'Consumer Consequences'

[ZeroNowhere]

So, is this game (http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/), and similar ones such as this (http://www.myfootprint.org/), credible? It doesn't seem like it, certainly. It does seem somewhat fishy, as well as seeming to be based on the whole semi-Puritan ideology that infests the general environmentalist movement, but as it is, it seems to (along with other such 'footprint calculators') have the potential to subtly persuade people that things such as socialism are impossible, and bring them into the 'feel guilty for not living a crappy lifestyle! Thank god for poverty, it saves the environment!' cult, and therefore it would be nice to know its veracity to make things easier, so does anybody have any articles, etc, on the credibility of 'climate footprint calculators' like these? It seems suspiciously like it's going to penalize you for taking up too many earths unless you always take the bus, don't grow your own food, never fly in a plane, don't drive your car to work, don't drink coffee (srsly), pack lots of people into a small house, etc, as any good guilt trip would do, and, unfortunately, it seems that somebody's going around hiding the 'get out of guilt free' cards. As it is, I've found articles for it (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13507_3-9780553-18.html) (with nothing to back up its credibility), and many similar suspicions about their credibility to mine, but nothing concrete that rips them apart.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I smell middle/upper class environmental hysteria.

[GPDP]

Ugh, I have a cousin who's into this shit hardcore. Not surprisingly, he's also privileged as fuck. Or was, until he started abusing psychedelics as per the hippie lifestyle, went batshit insane for a few weeks, and had almost everything taken away until he went back to normal.

Anyway, it is certainly not a bad thing to care about the environment (my house is almost completely covered in fluorescent bulbs, and I never litter or throw good food away), but frankly, I don't have time for guilt trip-ridden hippie liberal crap.

[Invincible Summer]

It's ironic that lots of these "green businesses" that try to guilt consumers into buying their "eco-friendly" products produce more waste; people will throw their old stuff away in favour of the "green" items.

EDIT: And carbon-offsets? What the fuck?!

[ZeroNowhere]

It's ironic that lots of these "green businesses" that try to guilt consumers into buying their "eco-friendly" products produce more waste; people will throw their old stuff away in favour of the "green" items.

EDIT: And carbon-offsets? What the fuck?!
Heh, it's awesome. I had found one similar game in which they also had a figure for 'Suggested Donation'. :laugh:

[Potemkin]

(This became a bit long. I split it into two posts to possibly make it easier to read. I apologize, but I think it raises some important points. I'd be happy to discuss these ideas more with anyone. Feel free to PM me or start a new thread.)

I took both of the footprint calculators that ZeroNowhere posted. Even though I seem to live substantially below the average American lifestyle, it would still take two earths to maintain my lifestyle!

The revolutionary critique of things like this is the critique of green capitalism in general. What is going on here is that these liberal environmental groups are blaming the individual for the destruction of the environment, rather than placing the blame on the corporations (which are the real problem). After all, who pollutes more: General Electric while they make "energy efficient" lightbulbs in foreign countries with lax environmental regulations and cheap labor, or even the most blatant working-class litterer?

What has happened is that capitalism has coopted the environmental movement, which by all accounts should (and must) be revolutionary and anti-capitalist. This movement is very critical of the lifestyle of the working class without ever mentioning the practices of the corporations or capitalism in general, as we can see by the "consumer calculator" that ZeroNowhere posted. As revolutionaries, we should never accept attacks on working-class lifestyles, as admittedly flawed as they are. We must instead loudly proclaim that it is the corporations, not the workers or working-class, that are the problem. Surely, this would energize a broad-based, revolutionary environmental movement.

Lifestyle calculators like these also ignore the fact that, even if one wanted to, it is impossible to live in a sustainable way in an advanced capitalist country. In these countries everything has been designed to prevent this, as this would mean a reduction in consumption. Of course, we all know that the motivating force of capitalism is its "grow or die" mentality -- new markets must be created, new goods must be produced. Who is to consume all of this? Why, those in the advanced capitalist countries, of course!

Green capitalism is a joke. It hopes to solve the environmental problem through consumption. To anyone that can think critically, this can't make any sense. Instead of buying a new energy efficient appliance, wait until your old one dies, and then get something energy efficient. I can't imagine all the landfill space being used up by non-energy-efficient appliances, and all the resources going into manufacturing new appliances before this needs to happen. What percent of old appliances are recycled? Big business doesn't care.

