China is now tied w/Japan as #2 economy in the world.

[R_P_A_S]

I was reading last night how China has tied Japan for the #2 spot in "the world's largest economies" the US being #1 obviously. It also states that it surpassed Germany as the world's largest exported.

China's per capita income is only $3,600 dollars a year right above El Salvador! Supposedly they have the world's largest working class at 400 million +. What does this mean? I'd like to think the majority of chinese working class is rather smart and probably more politically conscious than The US and Japan's right? Don't they realized they are getting screwed? Their "communist" "government" sold them out. They turned them into a big sweat shop paradise for the rest of the world.

Do you guys think China is possibly the best place for a revolution to take place? Or has this opportunity gone out the window as they are so fixed on catching up with American's capitalist culture? DO we really have room for two capitalist superpowers 10-20 years down the road?

[Queercommie Girl]

The Chinese working class is waking up.

"When China wakes up, the world will tremble!"

[the last donut of the night]

The recent strikes in Southern China, from what I've read are very much militant and class conscious. I remember one worker was interviewed and he stressed the oppression inherent to capitalism, class struggle, and how new independent unions were needed to be formed.

[R_P_A_S]

Now this might not be the most articulate or correct way to put things into context but it sort of helps me understand things a little better now bear with me:

America has enjoyed prosperous growth and lots of luxuries for quite some time now. It boom in the 50's and I feel the 80's was when it enjoyed much of it's "growth" I know I know there were tons of economic shifts and shit hit the fan for most working class people with Reganomics. BUT! I'm talking about all the countless bullshit that people enjoyed as "freedom" and shit;

Drive Thru at McDonalds,
Hershey's chocolate syrup,
Frozen TV dinners,
Big Trucks,
Pop Culture and all the bullshit that made American's feel better and
"freer-er" than the rest of the world!

All this senseless bullshit doesn't matter to us anymore. I remember when I first came to America. I was in awe on how cool it was to get little hamburgers from your car window in a cool box! (happy meals)

Chinese people have never really experienced these things and there for they are like 30 years behind than us on capitalist novelties The culture of consumerism and individualism is new to them and they are gonna ride till the wheels fall off! Just as we in the USA have been doing it for 50 plus years.

Why would the new chinese working class wanna go back to the "socialism or communism" their parents lived in? Screw that! they want the cool shit America has enjoyed for over half a century... This is why I feel that no revolution can come from China.. I hope I'm wrong.

[R_P_A_S]

The recent strikes in Southern China, from what I've read are very much militant and class conscious. I remember one worker was interviewed and he stressed the oppression inherent to capitalism, class struggle, and how new independent unions were needed to be formed.

Also I may add! I remember 4 or 5 years ago. I used to use MSN Messenger a lot. And around 2005 and 06 there was a big rise in Chinese MSN Messenger users. They would always message me wanting to be friends and shit. Eventually it died out. All of the sudden I'm getting 16 year old kids messaging me on Skype trying to learn about America and asking shit about Twighlight and Justin Bieber. This makes me wonder about the state of the youth.

[bailey_187]

Now this might not be the most articulate or correct way to put things into context but it sort of helps me understand things a little better now bear with me:

America has enjoyed prosperous growth and lots of luxuries for quite some time now. It boom in the 50's and I feel the 80's was when it enjoyed much of it's "growth" I know I know there were tons of economic shifts and shit hit the fan for most working class people with Reganomics. BUT! I'm talking about all the countless bullshit that people enjoyed as "freedom" and shit;

Drive Thru at McDonalds,
Hershey's chocolate syrup,
Frozen TV dinners,
Big Trucks,
Pop Culture and all the bullshit that made American's feel better and
"freer-er" than the rest of the world!

All this senseless bullshit doesn't matter to us anymore. I remember when I first came to America. I was in awe on how cool it was to get little hamburgers from your car window in a cool box! (happy meals)

Chinese people have never really experienced these things and there for they are like 30 years behind than us on capitalist novelties The culture of consumerism and individualism is new to them and they are gonna ride till the wheels fall off! Just as we in the USA have been doing it for 50 plus years.

Why would the new chinese working class wanna go back to the "socialism or communism" their parents lived in? Screw that! they want the cool shit America has enjoyed for over half a century... This is why I feel that no revolution can come from China.. I hope I'm wrong.


why are burgers, big trucks, chocolate and TV meals incompatible with socialism? :confused:

shouldnt socialism and communism offer workers more, of what you call "luxuries", to consume?

"Peace, Land and a little less Bread!"....

[Queercommie Girl]

In criticising US culture, one should focus on criticising its ultra-competitive ultra-individualistic elements, not stupid things like "TV meals" and "burgers".

[R_P_A_S]

you guys are to caught up in your books. I'm just saying that the stuff that America loved about "living in america" (note the stupid things i mentioned) is now the stuff that Chinese youth is finding cool 30, 20 years later.

G-SUS!

