the point of no return: climate change nightmares are already here

[bcbm]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

[BIXX]

"It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Oh wait so this is a good thing then

[bcbm]

i guess if youre the sort of weirdo that thinks billions of people dying and suffering through potentially the largest catastrophe in history is a 'good thing'

[Proletarius]

Yet people still deny it's even happening in the comments to that article.

What the fuck have we done to our home, yet still some people deny it or play down the severity. Hello, our fucking planet is being ruined here.

Just imagine the amount of power we could generate with simple things, every house having their roofs decked out with solar panels, for example. It would be immense. This is just a basic idea and it would generate a lot, not to mention if we got to work on really trying to save this planet with other measures.

Russia claimed parts of the oil rich arctic shelf earlier in the week too. The bourgeoisie of all nations will end up fighting each other for the right to extract the remaining smatterings of oil.

I honestly fear for the future of this world. Especially in high risk areas. The governments of the world are becoming increasingly hostile to refugees too, so it'll be even harder to escape disasters inflicted by all this. There are people dying in the Mediterranean while the governments and it's media demonise them as some sort of insect, our PM, David Cameron even described them as a "swarm" like some sort of fucking species of fly.

Despicable.

[Proletarius]

"It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Oh wait so this is a good thing then

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We'll be harder to govern but there will be millions dying/forced out of their homelands. Not particularly great.

[Antiochus]

"It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Oh wait so this is a good thing then

Mhh, reply when you die from an otherwise easily preventable disease.

[BIXX]

I realize now that given my other positions my joke was destined to be seen as an actual position.

As an actual position, I don't think the left, even if it got its revolution, was ever capable of dealing with this issue, so whatever strange ideas y'all have about solar power or wind power etc... don't really matter as they are all part of the myth of green energy.

[hexaune]

I realize now that given my other positions my joke was destined to be seen as an actual position.

As an actual position, I don't think the left, even if it got its revolution, was ever capable of dealing with this issue, so whatever strange ideas y'all have about solar power or wind power etc... don't really matter as they are all part of the myth of green energy.


What do you mean by the myth of green energy?

[BIXX]

What do you mean by the myth of green energy?

Exactly that- green energy (or, more accurately, green electricity) is a lie. It cannot exist. It would require a magical ability to create something from nothing- a skill we do not posses.

[Armchair Partisan]

Exactly that- green energy (or, more accurately, green electricity) is a lie. It cannot exist. It would require a magical ability to create something from nothing- a skill we do not posses.

You mean, already existing and functioning solar panels, wind turbines etc. are... harmful to the environment? Not renewable? Which criterion of green energy do they violate? Also, hopefully, you do realize that "green electricity" is just electricity which is generated with the application of green energy?

[Ele'ill]

@bcbm, I don't disagree with your post but aren't the ghettos, artificial lack of nutrition/food, mass displacement, mass extinctions, etc.. already happening as an era and not a singular event, as briefly touched on in the OP article?

I guess I disagree that 'it' will 'threaten the fabric of civilization' or capital anyways

[Ele'ill]

You mean, already existing and functioning solar panels, wind turbines etc. are... harmful to the environment? Not renewable? Which criterion of green energy do they violate? Also, hopefully, you do realize that "green electricity" is just electricity which is generated with the application of green energy?

i think the general criticisms that apply to what we're talking about (i.e. not criticisms that revolve economics and politics like legislation, budgeting, greenwashing, and physical land space) are that all the renewable energy sources still require massive amounts of resource extraction for production that is still horrible from an environmental standpoint. The other problem is that with the rapid degradation of the environment we still only have hypothetical solutions for a lot of things including the concept that actual solutions inherently must exist. It isn't that something isn't possible it's that most optimism is unfounded and delegitimizes how serious of an issue some of these things are.

[Rafiq]

Exactly that- green energy (or, more accurately, green electricity) is a lie. It cannot exist. It would require a magical ability to create something from nothing- a skill we do not posses.

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.

Likewise, yes a revolution in energy is definitely possible, yes this revolution is being perpetually hindered by capital. Of course it might not qualify as "green" in your mind, but who cares? The "myth of green energy" you say, as though we're all invested in the idea of being "at one with nature" or even worse, some kind of bizarre technognosis entailing a return to it through accelerationist means - no, it's plainly not a myth at all, because only reactionaries care about being "green". We Communists are well aware that we would bring about the destruction of the "environment" - we're not in on the secret of ecology worship. The superstition that we ought not to "mess" with natural processes is the same superstition that entails we ought not to "mess" with social processes too. And no, we don't need any kind of fetishistic accelerationism to sustain this either - worship of ecology simply does not, and will never fall into our vocabulary.

The point is that the destruction of humanity is not an inevitability, not some kind of poetic irony, not some kind of universal tragedy that "human-kind" as a whole bears responsibility for, it is a possible systemic consequence of the existing conditions of life. Not only "can" the left confront this problem, ONLY the Communists can. Why? Being that Communism entails consciousness of social processes on a systemic level, the mass-coordination, planning, centralized maneuverings, etc. to combat the ecological crisis (which, after all, constitutes a commons) would by in part solve the crisis.

You know it's such a disgusting logic too - to be conscious of something and then to "leave it be" is called superstition.

[Ele'ill]

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.

the interconnectivity of those millions of species inspire the existence of a planet capable of producing and sustaining life and i think basing our interactions with it as if we are outside of it is delusional

[Rafiq]

the interconnectivity of those millions of species inspire the existence of a planet capable of producing and sustaining life

Right, but that we are conscious of those processes means we are beyond them - in the sense that we can make a conscious effort to manipulate them. Again, we cannot approach the issue superstitiously. The fact that we can be conscious of all of these processes does in fact mean we are outside of them. Animals are not spiritually "interconnected", after all. Of course we would have to go about this in a very careful manner, but what of it?

[BIXX]

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.

Likewise, yes a revolution in energy is definitely possible, yes this revolution is being perpetually hindered by capital. Of course it might not qualify as "green" in your mind, but who cares? The "myth of green energy" you say, as though we're all invested in the idea of being "at one with nature" or even worse, some kind of bizarre technognosis entailing a return to it through accelerationist means - no, it's plainly not a myth at all, because only reactionaries care about being "green". We Communists are well aware that we would bring about the destruction of the "environment" - we're not in on the secret of ecology worship. The superstition that we ought not to "mess" with natural processes is the same superstition that entails we ought not to "mess" with social processes too. And no, we don't need any kind of fetishistic accelerationism to sustain this either - worship of ecology simply does not, and will never fall into our vocabulary.

The point is that the destruction of humanity is not an inevitability, not some kind of poetic irony, not some kind of universal tragedy that "human-kind" as a whole bears responsibility for, it is a possible systemic consequence of the existing conditions of life. Not only "can" the left confront this problem, ONLY the Communists can. Why? Being that Communism entails consciousness of social processes on a systemic level, the mass-coordination, planning, centralized maneuverings, etc. to combat the ecological crisis (which, after all, constitutes a commons) would by in part solve the crisis.

You know it's such a disgusting logic too - to be conscious of something and then to "leave it be" is called superstition.

So you're saying that humans can live entirely independent from the biosphere, even where one doesn't exist?

I doubt that humans can.

Out of curiosity what does the climate look like under communism to you? How do humans deal with this?


You mean, already existing and functioning solar panels, wind turbines etc. are... harmful to the environment? Not renewable? Which criterion of green energy do they violate?
Sustainability. They all break down and need repairs, and we, to replace the current output of electricity generated in "non-green" ways, will need to create many many more of them. And that resource extraction, inherent to green energy, production and general civilized life, is not sustainable.


Also, hopefully, you do realize that "green electricity" is just electricity which is generated with the application of green energy?
I separate the two because electricity is really what this debate was all about. If it was about energy we would be pretty easily able to agree that the most sustainable energy would be foraged and hunted and in perhaps farmed on a minor scale by few human beings. But this debate specifically revolves around an electricity fetish.

[BIXX]

Right, but that we are conscious of those processes means we are beyond them - in the sense that we can make a conscious effort to manipulate them. Again, we cannot approach the issue superstitiously. The fact that we can be conscious of all of these processes does in fact mean we are outside of them. Animals are not spiritually "interconnected", after all. Of course we would have to go about this in a very careful manner, but what of it?

