Left Biocentrism

[DEPAVER]

Ed Abbey constantly struggled with the concept of industrial
society, rightly understanding that socialist societies can be as
destructive as capitalist societies, when it come to the activities of
production for human use.

Part of what I've been doing while discussing things with socialists is
trying to find a way through socialism to a sustainable human society. I
learned, finally and ultimately, that perhaps this is a futile effort. Ed was right,
socialism offers no advantage over capitalism if it ignores the non-human.

I did find however, a group that calls itself Left Biocentrism. While I
ultimately left this group in frustration, again, I did come away with some
information that I think might be useful.

I'd like to lay this out for you and ask for your opinions. I'm also
interested in what to do with this kind of stuff! It's fun to talk about,
but how would we put this kind of theoretical understanding into meaningful
practice.

1. Left biocentrism supports identification, solidarity, and compassion with
all life. "Left" as used in left biocentrism, means anti-industrial and
anti-capitalist, but not necessarily socialist. The expressions 'left
biocentrism' or 'left ecocentrism' are used interchangeably.

2. Left biocentrists understand that the Earth belongs to no one.

3. Left biocentrists take responsibility for the effects of their actions in
their social and bioregional spheres.

4. Left biocentrists are concerned with the effects of human social
injustice and class inequality within a complete human and non-human
ecosystem. Left biocentrists promote an understanding of the
destructive environmental effects of inequalities in human social justice,
class and economic systems.

5. Left biocentrists oppose unlimited economic growth and consumerism.
Human societies must live within natural biological and geophysical limits
so that all species may continue. Bioregionalism, not globalism, is
necessary for sustainable human societies. People of industrialized
bioregions must work in solidarity with people of nonindustrialized
bioregions on this path to sustainable societies.

6. Individual and collective ideological transformation is important to
bring about major social change, and to break with industrial society.
Humans must find inward transformation, so that short-term human interests
do not override the interests of all species.

7. Left biocentrism applies to all environmental issues and struggles, no
matter how the results affect socially issues.

8. Socialism, while raising important questions, places human to human
relations within society in supreme importance and, in the final analysis,
determines society's relationship to the natural world. Although a desirable
goal, an egalitarian, nonsexist, nondiscriminating socialist society can
still exploit non-human species.

9. Left biocentrists are critical of existing Green political parties, which
have come to an accommodation with industrial society and have no intrinsic
biocentrist awareness.

10. To be politically and environmentally relevant, political and
environmental movements are encouraged to incorporate the perspective
advanced by left biocentrism.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Sounds wonderful, where do I sign up? :lol: (Could do with a little more Communism, perhaps? At least, that's my view...)

You summed things up nicely, but do you have a link to a site I could follow?

[Solace]

No, thankies.

You make it sound so noble. Maybe I should black the board a little bit

The “left” in “left biocentrism” means that they are anti-industrialisation. They oppose capitalism because the environment is threatened. They are not necessarily socialist. They are not necessarily communist.

As for me and from what I read, left biocentrism doesn’t have a spine. It’s ambiguous and incoherent. They advocate many things, but do not confront any. We all can be left biocentrist. It’s not a phylosophy or an ideology but rather a movement.

Left Biocentrism is such a fancy term for… ecology.

[redstar2000]

Ed Abbey constantly struggled with the concept of industrial society...socialism offers no advantage over capitalism if it ignores the non-human.

I always find it hard to understand what people actually mean by statements like this.

No one literally "ignores" the non-human, so obviously something else is meant.

The question is what.


Left biocentrism supports identification, solidarity, and compassion with all life.

All life? The mosquito? The bubonic plague bacillus? The AIDS virus?

Sorry, my "identification, solidarity, and compassion" have limits.

Some life forms I would happily see driven to extinction.

It's them or us!


"Left" as used in left biocentrism, means anti-industrial...

Do they merely wish to degrade us to medieval serfs...or is it back to the stone age?


Human societies must live within natural biological and geophysical limits
so that all species may continue.

Humans don't care for "limits" much; unless you lock them up, they'll start figuring out ways to exceed those limits or get around them altogether.