Imagine if you were a typical American with no class consciousness and you thought all that stupid consumerist shit was cool too. Would you want that taken away? I think not!

[Widerstand]

Would you want that taken away? I think not!

While I get your argument that Chinese youth are inspired to live like the Western rolemodels, ergo more capitalistic and neo-liberal pleasures, and to some extent agree with it, I wonder: Are you one of the people that define communism as "no luxuries for anyone"? Cos I'd rather fight for "luxuries for everyone".

[bailey_187]

Imagine if you were a typical American with no class consciousness and you thought all that stupid consumerist shit was cool too. Would you want that taken away? I think not!

But "stupid consumerist" stuff quite often is "cool" though. Many people (myself included) think McDonalds taste nice, big trucks look fun to drive and TV meals are convenient. So you are correct, people would not want this stuff taken away. But me neither. I dont see why it would be taken away by Communism though.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I was reading last night how China has tied Japan for the #2 spot in "the world's largest economies" the US being #1 obviously. It also states that it surpassed Germany as the world's largest exported.

China's per capita income is only $3,600 dollars a year right above El Salvador! Supposedly they have the world's largest working class at 400 million +. What does this mean? I'd like to think the majority of chinese working class is rather smart and probably more politically conscious than The US and Japan's right? Don't they realized they are getting screwed? Their "communist" "government" sold them out. They turned them into a big sweat shop paradise for the rest of the world.

Do you guys think China is possibly the best place for a revolution to take place? Or has this opportunity gone out the window as they are so fixed on catching up with American's capitalist culture? DO we really have room for two capitalist superpowers 10-20 years down the road?

I wouldn't particularly say that the Communist government sold them out. When you hear about all these worker strikes taking place in China, these are taking place at the "Special Economic Zones". Though the worker strikes & protests have been supported the CPC. Even the Workers World has said the same thing about the CPC:

http://www.workers.org/2010/world/china_0805/

When it comes to how far the government is putting themselves out in the front to help protect their workers, I would recommend reading this:

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/how-the-communist-party-of-china-safeguards-workers-interests-during-crisis/

In fact, whether one wants to call Deng Xiaoping a revisionist or not is up to the individual, but even if he was (not saying he wasn't, he was definitely a centrist) revisionism does not imply that Capitalism has been restored. If we analyze the situation in the Soviet Union, although revisionism was embraced when Khrushchev came to power, Capitalism was yet to have been restored until after Gorbachev's ruling. We must also realize that, even though after the Cultural Revolution it did bring the majority of Chinese people together as a whole, the country was still vastly underdeveloped & in need of modernizing.

To this day, over half of the economy is State-owned enterprises, which is collectively owned between the State & the workers. There's only a minority sign of the means of production being privately owned, with the majority of it being publicly owned.

The people of China have advanced within the Struggle, & Socialism still exists. Though, it's being continuously beaten down by these private corporations within the SEZ's, which is why we're witnessing massive amounts of worker strikes within China. China has become far more developed now thanks to the CPC, this can be clearly seen here:

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-chinese-economy-in-1978/

[Queercommie Girl]

But "stupid consumerist" stuff quite often is "cool" though. Many people (myself included) think McDonalds taste nice, big trucks look fun to drive and TV meals are convenient. So you are correct, people would not want this stuff taken away. But me neither. I dont see why it would be taken away by Communism though.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with McDonalds provided:

1) it becomes collectively owned;

2) the burgers become healthier to eat.

[R_P_A_S]

communism will not take those "luxuries" away. Because odds are in their life time they will never reach this. BUT revolt and the on going struggle for change will become a priority and their new found love for consumerist shit will be put at the back of the line or terminated.

[Queercommie Girl]

communism will not take those "luxuries" away. Because odds are in their life time they will never reach this. BUT revolt and the on going struggle for change will become a priority and their new found love for consumerist shit will be put at the back of the line or terminated.

Human need is primarily material. As Marx pointed out, one must be able to feed and clothe himself/herself before he/she could engage in art and philosophy.

It's true though that capitalist consumerism has increased people's materialistic desires in certain ways beyond their actual needs.

[~Spectre]

I was reading last night how China has tied Japan for the #2 spot in "the world's largest economies" the US being #1 obviously. It also states that it surpassed Germany as the world's largest exported.

China's per capita income is only $3,600 dollars a year right above El Salvador! Supposedly they have the world's largest working class at 400 million +. What does this mean? I'd like to think the majority of chinese working class is rather smart and probably more politically conscious than The US and Japan's right? Don't they realized they are getting screwed? Their "communist" "government" sold them out. They turned them into a big sweat shop paradise for the rest of the world.

Do you guys think China is possibly the best place for a revolution to take place? Or has this opportunity gone out the window as they are so fixed on catching up with American's capitalist culture? DO we really have room for two capitalist superpowers 10-20 years down the road?