No matter how careful you are your plan, without the magical ability of pure creation and destruction, it will be unsustainable.

[Ele'ill]

Right, but that we are conscious of those processes means we are beyond them - in the sense that we can make a conscious effort to manipulate them.

I don't agree that we are conscious of every important process within the biosphere and just being aware of them is not enough to be able to manipulate them.




Again, we cannot approach the issue superstitiously. The fact that we can be conscious of all of these processes does in fact mean we are outside of them. Animals are not spiritually "interconnected", after all. Of course we would have to go about this in a very careful manner, but what of it?

They're not spiritually interconnected they're actually interconnected as are local ecosystems that make up the biosphere.

[Rafiq]

So you're saying that humans can live entirely independent from the biosphere, even where one doesn't exist?

I doubt that humans can.

Out of curiosity what does the climate look like under communism to you? How do humans deal with this?


Humans could eventually live independently from the biosphere, yes, if they were to reproduce the same functions in a way which suits them better - at the expense of the "organic" of course. The first step is evaluating what exact biological, ecological processes are necessary for human survival - and if you can answer this question, you are already independent of them. I mean, think, why not? As for climate under Communism, state-level institutions, corporations, and so on are already investing consideration into geo-engineering, there is no reason to think this wouldn't be further developed in a post-capitalist society.


No matter how careful you are your plan, without the magical ability of pure creation and destruction, it will be unsustainable.

Unsustainable for whom? For what? What would need to be "purely" created or "purely" destroyed? Using this logic, a concrete building is "nature" because it derives from natural occurrences. Who cares? If we want to play dumb metaphysical games, then everything is "nature" after all. That doesn't mean humans ought to prostrate before the fetishistic altars of ecology. If we can understand things, we can change them.

There is no reason to think what you say is true. There are plenty of processes which require extensive consideration, and care - such as sustaining a nuclear reactor. That doesn't mean we ought to superstitiously do away with nuclear power.


I don't agree that we are conscious of every important process within the biosphere and just being aware of them is not enough to be able to manipulate them.

Practically, we are already conscious of the important processes. But again, even if this wasn't true, then this would be sought after. And why couldn't it? Why can't humans be 100% conscious of every important process that sustains THEIR OWN survival? We don't invest the time and energy for this, because there is no centralized, trans-national entity that cares about this. Moreover, you're right, being aware of them isn't enough to be able to manipulate them - this would require the kind of huge structural global coordination and intricate planning only possible in Communism.

The possibilities really are endless. With bio-engineering emerging, which has huge medical implications, even if this wasn't feasible (why wouldn't it be?) then we could seek out bio-engineering of humans to conform to a world paved in concrete.


They're not spiritually interconnected they're actually interconnected as are local ecosystems that make up the biosphere

Right, but we can actually understand how that is, and how exactly we are dependent on it to survive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why would we go to all the effort of inventing and building ways to have an artificial environment when we already have an actual environment...? You know, right now, that we could just stop fucking up...

Bio-engineering humans to conform to a world paved in concrete? What the shit are you talking about? Do you even listen to yourself? I mean, do you say these things out loud to actual real human beings or do you just sit in your room thinking this shit to yourself?

[Ele'ill]

Practically, we are already conscious of the important processes. But again, even if this wasn't true, then this would be sought after. And why couldn't it? Why can't humans be 100% conscious of every important process that sustains THEIR OWN survival? We don't invest the time and energy for this, because there is no centralized, trans-national entity that cares about this. Moreover, you're right, being aware of them isn't enough to be able to manipulate them - this would require the kind of huge structural global coordination and intricate planning only possible in Communism.

my comments were in reply to your proposal to continue to destroy plants and animals, not in reply to communism



The possibilities really are endless. With bio-engineering emerging, which has huge medical implications, even if this wasn't feasible (why wouldn't it be?) then we could seek out bio-engineering of humans to conform to a world paved in concrete.

are we going to talk about these prayers or are we going to talk about what we know because we don't know if this is going to happen and I can think of some pretty interesting weather scenarios of this mentioned paved planet that wouldn't be very liveable.





Right, but we can actually understand how that is, and how exactly we are dependent on it to survive.

we can but I don't believe we currently do

[The Feral Underclass]

The thought of living in some fucking Rafiq inspired world of concrete fills me with dread. Can you imagine trying to sell that shit to real, normal people?

"Yeah we have this great idea, but unfortunately all this nice green stuff that you hang out in, that's all gotta go...Oh yeah, we're just gonna concrete over all of this...Don't worry though, we're gonna engineer you so that you can live in it without dying...Your cat? No, sorry that's gotta go too..."

[Ele'ill]

people would be biologically engineered to accept such compromises as leaving an entire planet behind in exchange for complete shit

[The Feral Underclass]

If it's not concrete, it's not my revolution. (https://constructionforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/Slide1.png)

[Ele'ill]

we could biologically engineer people to live on the surface of the sun

[ComradeAllende]

As for climate under Communism, state-level institutions, corporations, and so on are already investing consideration into geo-engineering, there is no reason to think this wouldn't be further developed in a post-capitalist society.

Geoengineering would be a disastrous way to mitigate climate change. We would have to continuously pump gases into the atmosphere to counteract the effects of greenhouse emissions (no minor expenditure in a planned economy), and we'd have to do this indefinitely or else we'd be hit by the full force of climate change in a very short time frame. Not to mention the uncertainties involving geoengineering; we still don't know the effects that such activities will have on the environment (let alone public health and welfare) and whether or not it is a feasible long-term solution.


That doesn't mean humans ought to prostrate before the fetishistic altars of ecology. If we can understand things, we can change them.

I agree that we shouldn't embrace a fetishization of ecology (something that is quite common in certain strains of left-wing thought), yet there must be some sort of respect and defence for the natural laws. Just because we can change things in nature doesn't mean we should, precisely because our levels of understanding are too limited in compared to the realm of infinite possibilities. Certain qualities of the current ecological state may become key assets or liabilities in the future, a future that we cannot predict (even with the most optimized administrative and planning systems).

[Alet]

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.

Just one question - are you saying that communists should not give a shit, because they are supposed to give a Marxist, scientific analysis of anything or do you actually expect people in a communist society to think as rationally as you?

[Rafiq]

my comments were in reply to your proposal to continue to destroy plants and animals, not in reply to communism

And mine were in response to Placenta's claim that the "Left" couldn't solve such problems if they had their revolution, and that "green energy" (whatever that means) is a myth.

But yes, this would entail a continuation of 'destroying plants and animals' - well, let's be more specific: The destruction of plants and animals would only be conceived as an important variable in pertinence to how they directly relate to survival. In present society, with our faux ecology fetishism, it isn't the lampreys and all the disgusting creatures people are fetishizing over, it's the interesting animals, the pretty ones, and so on.

It is also wrong to think that ecology-fetishism is wrought out of some kind of genuine concern of the implications for human survival. Plainly put, the logic follows as "Well, AS A RESULT of messing with nature, bad things would happen" - but there is still a point of difference between the perceived harmful effects (in a utilitarian way) and the logic of being wary of "messing with nature" - which is superstitious.


are we going to talk about these prayers or are we going to talk about what we know because we don't know if this is going to happen and I can think of some pretty interesting weather scenarios of this mentioned paved planet that wouldn't be very liveable.

Nothing I am saying is unrealistic, or beyond the scope of even - yes, immediate possibility for building. I don't follow what you mean when you say "we don't know if this is going to happen" - why wouldn't it happen, for example? What we know is clearly not enough, so the point is to strive for giving energy and resources into completely knowing. This is not something which is being done today.

Plainly put, if it is already within the scope of imagination to "know" something, then we can already - in the immediate sense - know something, or more importantly, know where to look. My point of paving the planet with concrete was to make the point that more then ever today we need to conform the Earth to the needs of the human species, and that entails a radical geological transformation.


we can but I don't believe we currently do

Where do you get this idea, though? We pretty much do know this, there is no room for superstition, no 5th dimension that has gone under our radar which we haven't accounted for, or can't account for if we strove to. There is no metaphysical force called nature which is going to punish humans for defiling her.