In addition, the myth that capitalism could ever use less resources is a blatant lie. Sure, GE or other companies might switch to green technologies, but what does this really mean? Green technologies are more efficient, allowing these companies to produce more with the same amount of resources. They will never reduce the amount of resources they consume. They will just use them more efficiently. From this, we can reasonably assume that capitalism will expand because of green technology! So, the only way to effectively live in a sustainable manner is to overthrow capitalism.

[Potemkin]

(This is the second part of this post. Again, I would love to discuss any of these ideas with you, so PM me if you're interested.)

This line of thought (the critique against green capitalism) is deeply rooted in social ecology as outlined by Murray Bookchin. For anyone interested, I would suggest the book Post Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin. He also authored many other books and articles that can be found online for free. I would also love to discuss these ideas with anyone that wants to PM me.

The basic idea is that, at this point in time, capitalism has spread from just an economic model into society at large (more accurately, it has destroyed large swathes of society, forcing needs that were once immaterial and satisfied by society to be satisfied by the market -- i.e. friendship becomes MySpace; this is what we mean when we say something has been "commodified").

Bookchin would argue that because of this, capitalism has been able to regulate almost all aspects of our existence -- particularly our relationships (to goods, to each other, to authority, etc.). Therefore, it is able to manage us during economic crises that come about due to its own internal contradictions (as we are currently seeing; where is the revolution? Even in Iceland, all that has come about is a change in government).

Bookchin concludes that advanced capitalism, then, will not be brought down due to these internal contradictions (because society is so well managed by capitalism).

It follows then, that the impetus for overthrowing capitalism lies in the external crises caused by capitalism, namely the ecological/environmental destruction it causes. If we want to continue to be able to live on this planet, and we want nature to survive, capitalism must be overthrown.

This means that the limits of capitalism are ecological, and the environmental issue should be at the forefront of a broad-based, anti-capitalist movement. The environmental movement must be a revolutionary movement.

Further, because this limit to capitalism is external to itself, this anti-capitalist movement can be transclass -- incorporating people from all classes, though Bookchin always emphasized workers' struggles as being highly important. This opens up the possibility of a broad-based, mass anti-capitalist movement. The genius part about this, though, is that even though the movement can be transclass, it must be revolutionary and anti-capitalist, so it still is not compatible with the ruling elite. Even though anyone can join in this movement, it will never represent the interests of those that would benefit from maintaining this current system.

Again, I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone. I know Bookchin is controversial. I'm just interested in discussing ideas and moving forward effectively toward revolutionary change. Flaming me won't do this, so please be constructive.

Thanks for reading.

[Lynx]

My first thought is that capitalism would react to an environmental crisis by extending market mechanisms onto what are currently considered to be 'externalities'.
An environmental crisis presents new market opportunities, as well as challenges.

[Potemkin]

I think it is assumed that capitalism will continue to spread until there is nothing left of the natural world. Its "grow or die" mentality assures us of this. This is what causes the environmental crisis. The big problem is that the earth has finite resources.

Bookchin saw capitalism as a process of degrading the ability of earth to support complex life. We can see this everywhere, from habitat destruction to pollution of the air and water. This external crisis then becomes an issue of survival -- not only of ourselves, but most other life, as well. This is where the revolutionary impetus comes from. To live ecologically, or be able to live at all, capitalism must be overthrown.

I would agree with Bookchin that capitalism and the relations it has control over are well managed, but capitalism doesn't have control over crises external to it. I think that is what necessitates the environmental movement to be revolutionary and anti-capitalist. This keeps it from being coopted. Once the movement starts saying, "We're consumers and we need to change our habits," then capitalism can come in and point the finger at us, and the whole thing degenerates into what we're seeing today.

[Lynx]

The drive for profit almost guarantees that resources will be exploited to their limit and trigger a tragedy of the commons, even when held as private property. Yet technology has the potential to save us from our own excesses.

I have doubts whether environmental solutions can be framed as requiring a revolutionary change. Eco-capitalists believe that market mechanisms can be used to emulate environmental policy. This orthodox reformist approach needs to be discredited.

Consumerism has typically been manipulated by savvy producers. They have no choice but to make green consumers believe they are green and doing their very best. Riiiiiiight.

