract was the problem, and degrowth as a solution would certainly never have crossed their minds. Rather, they saw the ecological contradiction as lying in the nature of capitalism as a society geared simply to short-run profit, and thus necessarily failing to protect the environment. The issue was sustainable human development.
>Still, setting aside Saito’s whole claim that Marx was a degrowth communist, there remains the question of the concepts of “degrowth” and “degrowth communism” themselves, as viewed in our own time. I think that a concept of planned degrowth is a necessary strategic perspective in the critique of the wasteful, destructive, unequal, and irrational world of monopoly capitalism in the Global North. Per capita energy use in the United States is sixty times that of Nepal. If all the world had the per capita ecological footprint of the United States, we would, at the present time, need three or four planet Earths. The United States and Europe account for the bulk of the historical carbon dioxide emissions, while their per capita emissions still exceed those of China, even though their role in world production is diminishing. The United States is the most automobile-dependent country in the world. In the Global North, we see a system geared to maximizing capital accumulation for a very few by means of the exploitation and expropriation exercised by multinational corporations, while generating a habitability crisis for the earth itself. Obviously, these conditions demand an ecological revolution in the twenty-first century.
>All of this means that, in ecological terms, the rich countries need to reduce their per capita energy use, while the poorest countries need to increase theirs, so that we reach a sustainable global equilibrium. The wealthy countries of the capitalist core are also the historic imperialist countries, expropriating surplus from the Global South to benefit the apex of the world system in the Global North. A July 2024 study by Jason Hickel and his coauthors in Nature Communications shows that labor in the South provides 90 percent of the world’s labor contribution to production, while receiving only 21 percent of the income in return. This inequality lies at the center of the entire imperialist world system.
>What is essential in the Global North then is not simply “degrowth” in the negative, purely quantitative sense, but also in a positive sense: the creation of a society of substantive equality and ecological sustainability. This requires a focus on qualitative development; income, wealth, and resource redistribution; meeting basic human needs for the entire population; production for use, not exchange; rational distribution of resources; cultivation of social use and communal values; and so on. To say that limits to growth and even degrowth are necessary in the wealthiest, most globally exploitative, and wasteful parts of global monopoly-finance capital, is not to make degrowth into an absolute principle, any more than it is to make economic growth itself one. The governing principle of Marxist ecology is always sustainable human development. Moreover, it would be wrong to claim that the poorest countries do not need growth in the means of production. To be a socialist today means to stand for the building of a society of substantive equality and ecological sustainability, measured in global terms[…]
>Ecological imperialism is not a new form of imperialism, but the foundation of all imperialism, making economic imperialism possible and always accompanying it. From the beginning, capitalism developed in large part from the colonial looting of the periphery of its resources and its labor, a process carried out by force with no pretense of equal exchange. Such expropriation was the direct expropriation of resources, including the expropriation of land and bodies. In Marx’s view, it was not exchange, but robbery. He argued that the Industrial Revolution was preceded by a process of “original expropriation” (a term that he said he preferred to “original [or primitive] accumulation,” since it better captured the actual nature of the process at work), in which the commons were forcibly expropriated from the population, creating the mass of the industrial proletariat. This same process of original expropriation also took place in the colonies, but there, as Marx explained, it was even more openly violent and brutal, involving extirpation (genocide) of Indigenous populations and slavery. If economic imperialism, as Marx wrote, involves a process of expropriation in which more labor is received for less, ecological imperialism involves a process where more nature is received for less. Colonialism was all about the robbing of nature/resources/bodies to benefit the “mother country.” The economic exchange aspect of this was often only the surface level.
>A lot of study has been devoted in the metabolic rift tradition to the nineteenth-century guano trade in Peru (particularly on the Chincha Islands). The early to mid-nineteenth-century soil crisis, which was the focus of Marx’s theory of metabolic rift, arose out of industrialized capitalist agriculture, in which key soil chemicals, including nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, were removed from the soil in food and fiber sent hundreds and even thousands of miles to the new urban manufacturing centers (also concentrated centers of population), where they ended up polluting the cities, rather than being returned to the soil. The result was the loss of soil fertility. To repair this capital turned at first to natural fertilizers, the most productive of which was guano from the Chincha Islands off of Peru. This led to a huge guano trade. Many of the guano diggers were Chinese indentured workers, referred to by the British as “coolies,” and in fact were subjected to a form of slavery. The workers who dug the guano on the Chincha Islands, under conditions of extreme exploitation and de facto slavery, invariably died on the job. In this, we find a classic case of ecological imperialism. The Opium Wars on China, which had their basis in the British creation of poppy plantations in India for the export of opium by force to China, were, arguably, a case of ecological imperialism of another type and can be studied in that context. These historical examples help us to understand the nature of ecological imperialism today[…]
>In his discussion of the metabolic rift in the first volume of Capital, Marx insisted on the need for the “restoration” of social metabolism in line with the universal metabolism of nature—something that was possible in its entirety only in the higher society of socialism. Obviously, the socialist movement would need to strive for that in the present as part of the movement toward the future. Marx clearly thought this would be a primary task in the construction of a socialist society. He insisted on the need to create sustainable conditions for “the chain of human generations.” For Marxism, the dialectic of necessity and freedom has always involved recognizing those material conditions that are objectively necessary at any given time, including both those imposed by nature and society. In order to promote social freedom in a socialist society a level of material development allowing for enough for all, and conditions of substantive equality and ecological sustainability, are required. It is only in this context that the development of a society characterized by what Marx called “freedom in general” is possible[…]
>China is not only a major country, but even more significantly in the present world context, a country committed to “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Like all countries, China has huge environmental problems. But Xi Jinping Thought has linked the goal of developing a great modern socialist society between 2035 and 2050 to the building of an ecological civilization and an aesthetically beautiful China. He insists that mountains of green are more important and more valuable than mountains of gold. These are not just words, but represent principles that have been put into practice, constituting a coordinated effort that has already made China the leader worldwide in alternative energy technologies addressing climate change, in reforestation and afforestation, in the speed of pollution reduction, and in other areas. China is at present the leading emitter of carbon dioxide globally, but on a per capita basis is well behind countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. The main issue here is China’s dependence on coal-fired plants, which, however, is now considerably below its peak. Beijing is making strenuous efforts to reduce its overall emissions and its dependence on coal and is introducing hard emissions targets, no longer simply carbon intensity targets, beginning in 2026. Moreover, there are signs that China’s carbon emissions have now peaked and are decreasing ahead of schedule. With all the difficulties and contradictions, there is no doubt that China’s very serious efforts in this respect offer hope to humanity as a whole in this critical area. These efforts, moreover, are not simply top-down, as is often supposed. Not only are these struggles motivated by the Communist Party of China, but they are also in part responses to Chinese on-the-ground mass environmental movements.