I think the reactions of the Bourgeoisie (when they aren't openly bullshitting) can be very informative. For instance, take this episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2010/08/22/gps.podcast.08.22.cnn

The discussion on China starts at 22 minutes. At around 32 minutes, a panel of scholars start discussing the "risk" and "danger" of labor movements developing in China. They discuss that historically, there is evidence that China might be ripe for a Marxist movement, and they discuss how to possibly deal with this problem.

They are worried, and that's a good thing.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

why are burgers, big trucks, chocolate and TV meals incompatible with socialism? :confused:

Because socialism is the negation of the bourgeois social order which substitutes human dignity for drug addiction and the numbing sloth of "convenience".

[Peter The Painter]

I am no fan of Mao, but when you see howmuch the people gained from the revolution, you have seen with every year of economic growth since the reintroduction of capitalism, the growth of poverty and virtual slave labour has also increased.

The people of China have been yokedto the plow since time first began, and are always expected to carry the can

[~Spectre]

Because socialism is the negation of the bourgeois social order which substitutes human dignity for drug addiction and the numbing sloth of "convenience".

Lolwat.

[Peter The Painter]

Lolwat.

made me LOL too

someones been reading the dictionary aswell as not paying attention to the principles of communism

Only joking :)

[~Spectre]

Any revolution without chocolate, is a revolution not worth having.

[bailey_187]

Because socialism is the negation of the bourgeois social order which substitutes human dignity for drug addiction and the numbing sloth of "convenience".

says who?

[bailey_187]

So is our slogan now (as i already said) "Peace, Land and a little less bread"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Any revolution without chocolate, is a revolution not worth having.

You can have your chocolate, I'll have my socialism. (hate chocolate! lol)

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Obviously chocolate is good but not the mass-production of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

[Ele'ill]

We can't continue to consume and waste the way we are. We already might be looking at an ecological meltdown (not a doomsday scenario- but yes, if we destroy the planet and the other species living here we destroy ourselves- call it what you want).

[Queercommie Girl]

No reason why further technological progress cannot be made sustainable and harmonious with the environment under genuine democratic socialism.

[bailey_187]

We can't continue to consume and waste the way we are. We already might be looking at an ecological meltdown (not a doomsday scenario- but yes, if we destroy the planet and the other species living here we destroy ourselves- call it what you want).

what is an ecological meltdown?

[bailey_187]

Obviously chocolate is good but not the mass-production of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

why?

Is your issue with the ingredients you list or "mass production"?

If it is massproduction, why did you thank the post bellow about not wasting resources? Mass, large scale production is much more efficient.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

No reason why further technological progress cannot be made sustainable and harmonious with the environment under genuine democratic socialism.

Perhaps, but specifics on how that will be achieved on a practical level are useful.

Typically it's just an excuse to continue maintaining the instruments of exploitation, continue squandering the Earth's limited resources on mass-manufactured "needs", continue prioritizing the production of commodities over a social plan that contributes to a stable ecology, and so on.

[Ele'ill]

No reason why further technological progress cannot be made sustainable and harmonious with the environment under genuine democratic socialism.


The problem I have with this is that it's easy to say but it's not a very practical feat. A lot of the ecological destruction is from resource extraction which is inherently dirty. Nevermind the removal of trees.

At what point would technology catch up with a growing industry?

How would post revolution function any less harmfully towards the environment if everybody was allowed redwood tables and a case of aluminum canned Hamm's a week?

What kind of technological boom could we see in such a short amount of time that we desperately need it to occur?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I think this is an issue of utopian socialism versus scientific, Fourier also thought the ecology could be manipulated around the human desire to obliterate diversity and accommodate all comforts. He thought after the overthrow of capitalism that the seas would become as potable and sweet-tasting as lemonade, that lions and other wild beasts would be bred to be tame and docile, that artificial moons would orbit the earth, and that an artificial sun would make the north pole as warm and mild as the equator. This is no different than the technocratic visions of today, which can supposedly be achieved once the 'benign' subject of industrial production is seized from the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The real question is; what's more important, lemonade oceans, or a healthy oceanic ecosystem?

[Ele'ill]

what is an ecological meltdown?


Tap water lighting on fire, extinguished biodiversity, thirty thousand barrels of oil a day in the gulf- etc...

[bailey_187]

Perhaps, but specifics on how that will be achieved on a practical level are useful.

By the same token, the specifics on how there will be an ecological meltdown would be useful.


Typically it's just an excuse to continue maintaining the instruments of exploitation

Exploitation will end when the exploited class takes control. The lack of that is the only way exploitation is maintained. No sort of ecological crisis, environemnt doomsday will lead to socialism.




continue squandering the Earth's limited resources on mass-manufactured "needs"

All needs except water and basic food is "manufactured". I dont need this chain around my neck, but i like it. By the same token ancient societies didnt need beads etc that they made out of bone; but they liked them.



continue prioritizing the production of commodities over a social plan that contributes to a stable ecology, and so on.

A commidity is a commidity when it enters the market place. All commodities now, with the abolition of the market, would no longer become commodities. But seeing as you dislike these goods inthemselves, what the fuck would your "social plan" make?

