Derrick Jensen - thoughts?

[Orange Juche]

Though I have yet to read any of his books, I've seen numerous videos of Derrick Jensen's talks on youtube... for those of you familiar with him (or those reading this who now decide to look him up on youtube), I'm just really curious as to how you respond to his analysis that civilization (as defined by the rise of cities) is unsustainable.

[Mr. Natural]

I live in the same town as Derrick Jensen, but have never met him, and what I have met in his "philosophy" turns me away.

Jensen has yet to engage the reality of capitalism, and therefore gets way off track into suggestions that people are the problem. But it's the way people are organized within capitalist relations that is the major problem.

The OP referred to "[Jensen's] analyis that civilization (as defined by the rise of cities) is unsustainable." I would change that to read that the human species, as defined by capitalist relations, is unsustainable. We and all our living arrangements--families to cities-- are being degraded and cashed in by capitalism and Jensen misses this--a big, fatal miss.

Capitalism produces for profit, and this cancer-of-life system is wildly unsustainable. Nature, on the other hand, generates a sustainable, ecological energy surplus (profit) with which it generates and supports its myriad communities.

Derrick Jensen can be a sensitive interpreter of nature, but he completely misses the nature of capitalism, and he writes lots of nonsense as a consequence.

The anarcho-primitivism Jensen promotes is such nonsense.

My red-green best.

[bcbm]

jensen isn't an anarcho primitivist

[Clarion]

He is, he simply doesn't like the label becauce he thinks it's "racist" against primitive cultures.


I'm just really curious as to how you respond to his analysis that civilization (as defined by the rise of cities) is unsustainable.

By demanding proof of such an absurd claim.

[Kotze]

Having long laid waste our own sanity, and having long forgotten what it feels like to be free, most of us too have no idea what it’s like to live in the real world. Seeing four salmon spawn causes me to burst into tears.How poetic, what a beautiful suffering soul! :wub: In that book he also talks about the "enslavement" of animals and plants.

The following is from an Interview with Jensen (http://www.nocompromise.org/issues/26jensen.html).


I want to bring down civilization. I’m interested in living in a world that has more wild salmon blah songbirds every year than the year before blah krill populations blah and I will do whatever it takes to get there. It is really clear that for the past 6000 years, civilization has been killing the planet. I’m on the planet’s side.
(...)
Does anybody think that vivisectors will stop torturing animals just because we stand outside with a sign? That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stand out there with that sign.
(...)
Some nonsense here about blowing up dams to "liberate that stretch of river" and how that is good but you're not thinking big enough.
(...)
Wahwahwah and the salmon keep dying.Once you notice that he mentions salmon it doesn't stop, ugh. If I ever meet that fishfucker in person I shall slap him to death with a salmon.


jensen isn't an anarcho primitivistYour word would have more weight if 85% of what you post wasn't all Greeks will have to live in caves and dolphins are human and world ends tomorrow fapfapfappityfap :closedeyes:

[Ele'ill]

Though I have yet to read any of his books, I've seen numerous videos of Derrick Jensen's talks on youtube... for those of you familiar with him (or those reading this who now decide to look him up on youtube), I'm just really curious as to how you respond to his analysis that civilization (as defined by the rise of cities) is unsustainable.

I'm rereading End Game volume II right now.

[Ravachol]

Your word would have more weight if 85% of what you post wasn't all Greeks will have to live in caves and dolphins are human and world ends tomorrow fapfapfappityfap :closedeyes:

Your post would have more weight if you actually knew what you're talking about and were aware of the (not so recent) conflict between AP (through personae such as John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) and Jensen's 'Deep Green Resistance'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Man, that salmon thing of his is so weird.

[Kotze]

@Ravachol: I already know that Zerzan is even more insane, thank you very much. That doesn't make Jensen reasonable.

[Ravachol]

@Ravachol: I already know that Zerzan is even more insane, thank you very much. That doesn't make Jensen reasonable.