I ask a very simple question: What about such processes do we not know? And why don't we? You could say that there's something we're missing and we shouldn't risk it, but this logic is no different than the superstition of capitalism - that destroying capitalism "could" unleash something we don't know, like some metaphysical expression of "human nature" coming back to haunt us. This is exactly the logic of ruling ideology, in fact. The windmill, electric power, and the nuclear plant were all pursued regardless of fear that they would produce ghosts, the wrath of god, or something else.

With such grand manipulations, if there is something we couldn't have taken account for, it would become apparent rather fast in the process of manipulation itself, to give room for correction. Again, nothing you say indicates we should just "leave it all be".

There is no indication that any of this is beyond the scope of conception.

[QUOTE=The Feral Underclass;2846425]The thought living in some fucking Rafiq inspried world of concrete fills me with dred. Can you imagine trying to sell that shit to real, normal people?
QUOTE]

"The thought of living in some fucking Rafiq inspired world of classlessness fills me with dred. Can you imagine trying to sell that shit to real, normal people? "Hey, you want all the flashy neon lights, colorful, cheerful advertisements, vast arrays of consumer goods? Sorry, nope, that's gotta go. Also, you'll never be able to run your own business."

I am truly sorry it doesn't appeal to your sentimentality. As to how I would have to "sell" this to people, that is a worthless observation. The Bolsheviks didn't have to "sell it" to the masses and yet it came very spontaneously to them through the course of struggling against superstition, darkness and a society that lacks self-consciousness. We saw it with cosmism, Soviet avant-garde, constructivism, etc. (Shortly before the more romantic "realism" replaced it via transformation of the peasantry).

This bullshit nature-worship garbage never entered into the imagination of any Communist movement, not in 1871, not during Social democracy, and not during the Comintern era. It is a particularly new perversion of the counter-culture. It is a legacy that will not only not be present in a Communist movement of the 21st century, it will be fought bitterly, it will be smashed and the discourse that opposes it will be enshrined in political action itself.

Ecology is the new opium of the masses, whether it takes the form of pseudo-Darwinist perversions like sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and biological determinism in general, or the metaphysical notion of "nature" coming to replace the idea of the authoritative god.

Bourgeois revolutionaries smashed the idols of Christendom, the church and natural superstition, and so too will Communists smash the idols of ecology, the spectacle and social superstition.

[Rafiq]

If it's not concrete, it's not my revolution. (https://constructionforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/Slide1.png)

It's silly that the only thing you're taking away from this is some kind of aesthetic PREFRENCE for concrete. Whatever, if the chemicals derived from "nature" are necessary to sustain human life (even though we lack evidence for this) then those can be replicated artificially. The point is that the fetishistic preference for AUTHENTICITY is the real perversion, the real sham.

You don't understand that nature doesn't exist, the fact that people like it because it makes them feel more "authentic" reflects problems that are of a social, not metaphysical nature.


Geoengineering would be a disastrous way to mitigate climate change.

First, don't give me this bullshit. "This specific course of action would be disastrous" - O.K., then another course of action would be pursued. The point is that doing nothing, or treating nature like some actual thing we ought to respect is anti-scientific. You all make it as though Rafiq is going to decide all of this - no, this would require extensive global coordination by various scientists, specialists, and so on. It doesn't change a damn thing - the fact that geo-engineering would still be feasible, even if not in the way that you imagine it would be implemented.


Not to mention the uncertainties involving geoengineering; we still don't know the effects that such activities will have on the environment (let alone public health and welfare) and whether or not it is a feasible long-term solution. Again, again, again:

We CAN know this, however, we can STRIVE to know this and there is no reason to think we'll never "truly" know. Even if we will never "Truly" know, who gives a shit? We will TRULY know the implications it has for humans, because we are humans ourselves capable of consciously approximating this. How is this hard to understand?

First, do we care about the environment as it doesn't concern human survival? The answer is no, we don't.

Second, what would be the qualifications for feasibility? The fact that people would "detest" it aesthetically? In the context of an actual social revolution that entails the transformation of what it even means to be a human, conceiving the standards of taste in terms of right now is a highpoint of philistinism.


yet there must be some sort of respect and defence for the natural laws. Just because we can change things in nature doesn't mean we should, precisely because our levels of understanding are too limited in compared to the realm of infinite possibilities.Now this is just fucking disgusting. Yeah, "the realm of infinite possibilities" is a good way to ass-cover the idea of a god, and you know this at a certain level, too. First, there are no "natural laws". The whole idea of "laws" in nature entail only the relationship between the human subject and the void around him which patently does not care about him - we APPROXIMATE conceivable tendencies, but only from the reference point of the human mind So there is no "realm of infinite possibilities" outside the scope of conception if we're already talking about this, because there is no "objective reality" CONCEVIABLE by non-humans that can be translated into human thought - there is an objective reality, certainly, but the only thing we have to do with it is in terms of our practical RELATIONSHIP to it. In that sense, yes we can manipulate it, and yes - that we CAN do it DOES mean we should do it. If you are conscious of processes, you don't "leave them alone" when you know full well you can manipulate them to your ends. Otherwise you regress into the logic of paradoxical, self-limiting superstition. This puts you squarely closer to the Catholic Church during the Roman inquisition than the orientalist figures we find in western movies.

I can strike back at you again, and pose the same question - do we know everything about social processes? If not, then why risk Communism and revolution? There is just a much a "realm of infinite possibilities" in striving for Communism as there is manipulating processes that exist independently of us. You say "there SHOULD" be a respect for "natural laws". Well Communists, being unbound by such disgusting philistine morality, say FUCK nature, and the perverse notion of "laws" that have some kind of ethical value.

But yes, I suppose, like Malthus, we just ought to "respect" natural processes. The mass starvation, or worse genocide of billions in consideration of "natural laws" apparently should be sought after, or allowed to happen.

[Rafiq]

Just one question - are you saying that communists should not give a shit, because they are supposed to give a Marxist, scientific analysis of anything or do you actually expect people in a communist society to think as rationally as you?

It's simple - you cannot be a Communist without being an atheist also. You cannot be a Communist without also being unbound with the superstition of ecology. If you are, then you are not a Communist. It is not simply because of the scienticity of Marxism (which is just a logical conclusion), it is the logical result of Communists being unbound by ruling ideology as it pertains to reproducing social processes. The relevance of Marxism is simply to scientifically know what you're not burdened with otherwise just assuming ideologically. Before the past forty years, bourgeois ideology was inscribed with the project of knowing natural processes scientifically too, in the face of the church. So degenerate has our society become that it no longer can continue this project - NATURAL sciences themselves are being degraded in the face of more and more of a stark demand to approximate the natural to the social. So today, we have ecology-fetishism, not religion, as the opium of the people. Even the power of religion today is largely subsumed to the pantheism of capital - ecology.

"People in a Communist society" at that stage would be entirely different from now. Remember: The idea of confiscating property, destroying churches, dismantling the basis of the family hits just as hard emotionally for people in present society as destroying nature does. Communism, as an ideological force, has in the past destroyed the basis of this sentimentality through practical struggle, and will in the future.

I suppose I should better say: This ain't no game. There's no room for fooling around here. Communism is not some kind of preference, or identity-contingent idiosyncrasy in consumerist capitalist society.

[Alet]

It's simple - you cannot be a Communist without being an atheist also. You cannot be a Communist without also being unbound with the superstition of ecology. If you are, then you are not a Communist. It is not simply because of the scienticity of Marxism (which is just a logical conclusion), it is the logical result of Communists being unbound by ruling ideology as it pertains to reproducing social processes. The relevance of Marxism is simply to scientifically know what you're not burdened with otherwise just assuming ideologically. Before the past forty years, bourgeois ideology was inscribed with the project of knowing natural processes scientifically too, in the face of the church. So degenerate has our society become that it no longer can continue this project - NATURAL sciences themselves are being degraded in the face of more and more of a stark demand to approximate the natural to the social. So today, we have ecology-fetishism, not religion, as the opium of the people. Even the power of religion today is largely subsumed to the pantheism of capital - ecology.

"People in a Communist society" at that stage would be entirely different from now. Remember: The idea of confiscating property, destroying churches, dismantling the basis of the family hits just as hard emotionally for people in present society as destroying nature does. Communism, as an ideological force, has in the past destroyed the basis of this sentimentality through practical struggle, and will in the future.