[bailey_187]

Tap water lighting on fire, extinguished biodiversity, thirty thousand barrels of oil a day in the gulf- etc...

Ok, you going to have to explain the first because that makes no sense

Biodiversity being reduced? So what? Aslong as the food web can go back to an equilibrium, so what? Thats what has always happened when species die out. Certain species such as bees are essential. ok. so we identified that. So lets breed more bees.


A industrial accident due to negligence from capitalist company is not an ecological meltdown. It is a disaster, yes, but an avoidable one that would have required little more than a shut off valve like they do in Scandanavian countries.

[Ele'ill]

I think this is an issue of utopian socialism versus scientific, Fourier also thought the ecology could be manipulated around the human desire to obliterate diversity and accommodate all comforts. He thought after the overthrow of capitalism that the seas would become as potable and sweet-tasting as lemonade, that lions and other wild beasts would be bred to be tame and docile, that artificial moons would orbit the earth, and that an artificial sun would make the north pole as warm and mild as the equator. This is no different than the technocratic visions of today, which can supposedly be achieved once the 'benign' subject of industrial production is seized from the hands of the bourgeoisie.

The real question is; what's more important, lemonade oceans, or a healthy oceanic ecosystem?

This and your other post are important in this discussion. If the demand for resources is greater after capitalism falls we're going to be in tough shape-

I don't want to hear science fiction solutions- I want to see them being used and in place working now before shit really gets confusing. I don't care about 'lab tests' or experiments in some buzzing science facility ten miles below the earth's surface- Let's get that shit mainstream now.

[bailey_187]

I think this is an issue of utopian socialism versus scientific, Fourier also thought the ecology could be manipulated around the human desire to obliterate diversity and accommodate all comforts. He thought after the overthrow of capitalism that the seas would become as potable and sweet-tasting as lemonade, that lions and other wild beasts would be bred to be tame and docile, that artificial moons would orbit the earth, and that an artificial sun would make the north pole as warm and mild as the equator. This is no different than the technocratic visions of today, which can supposedly be achieved once the 'benign' subject of industrial production is seized from the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Brilliant strawman, dont release too much CO2 burning it. Marx did not share the wacky views outlined above, but he, coming from the englightenment tradition did see (wo)man's increasing control over nature a good thing.

This is an issue of what exactly communism is. communism is a world of abundance, you dont seem to want this? the demands for equality in communism come only because of the abolition of scarcity.





The real question is; what's more important, lemonade oceans, or a healthy oceanic ecosystem?

What is a "healthy oceanic ecosystem"? One with no human influence? Probably.

So if your goal is healthy ecosystems, and humans (or atleast humans living beyond the hunter gatherer state) prevent healthy ecosystems being healthy, the solution is get rid of humans....


I dont give two shits about ecosytems or the environemnt, beyond how it directly effects people. And when it does, in most cases, industrialisation and increasing control over nature by humans would/could have prevented the effects.

[bailey_187]

This and your other post are important in this discussion. If the demand for resources is greater after capitalism falls we're going to be in tough shape-

I don't want to hear science fiction solutions- I want to see them being used and in place working now before shit really gets confusing. I don't care about 'lab tests' or experiments in some buzzing science facility ten miles below the earth's surface- Let's get that shit mainstream now.

I dont want to hear your vague assertions. Which resources are going to run out? Do they have alternatives?

The world isnt a fucking Age of Empires map.

[Obs]

Socialism is all about producing less, don't you know.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Socialism is all about producing less, don't you know.

Socialism is about changing the mode of production on a fundamental level.

[Ele'ill]

Ok, you going to have to explain the first because that makes no sense

It was in reference to communities faced with natural gas extraction in their area. The tap water in some instances becomes flammable. (among a handful of other things)



Biodiversity being reduced? So what? Aslong as the food web can go back to an equilibrium, so what? Thats what has always happened when species die out. Certain species such as bees are essential. ok. so we identified that. So lets breed more bees.


You contradict yourself here. You're saying 'so what' but then 'Aslong as the food web can go back to an equilibrium..'

First, a lack of biodiversity means an ecosystem has been disrupted or destroyed.

Second, the food web for who? You? Me? I'm in the Global North and I have to be careful when growing my own food.






A industrial accident due to negligence from capitalist company is not an ecological meltdown.


It was an accident that did not necessarily have anything to do with 'capitalism'. It had to do with negligence. I believe careless people will exist after a revolution too-





It is a disaster, yes, but an avoidable one that would have required little more than a shut off valve like they do in Scandanavian countries.

So capitalism caused these rigs to not have shut off valves? (another one blew up yesterday or today)

I think the best way to avoid oil spills is to invest in clean energy.

Rather than exert all that time towards something that has the potential to severely alter the planet why not look for something else?

[bailey_187]

Socialism is about changing the mode of production on a fundamental level.

what if the agent of this change is being told less chocolate, less burgers, less stuff u like, what interest does it have in this change?

