99.9999% of fights on leftypol are over whether the top pic or the bottom pic is true.
https://strawpoll.com/GeZARkvDRyVSo which is it leftypol?
1: The 1st world bourgeoisie and 1st world workers are trying to crush the 3rd world bourgeoisie and the 3rd world workers
2: The 1st world bourgeoisie and 3rd world bourgeoisie are trying to crush the 1st world workers and the 3rd world workers
>>2899345>>2899357Holy shit you faggots are illiterate scum. Efficiency is only half the story, you would still have to cut down consumption. Completely decoupling GDP growth (and thus Westoid consumption) from resource extraction is impossible, regardless of efficiency.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733 >>2899508Increasing efficiency would drop GDP you dipstick.
>>2899508and the only way you can seriously drop GDP and increase efficiency is gonna be a national economic planning committee. It directly requires socialism.
your own paper that you cited is effectively agreeing with what you're arguing with.
>However, we also note that GDP has been shown to be a poor proxy for societal wellbeing, something it was never designed to measure, and GDP growth is therefore a questionable long-term societal goal in any case. The mounting costs of “uneconomic growth” [43] suggest that the pursuit of decoupling–if it were possible–in order to sustain GDP growth would be a misguided effort.
>Society can sustainably improve wellbeing, including the wellbeing of its natural assets, but only by discarding the goal of GDP growth in favor of more comprehensive measures of societal wellbeing
>>2899561Those excerpts prove my broader point. Western consumption would have to drop, i.e., the average westerner’s lifestyle would need to change. Total decoupling is ecologically impossible without a reduction in consumption, otherwise you’re advocating for unequal exchange—impoverishing and exploiting the Global South so the West can maintain its unsustainable consumption.
>>2899568
>consumption == quality of lifethat is exactly what the excerpts disagree with.
Nobody here is saying consumption must increase always. What is being said is that lifestyle changes that improve QOL and social wellbeing can come at the same time as reduced consumption.
>>2899562JP mostly comes into play when things that are expended upon usage are made cheaper and more efficient. If something is made more durable over time but it comes at increased cost then it would be an increase of efficiency of resource use but would not cause JP.
Everyone in the world deserves a gaming PC
>>2899597>that is exactly what the excerpts disagree with. Nobody here is saying consumption must increase always. What is being said is that lifestyle changes that improve QOL and social wellbeing can come at the same time as reduced consumption.Nobody disagreed with this though. Westoids don’t want to reduce consumption though—commodity fetishism runs deep in their minds. Consider the whole Western right-wing meme about the WEF forcing people to eat bugs and live in pods. Obviously this is a result of capitalism, but men still make their own history.
>JP mostly comes into play when things that are expended upon usage are made cheaper and more efficient. If something is made more durable over time but it comes at increased cost then it would be an increase of efficiency of resource use but would not cause JP.Not entirely accurate. For example, an expensive fuel-efficient car lowers the cost per mile, but it could encourage more driving and thus a higher total fuel consumption. A more expensive but efficient LED lightbulb potentially incentivizes increased electricity because bills are cheaper. So, as long as the ongoing savings over time outweigh the higher upfront cost and the marginal cost of use, the commodity is still effectively cheaper—thus incentivizing increased overall use and consunption. The upfront price is a red herring.
The necessity of dropping electricity use is overstated and ironically for all the coping third-worldists talking about how the west is going to have to pay, it's the third world showing us the way. Solar power installation has gone up far beyond anyone's predictions because it just works, you do not need any big centralised authority to do it for you. The sun is throwing free energy at us constantly. In the west you can run into this or that regulatory issue mucking everything up, but in the developing world people are buying solar systems out of pocket because they'd quite like to have electricity, actually.
And basically all the FUD is just that: FUD. recycling is trivial and only getting easier. batteries, both chemical and hydroelectric (another great power source btw) are easy too. they work in overcast conditions and at pretty high latitudes, they have no moving parts, they're cheap as can be and only getting cheaper, they are so brilliant that words can hardly do them justice. for all the cope and the seethe and the praying for degrowth, they show that you can decarbonise and still live better than ever before. all the little micro problems here and there are a triviality compared to the fact that for the first time ever we really do have basically free, clean, renewable energy.