>The notion of an “ecological civilization” first arose as a systematic historical concept in the early 1980s in the Soviet Union. However, it was soon adopted, developed, and put into practice in China. Needless to say, the very idea of building an ecological civilization goes against the principal logic of capitalism. Although the contradictions are huge, China presently is charting a distinctive path toward sustainable human development, remarkable in a developing country. It has resurrected the mass line and is rebuilding the worker-peasant alliance with its rural revitalization and dual circulation models. I do not think China’s path is the only path, even in the Global South. We see other socialist-oriented countries making enormous strides based on their own conditions. Here I would point especially to Cuba and Venezuela. All paths toward sustainable human development by definition go against the logic of capitalism.https://monthlyreview.org/articles/ecological-marxism-in-the-anthropocene/ >>2536870THANK GOD, ITS A FUCKING GOOD COMMENT IN THIS THREAD
>>2536870Thanks for the great article here anon. To me this is the most important part:
>What is essential in the Global North then is not simply “degrowth” in the negative, purely quantitative sense, but also in a positive sense: the creation of a society of substantive equality and ecological sustainability. It's easy to assume our current industrial landscape is rational and highly advanced. In many ways it could be called primitive and wasteful.
A good modern example of this is how many late-developing nations skipped wired landline telephones entirely and skipped straight to 4G towers.
If similarly, the heaviest and most ecologically destructive forms of development were to be considered simply bootstrapping periods to help us advance our techniques further, we could achieve much higher quality of life gains for less ecological damage. For example, why bother developing a city to be car-centric when instead you can develop advanced public electric rail systems from the beginning?
The problem is up front capital. And the problem is that those without capital are forced to develop it from nothing, in the most bootstrappable way, requiring these economically harmful methods to overcome the lack of more advanced forms of technology. This means cars which can just be bought as commodities rather than rail which requires public maintenance and large up front capital costs.
Destruction and abolition of industrial processes is not some luddite adherence to the past but instead a more radical adherence to an ecologically sound future. We need ultra advanced technologies and we need to develop them fast because primitive technologies like automobiles and global shipping industries are simply not working well. We could instead rely on diets of locally sustainable plants organized into vegan diets and eliminate entirely these ecological costs while strengthening local resilience against climate effects by moving agricultural systems to use local plants.
It's worth considering de-growth as a radical embrace of the past modes of production, because the past "worked" in a way that the present does not - without substantial external inputs in a given local geographical region. But this does not mean a vulgar return to primitive communism, instead a return to the ecologically sound principles of past life but at a higher stage of advancement.
Mixed private and communal living in commie blocks surrounded by permaculture gardens of indigenous plants, managed by ultra advanced AI robots which are taught using the knowledge of ancient indigenous people who spent generations learning how to live off those very plants in these specific regions. This would be a far more advanced and meaningful vision of the future than parking lots, cars, and monoculture rows of crops replacing every acre of land on earth.
Rather than reject and transcend nature, we must embrace and learn from it. It's easy to think that taking plants, arranging them into rows, and creating primitive, yes extremely primitive machines, to harvest them in parallel, is the peak of human civilization. Because it enables an exponential increase in how much crop output could be generated by a given number of agricultural workers
But the side-effects of these transformations are countless:
>Commoditization of crops
>Markets for crops and a race to the bottom on prices
>Cutting corners on reparation of the soil and limitation of negative ecological impact
>Access to bulk raw plan material to feed to animals
>Feasibility of mass animal agriculture on factory farms
>Economic incentive to deforest to grow cattle
>Higher demand for cattle feed
>More demand to deforest to grow more cattle feed
We grow more plants to feed animals to eat than we grow plants to feed humans. These insane cause and effect chains of non-reasoning taken by capitalism result in utter ecological destruction as an economic imperative
We destroy one thing, the forests and nature, to get another, mass production of hamburgers.
It's always crazy seeing supposed communists turn into an eco-fascist if their right to eat hamburgers is questioned. I say factory farming should be illegal.
>>2536870>For example, it is a mistake to fall into the reductionistic trap of seeing the current planetary ecological crisis in terms of climate change alone, however all-encompassing that may appear to be, since it is crucial to recognize that we have crossed or are in the process of crossing most of the other planetary boundaries as well. All ecological problems today need to be addressed, including conditions of human survival (and the survival of living species in general), along with the conditions of living well on the earthSuch a good quote. This is the trap of development. It happens on a personal and also national level. A nation has to enslave themselves to foreign capital investment which forces the path of car-centric urban planning and heavy industry in the most exploitative way. The only way that this expropriation of nature can happen is first through the expropriation of human labor, as this labor is the mechanism through which all environmental degradation happens. If humans were not forced into labor for the bourgeois then they could not be forced into causing climate change.