Socialism is also about creating a world of abundance so that actual equality is acheivable. Inequality and class systems come about from scarcity as a means of managing it.

[Ele'ill]

I dont want to hear your vague assertions. Which resources are going to run out? Do they have alternatives?

The world isnt a fucking Age of Empires map.


My assertions weren't vague at all.


I never said we're going to 'run out of resources'.


Shouldn't the people advocating technological advancement OR even continued industrialization be the ones to answer 'Do they have alternatives'


In regards to the stupid 'age of empires map' comment- Yeah, when you have a forest and you cut down all the trees you don't press restart they're gone- when you mine you don't send little characters to a rock- you don't enter a cheat code for a nuclear powered car- this world is real and it is limited- it CAN be destroyed- it CAN be permanently altered and we CAN kill ourselves off as a species.

If we're having trouble now and you increase production of those things causing trouble you're going to have more trouble.


I can say- Yeah, technological advances will solve that- but it would be much easier and a lot less painful to put the barrel of a revolver in my mouth- spin the cylinder and squeeze the trigger.




For wooden tables
Canned beer
Two cars in every driveway

[bailey_187]

It was in reference to communities faced with natural gas extraction in their area. The tap water in some instances becomes flammable. (among a handful of other things)


Again, negligence. This has fuck all to do with ecology.




You contradict yourself here. You're saying 'so what' but then 'Aslong as the food web can go back to an equilibrium..'

First, a lack of biodiversity means an ecosystem has been disrupted or destroyed.



By biodiversity i thought you meant the extinction of some species. The only problem with this i can imagine (or care about) is knock on effects it could have to other species, leading to an extinction of a food source for humans. However, ecosystems usualy go back to some sort of equilibrium



Second, the food web for who? You? Me? I'm in the Global North and I have to be careful when growing my own food.


The food web encompases all species in an ecosystem doesnt it?

If you in the global north why the fuck are u growing your own food?






It was an accident that did not necessarily have anything to do with 'capitalism'. It had to do with negligence. I believe careless people will exist after a revolution too-



Uh well, when looking in the wider public interest, it makes sense for oil wells to have a shut off valve. Looking in the narrow interest of a profit balance sheet, it doesnt.

Even so, the point is you cant point to an accident as proof of human consumption leading to an ecological meltdown. The same amount of oil could have been pumped with no spill and no "meltdown"







I think the best way to avoid oil spills is to invest in clean energy.

Rather than exert all that time towards something that has the potential to severely alter the planet why not look for something else?

What are talking about here? Co2 emmisions or oil fucking up gulf ecosytems? Seems like you jumping between the two.

[Queercommie Girl]

Perhaps, but specifics on how that will be achieved on a practical level are useful.

Typically it's just an excuse to continue maintaining the instruments of exploitation, continue squandering the Earth's limited resources on mass-manufactured "needs", continue prioritizing the production of commodities over a social plan that contributes to a stable ecology, and so on.

No point in worrying about specific technical details now before a successful socialist revolution.

The problem is not primarily technical at all, but socio-economic. As I argued in an article I wrote for a Chinese socialist forum, even if somehow we obtain alien technology 1000 years ahead of ourselves, if we do not change the capitalist system, our problems will still not go away.

After a successful socialist revolution, all we need are a few "five year plans", and the environment can be completely cleaned.

Compared with the problem of launching a successful socialist revolution, the technological challenges of sustainability are extremely easy to solve.

Everything now depends on transforming the productive relation, not the productive force.

[bailey_187]

I never said we're going to 'run out of resources'.

Not exactly, but you said
If the demand for resources is greater after capitalism falls we're going to be in tough shape

Which i took to mean pretty much that



Shouldn't the people advocating technological advancement OR even continued industrialization be the ones to answer 'Do they have alternatives'

I dont see any desirable alternative.



In regards to the stupid 'age of empires map' comment- Yeah, when you have a forest and you cut down all the trees you don't press restart they're gone- when you mine you don't send little characters to a rock- you don't enter a cheat code for a nuclear powered car- this world is real and it is limited- it CAN be destroyed- it CAN be permanently altered and we CAN kill ourselves off as a species.

No, but there isnt 4 different types of resources only in the world and once they are all gone thats it and they cant be renewed, reused or recyled. Or there doesnt exist alternatives sources.




If we're having trouble now and you increase production of those things causing trouble you're going to have more trouble.


What trouble are we having now?




For wooden tables
Canned beer
Two cars in every driveway

Most people see those things as desirable.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

By the same token, the specifics on how there will be an ecological meltdown would be useful.

What, do you think the Holocene extinction is some lie invented by the scientific "elites"? Maybe in the mind of Alex Jones...


Exploitation will end when the exploited class takes control. ...with the conscious goal of dismantling the foundations of capitalism.


