Communist recycling

[SacRedMan]

Dear Revleft,

I don't know if this is a question that was already been asked, but I am struggling for the answer on this question myself.

I don't know if there is a majorty of sceptics here who don't believe in Global Warming, but the fact remains Capitalism and it's messy neo-liberal market has left us a big dump.

Once we have settled a communism, there is no option but to deal with the mess that it has left behind for us and future generations.

Sure, communism is an ecological friendly system: reproduction, recycling, reconsumption, sharing of property, society using the product society produced etc. (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think there is in a communism) but how and where can we find 'a garbage can to throw it all in there'?

Regards
SacRedMan

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Leftist tendencies are all compatible with ecology, we apply its principles, we (Somehow) shut down nuclear power plants, switch to altenative sources of energy (this can be achieved through federation), develop recycling mesures...

Indeed they have left us a mess, but we can fix it through ecologic mesures.

[SacRedMan]

Leftist tendencies are all compatible with ecology, we apply its principles, we (Somehow) shut down nuclear power plants, switch to altenative sources of energy (this can be achieved through federation), develop recycling mesures...

Indeed they have left us a mess, but we can fix it through ecologic mesures.

What kind of ecologic mesures exactly?

Indeed, we certainly should move on towards another source of energy, but that doesn't change the fact we still need oil and petrolium, and you know that those 2 are for capitalism what catnip is for cats.

[bolshie]

I think we would have to get better at recycling, because there would be a lot more production, especially in the poorer countries. Also we could make stuff that would last, and stuff that is repairable. We could eliminate fashion and the idea that you need a new phone or car. In fact we could eliminate cars. Going green should be a top priority in my view, for socialists, starting here and now. I think most socialists are pretty keen on being green actually. The red and green movements need to link together. That would be a powerful force. Capitalism is never going to solve problems like global warming. Basically if we don't have socialism the planet will be trashed in a few generations and uninhabitable in the long run. Of course if socialism wasnt green it would make the problem even worse.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the general ecological movement the consensus tends to be that consumption, not production is the "problem", but I think the revolutionary perspective is that it's actually production that's the fundamental problem. Production for profit and that's unrestrained and essentially focused on the next quarter's returns, not if the fish, forests, or mountains they strip will ever return.

There's the stereotype of native american bands "using every part" of the animals they caught for food. It's usually presented as a moral argument about the "purity" of old lifestyles vs. "modern values" but really the grain of truth in this stereotype is that humans don't really have an "use-value" based incentive to be wasteful - in fact, if you put effort into something, you want to get the most out of it that you can and waste as little of it. But capitalism and profits don't run like this: the motivation is competition and a quick return. That means it's cheaper to clear-cut than to do something sustainably.

But when workers are (unalienated) producers and consumers, I think "convenience" will take on a new meaning - in a democratic worker's society creating throw-away cameras wouldn't be considered convinent because you are producing a ton of shit that then gets used once and thrown away - it would be far more convinient and efficient in the long run if we just produced top of the line smart-phones or decent cameras for everyone who wanted them, rather than dolling these items out and different classes of them for different income levels, and disposible ones, and phones that have just a camera and phone but not internet and others that have internet and no camera etc. Our own desire not to create needless work would also be an incentive to build things better that last longer and are more adaptable. We can replace all production of CDs and BlueRay and DVDs and even books and just make sure everyone has a good computer and internet access and then free access to all recorded media and information. Of course this would use power and space and create pollution and other things, but it's one example of a shift that can happen immediately and instantly reduce literally tons and tons and tons of waste.

Shifts in the way people live could also have a huge fundamental impact. Redesigned cities, aside from any consciously environmental measures taken, would probably reduce waste because I think people would want to eliminate commutes and having to travel long distances for shopping or jobs. Suburbs and Malls and freeways all exist because they were profitable models for housing developers or retailers or whatnot at one point. Hell, just reducing everyone's work hours would get rid of the 9-5/8-6 work-life and could eliminate rush-hour even before cities are redesigned.

People think that human laziness is the cause of environmental problems, but I think our desire not to create needless work for ourselves will actually be what could halt the current environmental trajectory and allow us to try and figure out real ways to preserve the best and richest and healthiest life possible on this planet.

[ArrowLance]

Sure, communism is an ecological friendly system: reproduction, recycling, reconsumption, sharing of property, society using the product society produced etc. (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think there is in a communism) but how and where can we find 'a garbage can to throw it all in there'?

It's really more accurate to say there will be no property.