If they were guaranteed health, safety, and decent lives, no matter what, in the most ecologically sustainable ways, through whatever method we need to achieve that, we would sidestep this bourgeois-imposed requirement to destroy the ecosystem
It's possible to do industry in a way that doesn't fuck over the planet and we've made a lot of progress over the years in figuring out how to do that. If all the wealthy industrial nations of the world still relying on coal and natural gas for electricity were to decommission all coal and natural gas power plants by a certain date and switch to non-fossil fuel energy sources; nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc., that alone would reduce global CO2 emissions by 30%. Replacing all combustion automobiles with electric engine automobiles and shutting down the crude oil industry and switching to plant-derived hydrocarbons would reduce CO2 emissions by another 40%. All of the alternatives to fossil fuels are simply better in every way, not just in terms of environmental impact, but in energy efficiency, fuel density, long-term sustainability, etc. Any industrial manufacturing process that involves burning fossil fuels to generate lots of heat can be done better and more efficiently with hydrogen or electric arcs or induction. Theoretically CO2 emissions could be cut down to almost pre-Industrial levels if the richest countries in the world all cooperated on this and sacrificed their own short-term profits for long-term survival. But they won't. They've got too much inertia, too much sunk costs logic, too much corruption and bureaucratic incompetence, etc.
<The Double Objective of Democratic Ecosocialism>by Jason Hickel - September 2023
>We face a double crisis as the twenty-first century unfolds. On the one hand, it is an ecological crisis: climate change and several other Earth System pressures are exceeding planetary boundaries to a dangerous extent. On the other hand, it is also a social crisis: several billion people are deprived of access to basic goods and services. More than 40 percent of the human population cannot afford nutritious food; 50 percent do not have safely managed sanitation facilities; 70 percent do not have necessary health care.
>Deprivation is most extreme in the periphery, where imperialist dynamics of structural adjustment and unequal exchange continue to perpetuate poverty and underdevelopment. But it is evident also in the core: in the United States, nearly half the population cannot afford health care; in the United Kingdom, 4.3 million children live in poverty; in the European Union, 90 million people face economic insecurity. These patterns of deprivation are shot through with brutal inequalities of race and gender.
>No political program that promises to analyze and resolve the ecological crisis can hope to succeed if it does not also simultaneously—that is, in the same stroke—analyze and resolve the social crisis. Attempting to address one without the other leaves fundamental contradictions entrenched and will ultimately give rise to monsters. Indeed, monsters are already emerging.
>It is critically important to understand that the dual social-ecological crisis is being driven, ultimately, by the capitalist system of production. The two dimensions are symptoms of the same underlying pathology. By capitalism here, I do not mean simply markets, trade, and businesses, as people often so easily assume. These things existed for thousands of years before capitalism, and are innocent enough on their own. The key defining feature of capitalism that we must confront is that it is, as a condition for its very existence, fundamentally antidemocratic.
>Yes, many of us live in electoral political systems—as corrupt and captured as they may be—where we select political leaders from time to time. But even so, when it comes to the system of production, not even the shallowest illusion of democracy enters. Production is controlled overwhelmingly by capital: large corporations, major financial firms, and the 1 percent who own the lion’s share of investable assets. Capital wields the power to mobilize our collective labor and our planet’s resources for whatever it wants, determining what we produce, under what conditions, and how the surplus we generate shall be used and distributed.
>And let us be clear: for capital, the primary purpose of production is not to meet specific human needs or to achieve social progress, much less to achieve any concrete ecological goals. Rather, the overriding objective is to maximize and accumulate profit.
>The result is that the capitalist world-system is characterized by perverse forms of production. Capital directs finance to highly profitable output, like sport utility vehicles, industrial meat, fast fashion, weapons, fossil fuels, and property speculation, while reproducing chronic shortages of necessary goods and services like public transit, public health care, nutritious food, renewable energy, and affordable housing. This dynamic occurs within national economies but also has clear imperialist dimensions. Land, labor, and productive capacities across the Global South are roped into supplying global commodity chains dominated by Northern firms—bananas for Chiquita, cotton for Zara, coffee for Starbucks, smartphones for Apple, and coltan for Tesla, all for the benefit of the core, all at artificially depressed prices—instead of producing food, housing, health care, education, and industrial goods to meet national needs. Capital accumulation in the core depends on draining labor and resources from the periphery.1
>It should therefore come as no surprise that despite extremely high levels of aggregate production—and levels of energy and material use that are driving ecological pressures well beyond safe and sustainable boundaries—deprivation remains widespread within the capitalist world economy. Capitalism produces too much, yes, but also not enough of the right stuff. Access to essential goods and services is limited by commodification; and because capital seeks to cheapen labor at every opportunity, particularly in the periphery, the consumption of the working classes is constrained[…]
>This is the revolutionary world-historical objective that faces our generation. What would such an economy look like? Several key objectives stand out[…]https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-double-objective-of-democratic-ecosocialism/ >>2536966Yes, but I do not think it is as simple as building more nuclear plants and changing some of the processes to use electricity. For example, electric car, it is not 0 co2 if you include the manufacturing process, maintanance, recicling, building/maintaining roads, etc. But car use may grow, which may cancel all co2 reductions of using an electric car.
A better fix than an electric car, will be - a better electric bus.
etc etc, not just cars.
I think also that it need to be possible to work less, not just to allow you to do something better than just simple consumerism; but you will be able to give yourself more time, for using a bus, etc.