I suppose I should better say: This ain't no game. There's no room for fooling around here. Communism is not some kind of preference, or identity-contingent idiosyncrasy in consumerist capitalist society.

This is scary... but I can see your point.

[Delusional Kid]

What are you even going on about Rafiq? We are committing insane amounts of damage to our one and only biosphere that supports us, there's nothing anti-scientific about protecting that biosphere. If anything the anti-ecological fetishism of some futuristic magic miracle invention that will reverse environmental devastation, or somehow create a habitable synthetic environment for us in which we will all happily roam forests of plastic trees, is idealism straight out of science fiction.

[BIXX]

Rafiq you should come back to reality.

You make huge assumptions with reference to what you think my logic is, and what human capability is. And neither match up with reality.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You mean, already existing and functioning solar panels, wind turbines etc. are... harmful to the environment? Not renewable? Which criterion of green energy do they violate? Also, hopefully, you do realize that "green electricity" is just electricity which is generated with the application of green energy?

Confused? Doubtful? Simply put on your hairshirt and chant "infinite wants on a finite planet, infinite wants on a finite planet". If you still find yourself a disbeliever, prostrate yourself before a representation of Malthus and forget that Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system. Then you can "prove" that you "can't get something from nothing" (I imagine Heinlein would approve - TAANSTAFL and all that).

It's all a bit odd.

It's also odd to ignore the needs of actual human beings, many of which find contact with animal and plant-life pleasant independent of quasi-spiritual beliefs which will disappear in socialism, in favour of having the toughest rhetoric on this site, but then what did you expect? Of course only socialism, only a civilisation based on objectively socialised mass industrial production, can guarantee "untouched" nature a spot on the planet, without the sort of mass die-off primmies fantasise about. Adopt the ideology of blood and soil, abandon concrete and the factory, and your beloved "untouched" nature will be cut away to make room for millions of small villages, small farms etc.

[Rafiq]

We are committing insane amounts of damage to our one and only biosphere that supports us, there's nothing anti-scientific about protecting that biosphere. If anything the anti-ecological fetishism of some futuristic magic miracle invention that will reverse environmental devastation, or somehow create a habitable synthetic environment for us in which we will all happily roam forests of plastic trees, is idealism straight out of science fiction.

Surely there are more platitudes you can give me than this. Or does a parrot only learn to speak a limited amount of words?

And here we go, it begins, the phrase-mongering. Listen, "kid", this is not idealism, because idealism amounts to more than perceived investment in unrealistic ideas. What is actually idealism is ECOLOGY, which of course invests essential, conscious characteristics into "nature". This is not only idealism in the Marxist sense, it is idealism in the METAPHYSICAL sense, which means it receives scrutiny not just by hardcore dialectical materialists but also bourgeois positivists.

Don't fucking ass-covering what is obviously an innate ideological SENSITIVITY for a pretense to being realistic. Nothing I have said requires "magic" or "miracles", but of course in your mind I'm sure destroying the divine can't require anything less than miracles and magic. That alone presupposes the "tacit" recognition of ecology and nature as some big, mysterious divine force, but you know what, Nat-Geo kid? This is above all the real illusion.

Absolutely love how these fucking philistines come up to me - "What are you on about Rafiq"? - Like who the fuck are you to dismiss me like this? if you're not going to respond to my posts, and read what I'm actually saying (you clearly have not) then you can fuck off with your sensitivities about such sacred cows. Fuck nature, fuck ecology, and fuck the biosphere. How's that for you? For fuck's sake - this fucking philsitine literally storms into the thread, tells me "omg we're already destroying the biosphere that sustains us waa". Okay, welcome to the fucking thread buddy, this is what we've all been talking about to begin with. Either put some big boy pants on and actually keep up with the discussion, or plainly fuck off.

You claim that this is unrealistic without explaining why. Why? Is "nature" going to come back to haunt us? Even if it can't be implemented in 15 years, WHY is this not possible? I mean, even if it wasn't possible it wouldn't make your pathological perversion any less ideological or superstitious. Again, again, and again, I will say it: The SAME ARGUMENTS CAN BE USED FOR MANIPULATING SOCIAL PROCESSES CONSCIOUSLY, TOO. In fact, the whole POINT of this idea of "nature" and "letting things be" is the general superstition that capital instills in us about not only market processes (textbook neoliberal logic), but capitalist relations in general. I mean this fucker comes to me and calls me an idealist, and yet fails to not only place ecology fetishism in its proper context in modern capitalist society, but ACTUALLY PERPETUATES SUCH FETISHISM, WITHOUT KNOWING THAT IT IS INDEED IDEOLOGICAL TO BEGIN WITH? Fucking kill me, please.

"Hurr, da idea that there will be a society iwth different standards of satisfaction and happiness, is idealism, lul. people wil always want authenticity, da fake stuff will never replace it. Lul, idealism! What a word to use! In fact, 'tis also idealism that people will just magically be classless and you will get rid of markets and all other things that are inevitable cuz human nature. Yeah bro, idealism! That's what that means!"

Give me a fucking break. This isn't even hard. This is one of those key sensitivities that people literally can't come close to rationally defending because so ideologically embedded are they in it, so sensitive are they towards their "nature" that they tacitly assume everyone is at their level of fucking stupidity. Sorry "kid", my head happens to not be up my ass.

[Rafiq]

It's also odd to ignore the needs of actual human beings, many of which find contact with animal and plant-life pleasant independent of quasi-spiritual beliefs which will disappear in socialism, in favour of having the toughest rhetoric on this site

Adda boy, our most dogmatic and ruthless Marxist theoretician! You serve our tradition well, Xhar-Xhar. As it happens, those standards of pleasantness are timeless and genetically ingrained, not related to social factors at all (which, even if true, only makes the argument for a synthetic replacement of the necessary stimulus of whatever neurological processes "demand" it - only after this could be shown, of course).

The reality is that this has nothing to do with being "tough", it is the basic and most elementary conclusion of not even "tough, cold" Marxism but even Communism on yes - an ideological level. Contact with plant and animal life is pleasant, largely because it reserves a special place in the collective imagination of a society which is not self-conscious, and which therefore most project standards of "authenticity" not found in social life to some kind of untouchable domain, the natural.

Communism is the destruction of the natural, because the natural is a concept derived from the "natural" SOCIAL state of capitalism. Communism is the recogntiino that not only is there no god, there is no "natural", we destroy the means by which we project our PERPETUAL ignorance of our relations to production and life onto some kind of blank slate. It's so fucking stupid because people don't realize how artificial something like a state park is. They NEED things to be artificial, but they need to "think" that it isn't.

[Proletarius]

It seems that most people have got caught up in some sort of dystopian view of how the world COULD be, rather than address Rafiq's points.

Another thing to factor in is that inevitably, we will have an awful lot of human beings. Perhaps more than this planet will be able to sustain. We are already looking for planets with similar earth-like conditions. We must not get caught up in the aesthetics of conditions that will sustain us. Neither should we worry about selling our ideas to people, these things will probably be necessary in the future.

Realistically, in this scenario, we will need to harness a lot of Earth for us to sustain ourselves. This will naturally result in many animals and plants dying. It's inevitable. Things must roll on for humanity, it's us or them and to be honest, I favour us.

I do also agree that there is a level of fetishism here, that somehow it's humanity's processes ruining the world. That we should leave it be. We are at danger of sounding like primitivists with this logic.

[Rafiq]

What is also strange, but not so much upon further consideration, is the idea that what I'm saying is "crazy, utopian and unrealistic". That I somehow need to be induced with psychosis to be beyond superstition.

Yes, I am well aware that many of you invest a lot in your idols, and perceive grand, mystifying and impenetrable power in processes like "nature". But the basis of conceiving what I say as "unrealistic" is pathological - because your conception of reality is skewed, perverted, and prostrates before darkness where the light switch is right before your eyes.

It is "unrealistic" for the Aztecs to forgo the obligation of human sacrifice, it would be wild and utopian to assume that to abdicate from this practice would be all well and fine. Do we give a shit, today though? No, we don't.