Zerzan isn't "insane" even though I'm not on the same page. And it might not make Jensen 'reasonable' but it does make you wrong on the fact that he's an AP.

[Clarion]

Having been criticised by other anarcho-primitivists doesn't mean he isn't also an anarcho-primitivist.

[Mr. Natural]

Kotze, Thanks for your bright, fun post and your unblinkered take on Jensen. Jensen's failure to come to grips with capitalism has led him to abandon humanity. Among other things, I'm a deep ecologist, and I "love" fish as does Derrick Jensen, but as a human being I'm not about to reject humanity. We may be really fucked up within the capitalist system, but that just gives us some major work to do.

I also believe it is accurate overall to refer to Jensen as an anarcho-primitivist. He may be having some tiffs with former allies, but he has referred to John Zerzan as the world's most important philosopher. That statement alone should warn people against Derrick Jensen.

Perhaps comrades who experience Jensen differently might tell us what they like about him.

My red-green, Judi Barian best.

[Art Vandelay]

DGR looks to pre-civilization and pre-industrial societies or cultures for models on how to organize our societies in the future; they serve the reaction my friends.

[Ele'ill]

I've noticed that most of the criticisms on Jensen being a primitivist and just critiques of primitivism in general don't actually highlight positions that are exclusively primitivist in nature.

[Keath]

DGR looks to pre-civilization and pre-industrial societies or cultures for models on how to organize our societies in the future; they serve the reaction my friends.

Marx and Engels talked about primitive communism existing in pre-civilization, although I doubt all pre-civilized societies were communist. I am a marxist though and not an anarcho-primitivist so I don't agree entirely with the anarcho-primitivist viewpoint however I do think there are valid points made from time to time by anarcho-primitivists. And it must be said that capitalism is wrecking the environment in addition to enslaving the working class, promoting racism, and even oppressing the so called ruling classes. Capitalism is not sustainable at all. Marxist economics based on consensus decision making(as opposed to authoritarian decision making) is the key to solving the environmental crisis as well as the key to solving class inequality.

[Clarion]

although I doubt all pre-civilized societies were communist

Did they have property and division between classes then?

[Ravachol]

Having been criticised by other anarcho-primitivists doesn't mean he isn't also an anarcho-primitivist.

It seems you're not aware of the content of the debate. Let me try this another way: why is DJ an anarcho-primitivist?


DGR looks to pre-civilization and pre-industrial societies or cultures for models on how to organize our societies in the future; they serve the reaction my friends.

Whereas Leninists (marching after their namesake's infatuation with Taylor) look towards Capital for models on how to organize our societies in the future, so there's that.

[Clarion]

Let me try this another way: why is DJ an anarcho-primitivist?

He wants to destroy civilisation.

[Ele'ill]

He wants to destroy civilisation.

He sees civilization destroying itself in a more horrific manner anyway so is in favor of a controlled demolition.

[Art Vandelay]

Whereas Leninists (marching after their namesake's infatuation with Taylor) look towards Capital for models on how to organize our societies in the future, so there's that.

That's pure slander and I'm surprised to hear it come from someone as intelligent as yourself. The only thing that I can even fathom you could be referring to would be that Lenin admitted that the DOTP (a transitional stage, not a future society) would take the form of state capitalism in Russia in 1917; are you seriously trying to argue that Lenin did not consider himself a socialist? And was not attempting to transition to a socialist society?

I mean okay, if that is what you are arguing, but no one could honestly take that seriously on a intellectual level.

You still didn't address that Jensen is a reactionary, by the very defenition of the word; but by all means, just drag this thread off topic, its not like we don't have enough threads about Lenin on here :rolleyes:.

[Ravachol]

He wants to destroy civilisation.

That doesn't make you an anarcho-primitivist per se though. There's plenty of anti-civ anarchists who aren't primitivists (Wolfi Landstreicher to name one) and 'primitivists' who aren't anarchists. I would classify Jensen as part of the latter, though even that's debatable as 'primitivism' implies a specific critique of alienation, division of labour, reification, etc. which Jensen does not make afaik.