Humans must find inward transformation...

Too mystical for my taste...though it may "play well" on the American west coast.


Although a desirable goal, an egalitarian, nonsexist, nondiscriminating socialist society can still exploit non-human species.

And will. Guaranteed!

Humans cannot live by sucking rocks...therefore we will continue to eat plants and animals.

In summary: essentially irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Unfortunately, despite being an environmentalist myself, I see nothing I like in the yuppie environmentalist movements these days. This one included. The ones that will sell human beings and happily see them as wage slaves, so long as the plastic handcuffs used on them are recycled properly.

Socialist society can and must be organized along sustainable lines, but to think we will destroy industrialization is idiotic. The answer is better technology that leaves as low a footprint as possible upon the environment.

We will not ignore famine and slavery to clean up the environment, we will not let it be our be all and end all. It is important, but don't expect us to sit by while wage slaves die of hunger and poverty because we're too busy worrying about gaia.

Don't expect us to renounce technology and huddle around a fire in the forest either.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:29 AM
<_< Sounds interesting, but too much like a bunch of radical enviornmentalists. And on that note, the humans of earth have more important things to worry about.
And what would be more important that making sure we don&#39;t destroy our home and our ability to survive?

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 4 2004, 03:15 AM
You summed things up nicely, but do you have a link to a site I could follow?
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:43 AM
They oppose capitalism because the environment is threatened. They are not necessarily socialist. They are not necessarily communist.

As for me and from what I read, left biocentrism doesn’t have a spine. It’s ambiguous and incoherent. They advocate many things, but do not confront any.
They oppose capitalism for the right reasons&#33;

Why does everything have to involve a confrontation?

I guess we&#39;ll see how much "spine" you have when the bullets start flying and an armed constabulary swoops down and puts the boots to you and your friends.

Are you prepared for this?

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:35 AM


Although a desirable goal, an egalitarian, nonsexist, nondiscriminating socialist society can still exploit non-human species.

And will. Guaranteed&#33;

Humans cannot live by sucking rocks...therefore we will continue to eat plants and animals.

In summary: essentially irrelevant to proletarian revolution.


I give up.

I&#39;d say good luck and good bye, but I really do not want you to find success, despite how much I may have sympathy for your cause.

You cannot grow infinitely in a world of finite resources. There&#39;s nothing wrong with growing food and harvesting animals for food, but any program that doesn&#39;t plan for rational use of finite natural resources will not have my support. And don&#39;t count on a large segment of the left in the U.S. to support your cause, either.

In the U.S., the left is highly concerned with the environment, and they are not interested in anthropocentric programs that call for violence and the mindless extraction of natural resources.

Perhaps you&#39;ll have more success in the U.K. and Europe, but you are doomed to failure in the U.S.

[The Feral Underclass]

I guess we&#39;ll see how much "spine" you have when the bullets start flying and an armed constabulary swoops down and puts the boots to you and your friends.

Are you prepared for this?

It isnt a question whether solace has the spine as an indevidual to kill or be killed it is about understanding how you overthrow capitalism. Everything comes down to a confrontation because capitalism will force it too. None of us like it. We would rather it all happen the way you want it to. We are simply realistic.


In the U.S., the left is highly concerned with the environment, and they are not interested in anthropocentric programs that call for violence and the mindless extraction of natural resources.

That&#39;s now. How do you know it still will be in fifty years time. Do you think that when the peasents in feudel times were concerned with not dying of the plague they envisged a world with such magnificant medical abilities. No they didnt&#33; Yet alas, we have medicine to stop your hair falling out. We have surgeons who can perform live saving surgery. We have preventative drugs, we have transplants and vaccines. We have pain killers. Do you think when those big plack pustules were growing under their arms they thought to themselves "if only I had an asprin"....of course they didnt. Your point is irrelevant. What people know now is not what they know in the future. history develops and changes every second...I have changed history by writing this response&#33;&#33;&#33; And you are chaning history by reading it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 4 2004, 07:49 AM
Socialist society can and must be organized along sustainable lines, but to think we will destroy industrialization is idiotic. The answer is better technology that leaves as low a footprint as possible upon the environment.

snip

Don&#39;t expect us to renounce technology and huddle around a fire in the forest either.
No one is saying we have to get rid of technology, but we must be wise about how we use natural resources.