No sort of ecological crisis, environemnt doomsday will lead to socialism. Of course not, I would never argue that any objective force will suddenly lead to socialism. however the ecological crisis has been occurring since the beginning of the industrial era and is only getting more severe. Rather than prepare for some "doomsday" future, the socialists will have enough work ahead of them responding correctly to the catastrophic present reality.


All needs except water and basic food is "manufactured". I disagree, for example, a human will go insane if put in prolonged social isolation.


A commidity is a commidity when it enters the market place. I think you're putting the horse before the cart here...


dont release too much CO2 burning it.

This CO2 monomania is an insidious product of bourgeois-environmentalist/"sustainability" indoctrination, there are so many other horrible toxins being dumped into the ecosystem by the global capitalist economy. For example cadmium, which is necessary in the production of wind turbines and solar panels.


but he, coming from the englightenment tradition did see (wo)man's increasing control over nature a good thing.I disagree.


Marx's two main discussions of modern agriculture both end with an analysis of 'the destructive side of modern agriculture'. In these passages Marx makes a number of crucial points: (1) capitalism has created an 'irreparable rift' in the 'metabolic interaction' between human beings and the earth, the everlasting nature-imposed conditions of production; (2) this demanded the 'systematic restoration' of that necessary metabolic relation as 'a regulative law of social production'; (3) nevertheless the growth under capitalism of large-scale agriculture and long distance trade only intensifies and extends the metabolic rift; (4) the wastage of soil nutrients is mirrored in the pollution and waste in the towns--'In London,' he wrote, 'they can find no better use for the excretion of four and a half million human beings than to contaminate the Thames with it at heavy expense'; (5) large-scale industry and large-scale mechanised agriculture work together in this destructive process, with 'industry and commerce supplying agriculture with the means of exhausting the soil'; (6) all of this is an expression of the antagonistic relation between town and country under capitalism; (7) a rational agriculture, which needs either small independent farmers producing on their own, or the action of the associated producers, is impossible under modern capitalist conditions; and (8) existing conditions demand a rational regulation of the metabolic relation between human beings and the earth, pointing beyond capitalist society to socialism and communism.(the author is citing volumes 1 and 3 of Capital)


communism is a world of abundanceOf course when there is abundance, it will be communally shared. When there is tribulation it will be the burden of the entire community, not an exploited class. But nothing destroys peoples' morale like impractical promises...


the demands for equality in communism come only because of the abolition of scarcity.Since the abolition of scarcity will never occur, especially with global population trends, this seems like it could be used as a pretense for abandoning demands of equality.


What is a "healthy oceanic ecosystem"? One with no human influence? Probably.Actually when humans are wiped out in large amounts it sometimes creates catastrophic population rebounds, humans have always been a natural part of a healthy ecosystem since their evolution.


So if your goal is healthy ecosystems, and humans (or atleast humans living beyond the hunter gatherer state) prevent healthy ecosystems being healthy, the solution is get rid of humans....Now who is creating strawmen? :)


I dont give two shits about ecosytems or the environemnt, beyond how it directly effects people.Even under this selfish and utilitarian ethos it still makes sense to preserve a functional ecology at the expense of certain human extravagances such as Ferraris, chlorinated swimming pools, crystal meth and eight-hour-a-day television binges.


Scandanavian countries.Oppressive social-democratic regimes, rich off US/EU imperialism, that exploit and torment their citizens while making their own equal contribution to ecological contamination. How is that a model for communism?

[Ele'ill]

Again, negligence. This has fuck all to do with ecology.


Well if the water is lighting on fire...


:rolleyes:








By biodiversity i thought you meant the extinction of some species. The only problem with this i can imagine (or care about) is knock on effects it could have to other species, leading to an extinction of a food source for humans. However, ecosystems usualy go back to some sort of equilibrium


This would be what I was referring to- Biodiversity.

And no- ecosystems don't always 'go back to some sort of equilibrium'.

The ones that do may take a hundred years to self-repair.

With production increasing and no sign of proven planet saving sciences we can't have multiple disasters. We can't have those reliant on fishing and hunting and growing be completely helpless because of giant industrial accidents-

Yes, I know- after the revolution nobody 'should' have to be reliant on growing, hunting, or fishing but realistically they still could be reliant on it ten, twenty, thirty years after the revolution- I guess those that want to grow, hunt and fish will just die. I guess that's the option they'll be given.





The food web encompases all species in an ecosystem doesnt it?

I think you misunderstood.

I grow my own food in the North and I still have to be careful- some folks in the south suffer the affects of industrial 'fallout' everyday. It has affected their ability to fish, hunt and grow.

The food web per ecosystem would be different per geographical area. There is a similar but very different ecosystem in the waters off northern Australia than there is in the North Atlantic (that was an example and I'm not entirely sure the specifics of those two regions- they could be coincidently identical for all I know.)




If you in the global north why the fuck are u growing your own food?

To feed the homeless and working poor.