[RedHal]

oh Derrick Jensen, he loves to talk the talk, but...

This is the guy that talks about waking up everyday and wanting to blow up dams, then cries about the black bloc smashing windows during the occupy movement.

[Ravachol]

oh Derrick Jensen, he loves to talk the talk, but...

This is the guy that talks about waking up everyday and wanting to blow up dams, then cries about the black bloc smashing windows during the occupy movement.

Indeed. Seeing him backing up that Hedges vermin was... amusing to say the least.

[black magick hustla]

some goddamn hippie that cries about salmon

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Your post would have more weight if you actually knew what you're talking about and were aware of the (not so recent) conflict between AP (through personae such as John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) and Jensen's 'Deep Green Resistance'.

I'd actually be interested in more details of this...

[bcbm]

I'd actually be interested in more details of this...

here ya go (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/14669)


DGR looks to pre-civilization and pre-industrial societies or cultures for models on how to organize our societies in the future; they serve the reaction my friends.

what could we possibly learn from societies that thrived on earth for hundreds of thousands of years


Your word would have more weight if 85% of what you post wasn't all Greeks will have to live in caves and dolphins are human and world ends tomorrow fapfapfappityfap

try addressing the point next time it produces a more productive conversation.

[Art Vandelay]

what could we possibly learn from societies that thrived on earth for hundreds of thousands of years

We could obviously learn lessons, but modeling our future societies on those of pre-civilization and pre-industrial societies is tantamount to insanity. He is a reactionary (like all primmies) by the very definition of the word.

[bcbm]

i dont think anyone is disputing that he is a reactionary

[The Douche]

i dont think anyone is disputing that he is a reactionary

I don't think Jensen is a "reactionary" per se. I think he is a "crypto-maoist deep ecologist".


I read Endgame, I thought it was good, I wouldn't discourage anybody from reading it, but at the same time, I wouldn't recommend it to most people. The way that book is written, you must already accept Jensen's theses, he doesn't make an argument for the unsustainable nature of industrial civilization, he simply states that industrial civilization is unsustainable, and then proceeds to argue that it must be brought down with force, as quickly as possible.

Jensen is not an anarcho-primitivist, first of all, because he is not an anarchist, he is not opposed to coercive authority and he is not even opposed to the state (as a concept), furthermore, his critique is directed towards industrial civilization, and not civilization itself, and those factors immediately disqualify him from the AP realm.

To even call him a primitivist is inaccurate because, as I said, he doesn't oppose civilization (domestication, alienation, division of labor, mediation etc), he only opposes industrial civilization.

This makes him a deep ecologist.

As for the crypto-maoism, it should be blatantly obvious that the DGR model is an application of maoist protracted people's war to the environmental movement.


Plus there are other issues, such as his willingness to talk to the police, and the fact that Lierre Kieth called the cops on anarchists when she got pied with hot sauce at the Bay area bookfair.

[black magick hustla]

Your word would have more weight if 85% of what you post wasn't all Greeks will have to live in caves and dolphins are human and world ends tomorrow fapfapfappityfapomg im almost missed this one ty koze

[Os Cangaceiros]

So, based on what "the Douche" (lol) said above, it seems that Jensen is just a slightly less offensive version of Pentti Linkola.

I mean, it really sounds like the worst of all worlds is being combined here: rigid, hierarchical, top-down armed cadre-style authoritarianism, with the end goal being a world in which we live to the rip ol' age of 32. :rolleyes:

[Ravachol]

So, based on what "the Douche" (lol) said above, it seems that Jensen is just a slightly less offensive version of Pentti Linkola.