Technology in and of itself isn&#39;t the problem. The problem is consumption and the fact there are too many people on the planet.

A man could be a lover and defender of wilderness without ever in his lifetime leaving the boundaries of asphalt, powerlines, and right-angled surfaces. We need wilderness whether or not we ever set foot in it. We need a refuge even though we may never need to go there. I may never get there. We need the possibility of escape as surely as we need hope: without it the life of the cities would drive all men into crime or drugs or psychoanalysis.

[Solace]

*smirks* It&#39;s amazing how people can ignore the subject and get into irrelevant details. Oh, well.

My point is that left biocentrism has no real meaning. It&#39;s merely a envioronmental movement. Nothing more. Nothing that deserve much interest.

The disavantages of capitalism are not narrowed to the environmental issue, you know.


Do they merely wish to degrade us to medieval serfs...or is it back to the stone age?

You can wonder.

I doubt very much that they &#39;wish&#39; anything at all. Everyone can find some comfort in left-biocentrism, just as long as you value the environment. You have capitalist left-biocentrist, socialist left-biocentrism, communist left-biocentrist and so on forever.


I guess we&#39;ll see how much "spine" you have when the bullets start flying and an armed constabulary swoops down and puts the boots to you and your friends.

Yeah, whatever you say. Whatever you say...

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:44 PM




My point is that left biocentrism has no real meaning. It&#39;s merely a envioronmental movement. Nothing more. Nothing that deserve much interest.

Environmental issues and social justice issues are heavily interdigitated. These are not separate issues.
You can&#39;t have a healthy environment within the confines of industrial capitalism, but you can&#39;t have successful, egalitarian society outside of a healthy environment, either.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think we all know my opinions on the enviroment. Yes, I think a nice enviroment is good, but it shouldn&#39;t be the main focus.

[The Children of the Revolution]

<Thanks for the link &#39;DEPAVER&#39;>



The problem is consumption and the fact there are too many people on the planet.


Undoubtedly true. You chaps can mock now, but it&#39;s our generation and our children&#39;s generation that will suffer. There is a real problem in the world at the moment, WORSE than Bu&#036;h or Blair - apathy concerning issues of sustainability.



Nothing that deserve much interest.


This is exactly it&#33; The environment DOES deserve our attention&#33;&#33; As &#39;DEPAVER&#39; rightly suggests, whether the economics of the world are broadly socialist or communist or capitalist or whatever... if we don&#39;t change our ways, no "class consciousness" or glorious revolution will save us from OURSELVES&#33;&#33;

[redstar2000]

Why does everything have to involve a confrontation?

It&#39;s the nature of social reality.

Although humans have long exercised their imaginations on visions of "peaceful harmony" (earthly and divine), it seems that we "like" things stirred up a bit...it makes life more interesting.

I frequently find it necessary to remind people that communism is not "heaven"...people will still have disputes, quarrels, squabbles, etc.

They just won&#39;t be about wealth or privilege, that&#39;s all.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Well, don&#39;t leave depaver.

We are all environmentalists here, every one of us, and while Soviet and Maoist "Socialism" may have ignored the environment in favour of rapid industrialization, I can assure you most of us do not.

We do consider the environment a very important issue, and we do consider it essential to deal with the problem of pollution as quickly as possible. However, alot of us are disappointed in many of the environmental movements of today who avoid dealing with social justice and limit themselves to reforming Capitalism, a futile endeavour.

We all believe in sustainable egalitarianism, it just seemed to us that the particulare issue you spoke of was to renounce industrialization all together, instead of looking for technological developement to develop green energy and sustainable economics.

[Pete]

Alright, I&#39;ve been meaning to reply on this but didn&#39;t have the &#39;flame&#39; in me to do it for a while. Now that I&#39;ve lost my wallet and thus cannot go to the PIRG conference this weekend nor see my grandma (quite sickly she is) and have a lot of time I will post now.