Uh well, when looking in the wider public interest, it makes sense for oil wells to have a shut off valve. Looking in the narrow interest of a profit balance sheet, it doesnt.

I think the recent events have proven that 'shut off valves' are pretty important. No company wants that kind of press- even if it is impossible for consumers to boycott specific gas companies via gas sales (which is true- it isn't possible)

I think this had little to do with saving money and more to do with carelessness.




Even so, the point is you cant point to an accident as proof of human consumption leading to an ecological meltdown.

This must be a point you failed to prove- because I see no evidence being provided otherwise.

If you have industry causing problems with the environment- and you increase that industry- you will see an increase in problems with the environment.

If you have a solution that is 'technological advancements'- but none of them are being tested or implemented mainstream- none of them are 'well known'- or there's only solutions for two of the industries causing environmental problems when there are ten industries causing environmental problems- that isn't a solution- that is an ego driven excuse to see an ideology you stand behind pushed into the light.








The same amount of oil could have been pumped with no spill and no "meltdown"


And Chernobyl could have gone on ticking and Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell could have not had 'accidents'- but they did- and the cause was not entirely capitalism-

Let's say it was capitalism- what was the company's motive and stress to make them function in such a careless manner? Demand-Profit. The only thing that's going to change post revolution is the 'profit' will change but the demand will skyrocket. You think people won't get careless? Won't be stressed? Won't cut corners? Don't gamble with this planet, please.







What are talking about here? Co2 emmisions or oil fucking up gulf ecosytems? Seems like you jumping between the two.


Pick a contributer to ecological destruction.


We need an alternative.

[~Spectre]

Well if the water is lighting on fire...



What does that have to do with anything?

[Ele'ill]

What does that have to do with anything?


If the water is flammable it likely means there's something in it that shouldn't be.

If livestock are being poisoned by the water it's likely poisonous.

Water being poisoned directly relates to ecology.


All of this is an example of environmental degradation and ecological destruction at the hand of industry driven by demand- the reward is money or profit for those at the reigns.

Post revolution- if demand is as high or higher- the problems will continue to get worse.

[Reznov]

The Chinese working class is waking up.

"When China wakes up, the world will tremble!"

Haha, yeah, just like America's working class.

[~Spectre]

If the water is flammable it likely means there's something in it that shouldn't be.



Right, flammable water is usually caused by bad extraction techniques of Natural Gas, which is able to do what it does by using corporate influence in capitalist democracy to get itself free reign over its practice.

That has nothing to do with this anti industry nonsense, and has everything to do with industry under capitalism.

[Antifa94]

China is a "successful" economy built on the bodies of hundreds of thousands and a counterrevolutionary coup.

[Ele'ill]

Right, flammable water is usually caused by bad extraction techniques of Natural Gas, which is able to do what it does by using corporate influence in capitalist democracy to get itself free reign over its practice.

That has nothing to do with this anti industry nonsense, and has everything to do with industry under capitalism.

The core issue has nothing to do with capitalism or a corporation. It has to do with people that are driven to accomplish something because of something.

Regardless if its driven by money or by demand of stuff post revolution there is still a demand- and there are still the old methods (and no new methods).

[~Spectre]

The core issue has nothing to do with capitalism or a corporation. It has to do with people that are driven to accomplish something because of something.

Regardless if its driven by money or by demand of stuff post revolution there is still a demand- and there are still the old methods (and no new methods).

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

Alternative and safer energy technology are hindered under capitalism because it doesn't make sense for them in a cost-benefit analysis. I.E. the cheapness of petroleum as opposed to pursuing other technologies.

Under socialism, that would no longer be the case, and growing of markets is more likely to provide the necessary impetus for that technology.

Furthermore, the logic in itself is just absurd. Let's stop working at night. That would save tons of energy.

[Ele'ill]

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.

Alternative and safer energy technology are hindered under capitalism because it doesn't make sense for them in a cost-benefit analysis. I.E. the cheapness of petroleum as opposed to pursuing other technologies.

If there was planet saving technology for every industry why hasn't it been sold to another more 'socialistesqe' country. Why haven't we heard about it.

It needs to actually exist first- I'm not interested in having dirty industries 'go green' and operate as a 40% sustainable company. It's not going to cut it.



Under socialism, that would no longer be the case, and growing of markets is more likely to provide the necessary impetus for that technology.

Yes, if you look at this scenario unfolding like a flower blooming at 40x. It doesn't work that way. There isn't suddenly stable 'technology' and 'markets' and 'technates' and such and such. We want to see 100% sustainable alternatives now, working- not 'in theory' or 'in a lab' or whatever.




Furthermore, the logic in itself is just absurd. Let's stop working at night. That would save tons of energy.

What?

[scarletghoul]

China is very exciting as it's so powerful and also has a rising militancy in the working class and the CPC is constantly haunted by its own revolutionary legacy.. it can't stay like this..

[Burn A Flag]

I was talking to one Chinese kid, and even though he is concious to the hardships of China's working class, and is proletarian himself, still trusts the government. What a fucking joke. He says the government listens to the Chinese people. I should have mentioned Tianamen Square.