Communists should remember the great Soviet avant-garde, which manifested itself in all artistic domains, Communists should remember constructivism, etc. as entailing a society which possessed fundamental consciousness of social processes. The biggest culprits of crimes against nature are, after all, not the capitalists, but the Communists, who touched upon things so sacred that nothing is more frightening to this day to the bourgeois ideologue than the Chekist, clad in leather, coldly, systemically and ruthlessly defiling structures of power contingent upon not fully knowing them.

[Rafiq]

Another thing to factor in is that inevitably, we will have an awful lot of human beings. Perhaps more than this planet will be able to sustain. We are already looking for planets with similar earth-like conditions. We must not get caught up in the aesthetics of conditions that will sustain us. Neither should we worry about selling our ideas to people, these things will probably be necessary in the future.

People don't understand the basic Marxist wisdom: "Free your ass, and your mind will follow". It is not the other way around. Humans will have to adjust their aesthetic tastes accordingly, and there is no reason to think they won't.

I mean, already, we have a situation where huge swaths of the human population are already divorced from the luxury of "nature", living in concrete slums, without the privilege of visiting zoos, or going on nature walks, good Silicon-Valley esque jogs through mountainous California terrain, etc.

Of course, some new-age scum will have us believe that their misery is owed precisely to the absence of their relation to nature. Sorry, kids, but if nature ever existed, she's already fucking dead. At this point, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Even if all humans went extinct, you think that would spell breathing space for 'nature'? No, it would be even more disastrous, given the fact that we must continually regulate and sustain irreversible effects of manipulating the Earth into autonomously spiraling into chaos.

[Proletarius]

People don't understand the basic Marxist wisdom: "Free your ass, and your mind will follow". It is not the other way around. Humans will have to adjust their aesthetic tastes accordingly, and there is no reason to think they won't.

I mean, already, we have a situation where huge swaths of the human population are already divorced from the luxury of "nature", living in concrete slums, without the privilege of visiting zoos, or going on nature walks, good Silicon-Valley esque jogs through mountainous California terrain, etc.

Of course, some new-age scum will have us believe that their misery is owed precisely to the absence of their relation to nature. Sorry, kids, but if nature ever existed, she's already fucking dead. At this point, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Even if all humans went extinct, you think that would spell breathing space for 'nature'? No, it would be even more disastrous, given the fact that we must continually regulate and sustain irreversible effects of manipulating the Earth into autonomously spiraling into chaos.

I could not agree more.

This bizarre respect for "natural laws" to be honest, sounds quite reactionary. Like an argument a Catholic would use to oppose IVF. Another thing that would have sounded wild to people of old. Children being conceived outside the "natural process" of sexual intercourse.

Things will change and they have always changed. With the society and the amount of change we wish to impose, it is only inevitable.

A quote from Marx comes to mind:
"Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it."

Fuck natural laws and other bizarre constructs that have no foundations but in the fuzzy feeling it may give some in the stomach.

[Rafiq]

*Warning, those Communists sensitive to being emotionally provoked to vomit should not watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v2L2UGZJAM

I mean, how can you be a Communist and not find this disgusting? How can you not find THIS aesthetically distasteful?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Adda boy, our most dogmatic and ruthless Marxist theoretician! You serve our tradition well, Xhar-Xhar. As it happens, those standards of pleasantness are timeless and genetically ingrained, not related to social factors at all (which, even if true, only makes the argument for a synthetic replacement of the necessary stimulus of whatever neurological processes "demand" it - only after this could be shown, of course).

And here we have Rafiq the sword and shield of communism, battling his own imagination. Because of course I never claimed that "standards of pleasantness" (what?) are timeless or genetically ingrained. It is, however, a fact that many people find contact with certain kinds of plants, animals, geological formations, and all of these in a specific arrangement - all the things that are incorrectly called "nature" - pleasant. This has precisely nothing to do with spiritualism, or eco-faddism.

Is this immutable? Of course not. But it is the case today, and it needs to be taken into account because socialism is a real possibility and a real necessity for continued human progress and development now. At this moment. You of course postpone socialism for the next geological epoch, so it's all the same to you.

And yes, of course many things will be different in socialism, but they will be different because of changing material conditions. How will changing material conditions do away with the aesthetic appreciation many people feel for the things I have listed? You don't say because the entire point is to be loud and controversial. Unless, of course, you consider your ridiculous "collective unconsciousness of a society..." "explanation" sufficient - good luck explaining how that "explains" the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena in previous modes of production, and their change.

[Proletarius]

*Warning, those Communists sensitive to being emotionally provoked to vomit should not watch this

I mean, how can you be a Communist and not find this disgusting? How can you not find THIS aesthetically distasteful?

It's utterly cringeworthy. I have never understood the fascination with much of this.

I would rather see a concrete hive bustling with workers, unified, liberated, with all idols, religions, fetishes smashed, burnt and confined to history.

The sort of attitude that prevails amongst those of the "green" persuasion is usually one of borderline misanthropy that cheers on destruction as some sort of karmic result of silly people meddling in "natural laws"

[Proletarius]

And here we have Rafiq the sword and shield of communism, battling his own imagination. Because of course I never claimed that "standards of pleasantness" (what?) are timeless or genetically ingrained. It is, however, a fact that many people find contact with certain kinds of plants, animals, geological formations, and all of these in a specific arrangement - all the things that are incorrectly called "nature" - pleasant. This has precisely nothing to do with spiritualism, or eco-faddism.

Is this immutable? Of course not. But it is the case today, and it needs to be taken into account because socialism is a real possibility and a real necessity for continued human progress and development now. At this moment. You of course postpone socialism for the next geological epoch, so it's all the same to you.

And yes, of course many things will be different in socialism, but they will be different because of changing material conditions. How will changing material conditions do away with the aesthetic appreciation many people feel for the things I have listed? You don't say because the entire point is to be loud and controversial. Unless, of course, you consider your ridiculous "collective unconsciousness of a society..." "explanation" sufficient - good luck explaining how that "explains" the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena in previous modes of production, and their change.

You will find many videos around and indeed, many tourists, that visit and praise places like Hong Kong or Singapore due to the beauty of the large imposing structures humanity has built. As Rafiq has stated, our tastes change. As our conditions change, as will our tastes again.

To somebody of a previous age, they may find places like Hong Kong or any other large built-up city to be quite dystopian and scary but to people today, they will look upon it with awe. We are trying to judge the future with the values and conditions that we have today. Man will find a way to create beauty. He always has done. You are discounting all the forms of beauty that man has made and appreciates today and specifically focusing on the all the natural that man finds beauty in. I think people would rather have abundance and joy than some of the things you have listed.

We cannot hold ourselves back with such fetishism.

[swims with the fishes]

i think people are getting at cross purposes here. reading richard levins dialectial biology has given me a very interesting way of looking how we as humans interact with the environment. one thing that struck me was the false dichotomy between organic/labour intensive/'natural' agriculture and capital intensive/productivist agriculture. both are false, we should be designing the biological sphere, creating a 'mosiac' agriculture. to create environments where natural predators of pests can survive alongside staple food crops which require land clearance. not monocultures but many different crops with different reactions to temp, rainfall etc allowing for different weather patterns. the planting of trees in specific locations to create warmer environments down wind of them and to prevent soil erosion etc etc. the concious moulding of our biological environment in a knowledge intensive way not a capital intensive way .to supersede the capitalist production of foodstuffs, not the return to a bucolic past.

[Delusional Kid]

And here we go, it begins, the phrase-mongering. Listen, "kid", this is not idealism, because idealism amounts to more than perceived investment in unrealistic ideas. What is actually idealism is ECOLOGY, which of course invests essential, conscious characteristics into "nature". This is not only idealism in the Marxist sense, it is idealism in the METAPHYSICAL sense, which means it receives scrutiny not just by hardcore dialectical materialists but also bourgeois positivists. Okay, so concern for the living conditions of this planet is just idealism now?


Don't fucking ass-covering what is obviously an innate ideological SENSITIVITY for a pretense to being realistic. Nothing I have said requires "magic" or "miracles", but of course in your mind I'm sure destroying the divine can't require anything less than miracles and magic. That alone presupposes the "tacit" recognition of ecology and nature as some big, mysterious divine force, but you know what, Nat-Geo kid? This is above all the real illusion.
Well I'd love to hear all about this miracle that will stop arctic methane release, reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and stop the destruction of Eco-systems crucial to humanity.