<Marx's Vision of Sustainable Human Development>by Paul Burkett - October 2005
>In developed capitalist countries, debates over the economics of socialism have mostly concentrated on questions of information, incentives, and efficiency in resource allocation. This focus on “socialist calculation” reflects the mainly academic context of these discussions. By contrast, for anti-capitalist movements and post-revolutionary regimes on the capitalist periphery, socialism as a form of human development has been a prime concern. A notable example is Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s work on “Man and Socialism in Cuba,” which rebutted the argument that “the period of building socialism…is characterized by the extinction of the individual for the sake of the state.” For Che, socialist revolution is a process in which “large numbers of people are developing themselves,” and “the material possibilities of the integral development of each and every one of its members make the task ever more fruitful.”1
>With global capitalism’s worsening poverty and environmental crises, sustainable human development comes to the fore as the primary question that must be engaged by all twenty-first century socialists in core and periphery alike. It is in this human developmental connection, I will argue, that Marx’s vision of communism or socialism (two terms that he used interchangeably) can be most helpful.2
>The suggestion that Marx’s communism can inform the struggle for more healthy, sustainable, and liberating forms of human development may seem paradoxical in light of various ecological criticisms of Marx that have become so fashionable over the last several decades. Marx’s vision has been deemed ecologically unsustainable and undesirable due to its purported treatment of natural conditions as effectively limitless, and its supposed embrace, both practically and ethically, of technological optimism and human domination over nature.
>The well known ecological economist Herman Daly, for example, argues that for Marx, the “materialistic determinist, economic growth is crucial in order to provide the overwhelming material abundance that is the objective condition for the emergence of the new socialist man. Environmental limits on growth would contradict ‘historical necessity’….” The problem, says environmental political theorist Robyn Eckersley, is that “Marx fully endorsed the ‘civilizing’ and technical accomplishments of the capitalist forces of production and thoroughly absorbed the Victorian faith in scientific and technological progress as the means by which humans could outsmart and conquer nature.” Evidently Marx “consistently saw human freedom as inversely related to humanity’s dependence on nature.” Environmental culturalist Victor Ferkiss asserts that “Marx and Engels and their modern followers” shared a “virtual worship of modern technology,” which explains why “they joined liberals in refusing to criticize the basic technological constitution of modern society.” Another environmental political scientist, K. J. Walker, claims that Marx’s vision of communist production does not recognize any actual or potential “shortage of natural resources,” the “implicit assumption” being “that natural resources are effectively limitless.” Environmental philosopher Val Routley describes Marx’s vision of communism as an anti-ecological “automated paradise” of energy-intensive and “environmentally damaging” production and consumption, one which “appears to derive from [Marx’s] nature-domination assumption.”3
>An engagement with these views is important not least because they have become influential even among ecologically minded Marxists, many of whom have looked to non-Marxist paradigms, especially that of Karl Polanyi, for the ecological guidance supposedly lacking in Marxism. The under-utilization of the human developmental and ecological elements of Marx’s communist vision is also reflected in the decision by some Marxists to place their bets on a “greening” of capitalism as a practical alternative to the struggle for socialism.4
>Accordingly, I will interpret Marx’s various outlines of post-capitalist economy and society as a vision of sustainable human development. Since there are no important disagreements between Marx and Engels in this area, I will also refer to the writings of Engels, and works co-authored by Marx and Engels, as appropriate. After sketching the human developmental dimensions of communal property and associated (non-market) production in Marx’s view, I draw out the sustainability aspect of these principles by responding to the most common ecological criticisms of Marx’s projection. I conclude by briefly reconsidering the connections between Marx’s vision of communism and his analysis of capitalism, focusing on that all important form of human development: the class struggle[…]
>1. Basic Organizing Principles of Marx’s Communism>A. The New Union and Communal Property>B. Planned, Non-Market Production>2. Marx’s Communism, Ecology, and Sustainability>A. Managing the Commons Communally>B. Expanded Free Time and Sustainable Human Development>C. Wealth, Human Needs, and Labor Cost>3. Capitalism, Communism, and the Struggle Over Human Developmenthttps://monthlyreview.org/articles/marxs-vision-of-sustainable-human-development/ >>2536988The CO2 emissions in the manufacturing process mostly have to do with diesel fuel equipment being used for mining and processing lithium - hydrogen can replace diesel for heavy machinery just as batteries can replace gasoline for light machinery. And even with the CO2 emissions of the manufacturing process of electric cars, that's still nothing compared to the CO2 emissions of an internal combustion engine car over the course of its entire lifetime.
>>2537007Yes, but imagine you cut co2 by 20%, by not using the diesel cars. By use of a bus you could cut to may be to 25%. 5% is still a huge number.
But still you've mentioned just single process of manufacturing batteries. It is also recicling that you need to include. But some roads built using concrete, a chemical reaction producing co2. It is just an example, idk every step in all processes related to cars.
<Planning an Ecologically Sustainable and Democratic Economy: Challenges and Tasks>by Martin Hart-Landsberg - August 2023
>We desperately need an ecosocialist-inspired transformation of the U.S. economy, one that will allow us to substantially, equitably, and democratically reduce its energy and materials usage. This cannot be achieved without planning, a process that deserves more attention than it currently receives. Although most activist organizations are focused on winning changes in a single defined area of concern, thanks to their collective work, we do have a broadly shared vision of the societal transformation we seek.1 But a compilation of desired changes does not by itself promote an understanding of the likely challenges and tasks involved in achieving these goals.
>Even though our loosely knit movement is nowhere near powerful enough to shape government policy, now is an appropriate time for us to deepen our knowledge about how economies are transformed, as well as develop criteria for the planning process and policies most likely to produce the outcome we desire. One certain insight is that, because of the complex nature of economic processes, a transformative change in one area cannot be achieved in isolation. This realization should encourage initiatives that strengthen ties between organizations with different issue agendas, leading to greater political coherence and visibility for our demands. In fact, it is likely that without a serious effort to chart a way forward, our organizing work will struggle to gain political traction.