I'm an environmentalist so you're preaching to the choir here. I'll have to read up on Bookchin and social ecology.

[Vanguard1917]

I think it is assumed that capitalism will continue to spread until there is nothing left of the natural world. Its "grow or die" mentality assures us of this. This is what causes the environmental crisis. The big problem is that the earth has finite resources.

Bookchin saw capitalism as a process of degrading the ability of earth to support complex life. We can see this everywhere, from habitat destruction to pollution of the air and water. This external crisis then becomes an issue of survival -- not only of ourselves, but most other life, as well.

This is a very one-sided interpretation of capitalism. Capitalism has destructive characteristics, but also dynamic ones. Yes, capitalism, as a system of production that is not consciously planned, will inevitably have certain negative effects on our material surroundings. This should be exposed and criticised.

However, capitalism, with its development of economic and social life, has also produced positive and progressive outcomes for our natural environment. If we judge the wellbeing of nature according to its ability to sustain human life -- i.e. from a human-centred perspective -- then we could point out that the earth has, in many aspects, never before been in better shape than it is today, since it has never before in human history been more suited to human inhabitation than it is today. For the most part, people are living longer and healthier lives than they ever did under any previous historical epoch. On the whole, we are objectively far less vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature (disease, drought, famine, earthquakes, etc.). As a result of the industrial and technological progress, as well as the creation of a more integrated world, which has accompanied capitalism, humanity today is in a far better position to deal with threats to its existence, in terms of objectively possessing the tools and resources to defend itself and advance. And as a result of the revolution in scientific outlook that went hand in hand with revolutionary capitalism, we possess an understanding of nature that is based on principles far more rational than anything which came before.*

From a forward-looking, progressive, Marxist perspective, the problem with capitalism is not so much its thirst for economic development as its inability to provide enough development, economic, technological, social and cultural. Capitalism's inherent contradictions mean that the bulk of humanity does not have access to the best that modern, industrial society produces. We need a system which is able to give way to producing the wealth and equality which the whole of humanity deserves, building, through revolutionary change, on the collosal historical achievements of capitalism. That's the historical justification for socialism.


To live ecologically, or be able to live at all, capitalism must be overthrown.


And replaced with what?


*
"Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature-idolatry. For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility; ceases to be recognized as a power for itself; and the theoretical discovery of its autonomous laws appears merely as a ruse so as to subjugate it under human needs, whether as an object of consumption or as a means of production. In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature worship, as well as all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. It is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the all-sided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces."
- Marx, Grundrisse

[Potemkin]

(Let me preface this with saying that I enjoy discussing these issues. What I am going to say is perhaps blasphemous to some, but it's important not to take any of it personally. I am only interested in uncovering and expanding on a coherent and contemporary analysis of our present situation so we can move forward in an effective and positive manner to overthrow capitalism and the state. I would love to hear responses, but flaming does not help either side toward moving forward effectively.)

Vanguard1917,

The problem with marxism is that its analysis of capitalism is stuck in previous centuries. We must have an analysis of the current, advanced stage of capitalism, which marxism can't really help us with. We must be honest and frank about what is correct and incorrect with previous analyses. Unfortunately, marxism (for supposedly being "scientific") often fails to do this.

I would argue that your arguments highlight marxism's conservative and reactionary elements. That marxism's analysis leads it to be an apologist for capitalism is disturbing to me. That marxism seemingly has no analysis of the current environmental crisis caused by capitalism, that erodes the quality of life of every human (not to mention non-human, and in the long-term threatens all life on the planet), is also disturbing to me.

You say that capitalism has "dynamic" characteristics. If by this you mean it has the capacity to adapt to keep itself in power, then we are in agreement. Especially now, in this advanced stage, capitalism is highly managing (having extended itself into the social sphere, regulating almost all of our relationships). This allows capitalism to survive crises caused by internal contradictions (i.e. economic crises). This refutes the common marxist assertion that capitalism will collapse under its own weight, due to increasing periods of economic crisis, making marxism a bit inconsistent here. The day that capitalism's watchwords change from "maximization of profit" and "grow or die" is the day we shall no longer live under capitalism.