>>2899627They want the burger and the big car precisely because you can go homeless at any time, if there’s no social garuantees the trade off is the treats with what disposable income or credit you have. If there’s a real, provable social floor you won’t be able to fall below the calculus changes.
>>2899634I don’t even think it’s electricity use as much as it’s red meat, electronics, and cheap plastic products especially kids toys
>>2899627>fuel efficient caris a matter of making the FUEL cheaper. FUEL is consumed upon use.
>A more expensive but efficient LEDis a matter of making the ELECTRICITY cheaper. ELECTRICITY is consumed upon use.
As I said
>when things that are expended upon usage are made cheaper and more efficient
>Westoids don’t want to reduce consumption thoughThere are plenty of people who are calling for reduction in consumption through calls for things like Right to Repair, hatred of planned obsolescence, and the widespread complaint that "everything breaks too fast/wasn't made like it used to". These are widely resented issues that are actively fought by capitalist corporations in court.
>>2899658The implication is you don’t deserve to have the car or the electronic or the piece of clothing in the first place, the problem is there’s no alternative. You give up your car and your clothes in America and you’re stranded and in jail for public indecency.
>>2899658>>fuel efficient car>is a matter of making the FUEL cheaper. FUEL is consumed upon use.>>A more expensive but efficient LED>is a matter of making the ELECTRICITY cheaper. ELECTRICITY is consumed upon use.Right, but reality doesn’t occur in a vacuum; your point is economically irrelevant at the macro level.
More expensive durable appliances are built to last longer than cheap junk, yes, but they also lead to an increase in consumption. The Industrial Revolution made engines more efficient and more durable, which lowered the total cost of mechanical power across the board, leading to an increase in coal consumption.
>There are plenty of people who are calling for reduction in consumption through calls for things like Right to Repair, hatred of planned obsolescence, and the widespread complaint that "everything breaks too fast/wasn't made like it used to". These are widely resented issues that are actively fought by capitalist corporations in court.Yes, but these are mostly social democrat liberal reforms that do not address the underlying problem. Consumption must be reduced, lifestyles have to change. This is true revolutionary action.
>>2899749Meaning we only wash clothes and have red meat once a week?
>>2895623TIL that at least switzerland, the nordics and ireland aren't imperialist
>>2896000I fucking love the first graph, because it demonstrates that you guys don't even read it.
Yes, 14% of the global population contributes only 14% of the output
>>2898382>the world is not hecking enough, we need like 5 earths n shitMinion: Sire, we have a monopoly on all the best food production machinery
Porky: Excellent
Minion: Sire, we produce food faster than any other agricultural corporations
Porky: Excellent
Minion: Sire, we have destroyed the competition
Porky: Excellent
Minion: Sire, we have fired all the unnecsesary workers
Porky: Excellent
Minion: Sire, we produce food so fast,t hat there is a large surplus, and the prices are plummeting, and the surplus cannot be sold profitably. Should we give away the surplus to those who need it?
Porky: No, we should burn it
Random Communist: WTF, we have to stop this wasteful destruction of food
Random idiot: You fool, you moron, actually the capitalist is right. we would need 5 earths to sustain your treatlerite consumption. it's a good thing he burns the food instead of iving it away. the problem si clearly a problem of consumption, and not one of production and distribution.
>>2898385>How much would this go down if we made fabrics and electronics that were durable and made to last?he won't answer because he thinks the problem is consumption and not waste
>>2899749>jevons paradox means we have to live like medieval paupersdoes it though
>>2897016So… should I support israel if I want to own a house?
>>2898460> If commodities lasted longer, people will just use that money to buy other commodities.Lol so this guy is a yankee zoomer with rich parents
>>2899809It’s both, but current levels of consumption are ecologically unsustainable. Read Hickel.
>>2899808>>2899812>>2899843>>2899851>t. Prolecattle brains rotted by commodity fetishismLess consumption ≠ lower standard of living
>>2898644My man he didn't reply to 3/4 of the questions brought up
>>2899866Too lazy. You guys just repeat the same questions/points anyway, so why waste my time?
>>2899863Which is exactly what I said.
Most of europe has a higer HDI while consuming less already; using the US as a refrence or proxy for general western consumption is nonsense, without even bringing up production.