>Currently, some of our key demands—for example, to end fossil fuel use—leave workers fearful about their economic future. Many do not find our stated commitment to a just transition, which will ensure workers in affected industries will find employment producing different goods or in new sectors of the economy, very reassuring. They tend to view a “just transition” as more of a slogan than a policy possibility, and for good reason. They see no planning process and no political party or trade union movement with the commitment or capacity to develop such a process.
>Thus, there are good reasons to seek a deeper understanding of the challenges and tasks involved in planning. One of the most productive ways is to study an actual conversion process, in particular the Second World War U.S. mobilization experience. There is much we can learn from this experience not only because the government, under wartime pressure, successfully converted the economy from civilian to military production, but also because it was forced to rely on trial and error to create needed planning infrastructure, all the while managing relations with a reluctant and powerful capitalist class. Therefore, in what follows, I first discuss some of the key lessons to be learned from that wartime conversion. I conclude by offering suggestions for strengthening our collective effort to transform radically the U.S. political economy[…]
>A Rapid Transformation[…]>A Leading Investment Role for the Government[…]>Planning Means More than Spending[…]>Community Participation Has a Role[…]>Planning Is Political[…]>Building Capacity[…]https://monthlyreview.org/articles/planning-an-ecologically-sustainable-and-democratic-economy-challenges-and-tasks/ >>2537021Well the recycling is one of the other benefits of batteries, you can easily recover about 90% of the lithium from a dead battery, which greatly reduces the need for mining new lithium.
>>2537041Yes, but you need to calculate what is the co2 emission from all recycling. etc.
From EU page
>To calculate the amount of CO2 produced by a car, not only the CO2 emitted during use must be taken into account, but also the emissions caused by its production and disposal.
>The production and disposal of an electric car is less environmentally friendly than that of a car with an internal combustion engine and the level of emissions from electric vehicles varies depending on how the electricity is produced.
>However, taking into account the average energy mix in Europe, electric cars are already proving to be cleaner than vehicles running on petrol.Just better compared to oil cars, not ok. And not ok compared to a bus.
>>2537048This is why I said the first step would be to remove fossil fuels from the energy sector, so that we wouldn't end up talking in circles about how electric cars won't work because of the fossil fuel energy sector.
>>2537056You just downplay that a bus is much better solution.
>>2532696>permaculture is a cope of small producers. The problem is small producers.why would permaculture be limited to small producers? You can scale it up to an entire city. It doesn't have to produce
every crop, but any amount that it does produce for the people living there will save space and resources that would have been required to maintain growth outside the city. It will also make the area more resilient in case of supply chain problems (which will be a major concern in the near future)
>>2537736as a permaculture advocate, you need drones or humanoid robots for harvest at scale. we dont really have the technology yet for it to be competitive compared to industrial monoculture and would have to use human labor. it doesn't really apply to staple crops like wheat corn or rice. you could do it for fruit and veg for a pick your own grocery but thats a tiny part of most peoples diet and not much different from community victory gardens.
>>2538120>you need drones or humanoid robots for harvest at scale>>2538120As a permacilture advocate you should know that the entire point of a permaculture food forest is to achieve an ecosystem of every trophic level. This means fruit and nut trees, herb and fruit bushes, and staple grasses can fit in too. Then vegetables of all sorts. You can achieve a fully balanced vegan diet from a well designed permaculture food forest especially if you raised small livestock like chickens inside it
>>2538120>you need drones or humanoid robots for harvest at scale. we dont really have the technology yet for it to be competitive compared to industrial monoculture and would have to use human laborTrue but this is a benefit not a disadvantage. Because large portions of all human labor must be stopped. Its misallocated human labor causing climate change. Every bit put towards stopping it is a good thing
>>2538205>staple grasses can fit in toonever seen this at a scale that can feed people. you need like an acre per person per year and if you are doing it right you would have to spread that acre of grass over a hundred. per person. harvesting by hand inbetween trees and shrubs would suck ass. all the people ive seen get their whole diet locally mix traditional agriculture and its pretty labor intensive. idk how you would deal with housing in a city that also has a hundred acre woods for every citizen
>>2538211>Every bit put towards stopping it is a good thingyou mean like giving people jobs picking wheat?
>>2538233>you mean like giving people jobs picking wheat?No, taking the entire tech sector and putting it towards software for robotics that can help do it at scale. Harvesting grain is hardly a problem, we already have ways to do it at scale. If grain is the big issue here it can be done using traditional agriculture or agroforestry until some better way is found, then everything else can be done using permaculture. The real big issue is that everyone has to become vegan. Because most plants we grow are fed to animals. We need to stop doing that. Global meat consumption is too high and causes health problems.
>>2538233>harvesting by handI don't advise this at all. I think we can assume it's a foregone conclusion that this can be automated if enough labor is put towards developing such robotics but right now it's not happening.
>>2538237it'd probably be feasible to automate a first-pass then workers do a manual second-pass. idk though.
>>2538241Yeah. I'm not trying to be confrontational but I genuinely think we can be doing a lot better than we are now, especially if for instance 10% of STEM labor were directed entirely towards it. It would practically be a solved problem. And given that it's arguably a top priority ecologically, this 10% number is conservative.