A backgrounder, I am just as green as I am red and black, and for that I see where these people are coming from them. The problem is that they seem to want to reject the benifits that have come aobut because of Capitalism. Anyone who denies the existance of any benifit is surely blind, as it is a clear improvement over Absolutism, Mercantalism (though its current form is begining to have a touch of this in it), and Feudalism.

So the critique:


Left" as used in left biocentrism, means anti-industrial and
anti-capitalist, but not necessarily socialist. The expressions &#39;left
biocentrism&#39; or &#39;left ecocentrism&#39; are used interchangeably.

Problem: Modern technology should not be abandoned, but adapted into green forms. Wind and Solar power should be used instead of non renewable sources, research into magnetics (something that I have put great thought into, though have done no reading on) for propulsion (ie mass transport, trains, the such) and decentralized industrial sustainability are all needed.

To be anti industrial is not to be left but is to be extremely reactionary, and for that I disagree with these people on principle.


2. Left biocentrists understand that the Earth belongs to no one.

Agreed.


3. Left biocentrists take responsibility for the effects of their actions in
their social and bioregional spheres.

I don&#39;t like the wording, but the spirit is right. Agreed.


4. Left biocentrists are concerned with the effects of human social
injustice and class inequality within a complete human and non-human
ecosystem. Left biocentrists promote an understanding of the
destructive environmental effects of inequalities in human social justice,
class and economic systems.

As all leftists should. Yet in its quest to abolish industry to create equality they have erred greatly. You will have to go back ten thousand years to find a society that was based on equality, no industrialized, and &#39;western.&#39; We have abandoned that long ago, there is no turning back.

I agree to the spirit, not the wording or the means.


. Left biocentrists oppose unlimited economic growth and consumerism.
Human societies must live within natural biological and geophysical limits
so that all species may continue.

Agreed.


Bioregionalism, not globalism, is
necessary for sustainable human societies. People of industrialized
bioregions must work in solidarity with people of nonindustrialized
bioregions on this path to sustainable societies

Agreed, though I dislike the use of &#39;bio&#39; infront of every term. That is a bit annoying and excessive. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Basically this says: People of the world unite.


6. Individual and collective ideological transformation is important to
bring about major social change,

This is only logical...


and to break with industrial society

This is idiotic, for reasons explained above.


Humans must find inward transformation, so that short-term human interests
do not override the interests of all species.

And this sounds a bit to spiritual for my likings.

Read: We must change our way of life and worldview, so that we can look at things in the larger picture over the long term.


7. Left biocentrism applies to all environmental issues and struggles, no
matter how the results affect socially issues.

I disagree, social struggles should be taken in the light of environmentalism, and environmental struggles in the light of the social struggle. They do not exclude eachother, and are joined at the hip, only too many people have ignored this for too long.


8. Socialism, while raising important questions, places human to human
relations within society in supreme importance and, in the final analysis,
determines society&#39;s relationship to the natural world. Although a desirable
goal, an egalitarian, nonsexist, nondiscriminating socialist society can
still exploit non-human species

Yes, which is why we must remember that humans are not extreme and for anysystem to last any period of time it must be sustainable. We cannot go around killing people, but we can go around and making our own lifestyles more sustainable, our own mind sets more sustainable, and our communties actions more sustainable. Socialism can do this, the problem is Marxism is rooted in the romantic humanism of the 19th century and many people have yet to reconcile that with environmental realites.


9. Left biocentrists are critical of existing Green political parties, which
have come to an accommodation with industrial society and have no intrinsic
biocentrist awareness.

Yes and no. We need sustainable industry. We cannot live without affect the world, so we might aswell live as comfortly as possible causing as little negative change as possible. THe two ideas have to play off each other, or else they will both fail in the long run.


10. To be politically and environmentally relevant, political and
environmental movements are encouraged to incorporate the perspective
advanced by left biocentrism.

Biocentrism, but not from their point of view. ANd not the extreme reactionary tendancies they imply.