Perhaps in your argument you were referring mainly to the advanced capitalist countries, which is not a problem. After all, that's where most of us (on this forum) live, so the analysis for us should reflect our situation. However, this overlooks the extreme environmental damage that capitalism does to the less advanced countries. Coca-Cola poisoning India's groundwater or Monsanto destroying farmers' wellbeing spring immediately to mind (for more, read Vandana Shiva). I don't think people in places like this would argue that capitalism has improved their wellbeing or ability to survive (indeed, people are dying of poisoned water and committing suicide by the thousands for being forced into debts they can never repay, in the examples cited above).

Secondly, saying that capitalism has made the planet better able "to sustain human life" and that the earth "has never before been in better shape than it is today" seems conservative and reactionary, given our current situation of increasing unrest due to environmental destruction brought on largely by the capitalist system causing (or at least rapidly accelerating) global warming. Shouldn't we hold up this external contradiction of capitalism as a primary argument for its overthrow?

We are in agreement that people live longer lives today than previously. Perhaps this happened under capitalism, but it is just as easy to imagine this happening under a more liberatory form of social and economic organization. After all, science and technology have existed prior to capitalism, and will exist in a revolutionary society.

I think the idea that humans are in a struggle against nature is simply outdated. Now, more than ever, we have the ability to live in harmony with nature. We should not view it as an obstacle to be overcome. This is another instance of marxism relying on ideas whose time has long since passed.

For a supposedly revolutionary ideology, marxism (as you have argued for it), seems to give much too much credit to capitalism. As an anarchist-communist, I reject the historical determinism from which marxists analyze the world. We are agents and have agency: we are able to make meaningful decisions to change the course of events. That capitalism arose is a sad fact, but the outcome could have been different, especially with the knowledge we have today. Capitalism should be viewed more as an unfortunate side-step in humanity's evolution toward a rational, egalitarian, humanistic, ecological society rather than the unavoidable historic necessity marxists assign it.

Your argument for the historical justification of socialism is not compelling to me. Basically, there is nothing wrong with capitalism other than its refusal to distribute things equally? This means that your socialism is simply a more egalitarian capitalism. I hope a revolutionary society to be much more than that.

On to your criticism of my argument: I would argue for an anarchist-communist society. This involves need-based production and distribution, elimination of the wage system, and the development of science and technology toward liberatory and sustainable ends. It involves a more equaly distribution of population over the planet, the formation of municipalities (or communes, communities, or neighborhoods) that are decentralized and federative. It involves coming together in mutual aid and solidarity -- each contributing what they can and in turn each receiving what they need to survive.

Let's make this clear: my argument is not an advocation of primitivism. Here, I share many of the same criticisms of primitivism as marxists undoubtedly do (for some of my thoughts, see the current primitivist discussion happening here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-primitivism-thoughtsi-t102015/index.html) -- my post is #18).

My analysis is human centered (a benevolent anthropocentrism, as I see it), and is rooted directly in the Enlightenment ideals of reason, rationality, freethought, and egalitarianism.

Our consciousness is a unique evolutionary adaptation that we shouldn't reject, but embrace. We can live in harmony with the earth. We can apply our science and technology in ways that allow us to have the comforts of modern society, while being good stewards of the land -- even applying our science and technology to our surroundings to help the earth bloom (and no, this isn't an argument for GMO food). All animals adapt or alter their environment, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. I would argue that we have done this in an irrational way, and without taking other factors (such as the environment and our relationship to it) into consideration. We must think and act as a part of nature, albeit an important part. It is precisely because we have an important role in nature that we must use our rationality to live in accordance with it. We have a commitment (I would argue an ethical imperative) to do so.

[Vanguard1917]

Perhaps in your argument you were referring mainly to the advanced capitalist countries, which is not a problem. After all, that's where most of us (on this forum) live, so the analysis for us should reflect our situation. However, this overlooks the extreme environmental damage that capitalism does to the less advanced countries. Coca-Cola poisoning India's groundwater or Monsanto destroying farmers' wellbeing spring immediately to mind (for more, read Vandana Shiva). I don't think people in places like this would argue that capitalism has improved their wellbeing or ability to survive (indeed, people are dying of poisoned water and committing suicide by the thousands for being forced into debts they can never repay, in the examples cited above).