>>2538237>Harvesting grain is hardly a problem, we already have ways to do it at scale. If grain is the big issue here it can be done using traditional agriculture or agroforestry until some better way is found, then everything else can be done using permaculture.yeah thats what im saying you cant drive combines through a forest
>The real big issue is that everyone has to become vegan.yes this is why we need a dtop to elect vegan stalin and have state regulated food production
>taking the entire tech sector and putting it towards software for robotics that can help do it at scaleyeah thats what you would need. like little monkey or bird drones to go inbetween the trees and do the tedious monotony. i would apply it to the monoculture too. make the combines smaller or modular and interplant row cropping to reduce pest and disease transfer, roboautomated chop and drop mulch. and instead of monoclonal crops diversified hybrids. you dont need identical clones if you have modular harvest drones and flexible processing. it still wouldn't be in a city tho
i almost think vertical hydro farming powered by nuclear and separate reforestation project is a better use of time then trying to manipulate a forest into making enough food to feed a city. and a lot of places cities are at are not really suitable for crops anyway
were just really far away from something like this if it even turns out to be practical in practice. right now i just think its only useful as a supplement and the big stuff is informing agroecological techniques but at least as i understanding it not really something that scales in its pure form, like as an unmaintaned forest that you completely satisfy your needs at will. that only works if you have a ton of space way more than a suburban lot and like 20-30 years of daily work to establish it
>>2538254I think I pretty much agree with you, except that Marx thought the abolition of the rural urban divide was important and I agree. I don't know the best way to rectify this
I think artificial food production methods like the "vertical hydro farming powered by nuclear" you mentioned is better suited for experimentation and genetic engineering of plants on a mass and more automated scale, rather than just food production. Part of the problem here is that if we used "vertical hydro farming powered by nuclear" this reinforces the rural urban divide because this requires a huge material capital cost up front to create it, and then we become dependent on it. Whereas I see it more advantageous to remove our external dependencies and move towards being closer to enabling off-grid lifestyles. Essentially these supply chain dependencies create obligations between groups of people and separations between groups. For this reason in my opinion it's better to have DIY small scale manufacturable super advanced technologies powered mostly by communal FOSS software and hardware schematics to allow groups of people to not depend as much on centralized manufacturing
The urban must not depend on the rural's food production and the rural must not depend on the urban's technology manufacturing
For this reason the urban must to a large extent produce their own food somehow, maybe this is where "vertical hydro farming powered by nuclear" comes in. Nextly the rural must be able to produce its own means of production, this means the machinery must be closer to being DIYable or not centralized towards being produced by some specific geographical region. Even if this means moving back to earlier form of computational or robotic technologies but in more complex configurations. Such as analog computing hardware
>>2538254>that only works if you have a ton of space way more than a suburban lot and like 20-30 years of daily work to establish itfor me if anything this reinforces the urgency of starting. this is one of the most important points in my opinion
>>2538364>idk precisely what is meant by the rural urban divide but i think a sort of progressively increasing gradient might count?Yeah this seems like a good idea. I think rather than prescribing exact designs at the geographical or urban planning level, once the means of production is made communal and work towards abolishing class distinctions between the rural and urban are made, concrete decisions can be made by those encountering those material changes at that time. It may not mean abolishing dense urban cities, maybe it could also mean creating ultra high speed communal public transit allowing each access to all areas of society by any individual worker, letting a farmer live in a dense city to study or work in a technological firm to guide agricultural engineers, or whether it means for an urban food service worker to decide they want to spend the fall helping as a farm hand
>>2538237Technology doesn't necessarily have to be catered toward industrial capitalist mass production. People could develop farm machinery that is small and affordable enough for average people to be subsistence farmers using prosumer versions of industrial technology for a non-industrial purpose, but capitalism and industry do not want that, they don't want the machines to be subservient to the human; they want the human to be subservient to the machine.
>>2535027I'm not providing a moral qualifier.
I'm simply telling you that when Communists come to power abortion will be banned as it was in every single revolutionary period of the Proletarian Dictatorship ruled by a Communist Party.
Even many Communists with liberal worm-brains will find themselves in the same position as Communists in Soviet Union, Hoxha's Albania etc.
That in order to achieve Communism you need to rapidly expand the forces of production. When you consider that human beings are the living representatives of productive forces no Communist can accept liquidating it's own working class for bourgeois individualism and the disaster that has been (CIA funded) bourgeois feminism.
>>2538480>I'm not providing a moral qualifier. >entire post is a moralistic rantMany such cases.
Is communism inherently anti-ecological? Or is it the only real solution to today’s planetary crisis?
Communism, The Highest Stage of Ecology makes a bold intervention in contemporary environmental debates, refuting the myth that socialism and ecological responsibility are at odds. Instead, Guillaume Suing argues that planned economies—unlike capitalist market systems—offer the necessary framework for sustainable resource management, food sovereignty, and scientific agricultural advancements.
Drawing on historical case studies from the Soviet Union and Cuba, Suing explores the successes and contradictions of socialist environmental policies, from agroecology to energy planning. He critically engages with ecosocialist currents and exposes the limitations of “green capitalism,” ultimately reaffirming the centrality of dialectical materialism in understanding and confronting the climate crisis.
Translated into English for the first time, with a foreword and scholarly contextualization by Henry Hakamäki and Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro, this book is an essential contribution for scholars, activists, and all those seeking a radical path toward ecological and social liberation.
https://www.iskrabooks.org/communism-the-highest-stage-of-ecologyhttps://www.iskrabooks.org/_files/ugd/ec1faf_75814d39efa34ba28681f756b9398b1b.pdf>>2538480Ironic thing to say considering my flag, but Stalin had an excuse (an impending threat of a Nazi invasion and the need to rebuild the country (again) after it, nessesitating excessive workers) to ban abortion which a hypothetical future communist country would not have.
>>2538508>had an excuse (an impending threat of a Nazi invasion Also Hoxha's Albania in 1979.