I can see why you left the group in frustration, and if you leave I&#39;ll have to hunt you down and kick you in the ass. Stay, it is good to have someone thinking along the same lines of me here... to many people who seem to think the environment will fix it self.. like the one who made this comment:


I think we all know my opinions on the enviroment. Yes, I think a nice enviroment is good, but it shouldn&#39;t be the main focus.

There should never be ONE main focus. There should always be MANY foci, as when you stick your goals on ONE thing you will fail in all the other goals that are linked to this ONE thing.

-Pete

[DEPAVER]

Hey Pete&#33;
Thanks for your cogent, well-reasoned contribution to the discussion.

I&#39;ve long maintained there must be a sensible middle way, and tossed out the Left Bio stuff just to spark some discussion.

Recently, I&#39;ve become very interested in "ecosocialism" a theory proposed and discussed by a brilliant professor, Joel Kovel in his book The Enemy of Nature. He writes eloquently about how the advancement of capital is the root cause of the current environmental crisis and proposes some short term and long term solutions to the problem I find highly appealing. There is promise in his position.

Human society really is going down the porcelain parkway, and there doesn&#39;t seem to be a whole lot we can do to forestall the blessed event, even if we wanted to. Capitalism is in firm control of the Ship of State; our puny efforts to wrest the steering wheel (or tiller, I guess, is the proper nautical term) from the insane captain are futile. Whenever we attempt to gain control, the captain calls in more seamen to fight us off. We&#39;re headed for the rocks, might as well get used to it. It&#39;s hard but it&#39;s fair.

What we do about this very real situation is something else entirely. We have two choices (well, I have two choices), 1) stick around and attempt to provide the example of the change required (Be the change you wish to see in the world); or b) find a bolt-hole to live out the changes or the rest of your life, in relative peace and harmony. There is also, I suppose: III) All of the above.

Regardless of what we choose, the grand panoply plays on, the fat cats get fatter, the powerful gain more power and the killers keep on killing. This seems to be The Way Things Are. It may be true that a non-capitalist society, whatever we may call it, would not reward such behavior, but then, there is no non-capitalist society, is there? At least, there are none that have any influence on the world we live in.

We can, if we like, choose to make decisions that our not in our best interest in the long run, such as holding small electronic devices to our ears while driving our SUVs to the exercise boutique. Or, we can choose to walk or bicycle to our destination, sans cell phone, thus cutting our dependence on motorized behemoths, superfluous communications technology and the mechanized exercise industry in one fell swoop (the red-tailed hawk, shopping for breakfast).

It is not in our interest to "regain" control (as if we ever had it) of the central government. The best thing we can do is tell the central government to go pound sand (down a rat hole, so the saying goes, though this is a grave insult to the rats therein), and pack off a couple of corporate lobbyists under each arm while they&#39;re at it. The people in this country hold the power; it will be sufficient for us to retain that power unto ourselves and put it to good use in our neighborhoods and communities. The power mongers and game players thousands of miles away can go play mumbly-peg with their Pentagon buddies for all I care. We don&#39;t need em and we sure as hell don&#39;t need them bleeding our cities and states dry to fund their corporate buddies in war-torn [insert invaded nation here]&#33;

We are not defenseless victims at the hands of corporate domination. We, the People, make decisions every day that allow and encourage corporate domination of our society. Every time someone buys a bottle of expensive water in a plastic container, every time someone stops at a fat food emporium for a dose of cholesterol, every time someone sets foot in a big box store, they choose to support the corporate status quo. We (the national aggregate) are the way we are because we have chosen to be this way, every step of the way.

The centralized power held by the federal government is the handmaiden of corporate interests. It is not something that can be "taken back" by the people. We can only take back ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, our communities. From this grass roots, a social structure can grow that responds to the will of the people.

As I say this, of course, my inner voice whispers in my ear: "What difference does it make? In a generation, the whole grand panoply will be a steaming heap of ashes in the bottom of the great pit of global climate change and economic collapse.

I guess we have to have something to do while the sweet peas bloom and the squash ripens&#33;