The key reason why poor countries are more vulnerable to environmental problems is their poverty and lack of development. It's no coincidence that more people die of natural disasters in backward countries than in the advanced West. As i argued, lack of development makes us more vulnerable to nature's caprice, not less. And while no one here would defend the foul conduct of corporations and banks in India, to me it seems pretty evident that Western environmentalists (who overwhelmingly come from privileged middle and upper class backgrounds} cynically use such incidences as a stick with which to beat development in general.

I'm not sure how can you can claim that development in India has not "improved [Indian people's] wellbeing or ability to survive". Take a look at the empirical evidence. Life expectancy, public health, literacy rates -- these have all been affected in a positive way by economic development in India. Of course India remains a poverty-stricken country, and no one would doubt that. But it was worse prior to development, not better.


We are in agreement that people live longer lives today than previously. Perhaps this happened under capitalism, but it is just as easy to imagine this happening under a more liberatory form of social and economic organization. After all, science and technology have existed prior to capitalism, and will exist in a revolutionary society.


Scientific and technological progress do not come about in a social vacuum, but under certain social and economic conditions. You can't remove such change from the historical conditions that gave rise to them.



I would argue that your arguments highlight marxism's conservative and reactionary elements.


I would argue that it's the environmentalist perspective that is conservative and, in key ways, reactionary. Marxism looks to build on already existing progress through revolutionary change. Your perspective seems to insist that the solution to the world's problems is not so much radical change but the practice of greater restraint.

To me, that's the definition of conservatism.



Your argument for the historical justification of socialism is not compelling to me. Basically, there is nothing wrong with capitalism other than its refusal to distribute things equally? This means that your socialism is simply a more egalitarian capitalism. I hope a revolutionary society to be much more than that.



It is much more that. The central historical justification for socialism is that it is a more advanced mode of production, not that it creates a better system of distribution. Indeed, that's why socialism, from the Marxist view, necessitates revolution: if the problem with capitalism is a simple flaw in distribution, then arguably all that's needed is reform of the existing system. Instead, if the problem with capitalism is that it's a bankrupt mode of production, riddled with inherent contradictions that it ultimately cannot solve, the only solution can be revolutionary change and the establishment of a more advanced mode of production.



That marxism's analysis leads it to be an apologist for capitalism is disturbing to me.


Why is that apologism for capitalism? Marxists grasp that capitalism has played an important historical role, and indeed that socialism could not be possible without, to paraphrase Marx, the fruits with which capitalism enriched humanity. But capitalism is stuck and cannot move further forward. That can only have radical implications.

I would argue, and have argued extensively in the past, that it's environmentalism which provides apologism for the status quo. In arguing that capitalism gives way to too much development, environmentalism provides very convenient apologism for what is objectively capitalism's most serious problem -- its inability to adequately advance the productive forces of society.

[Lynx]

And replaced with what?
As you have been told repeatedly, with a sustainable socio-economic system.

Do you believe capitalism is sustainable?
Will technological advances save capitalism and make it sustainable?
If not,
Will people believe they have no choice but to live in a degraded, poverty stricken world or will they demand something better?
Will they accept eco-capitalism or demand socialism?

[Vanguard1917]

As you have been told repeatedly, with a sustainable socio-economic system.

That's a pretty meaningless eco-phrase; obviously no one wants anything that isn't 'sustainable'. I want to know what kind of society is being proposed. For most environmentalists, the answer to that question is a society which places even greater restraints on production and consumption than that which already exists.



Will people believe they have no choice but to live in a degraded, poverty stricken world or will they demand something better?
Will they accept eco-capitalism or demand socialism?


But we are already too rich according to environmentalists -- there is already too much mass consumption. For environmentalists, people should demand less, not more. It's for this reason that eco-demands can never appeal to the wider public. Working class people will not want to voluntarily accept reductions to their living standards, and nor should they. While socialism calls for greater mass wealth, environmentalism calls for the opposite.

[Potemkin]

(Forgive these long posts. I appreciate everyone who actually reads the whole thing. Vanguard -- perhaps these are getting too far off the original topic. I'd be happy to create a new thread where we could discuss these ideas more openly, and perhaps get more participation.)