<Abortion was a crime in communist Albania as it contradicted the party directive to increase the population at almost any cost.https://balkaninsight.com/2017/11/09/albanian-women-remember-fear-of-abortion-during-communism-11-06-2017/And oh look they re instituted abortion in 1989-1991 during capitalist restoration in Albania as imperialists took control of that country and began pursuing a policy of degrowth, depopulation and genocide
<In 1989, the Ministry of Health issued a directive allowing abortions to be legally performed in cases of rape or incest or when the woman was under sixteen years of age. In 1991, it issued another directive legalizing, for the first time, abortion on family planning and social grounds. https://web.archive.org/web/20120204074628/https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/albani1.doc
>which a hypothetical future communist country would not have.You think the equivalent of a Nazi Germany does not exist in NATO? You think NATO will not ROFL stomp a country that raises the Red Flag?
You think a hypothetical future communist country is not going to come under the exact same pressures as Soviets in 1930s or Hoxha's Albania?
>>2538558I noticed you fail to bring up Romania. Curious, as their anti-reproductive rights laws were moat in line with your preferences.
>>2538504Thanks anon! I'll give it a read later. Do you happen to have a copy of Kohei Saito's "Capitalism in the Anthropocene"? That one's been on my backlog too.
>>2538558>imperialists took control of that country and began pursuing a policy of degrowth, depopulation and genocide Buzzing with buzzwords
>>2539194Ah yes. "Free" choice under capitalism. As if Marxists ever acknowledged such a thing.
<If the police were to march into a working class community to take away the pregnant women to a hospital and force them to undergo an abortion, everyone would be up in arms over this outrage. Yet when the ruling class sets things up economically to have the same effect, many so-called leftists even encourage this outrage. Marxists have always recognized that the economics of capitalism is the major force oppressing the working class; the police and military power is only secondary. The economics of capitalism right now is forcing millions of working class families to undergo abortions to exterminate their future offspring. Far from a step toward the liberation of women, this is another horrible oppressive chain around our necks. How does this work? Let’s spell it out so there is no doubt.https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section1.htm >>2539749"A woman’s control of her own body is the essence of the abortion movement, it is often claimed. The question of control of one’s body is not a sex question, but a class question. Capitalist men and women control their own bodies; working men and women sell their bodies to the capitalists for a specified period of time. The ability to obtain an abortion has nothing to do with this. This is elementary Marxism.
This “control” that, in some areas, has now been bestowed on women is really a tragedy for many working class families, and a great tragedy for the working class as a whole to be deprived of so many successors to the revolutionary cause."
Lol what freaks. Yes poverty helps drive abortions but that doesn't mean we should take away people's rights
>>2539755>Yes poverty helps drive abortions but that doesn't mean we should take away people's rightsid be really surprised if thats what they are saying. it sounds like they want people to have jobs and stable lives so that a choice can actually be a free choice
>The question is not whether abortion should be made legal or nothmm
>>2539769It is very clearly an anti-abortion stance, they just didnt want to say it explicitly.
>>2539749Would forcing women to give birth at gunpoint make them more free?
>>2539762Somebody should have aborted you absolutely retarded ass.
>>2539797This board is literaly just /pol/ now, it's fucking shite and nationalism through and through
>>2539792Nobody is forcing women to fornicate
>>2539842Good, enthusiastic consent is important.
>>2539850>muh consentUh oh we’ve got another retard
>>2540155all fundies are pervert rapists and get the sword
Communism is highly agreeable with forms of production which are clean and highly energy efficient, yet also provide a high standard of living to large populations. Imagine a world of safe, efficient nuclear reactors powering electric high speed rail lines and using excess energy to produce clean hydrogen for green steelmaking and fuel cells for large vehicles. We will replace polluting cargo ships with nuclear cargo ships and we will use nuclear rockets or something to replace long distance jet aircraft.
>>2539749>70's kkklanadian puritanical idealism1920 Soviet decree reaction:
>In recent decades, both in the West and here in Russia, the number of women resorting to abortion has been increasing.>Laws in all countries combat this evil by punishing both the woman who chooses to have an abortion and the doctor who performs it.>Failing to achieve positive results, this method of combating abortion has driven the procedure underground, making women victims of self-serving and often ignorant abortionists who have turned this secret operation into a commercial enterprise.>As a result, up to 50% of women become ill from the infection, and up to 4% of them die.
>The Workers' and Peasants' Government recognizes the harm this phenomenon poses to the collective. By strengthening the socialist system and promoting anti-abortion agitation among the working female population, it combats this evil and, by widely implementing the principles of the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood, foresees the gradual disappearance of this practice.
>But while moral remnants of the past and the difficult economic conditions of the present still force some women to undergo this operation, the People's Commissariat of Health and the People's Commissariat of Justice, protecting women's health and the interests of the race from ignorant and self-serving predators and considering the method of repression in this area to be utterly ineffective, decree:
>I. Artificial termination of pregnancy is permitted free of charge in the conditions of Soviet hospitals, where its maximum safety is ensured.>II. This operation is absolutely prohibited for anyone other than a physician.>III. Any midwife or nurse found guilty of performing this operation shall be deprived of the right to practice and brought before the People's Court.https://istmat.org/node/42778 >>2541080>By strengthening the socialist system and promoting anti-abortion agitation among the working female population, it combats this evil and, by widely implementing the principles of the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood, foresees the gradual disappearance of this practice.lmao
>>2540146When I see such Larouchism I always struggle to call it between mental illness or psyop
>>2541196La Rouche stole Prometheanism from Communists in the 70s/80s when the cia turned western Communists into Judith Butler cuckfag-retards because it doesn't affect class struggle
Prometheanism was originally pushed by Communists though and your aversion to Prometheanism is just your anti-Communism showing through
Face the wall individualist 🤷
>>2533288this is a truke and I'm generally pro-China
>>2541174
>Just to stop proles drinking bleach in starvation condtions from all the war
<implying proles drinking bleach in starvation conditions is preferable to state issued hospitals and hygiene education
"prolife"oids never change
>Commissar of health who called Abortion evil says once everyone has housing, food, medical care, day cares abortion should be stopped
because party members can do nothing wrong ever and their word is literal gospel
>Soviets never cared about individual rights lol
ok and?