[~Spectre]

If there was planet saving technology for every industry why hasn't it been sold to another more 'socialistesqe' country. Why haven't we heard about it.

It needs to actually exist first- I'm not interested in having dirty industries 'go green' and operate as a 40% sustainable company. It's not going to cut it.

1) I just told you: Alternative energies aren't pursued rigorously because it makes no economic sense- under capitalism to do so.

1a) Under capitalism, corporate power uses its influence to prevent regulation on existing forms of petroleum and natural gas extraction.


2) Wtf is "socialistesque" countries?


3) Expansion of markets, historically tends to help spur technology.







Yes, if you look at this scenario unfolding like a flower blooming at 40x. It doesn't work that way. There isn't suddenly stable 'technology' and 'markets' and 'technates' and such and such. We want to see 100% sustainable alternatives now, working- not 'in theory' or 'in a lab' or whatever.


Your making less sense. The lack of a technology now, doesn't mean that the technologies can't be made. The lack of adequate regulation now doesn't mean that it can't be regulated, the lack of safety under a current system doesn't mean that u have to give up on industrialization.


Just compare the standard of living of non-industrialized nations, to industrialized nations.

Speak of, that makes your point even sillier. Presumably you care about the ecology because of how it impacts humans. Trying to turn back the clock on industrialization will lower standards of living, thus negatively impacting humans. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.





What?

That's the type of conclusion your logic leads to.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I was talking to one Chinese kid, and even though he is concious to the hardships of China's working class, and is proletarian himself, still trusts the government. What a fucking joke. He says the government listens to the Chinese people. I should have mentioned Tianamen Square.

Actually the CPC have been fighting for the working class in China. Even the Workers World have stated this:

http://www.workers.org/2010/world/china_0805/

The worker strikes that you're witnessing are taking place because of the rise in capitalist production within the SEZ's. You'd be surprised on how through 78 million members of the CPC, the majority of them is working class. There's no limitations on who can join as long as you uphold the Party's line.

[Ele'ill]

1) I just told you: Alternative energies aren't pursued rigorously because it makes no economic sense- under capitalism to do so.

There would still be non-profit driven research into alternative energies. (there are)






1a) Under capitalism, corporate power uses its influence to prevent regulation on existing forms of petroleum and natural gas extraction.

My point was that the inherent nature of resource extraction is dirty and ecologically unsound. Why can't we get a game plan together now rather than later as to what the alternatives will be. Why can't we test this stuff out on a small scale?





2) Wtf is "socialistesque" countries?


Countries that tend to be more progressive.




3) Expansion of markets, historically tends to help spur technology.

Yes, as would the allocation of labor and resources away from profit driven activities and into the realm of technological exploration.

In the event that those technologies don't actually exist- are never discovered- or there simply isn't a work around- how would the planet support an increase in industry- or in an industry- the increase in demand- with the same environmental affects as pre revolution?

Some of these industries are destructive enough to damage areas of the planet for a very long time.











Your making less sense. The lack of a technology now, doesn't mean that the technologies can't be made.

I have about as little faith in this as I do in god. Do you understand how insanely wishy washy that sounds?

You might as well just create a whole political ideology that goes along with that- "So how will decisions be made at work? Who appoints who at what councils?"


"Oh don't worry, when the time comes it will all be created or discovered and things will be better."


This isn't like a try and try again kind of thing. This is a work right the first time sort of urgency.




The lack of adequate regulation now doesn't mean that it can't be regulated,

The lack of regulation is a product of stresses put on a company to the point where that company will loophole and fight to meet demands. Yes, under capitalism it's horrible and the loopholes offer monetary rewards (for increased productivity) and in any other atmosphere where you have goals and demand you're going to have loopholes and everything else.

There will be accidents. Bad ones.






the lack of safety under a current system doesn't mean that u have to give up on industrialization.


Sorry but it feels like industrialization for the sake of industrializing.




Just compare the standard of living of non-industrialized nations, to industrialized nations.

I would say that has to do with the fact that those non-industrialized nations can't compete in the global market place. Standard of living drops off for a variety of reasons. Neo-liberal SAPs. And those nations that aren't considered 'industrialized' but still have 'industry' are fucked as is their environment.

No, the toxic waste might not have been intentionally dumped but it would have to be stored somewhere- in the event of course that 'technology' is 'made' or discovered to do something with it.










Speak of, that makes your point even sillier. Presumably you care about the ecology because of how it impacts humans. Trying to turn back the clock on industrialization will lower standards of living, thus negatively impacting humans. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


I think that continuing industry the way it is now- or increasing it because of demand- will lead to serious ecological problems.

Saying 'technology will be found' isn't good enough because if it isn't and demand is high- people are going to suffer or the planet's ecological balance and people are going to suffer.









That's the type of conclusion your logic leads to.

Yeah, I still don't get it.