Vanguard,

I don't know why you would lump people with an explicitly revolutionary analysis of capitalism and the environment with the liberal environmental movement. Do you not see that these are two completely different things? Your logic, that a revolutionary environmental movement cannot exist because it is already liberal, is fatally flawed. Marxists often participate in the bourgeois electoral system. By your own logic, that makes those marxists bourgeois. Not that I'm defending participating in electoral politics (as an anarchist-communist, I believe in social revolution). I'm just showing that your logic is flawed. Your marxism seems fairly inconsistent.

It's sad that marxists' obsession with materialism leads to them viewing people as no more than producers and consumers, just as capitalism does. I thought that was something we wanted to overcome? It seems insulting to reduce people to just producers or consumers. Certainly, the revolutionary society that I'm striving towards allows for the fulfillment of human potential, allowing us to lead the lives we want -- to be the friends, relatives, community members, neighbors, citizens that we wish we could be, were we not slaving away 40 hours a week just to pay to live.

Additionally, it is unfortunate that you choose to equate "capitalism" with "development" and "progress." Is it really progress to live in a society that values greed and competition above all else? Why are you measuring progress by the amount of useless trinkets that are produced?


Scientific and technological progress do not come about in a social vacuum, but under certain social and economic conditions. You can't remove such change from the historical conditions that gave rise to them.


So you are arguing then, that progress can only come about in a capitalist system? There would be no progress in a revolutionary society? This seems absurd. Yes, "scientific and technological progress" has been made under capitalism, but it could have happened under an anarchist-communist (true communist) society, or a socialist or libertarian socialist society as well. My point is that things could have been different. Capitalism wasn't inevitable, and we have the power to change things.


I would argue that it's the environmentalist perspective that is conservative and, in key ways, reactionary.... Your perspective seems to insist that the solution to the world's problems is not so much radical change but the practice of greater restraint.

You seem to be trying to intentionally mislead. As stated earlier, why do you lump a revolutionary ecology perspective in with liberal environmentalism? I'm sure I have most of the same criticisms of the environmental movement as you do. In fact, if you read my first post on this thread, I criticize so-called "green capitalism" as well as the liberal environmental movement.

Also, tell me how my earlier posts about radically restructuring society, analyzing advanced capitalism, calling for its overthrow, and putting in its place something more egalitarian, that meets the needs of all while still living in tune with the natural world is not radical? Where do I advocate that working people should practice greater restraint? In fact, I said that they should reject attacks on their lifestyles by green capitalism and lay blame at the foot of corporations, where it belongs. I call for a revolutionary movement that is infused with a radical, social ecological perspective.

As for marxism being apologism for capitalism: According to Oxford, an apologist is one "who offers an argument in defense of something controversial." In revolutionary circles, capitalism is controversial. However, you have defended it as "progress," and "development," to say the least. Marxists apparently feel that, (because in their analysis) capitalism had to occur, we need to thank it ever so kindly for all the "progress" it has made in getting us where we are today, but they (marxists) will take it from here.

I don't inherently have a problem with the "central historical justification for socialism" that you outlined. The problem with that, though, is that capitalism has reached a point where it can manage its internal contradictions to the point of surviving any potential upheaval by the people during times of economic crisis. It weathered the Great Depression just fine. The point of this is that capitalism will not be overthrown through increasing economic crises. So what will lead to its overthrow? The external crisis that it creates in its destruction of the environment. It cannot manage that, it's own laws of "maximization of profit" and "grow or die" won't allow it.

Unfortunately, this is a problem with marxism that must be addressed. It's analysis of capitalism is about a century too old. Technologically, we have the ability to feed everyone and to reduce the amount and intensity of labor. We don't need any increase in productive capacity. We need technology to be used toward liberatory ends. We have the potential to realize a post-scarcity society.

Most marxists don't realize this.


n the advanced capitalist countries, the very progress of technology has removed one of the most important reasons for the existence of the "socialist state" -- the need (in the words of Marx and Engels) "to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." To loiter any longer around the issues of a "planned economy" and a "socialist state" -- issues created by an earlier stage of capitalism and by a lower stage of technological development -- would be sectarian cretinism.

Today, as we stand at the end of hierarchical society's [as manifested by capitalism and the state] development, its negative and positive aspects can no longer be reconciled.... All the institutions and values of hierarchical society have exhausted their "historically necessary" functions. No longer is there any social rationale for property and classes, for monogamy and patriarchy, for hierarchy and authority, for bureacracy and the state.