I mean, it really sounds like the worst of all worlds is being combined here: rigid, hierarchical, top-down armed cadre-style authoritarianism, with the end goal being a world in which we live to the rip ol' age of 32. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with this for two reasons:

1) Pentti Linkola is calling for explicit genocide, mass slaughter, and all that fascist blabla. Jensen doesn't, he merely argues for industrial civilization to be 'brought down with force' (which is simply impossible because, you know, you can't just blow up a social relationship)

2) The 'age of 32' thing. That's merely a hobbesian echo which sees pre-state and pre-civ societies as 'nastish, brutish and short' in his words. All anthropological evidence points to the contrary. In fact, in the initial stages of the transition to fully sedentary, agricultural societies (as opposed to those who were pastoral or practiced small-scale horticulture) there was a huge drop in the quality of life and life expectancy in general.

Besides, it's not like the worlds' majority living in the Indian slums or Brazillian favellas have a life expectancy (and accompanying life quality) of 32. And that's not because the 'productive forces' there haven't been developed far enough, unless people want to argue that what they need is more lead poisoning from the factories they work in for a dollar a day.

Finally, we're eventually gonna hit an ecological barrier and there's no green capitalism that can save us from that. Whether it's global warming, increasing deforestation and the accompanying mud floods, etc. if we continue on this tract (and that includes merely changing the management scheme of the same society under whatever banner) we're in for a mass die-off that'll make the Hobbesian fable seem like the land of milk and honey.

So all in all I don't think that argument has any grounding. That doesn't mean I advocate all running for the woods and abandoning every type of tool that isn't a bowdrill or produced through flintknapping. But it does mean that communists will have to face that fact that merely taking control of the means of production and managing them differently isn't (besides not being communism but that's a different discussion) a viable course. Communism will have (and would always have) to involve the transformation of the entire material base of our society, including our productive forces as a reflection of the underlying social relations. If this means dissolving industrial civilization in favor of something else (whatever that may be) then so be it. You can't have communism when you're too bothered with flash floods, expanding hot and cold deserts, massive crop failure, mud floods and rising sea levels.

[The Douche]

Jensen doesn't, he merely argues for industrial civilization to be 'brought down with force' (which is simply impossible because, you know, you can't just blow up a social relationship)

Industrial civilization isn't a social relationship. Industrial civilization is not the same thing as "civilization" and when authors use that "industrial" qualifier, they do it on purpose. Because, like I said, Jensen doesn't have a critique of civilization. Jensen, is factually correct in many regards, as far as I can tell, in that, industrial civilization as we know it is unsustainable, and a death machine, and it can totally be brought down by force, and doing so would save much non-human life, and would end the exploitation of many humans.

Of course, you are right in that one cannot blow up a social relationship, but Jensen doesn't grapple with the social relationship that is civilization, only with the environmental devastation that is industrial civilization.


So all in all I don't think that argument has any grounding. That doesn't mean I advocate all running for the woods and abandoning every type of tool that isn't a bowdrill or produced through flintknapping. But it does mean that communists will have to face that fact that merely taking control of the means of production and managing them differently isn't (besides not being communism but that's a different discussion) a viable course. Communism will have (and would always have) to involve the transformation of the entire material base of our society, including our productive forces as a reflection of the underlying social relations. If this means dissolving industrial civilization in favor of something else (whatever that may be) then so be it. You can't have communism when you're too bothered with flash floods, expanding hot and cold deserts, massive crop failure, mud floods and rising sea levels.

B-b-b-but I don't wanna be a communist if it means I can't have an iPhone!!!!:crying:

[The Douche]

So, based on what "the Douche" (lol) said above, it seems that Jensen is just a slightly less offensive version of Pentti Linkola.

I mean, it really sounds like the worst of all worlds is being combined here: rigid, hierarchical, top-down armed cadre-style authoritarianism, with the end goal being a world in which we live to the rip ol' age of 32. :rolleyes:

Jensen doesn't call for genocide or anything. Linkola is a green-fascist, Jensen certainly is not.


And despite whatever people say about die-offs and shit, Jensen knows and acknowledges that he will not survive the collapse of industrial civilization, he has chrons disease, so he actually could not survive in the future he advocates, so thats at least worth something, to me.