Absolutely love how these fucking philistines come up to me - "What are you on about Rafiq"? - Like who the fuck are you to dismiss me like this? if you're not going to respond to my posts, and read what I'm actually saying (you clearly have not) then you can fuck off with your sensitivities about such sacred cows. Fuck nature, fuck ecology, and fuck the biosphere. How's that for you? For fuck's sake - this fucking philsitine literally storms into the thread, tells me "omg we're already destroying the biosphere that sustains us waa". Okay, welcome to the fucking thread buddy, this is what we've all been talking about to begin with. Either put some big boy pants on and actually keep up with the discussion, or plainly fuck off. Fair enough, it was a low quality post.


You claim that this is unrealistic without explaining why. Why? Is "nature" going to come back to haunt us? Even if it can't be implemented in 15 years, WHY is this not possible? I mean, even if it wasn't possible it wouldn't make your pathological perversion any less ideological or superstitious. Again, again, and again, I will say it: The SAME ARGUMENTS CAN BE USED FOR MANIPULATING SOCIAL PROCESSES CONSCIOUSLY, TOO. In fact, the whole POINT of this idea of "nature" and "letting things be" is the general superstition that capital instills in us about not only market processes (textbook neoliberal logic), but capitalist relations in general. I mean this fucker comes to me and calls me an idealist, and yet fails to not only place ecology fetishism in its proper context in modern capitalist society, but ACTUALLY PERPETUATES SUCH FETISHISM, WITHOUT KNOWING THAT IT IS INDEED IDEOLOGICAL TO BEGIN WITH? Fucking kill me, please. "Nature,the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."
Nature unlike capitalism, is not a human construct. Any human civilization no matter what the system, requires the very nature that has allowed us to even exist in the first place.


"Hurr, da idea that there will be a society iwth different standards of satisfaction and happiness, is idealism, lul. people wil always want authenticity, da fake stuff will never replace it. Lul, idealism! What a word to use! In fact, 'tis also idealism that people will just magically be classless and you will get rid of markets and all other things that are inevitable cuz human nature. Yeah bro, idealism! That's what that means!"

Give me a fucking break. This isn't even hard. This is one of those key sensitivities that people literally can't come close to rationally defending because so ideologically embedded are they in it, so sensitive are they towards their "nature" that they tacitly assume everyone is at their level of fucking stupidity. Sorry "kid", my head happens to not be up my ass. You know what? You caught me, I just have an unhealthy fetish for all things natural, might as well go hug a tree now! But seriously, this doesn't have anything to fucking do with "Ohhh I find nature aesthetically pleasing" this is about the very conditions that makes life possible. Although I suppose we don't have to worry about this planet, since we'll apparently have some sort of breakthrough that will keep the earth habitable for humans with the flick of a switch.

[Antiochus]

Ah and the fetishism of being a contrarian for the sake of being one -_-

In the short term, it is absolutely impossible to replace all (or even a small fraction) of the ecological services provided to us by "nature". So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means.

[Rafiq]

It is, however, a fact that many people find contact with certain kinds of plants, animals, geological formations, and all of these in a specific arrangement - all the things that are incorrectly called "nature" - pleasant. This has precisely nothing to do with spiritualism, or eco-faddism.

And why do they? Why SPECIFICALLY in juxtaposition to the artificial? This is what you cannot answer, but it's no surprise for phrase-monger who is, beyond all of the loud rhetoric, at best a liberal though probably an actual reactionary.


Is this immutable? Of course not. But it is the case today, and it needs to be taken into account because socialism is a real possibility and a real necessity for continued human progress and development now.

How, oh how do we take this into account "today"? We don't have a movement, a party, or a Communism today. So how do we go about this? You may very well conceive the stage leading up to a proletarian dictatorship as a next geological epoch, Xhar-Xhar, because as far as we're concerned it's just as far off at the PRESENT moment. Which means yes - the aesthetic, and artistic appreciations, which are inevitably bound up with the social relations to production and life, would inevitably change with the rise of a Communist MOVEMENT - not even Communist society, but a MOVEMENT will have infinitely different cultural, ultimately ideological ramifications. Communism is not a game where you just "agree" with a set of words.


How will changing material conditions do away with the aesthetic appreciation many people feel for the things I have listed? You don't say because the entire point is to be loud and controversial. Unless, of course, you consider your ridiculous "collective unconsciousness of a society..." "explanation" sufficient - good luck explaining how that "explains" the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena in previous modes of production, and their change.

My fucking god, does this one actually call himself a Marxist? What the fuck am I reading? So the recognition that IDEOLOGY and yes, its COLLECTIVE implications is somehow a Jungian notion? Actually, kill me now.

The reality is that EVEN IF this was somehow some kind of timeless phenomena, one that can only be conceived t the level of what inevitably the "human species" would desire, that sais absolutely nothing about "letting nature be" - it would merely entail reproducing these synthetically, taking into consideration their chemical implications, and so on. But clearly we can already see this is actual bullshit - whatever "aesthetic appreciation of nature" humans have is not because of some kind of godly, mystical force of nature, but because THEY PROJECT a standard of appreciation INHERENT to humans onto things which exist independently of them. This is inevitably bound up with a lack of social-consciousness, which is why it isn't fucking difficult at all to "explain the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena irrespective of the mode of production", because all previous modes of production were firstly, not socially conscious, and secondly, all had DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS of what they conceived as the domain of nature.

Plenty of things today would be conceived as disgusting, grotesque abominations in previous societies, and plenty of "natural" phenomena has long been discarded and lost form the collective imagination of those constituting capitalist society. So this alone proves that "appreciating nature" is some kind of inevitable human phenomena, because "nature" doesn't exist, it is the smokescreen that which humans project their imagined relationship to their social relations to the foundations of production and life. As it happens, if you want to play these stupid games of "timelessness", the only thing which distinguishes humans from fucking animals is their propensity to change nature.

And no matter whether people will meet mountainous formations with a sense of awe, because again, this is replaced. Moreso, what is fucking stupid is the idea that ecology-fetishism is reducible to some kind of aesthetic preference that people have, which is nonsense, because it is NEW. And where we can say it is not new, it has always been reactionary. This even goes back to the enlightenment (Vivaldi, etc.). Do you know whom Marx stated he detested most in his confession? Martin Tupper!

Do you know what distinguished socialist realism from Soviet Avant garde and the "grotesque" constructivism? Stalinism. So don't give me your fucking shit. My god, what a greater philistine you are.

It's almost like this sensitive subject really brings out people's true colors.

[Proletarius]

Okay, so concern for the living conditions of this planet is just idealism now?

Well I'd love to hear all about this miracle that will stop arctic methane release, reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and stop the destruction of Eco-systems crucial to humanity.

Fair enough, it was a low quality post.

"Nature,the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."
Nature unlike capitalism, is not a human construct. Any human civilization no matter what the system, requires the very nature that has allowed us to even exist in the first place.

You know what? You caught me, I just have an unhealthy fetish for all things natural, might as well go hug a tree now! But seriously, this doesn't have anything to fucking do with "Ohhh I find nature aesthetically pleasing" this is about the very conditions that makes life possible. Although I suppose we don't have to worry about this planet, since we'll apparently have some sort of breakthrough that will keep the earth habitable for humans with the flick of a switch.

You are going beyond the concern for the living conditions of this planet. In fact, the living conditions may have to be adapted. As we have mentioned. You seem to be portraying yourself as having a concern for living conditions when in fact, you seem to have more of a concern for the aesthetics of the living conditions. If it can sustain humanity the most efficiently, who cares what it looks like? Man will create beauty. Definitions of beauty will change. We don't become suddenly gooey and weak at the knees at the sight of a field. Many people do not even venture out into nature yet they have perfectly, happy, fulfilling lives in our concrete jungles today.

Yes. And the nature will have to be refined in the future, as our demands grow and we have more people around. We need the conditions to sustain life, these are merely part of it.

We will need to alter these conditions if we are going to save life. Currently, if we do not, then we are clearly heading towards a world where large amounts of people will die and be uprooted from their homes.