Hence the reactionary aspect of the socialist project, which still retains the concepts of hierarchy, authority and the state as part of humanity's post-revolutionary future. By implication this project also retains the concepts of property ("nationalized"), and classes ("proletarian dictatorship"). The various "orthodox" marxists (maoists, trotskyists, stalinists, and the hybridized sects that combine all three tendencies) mediate the negative and positive features of the overall social development ideologically -- [I]precisely at a time when they have never been more irreconcilable objectively. --Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism


I didn't want to have to dust off the gospels of Saint Marx and Engels, but here's an Engels quote:


Abolition of the antithesis between town and country is not merely possible. It has become a direct necessity. ...the present poisoning of the air, water and land can be put to an end only by the fusion of town and country. -- Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring

This synthesis of town and country speaks to the creation of ecological, sustainable, revolutionary communities. This is one of the bases for Murray Bookchin's ideas on social ecology and post-scarcity anarchism.

As for your other post -- I already outlined my proposal for an ecological, anarchist-communist society in a previous post to this thread. Again, you lump revolutionaries into the liberal, bourgeois environmental movement.

[Vanguard1917]

It's sad that marxists' obsession with materialism leads to them viewing people as no more than producers and consumers, just as capitalism does. I thought that was something we wanted to overcome? It seems insulting to reduce people to just producers or consumers. Certainly, the revolutionary society that I'm striving towards allows for the fulfillment of human potential, allowing us to lead the lives we want -- to be the friends, relatives, community members, neighbors, citizens that we wish we could be, were we not slaving away 40 hours a week just to pay to live.

I don't view people as 'no more than producers and consumers'. I view production and consumption as facts of life, and i recognise that people who live in material poverty cannot be free.


Additionally, it is unfortunate that you choose to equate "capitalism" with "development" and "progress." Is it really progress to live in a society that values greed and competition above all else? Why are you measuring progress by the amount of useless trinkets that are produced?


Capitalism is historically progressive compared to previous epochs. I don't 'equate "capitalism" with "development" and "progress."' On the contrary, i said that capitalism needs to be replaced precisely because it holds back development and progress.


Abolition of the antithesis between town and country is not merely possible. It has become a direct necessity. ...the present poisoning of the air, water and land can be put to an end only by the fusion of town and country. -- Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring

Engels's point is that the division between town and country needs to be abolished by a greater distribution of industry throughout the land, as opposed to a few industrial centres. Read the sentence prior to the one you quoted:

"Only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production."

And:

"The abolition of the separation of town and country is therefore not utopian, also, in so far as it is conditioned on the most equal distribution possible of modern industry over the whole country."

That is not an environmentalist pro-rural opposition to urbanisation and development. On the contrary, Marxism calls for a greater development of the countryside in order to raise it to the economic, social and cultural level of the town.

As Trotsky explained, this is of vital importance to the socialist project:

'Developed socialism means above all technical and cultural levelling as between town and country, i.e., the dissolving of both town and country into homogeneous economic and cultural conditions. That is why the mere bringing closer together of town and country is a question of life and death for us.'



As for your other post -- I already outlined my proposal for an ecological, anarchist-communist society in a previous post to this thread. Again, you lump revolutionaries into the liberal, bourgeois environmental movement.


Actually, in my view, 'radical' environmentalists (e.g. 'deep greens') are often a lot worse than their more mainstream 'liberal' counterparts. But i do respect their honesty; in contrast to the more mainstream eco-miserabilists, those on the fringes tend to be more open about their hatred of progress and humanity.

[Potemkin]

The social ecology position is neither liberal environmentalism, deep ecology, or primitivism. It is a revolutionary ecological analysis rooted in the Enlightenment ideals of reason, rationality, freethought, and egalitarianism. Progress can (and must) be made within the framework of ecological harmony. Technology can help us maintain the benefits of modern life while also minimizing our environmental impact. Sadly, capitalism prevents this from happening. Social ecology places a high value on the liberatory aspects of science and technology.

The social ecology position does not hate progress or humanity, and is firmly in opposition to those negative philosophies. Remember, Vanguard, you were the one attacking this position without seemingly knowing much about it. We probably have much in common.