[Mr. Natural]

The Douche points to the major problem when he notes Jensen's theme of the "unsustainable nature of industrial society." For Jensen not to be off the mark from the get-go, he would be stressing the "unsustainable nature of capitalist society."

But Jensen is not a reactionary because he looks to traditional societies for modern guidance. These "pre-civilization" groups tended to develop close communal relations internally among themselves and externally with nature. "Community" was a constant presence in their lives, in marked contrast to our current existence within capitalism.

Surely modern communists can learn from primitive communism.

Perhaps Jensen could be more accurately termed "reactionary" for his misanthropy. He attributes the sins of the capitalist system to its captive human agents, but capitalism is the root problem.

All in all, though, Jensen's sloppy philosophizing and politicking elude definition. He's a guy who was brutalized by his father along with the rest of his family and who turned to the natural world for solace. I believe these are the psychological roots of "Jensenism," whatever it is.

My red-green best.

[The Douche]

The Douche points to the major problem when he notes Jensen's theme of the "unsustainable nature of industrial society." For Jensen not to be off the mark from the get-go, he would be stressing the "unsustainable nature of capitalist society."

But Jensen is not a reactionary because he looks to traditional societies for modern guidance. These "pre-civilization" groups tended to develop close communal relations internally among themselves and externally with nature. "Community" was a constant presence in their lives, in marked contrast to our current existence within capitalism.

Surely modern communists can learn from primitive communism.

Perhaps Jensen could be more accurately termed "reactionary" for his misanthropy. He attributes the sins of the capitalist system to its captive human agents, but capitalism is the root problem.

All in all, though, Jensen's sloppy philosophizing and politicking elude definition. He's a guy who was brutalized by his father along with the rest of his family and who turned to the natural world for solace. I believe these are the psychological roots of "Jensenism," whatever it is.

My red-green best.

Do you think capitalism and industrial civilization can be separated in our reality? I mean, theoretically I suppose they could exist separately. But in the real world, the two are completely intertwined systems of dominance.

The factory (or the grill at McDonalds, the check out line at walmart, the school, etc) are not just this abstract "means of production", it (they) are also creations of state and capital to ensure its dominance.

Civilization (especially industrial civilization) is a cousin of capital. I don't think that is news to Jensen.

[Mr. Natural]

The Douche, You are correct. Capitalism and industrial civilization cannot be separated in our current reality, for industry is characteristic of the advanced stage of capitalism. Industry would be organized very differently by anarchist/communist societies, and "industry" in itself is not a bad thing.

But civilization and capitalism did not come together. Civilization was a product of the rise of agriculture, which preceded capitalism, but as agriculture and settled living made the production of a surplus possible, you might say they laid the groundwork for a system of production for profit.

My red-green best.

[Os Cangaceiros]

2) The 'age of 32' thing. That's merely a hobbesian echo which sees pre-state and pre-civ societies as 'nastish, brutish and short' in his words. All anthropological evidence points to the contrary. In fact, in the initial stages of the transition to fully sedentary, agricultural societies (as opposed to those who were pastoral or practiced small-scale horticulture) there was a huge drop in the quality of life and life expectancy in general.


I don't think that life "back then" was necessarily nasty and brutish, but it was definitely short. Countless people died in early childhood, from easily preventable illnesses and malnutrition before industrial society (and after industrial society, for that matter, although the rate is lower). It was public health initiatives that managed to eradicate things like smallpox and polio (well, polio isn't entirely eradicated, but according to it's Wiki page, the number of polio cases today is less than a thousand, so it's effectively eradicated. There used to be hundreds of thousands of polio victims a year, one of my neighbors who's now in his 70's was permanently crippled by the disease as a child.) In my opinion, these accomplishments are near the top of mankind's greatest achievements as a species. They wouldn't have taken place if not for industrial medicine/industrial society, either.


It is true that people who live in the world's slums don't have that much of a lower life expectancy than much of the developed world. But that's because "a rising tide raises all ships" (and occassionally lowers a few (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/2047411/global_life_expectancy_on_the_rise/)); public health initiatives and "western medicine" have benefited the human species as a whole, albeit in very unequal ways.