>>2899868And you still don't reply for the simple reason that you can't without contradicting yourself
so when do we bring up the antinatal question or do we just reject that out of hand and endorse having thirty octodecillion even as we're forced to resort to an ever increasing pace of cannibalism and import carbon from space rocks
>>2899878once women all over the world, especialyl the third world, have abortion, birth control, contraception, sex education, reproductive rights, and a level of feminism at least equal to what Russia had in 1917, the natalism question will take care of itself, because nobody will want more than 1 or 2 children… until porky of course ramps up human cloning to create a new slave caste because AI doesn't work out
>>2899863>Less consumption ≠ lower standard of livingthat's literally what I argued here though:
>>2899082does imperialism really "benefit" the imperial core worker if it just turns them the fat chair people from Wall-E in the long run? Think of a child you're raising. If you spoil them, and give them everything, and never tell them know, they will become an awful person that everyone hates and will be shunned by society. That is what the capitalist class does to the imperial core labor aristocrat, which is why that it is wrong to characterize it as a "benefit" in any terms other than the extreme short term.
>>2899900Surveys show most hetero people want between 2 and 4 kids usually. They just can't afford it.
>>2898559>You keep conflating my latter point about consumption reduction with immiserationIf there is no immiseration then what interest do Western workers have in siding with their bourgeoisie over socialism? You keep talking about how Westerners need to work more and consume less (in the sense of actual consumers rather than just consuming resources through production), and that they have a material interest in supporting imperialism because of this. How can you square this with claiming that they wouldn't be immiserated by a post-capitalist and post-imperialist society?
>>2899905That's their expressed preference, not their revealed preference. People want kids when it comes with zero trade offs whatsoever, but there will always be trade offs. Even if having kids was free, it takes time, and people really really like their leisure time.
The idea that it's because of affordability is risible on the face of it. Within countries, people have less children as their income goes up until they get to the kind of wealth where you can pay someone else to look after your kids for you. Between countries, poorer countries generally have more children. You can explain part of this by kids being an economic asset in the really terrible ones without enforced child labour laws, sure, but only part. The
trade-offs part is much more effective at explaining the paradox within rich countries. The richest and the poorest have the least to lose, while the middle has to make trade-offs between other types of personal fulfilment and childbearing.
speaking personally: i would rather produce one really popular piece of media than have 1-2 kids. >>2899957You’re confusing immiseration with relative privilege. Under capitalism, there would absolutely be immiseration (which is partly why the labor aristocracy effect is so powerful). However, my point is that even if the core hypothetically turned "socialist," it would still have a material incentive to maintain its relative privilege over Earth’s finite resources in order to maintain consumption levels. Unequal exchange and imperialism would thus remain since the core’s consumption cannot be universalized, regardless of efficiency (this is an ecological fact btw). The Western core's use-value requirements, irrelevant of profit motivations, would still override the periphery’s needs, so the former must be curtailed heavily. The USSR maintained unequal exchange with its Central Asian republics and parts of the Global South for precisely this reason.
If the core's relative privilege is materially grounded in unequal ecological exchange, then the core cannot be counted on to voluntarily abolish that privilege as long as it can reliably reproduce it. Its working class may even defend it, as their existing use-value requirements—housing, transport, food, energy, mobility—are materially subsidized by the periphery. Therefore, the rupture has to come from where the system is most violently contradictory, the exploited countries themselves.
>>2900723>it would still have a material incentive to maintain its relative privilege over Earth’s finite resources in order to maintain consumption levels. but we literally throw out half of food under capitalism. if we had socialism it would all get distributed instead of thrown out. meaning "treatlers" could literally eat double without raising muh consoomption one iota. as for shit that isn't required or good for you like alcohol, cigarettes, heroin, cocaine, strippers, etc.
we won't have that stuff
if the west actually had socialist revolutions, production would be planned, and when production is planned to match the needs of the society, and consumption would be therefore limited by that plan. literally everyone ITT saying the socialist west would fight to keep its treats does not understand that all the people who consume the most treats would be defeated, jailed, killed, sent into exile in any revolution worthy of the name. the people carrying out the revolution would perfectly understand the problem of consumption needing to be sustainable . they would do everything in their power to raise productivity, lower consumption, and shift priorities to decrease the amount of labor time needed to produce ESSENTIALS like food ,water, shelter, education, and health care, while de-prioritizing sports cars, speedboats, cocaine, beer, strippers, video games.