Sadly, you have been unable to refute criticism about contemporary marxism's inability to take advanced capitalism into their analysis. They seemingly do not take the current environmental issue -- an issue that is fundamentally anti-capitalist (and very pressing) -- into account.

Would you like to take this to a new thread to explore this debate further?

I urge anyone interested in these ideas to read Post-Scarcity Anarchism, or most other works of Murray Bookchin, as an introduction to these ideas. Everyone is welcome to PM me, as well.

[Vanguard1917]

I would argue that Marxism provides a very powerful response to the fact that environmental problems exist -- one that's rooted in the understanding that it's through further economic development, planned consciously by humanity, that we can increase human domination over nature and thus subjugate it to the human will so that we are less vulnerable to its destructive aspects. Generally speaking, the more developed a society, the less vulnerable it is to natural threats. As i've argued, this has revolutionary implications, since capitalism can't provide the kind of development that humanity requires.

You say that your perspective is 'firmly in opposition' to the bulk of the environmental movement. However, from what i can see, you share some of the central prejudices of that movement.

[Lynx]

That's a pretty meaningless eco-phrase; obviously no one wants anything that isn't 'sustainable'.
If nobody wants it, then why are we on an unsustainable course towards environmental and social collapse?

I want to know what kind of society is being proposed. For most environmentalists, the answer to that question is a society which places even greater restraints on production and consumption than that which already exists.
Their proposal is based on the premise that capitalism, as it is currently being practiced, is unsustainable. In other words, if nothing were done, there would be environmental and social collapse. You are free to argue otherwise.

But we are already too rich according to environmentalists -- there is already too much mass consumption. For environmentalists, people should demand less, not more. It's for this reason that eco-demands can never appeal to the wider public. Working class people will not want to voluntarily accept reductions to their living standards, and nor should they. While socialism calls for greater mass wealth, environmentalism calls for the opposite.
Then there should be no worries. Mainstream flavours of environmentalism will be rejected and capitalism will be allowed to meet its destiny.

[Vanguard1917]

Their proposal is based on the premise that capitalism, as it is currently being practiced, is unsustainable. In other words, if nothing were done, there would be environmental and social collapse. You are free to argue otherwise.



Yes, in order to protect the environment we need a society which further restrains production and consumption. That's the argument and it's explicitly conservative.



Then there should be no worries. Mainstream flavours of environmentalism will be rejected and capitalism will be allowed to meet its destiny.


Do you feel the working class should accept environmentalist demands that living standards need to be lowered?

[Elect Marx]

I SUGGEST EVERYONE READ Production-side environmentalism -- Can we produce less and consume more? (http://links.org.au/node/843).

This is very likely the best article I have ever read about environmentalism and is very much worth the time to read.

This gives figures to the waste and disregard of human needs we see every day. I can't remember the last time I was so infuriated reading... perhaps it was reading up on Blackwater, the bailout is pretty sickening too.

I rarely ever hear discussion on the impact of militarism on ecology and this is essential! I wont take too much time to summarize the article; JUST READ IT!

[apathy maybe]

NO NO NO! DON'T YOU SEE! If you reduce pollution, that means that less animals will die! We can't have that!

And tanks, we need tanks, we can't just stop producing them. And and and... And if we don't bomb stuff, how else can we stimulate the economy? We have to be able to bomb stuff, so that workers can get paid and then they can buy more!

[Lynx]

Do you feel the working class should accept environmentalist demands that living standards need to be lowered?
No. (Assuming these demands are not imposed or become inevitable)

I SUGGEST EVERYONE READ Production-side environmentalism -- Can we produce less and consume more? (http://links.org.au/node/843).

This is very likely the best article I have ever read about environmentalism and is very much worth the time to read.

This gives figures to the waste and disregard of human needs we see every day. I can't remember the last time I was so infuriated reading... perhaps it was reading up on Blackwater, the bailout is pretty sickening too.

I rarely ever hear discussion on the impact of militarism on ecology and this is essential! I wont take too much time to summarize the article; JUST READ IT!
An excellent article. It uncovers inefficiencies not readily apparent to the usual analysis of this topic.

[John Lenin]

Consumer Consequence

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/32/l_d95f0bf31023db3991daafbff34d9364.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

John Lenin, consider this a verbal warning, no more just posting pictures without contributing to the discussion.