[ComradeOm]

Sure, communism is an ecological friendly system: reproduction, recycling, reconsumption, sharing of property, society using the product society produced etc. (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think there is in a communism) but how and where can we find 'a garbage can to throw it all in there'?We'll build giant rockets to fire all the trash into the sun. After all, what's the point of living in a society of abundance if you can't shoot stuff into space?

But then I wouldn't expect communism to be the answer to all of your eco questions. Just think of the massive explosion in carbon gasses that will follow when living standards in the rest of the world are raised to Western levels...

[honest john's firing squad]

But then I wouldn't expect communism to be the answer to all of your eco questions. Just think of the massive explosion in carbon gasses that will follow when living standards in the rest of the world are raised to Western levels...
No joke I know other "communists" who argue we should intentionally delay revolution to focus on reversing anthropogenic climate change instead for this very reason.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Leftist tendencies are all compatible with ecology, we apply its principles, we (Somehow) shut down nuclear power plants, switch to altenative sources of energy (this can be achieved through federation), develop recycling mesures...

Indeed they have left us a mess, but we can fix it through ecologic mesures.
Liquid Thorium Fluoride Power is the way for the future. It's nuclear energy, a lot cleaner than conventional nuclear, its byproduct can't produce nuclear weapons, needs less water to cool, produces LESS waste than conventional. The energy demands in the next two decades will increase 20%. I wish I got a degree for nuclear engineering instead of civil. :(


but that doesn't change the fact we still need oil and petrolium

I could use textile hemp; it's an amazing source of energy to fuel vehicles. Additionally, I could create clothing, rope, sails, and a bunch of other things using it.

There are even some engines that run on water.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But then I wouldn't expect communism to be the answer to all of your eco questions. Just think of the massive explosion in carbon gasses that will follow when living standards in the rest of the world are raised to Western levels...I don't think Victorian London had modern western levels of consumption and living standards and there was pleanty of environmental destruction. Brazil and China obviously didn't need western levels of living standards to be major contributors to environmental destruction.

Again, I think we have to see this as primarily a problem rooted in production rather than consumption.


No joke I know other "communists" who argue we should intentionally delay revolution to focus on reversing anthropogenic climate change instead for this very reason.

Sure there will be environmental issues - especially at first. And hell capitalism might destroy the world to a point where socialism is no longer really a possibility. So I think the answer to this argument of priorities is that these issues go hand in hand. Capitalism won't find an answer within its own logic because it's own logic is of complete assimilation and commodification of anything profitable. So in order for people to fix this problem, we have to have democratic means of controlling production so that we can work out new ways of providing for ourselves on a use-basis in ways that minimize our own efforts and harm to the environment. Sustainability would be in working class (working class as in a revolutionary working class in power) interests IMO if for nothing else, it's easier to let nature replenish things so we don't have to uproot farming or logging towns and production facilities every few years because we exhausted one source of materials. Of course just quality of life and having a stable environment would probably be reason enough for most people even if I'm wrong on the "environmentalism through laziness" point.:lol:

[ComradeOm]

I don't think Victorian London had modern western levels of consumption and living standards and there was pleanty of environmental destructionActually yes and no. Depends how you make the comparison. Victorian London was quite environmentally unpleasant when compared to, say, contemporary Connaught but I'd much rather have toiled in London than been a poverty stricken Irish peasant during the 19th C. Conversely, Victorian London's 'ecological footprint', to borrow a phrase, was minuscule when compared to that of modern London; again I know where I'd prefer to live

Obviously it's possible to have poor living standards and a poor environment but generally living standards rise with the level of industrial development in a society. And this is where production and consumption become interlinked. Increased levels of consumption almost invariably demand increased levels of production. Sure, you can on occasion 'work smarter, not harder' but on a global level (ie, raising the ROTW to Western standards) you will still need a massive in industrial production in to meet demand

[El Oso Rojo]

I think we would have to get better at recycling, because there would be a lot more production, especially in the poorer countries. Also we could make stuff that would last, and stuff that is repairable. We could eliminate fashion and the idea that you need a new phone or car. In fact we could eliminate cars. Going green should be a top priority in my view, for socialists, starting here and now. I think most socialists are pretty keen on being green actually. The red and green movements need to link together. That would be a powerful force. Capitalism is never going to solve problems like global warming. Basically if we don't have socialism the planet will be trashed in a few generations and uninhabitable in the long run. Of course if socialism wasnt green it would make the problem even worse.

Where the cars going to go, and that might not be easy.

[bolshie]

Where the cars going to go, and that might not be easy.
We could just stop making them, or many, and make good public transport instead. If you built fast regular public transport and made it free lots of people would stop using their cars.