<inb4 muh stalin
>only banned it AFTER the material conditions changed and contraception became available, along with socialized childcare for all working families
>unlike c*eausescu never banned contraception or did "monthly inspections" of all reproductive age women
>pressured by an upcoming world war with actual fascism
>>2541174
also
>Soviets never cared about individual rights lol
as if that's supposed to be a "gotcha"
<b-but i thought in socialism i could keep being a broodmare and a houseslave for some drooling ogre, it's my choice actually!
<b-but i thought in socialism i could keep my child wife in the basement, she agreed to this herself! stop kinkshaming ffs
>>2541221what is prometheanism by your definition
>>2539749Observing an oppressive policy by capitalists does not simply mean to reverse that policy, and this becomes the new communist position. This is not dialectical thinking. Instead the communist position is to alleviate those factors of capitalism that render abortion oppressive no longer relevant. By improving accessibility of child care, healthcare, housing, etc. Then abortion becomes a free choice.
>>2541011In my communist utopia, rivers are made of rainbows and when it rains it is chocolate
the schizo ruined this thread
>>2542529Sounds like the communist utopia has a DDT factory up river
>>2539165Those books are for queers
Read these.
David John Douglass - Coal Climate Change and Destruction of the British coal Industry
Written by a union leader of National Union of Mineworkers… The most influential union of the British working class. Not a pair of glasses wearing academics that shove stuff up their arse all day and then write papers on it (literally those 2 books)
And
Ian Plimers - Green Murder
To understand the eugenicists behind so-called "climate change" and the lengths they will go to debase the Working Classes energy production supplies and defraud the Working class of billions of £s
https://annas-archive.org/md5/bfdcc54ef840bc6afa6fea47a167fc4a(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2542585LOL HE WAS BANNED
>>2539165Saito's a pseud who has faced criticism from Bellamy Foster in recent years.
Replace him with Jason
W Moore.
>>2543083yeah sure but anon requested it. its good to teach people how to pirate books
All idealistic Redditors in here.
>>2553004>reddit out of nowherewoah
>>2531538<how do we reconcile this as gommunists? whenever I see people calling for protecting the amazon there is an argument that the people cutting down the trees are just trying to make a living.the productive forces have already been developed enough at least by the 1990s to support socialism or possibly even earlier
>>2534538If you believe in a Creator, then humans are the steward of nature and in a position to make the determination of when it needs direction.
If you do not believe in a Creator, then humans are a part and product of nature and therefore have as much right and power to shape the environment as any other species or force of nature.
Ants build anthills, bees build beehives, birds build nests, humans build apartment complexes. They're all just redistribution and alteration of matter to alter the environment. Different modes of expression of the same behavior.
I'm a panentheist, so I believe that the Creator is in the Creation. Nature *is* God, so to say. God isn't external, it's internal as a multiplicity. That is, it is internal to every consciousness, and consciousness forms in aggregates. The ant or bee compared to the colony, the bird to the flock. Or on a smaller scale, the brain cell to the brain. And of course we can draw these comparisons at all sorts of scales and in all sorts of connection to other systems, but the point is: After atheism ("There is no external God") comes panentheism ("The only God is the one we see within ourselves"), and with that comes agency. We have power over our environment, all creatures do, but with power comes responsibility. Stewardship. In any perspective, it is impossible to escape the realization that we as humans have a power and that we use it *whether we mean to or not* and therefore we have to be conscious of what we are creating in any given moment.
The debate is over how we use our power to shape the environment, not over whether we have it. The debate is over what we must destroy, not if we will, because creation requires destruction (this is what alteration *is*). And that debate is multi-pronged, because there is the individual case and the multiple aggregate cases (as family head, what do I instruct my family to do, as working class, how do I treat my coworkers?).
>>2556671Just because you can destroy nature doesn't mean you should.
>>2556688Nice dubs, but you didn't read
<we use it *whether we mean to or not*<The debate is over what we must destroy, not if we will, because creation requires destruction (this is what alteration *is*)Even if you decide to be as low impact as possible and your solution is "we should build nests in the trees like birds to be as in tune with nature as possible", you're missing the point that you still have to pick which wood to build the friggin' treehouses/nests out of. Destruction is inevitable. Pick your poison and the degree of it you find acceptable, because the poison is in the dose.
>>2556696You're being pedantic, obviously you need to consume things to live to some extent but some people ITT are acting like retards saying we should destroy nature.
>>2556671>invoking a Creator at all, in any capacity, ever>>>>>right>ants building anthills is just a different mode of expression of the same behavior and has no meaningful difference from strip mining an entire mountain>I'm a pantheist>The debate is over what we must destroy, not if we will,You are an enemy not only of the people but of life itself
>>2556697>>2556702Destruction of nature is inevitable. Fuck anthills, volcanos and hurricanes destroy too. And stuff grows in the space left behind. The question of destruction is of how we live in harmony through our destruction.
>the enemy of life itselfAll I can say is "buh?".
Photosynthesis destroys photons to create glucose. This is like, basic physics. Transmutation is destruction, destruction is transmutation. It *is* life itself.
Again, the debate is over how we exploit resources, not if we do. It's inevitable. It is nature.
Most of us don't own strip mining corporations or even work them. You're strawmanning.
Unique IPs: 97