[Hermes]

It's utterly cringeworthy. I have never understood the fascination with much of this.

I would rather see a concrete hive bustling with workers, unified, liberated, with all idols, religions, fetishes smashed, burnt and confined to history.

The sort of attitude that prevails amongst those of the "green" persuasion is usually one of borderline misanthropy that cheers on destruction as some sort of karmic result of silly people meddling in "natural laws"

What about that video is 'cringeworthy,' in specific? What does your last paragraph have to do with the video, at all?

[Proletarius]

What about that video is 'cringeworthy,' in specific? What does your last paragraph have to do with the video, at all?

I just find it a bit silly and distasteful to have some sort of orchestral euphoria at a bit of water flying at a rock. It seems totally over the top to me and fetishistic.

I was merely specifying my preferences in comparison to what we see there in the video, so of course it had everything to do with the video.

[Rafiq]

Okay, so concern for the living conditions of this planet is just idealism now?

This is how ideologically works - you condense something that is INFINITELY MORE than this truism into something easy. "Are you against liberty" sais the Libertarian, "So, do you hate your country?" sais the nationalist. "Don't you want to live in a free society" say the liberals.

But quite plainly, yes, this is idealism, because the "planet" is not a conscious entity, it is a fucking rock (Of course it is complex, but this misses the point). It sounds innocent enough, but if you're actually concerned with "the living conditions of this planet" - sorry, we're not on the same page here, we're not "in on" the secret. The "planet" is not an agent, or even an object that one can genuinely be concerned for, and if it was for the harmless reason of the survival of the human species, you'd say "concern for the survival of the human species". Evidently, these are independent pathologies.

"The planet" is not real. You can't "care" about it without being paradoxically perverse, because you must ask the question, very thoroughly and elaborately - WHY should one "care" about it? You can't even ask this question to begin with, it's an ethical given, much like positing "But don't you want people to have economic freedom", which is testament to its ideological - pathological nature.


Well I'd love to hear all about this miracle that will stop arctic methane release, reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and stop the destruction of Eco-systems crucial to humanity.

Did I fucking say I have some magical cure? No, I said it is within scope of our possibility to strive for one. Again, let me repeat myself:

You all make it as though Rafiq is going to decide all of this - no, this would require extensive global coordination by various scientists, specialists, and so on.

Now tell me very succinctly: HOW WOULD THIS NOT BE POSSIBLE? WHY? You can't seriously, honestly answer me this in a scientific, or thorough way, because again, it is an ideological sensitivity. Again, for fuck's sake - the idea that a huge, mass-coordinated attempt would require a "miracle" only works if we attribute mystifying power to nature. Luckily we Communists don't. So it might seem like a miracle to you, just like it might seem like a fucking miracle to forgo ancient rituals in previous societies, but it isn't. At all. Regarding the destruction of 'eco-systems', the point is precisely to do it in a way that would sustain the survival of the human species. You still fail to grasp the basic point:


Nature unlike capitalism, is not a human construct. Any human civilization no matter what the system, requires the very nature that has allowed us to even exist in the first place.

So things that humans didn't create are required for humans to live? That is a truism, but you dishonestly twist it to say that we shouldn't destroy "nature". You want to play that game? O.K., humans didn't "construct" humanity either, so in fact, capitalism is natural, because humans are natural too. You know this logic doesn't work, because this isn't what you're TRYING to say.

"That very nature" doesn't constitute autonomous ecological processes beyond the scope of human control, we very much do not need those (inevitably, that is to say, even if we "need" them now), and I implore you to explain why. The fact that I can't give you a blueprint for a huge geo-engineering plan doesn't count for shit, I ask - WHY would this be impossible? You're trying to replace a truism, an objective fact, with an ethical platitude - that "Human civilization needs nature". Well what constitutes nature? What constitutes CREATION? These questions shatter your little argument to pieces.

If human civilization can even think about replacing nature with artificial processes, then no, we don't need "nature". The whole argument is rather disgusting too, this dichotomy of "Well, humans made capitalism, but don't harm da innocent stuff!" - well no, sorry, but all "reality" is, even the reality outside direct human physical control, is the result of the relation between humans, and the void around them - the world. To speak of "humans creating" this or that and then attributing ethical values accordingly is just fucking perverse, paradoxical and nonsensical.


this is about the very conditions that makes life possible.

Welcome to the 18th century, where, as it happens, we have come to recognize that these are quite malleable. It's so fucking stupid - do you even know what a human is? It is a being that is constantly changing the conditions which make life possible. There is no reason to think that this couldn't be done on a geological, or biological level, either.


since we'll apparently have some sort of breakthrough that will keep the earth habitable for humans with the flick of a switch.

Did I say it would happen in the flick of a fucking switch? No, I didn't. I said that a concentrated, prolonged and serious effort to do this would be sought after in a post-capitalist society.

[Delusional Kid]

You are going beyond the concern for the living conditions of this planet. In fact, the living conditions may have to be adapted. As we have mentioned. You seem to be portraying yourself as having a concern for living conditions when in fact, you seem to have more of a concern for the aesthetics of the living conditions. If it can sustain humanity the most efficiently, who cares what it looks like? Man will create beauty. Definitions of beauty will change. We don't become suddenly gooey and weak at the knees at the sight of a field. Many people do not even venture out into nature yet they have perfectly, happy, fulfilling lives in our concrete jungles today.

Yes. And the nature will have to be refined in the future, as our demands grow and we have more people around. We need the conditions to sustain life, these are merely part of it.

We will need to alter these conditions if we are going to save life. Currently, if we do not, then we are clearly heading towards a world where large amounts of people will die and be uprooted from their homes.
I never said anything seriously about the "beauty of Earth". I have been arguing for the preservation of the conditions that make life possible. We can't just 100 percent engineer our way out of environmental catastrophe, we NEED this world for our survival.

[Rafiq]

So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means.

The answer is, yes, they can be. Other than that, I generally agree, but to even pursue this requires a recognition that there is no mystique, no emotional, ideological or superstitious investment in what we call those "natural processes" - we must purely approach them from the standpoint of practicality, and convenience. Soberly, of course.

For example, we all know that Mao's Four Pests Campaign was a disaster. But why was it a disaster? It wasn't because Mao tried to fuck with things, but that he did it in a way which was didn't afford the necessary amount of consideration and careful planning.

[Proletarius]

I never said anything seriously about the "beauty of Earth". I have been arguing for the preservation of the conditions that make life possible. We can't just 100 percent engineer our way out of environmental catastrophe, we NEED this world for our survival.

Perhaps I have confused you with another poster, if that is the case then I apologise.

The problem is that we need very little to live. Some people are overexaggerating and having a fetishistic view of what we need to live, as if we must live under the mountain peaks themselves if we are to be truly happy.

We can't possibly tell what is going to happen. You cannot make a statement like that when we do not know what advances will be made in technology and science. You are assuming that we won't be able to do this when in fact, there are many things developing and inevitably, things will develop as man devotes more to this as the situation worsens.

Why the lack of hope?

[Rafiq]

We can't just 100 percent engineer our way out of environmental catastrophe, we NEED this world for our survival.

Obviously not in a day, but why couldn't we do this? Why not? I implore you, I ask you - why wouldn't this be possible eventually? Again, it is SUPERSTITION to think this way.

[Alet]

Man will create beauty. Definitions of beauty will change.

But I still don't understand why we should change definitions. Why can't I find nature pleasant to consider myself a communist? Of course, appreciating nature stems from social factors, but what doesn't?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You will find many videos around and indeed, many tourists, that visit and praise places like Hong Kong or Singapore due to the beauty of the large imposing structures humanity has built. As Rafiq has stated, our tastes change. As our conditions change, as will our tastes again.

To somebody of a previous age, they may find places like Hong Kong or any other large built-up city to be quite dystopian and scary but to people today, they will look upon it with awe. We are trying to judge the future with the values and conditions that we have today. Man will find a way to create beauty. He always has done. You are discounting all the forms of beauty that man has made and appreciates today and specifically focusing on the all the natural that man finds beauty in. I think people would rather have abundance and joy than some of the things you have listed.

We cannot hold ourselves back with such fetishism.