I guess you could argue that disease wouldn't even spread if not for the fact that humans congregated in towns and eventually cities through the sedentary lifestyle we came to adopt, but honestly I don't think a debate about whether or not to go back to a "hunter gatherer" society is even worth having. Those days are over and done. There's no going back for us as a species, not unless you build yourself a time machine.


As far as the general sustainability of capitalism goes, ecologically-speaking: there are signs that a dramatic reassessment of humanity's productive capabilities will have to come about in the near future, and we've seen some of the signs of this in the present year, actually, with the drought here in the USA which ravaged the agricultural industry. I can see a few signs of it where I live, too, although the overall effects of climate change here remain very murky. HOWEVER, I'm not about to let a deluded numpty who weeps tears over salmon like Jensen tell me that a 200 year trend in human history, that one could certainly make a persuasive case for having brought real, concrete benefits to humanity (as well as miseries, but we all know that story...), is completely worthless and unsustainable, and should be discarded in favor of living in a hole in the earth somewhere (which is where the indigenous people where I'm from used to live). I'd rather live in a capitalist city than a non-capitalist hut made of sticks, and I'm not convinced that industrial society is unsustainable, sorry! I think that rich people will wall themselves off in South Africa-style enclaves and exterminate some of the surplus population before that happens. People have been making predictions about the unsustainability of industrial society just about since industrial society first came about, and they all turned out to be wrong (famous examples being the Club of Rome's prediction that a major catastrophe involving peak oil and the population would strike the planet in the early 1990's, "The Population Bomb", etc).


Are there many respected scientists who say that what we're doing is unsustainable? Yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that agrees that the solution is to mime indigineous cultures and let all the hospitals and factories crumble into dust. Are we to disbelieve these scientists just because they're supposedly an integral part of the great grey corpse machine of Capital? I'd say no, no moreso than you would some who works for a wage, just because that individual is also an integral part of the functioning & maintenance of the corpse machine. Saying that industrial society and capitalism are, as the Douche said, "completely intertwined systems of dominance" is hardly a revelation. Sometimes I think people think saying that Capital created and uses industry for it's own ends is some kind of revelatory statement. It's not. Most Marxists would agree with it. But no one has proven to me that it can only be that way. In fact most primitivists (or quasi- crypto- proto- neo- primitivists, or whatever-the-hell you want to call people like Jensen) "prove" their points by using warmed-over flowery Situationist-esque language about how technology and civilization have alienated us, when our true nature resides in hurling a spear at a boar or some such nonsense. That kind of BS is only persuasive if you're already a wingnut, any "normal person" would completely reject it.



B-b-b-but I don't wanna be a communist if it means I can't have an iPhone!!!!


As opposed to the entertainment of the future, which I guess is watching these beautiful creatures squirt sperm and eggs on each other:

http://igiugiglodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/humpy1.jpg

[The Douche]

I would also like to say, regarding the lifespan issue, if the landbase does not support humans living past 32, then well, sorry. I'm not down with the whole Christian idea of man's mastery of the earth.

[Vanguard1917]

He is a glorified lunatic.

[The Douche]

He is a glorified lunatic.

Fucking sweet post, bro.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would also like to say, regarding the lifespan issue, if the landbase does not support humans living past 32, then well, sorry. I'm not down with the whole Christian idea of man's mastery of the earth.

What about an atheist idea of human mastery over the cosmos?

The point being that since there's no God and the universe has no teleology or purpose, we might as well try to make things as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible.

Somehow I doubt that involves abandoning things like all the medical knowledge we've acquired since industrialisation.

[Mr. Natural]

Human mastery over the cosmos? Ugh! Gimme the realization of our human natures as life with awareness of itself. I would no more aim for mastery over the cosmos than I would desire mastery over my parents.

Noxion is correct that humanity has no teleogical mission. The "purpose" and "meaning" of our lives is what we assign to them.