>>2899905that number goes down once you have your first one and they turn out to be autistic because your sperm is 5% microplastics
>>2900731The problem isn't that Westerners are treatlerites in the sense of having sports cars, Funko Pops, or DoorDash. Those are easy to condemn and relatively marginal; obviously those things are a problem too, but this is surface-level analysis. The real material basis of Western World's relative privilege is the normalized, unsustainable use-value structure of everyday Western life: car-dependent infrastructure, meat-heavy diets, cheap aviation, air conditioning, imported food, endless logistics, and more. These things are used by large sections of the West's working class as ordinary necessities, not "treats." Planning them away would mean rebuilding the entire spatial and infrastructural organization of life in a way most Westerners would find highly uncomfortable, regardless if it was capitalist or socialist.
>>2900735> car-dependent infrastructure, not good for the treatlers, in fact bad for the treatlers
>meat-heavy diets, resulting in some of the highest colorectal cancer rates on earth outside of south korean kimchi eaters (the salt does it, not the cabbage). plus it costs way more land, water, energy to produce 2000 calories of meat than it does to produce 2000 calories of vegetable. same with 25g of meat protein vs. 25g of vegetable protein. And meat has no fiber. Meat production is overrated. Socialism would greatly reduce meat production to sustainable levels.
>cheap aviation,I go on a plane maybe once every 5-10 years and only if I absolutely need to. It's the bourgeoisie who hop on a private jet when they only need to travel 100 miles.
>air conditioning, ok people just die without that cuz of global warming. idk how to fix this one.
>imported food, the west is a net food producer. in fact a big part of imperialism is what michael hudson noted: the west provides the staple crops, and everyone else is forced to grow export crops that aren't essential for survival because their comprador bourgeoisie took out an IMF loan and that was one of the stipulations
>endless logistics, ok even socialism has logistics
>These things are used by large sections of the West's working class as ordinary necessities, not "treats."the necessities are food, water, shelter, health care, education. everything else is just cope and people are already used to a declining standard of living anyway. the revolutionary generation will be more prepared for it than any other because revolution always wrecks the standard of living.
>Planning them away would mean rebuilding the entire spatial and infrastructural organization of life in a way most Westerners would find highly uncomfortable, regardless if it was capitalist or socialist.revolution is uncomfortable. look. either you want humanity to have a future, or you want to revel in saturnalia while the world burns.
>>2900730>but we literally throw out half of food under capitalism. if we had socialism it would all get distributed instead of thrown out.This is true and nobody denies this. However, not all food is created equal. The Western World would still maintain a relative privilege over the type of food type it consumes and the embedded energy associated with it. Things that are all disproportionately consumed in the West like meat-heavy diets, dairy, processed foods, and year-round imported produce. Even if all food waste were eliminated, a Western diet built on high animal-product consumption would still be ecologically unsustainable and could not be universalized. The issue isn't just "more food for everyone," but a different diet and agricultural system that equally benefits everybody.
>>2900737Real or perceived personal harm isn't the same as relative privilege. The harm you're describing the harm is slow, diffuse, and often individual, while the benefits are immediate, concrete, and socially embedded.
At the end of the day, regardless of the harm associated, a Western worker is still more mobile and enjoys a much higher material abundance than most of the world. Even an occasional flight is an option billions lack. And the West can still be a net food exporter and still import high-footprint animal feed, out-of-season produce, and luxury crops that embody periphery land and water, often from countries whose own food security is undermined by export-oriented agriculture.
Those things, harmful as they can be, still materially places the Western working class above much of the periphery. Losing them will feel like downward mobility.
>>2900723>However, my point is that even if the core hypothetically turned "socialist," it would still have a material incentive to maintain its relative privilege over Earth’s finite resources in order to maintain consumption levels.then explain why other socialist societies went out of their way to improve the production and consumption and general standard of living when they took over other places? The USSR actually parasitized the fuck out of the Baltics, right?
Unique IPs: 24