Erich Jantsch, a professor at UC-Berkeley and fellow Austrian and friend of Fritjof Capra, wrote The Self-Organizing Universe, which perceives the universe as a self-organizing whole--a dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns--and sees "God" as the "mind" of the universe: as the totality of its self-organizing relations.

So humanity's "mission" is to come to understand organizational relations and "play God" to live naturally as "life with awareness of its nature." These will be anarchist/communist relations, which mimic life's communality, and there will be many expressions of such relations just as life has numerous forms that emerge from its universal "anarchist/communist" organizational pattern.

Living as "life with awareness of itself" would mean living in bottom-up, anarchist/communist forms of community. This would constitute a glorious human revolutionary renaissance. Marx: "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible." (German Ideology)

My red-green best.

[The Douche]

What about an atheist idea of human mastery over the cosmos?

The point being that since there's no God and the universe has no teleology or purpose, we might as well try to make things as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible.

Somehow I doubt that involves abandoning things like all the medical knowledge we've acquired since industrialisation.

Its still rooted in christian dominance over the landbase. Just like the mother fuckers who talk about 5 year plans are still rooted in capital and the protestant work ethic.

I do not believe that the earth and everything on it is here for our exploitation, sorry. And communism necessitates that we adjust the way we interact with the landbase so that we can continue as a species.

Every time a thread involving any sort of anti-civ thought comes up the same discussion emerges. You pro-civ people believe that you have the ability to prefigure communism, and thats a load of horseshit. If you think that communism is gonna be exactly like this world, but everything will be free instead of having to buy it, then you're a real dipshit.

You think tar sands or fracking are still going to exist in communism? You think we ought to continue to ravage this planet and call that communism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its still rooted in christian dominance over the landbase. Just like the mother fuckers who talk about 5 year plans are still rooted in capital and the protestant work ethic.

Er, how? The motivations and means are completely different. For a start, my position seeks to place control over the universe in the hands of humans generally, not just that particular subset of it that happens to be Christian. Secondly, when Christians speak of dominance over the Earth, their view of humans as special creations rather than cousins to all life alienates them from the rest of nature, eroding if not eradicating respect for the importance of such things as biodiversity.


I do not believe that the earth and everything on it is here for our exploitation, sorry.

Neither do I, since the universe has no purpose that we humans didn't put there. But if we do not take control then the blind forces of nature will eventually do us in.


And communism necessitates that we adjust the way we interact with the landbase so that we can continue as a species.

Of course, but the argument is about precisely what needs to change.


Every time a thread involving any sort of anti-civ thought comes up the same discussion emerges. You pro-civ people believe that you have the ability to prefigure communism, and thats a load of horseshit. If you think that communism is gonna be exactly like this world, but everything will be free instead of having to buy it, then you're a real dipshit.

Just because you have difficulty envisioning industrial civilisation functioning without capitalism does not mean the rest of us suffer from that handicap. Obviously the differences will be far more fundamental than you describe, for a start there won't just be no more prices. There'll be no more advertisements or finance industry bullfuckery, the cult of greed and acquisitiveness will no longer have any material basis. Along with anything thing else I've forgotten. Why would we need any of that crap when production is being run by the workers, for the workers?


You think tar sands or fracking are still going to exist in communism? You think we ought to continue to ravage this planet and call that communism?

Tar sands? Fracking? No. I honestly don't think burning increasingly hard-to-find oil as a fuel source has a long-term future.

What we're seeing now are the environmental effects of a system where industrial-scale production exists under the control of private interests (or in the case of places like the Soviet Union, the State) rather than collective control.

[Art Vandelay]

I think its honestly similar to Malthus. He thought we were fucked due to over population, but was obviously unable to see the technological advancements which would make sustaining a growing population possible (ie: industrial revolution). Same goes for us, we simly don't know what communism is going to look like, since we don't know what technological advancements will follow the destruction of capital. However while we are incapable of knowing the fine details, there is one thing which is certain: it will be progressive, not a (semi) return past epochs.