The problem is that both you and Rafiq seem to be talking to someone who does not exist. Or at least doesn't post under the username "Xhar-Xhar Binks". Of course people can and do appreciate large urban structures. I personally have nothing but disdain for those petit-bourgeois happy little houses with smiling families with adorable Labradors playing on their neatly trimmed lawn. I think that anyone who can't appreciate concrete is a bit of a boor, and my opinion seems to be shared by a lot of people who actually grew up in sots-realist high-rises here. That's not the point. It's also not remotely in dispute that "authenticity" is something only hacks care about, that industrial production must go on, or that some parts of "nature" will have to be destroyed.

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that humans will cease finding contact with things like plant-life, forests, parks etc. pleasant and fulfilling (whereas we have a fairly good grasp of why, for example, rape will be a thing of the past, or religion, spirituality etc.) in the near future, and anyone who stands for a society oriented toward human need, also in the near future, needs to take this into account. This does not negate the necessity of large concentrations of human dwellings, of industry and global coordination - quite the contrary. Marx spoke about the union of the city and the countryside. The large-scale industrial production of the socialist city, a city that will probably be immense by modern standards, allows for what is usually called "untouched nature" (of course it won't be untouched) to exist around the city and to penetrate it. Here of course everything is subordinated to human need - we aren't worshipping Gaia, we're putting her as a decoration in our cities.

[Proletarius]

But I still don't understand why we should change definitions. Why can't I find nature pleasant to consider myself a communist? Of course, appreciating nature stems from social factors, but what doesn't?

It is not that we wish to change the definitions, it's that we will have to change things to have a more efficient, productive planet. This will inevitably result in a lot of this changing and with it, definitions of beauty will inevitably change.

[Proletarius]

The problem is that both you and Rafiq seem to be talking to someone who does not exist. Or at least doesn't post under the username "Xhar-Xhar Binks". Of course people can and do appreciate large urban structures. I personally have nothing but disdain for those petit-bourgeois happy little houses with smiling families with adorable Labradors playing on their neatly trimmed lawn. I think that anyone who can't appreciate concrete is a bit of a boor, and my opinion seems to be shared by a lot of people who actually grew up in sots-realist high-rises here. That's not the point. It's also not remotely in dispute that "authenticity" is something only hacks care about, that industrial production must go on, or that some parts of "nature" will have to be destroyed.

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that humans will cease finding contact with things like plant-life, forests, parks etc. pleasant and fulfilling (whereas we have a fairly good grasp of why, for example, rape will be a thing of the past, or religion, spirituality etc.) in the near future, and anyone who stands for a society oriented toward human need, also in the near future, needs to take this into account. This does not negate the necessity of large concentrations of human dwellings, of industry and global coordination - quite the contrary. Marx spoke about the union of the city and the countryside. The large-scale industrial production of the socialist city, a city that will probably be immense by modern standards, allows for what is usually called "untouched nature" (of course it won't be untouched) to exist around the city and to penetrate it. Here of course everything is subordinated to human need - we aren't worshipping Gaia, we're putting her as a decoration in our cities.

It will be a thing of the past by necessity, by the fact that by saving this earth, we may very well have to re-engineer our environment.

When it comes down to it, people will prefer a more efficient, productive, sustainable society over one that fetishises trees and land and is far less efficient.

People have fine, fulfilling lives in our cities. The problem is not the lack of nature but in fact, the conditions many people in the city live under. See: Capitalism.

A walk amongst the trees is not a necessity. You are all treating this as if it's a fundamental part of human life. This is not the case and not the case for large swathes of our population that live in urban jungles.

[ComradeAllende]

First, don't give me this bullshit. "This specific course of action would be disastrous" - O.K., then another course of action would be pursued. The point is that doing nothing, or treating nature like some actual thing we ought to respect is anti-scientific. You all make it as though Rafiq is going to decide all of this - no, this would require extensive global coordination by various scientists, specialists, and so on. It doesn't change a damn thing - the fact that geo-engineering would still be feasible, even if not in the way that you imagine it would be implemented.

I never said that we should do nothing; I was merely critiquing the idea of geoengineering as potentially disastrous and only useful as a last resort.


We CAN know this, however, we can STRIVE to know this and there is no reason to think we'll never "truly" know. Even if we will never "Truly" know, who gives a shit? We will TRULY know the implications it has for humans, because we are humans ourselves capable of consciously approximating this. How is this hard to understand?

The point I was making is that at the current moment we don't fully understand the effects of geoengineering. I don't oppose further research; nothing could be further from the truth. What I don't support is relying on geoengineering as a silver bullet when there are significant risks (both to biosphere and to public health) that must be seriously considered.


First, do we care about the environment as it doesn't concern human survival? The answer is no, we don't.

That's seems to be quite a generalization. True, the population at large may not care about the environment (to the extent that it involves itself in such discussions) if it doesn't affect human survival, but there are significant interest groups and social movements that do (Greenpeace, wildlife refuges, biologists).


Second, what would be the qualifications for feasibility? The fact that people would "detest" it aesthetically? In the context of an actual social revolution that entails the transformation of what it even means to be a human, conceiving the standards of taste in terms of right now is a highpoint of philistinism.

Nevertheless, these changes (and many others) will have to be decided by the people after a socialist revolution prevails. If we are truly discussing about the perils facing a communist society, we have to include the popular support for these measures as part of their feasibility. We can't assume a priori that the people's views on geoengineering will change because of the transformative aspects of a socialist revolution; many oppressed populations (who we express solidarity with) have aesthetic "tastes" about the environment that you consider "philistine."


I can strike back at you again, and pose the same question - do we know everything about social processes? If not, then why risk Communism and revolution? There is just a much a "realm of infinite possibilities" in striving for Communism as there is manipulating processes that exist independently of us. You say "there SHOULD" be a respect for "natural laws". Well Communists, being unbound by such disgusting philistine morality, say FUCK nature, and the perverse notion of "laws" that have some kind of ethical value.
But yes, I suppose, like Malthus, we just ought to "respect" natural processes. The mass starvation, or worse genocide of billions in consideration of "natural laws" apparently should be sought after, or allowed to happen.

Let me state that I am an atheist; I do not ascribe to some "divine plan" or a "higher being" that can transcend the physical limits of the universe (unless we're talking about extraterrestrials, but that's a different matter). I also agree that, to some extent, Marxism tends to lead to atheism (or some form of nontheism). By the way, mass starvation and genocide are not "natural processes"; they are the results of conscious decisions at the highest levels of policymaking in capitalist society regarding the production and distribution of agricultural (and industrial) goods and therefore a symptom of the capitalist mode of production. By "natural processes" I mean certain observable phenomena in the natural world such as natural selection and the evolution of our species (and other non-human species). I admit that we have fucked the idea of respecting nature when we could further our own ends (such as the breeding of dogs and high-yield strains of wheat and other crops) and that we do have the ability (and the obligation) to manipulate nature and natural processes for our own benefit. I'm just saying that there may be ethical questions that arise from said manipulation, not that it is inherently wrong per se.

[Rafiq]

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that humans will cease finding contact with things like plant-life, forests, parks etc. pleasant and fulfilling in the near future

At least in terms of aesthetics and art, this is patently not true from what historical experience we have - again, nothing was more unnatural, more "grotesque" than Soviet avant garde, which was in fact an immediate product of the revolution. Socialist realism, conversely, was a product of bourgeois romanticism, and was wrought out because of its popularity in the countryside. There is every reason to believe humans will cease finding these things (in juxtaposition to their artificial replication) pleasant, because we can already conceive why they do in present capitalist society.

If it was actually indeed grounded in some inevitable physiological fact, then the specific chemicals that stimulate the biological need could be found and replicated. Sorry, that's materialism, if you don't like it, stop pretending to be a Marxist.

It is a perverse kind of idealism to think that state parks, and the irk constitute a "remainder" of nature in the midst of capitalist modernization - we Marxists recognize that they constitute a part of a TOTALITY. So the trees, the forests, the water, the plant-life - it all may very well be made of plastic in 2015, because we are already at the level where the ONLY way we conceive the difference between this and the "artificial" is grounded in social considerations. Because we live in a society wherein we are estranged from our labor, and we lack consciousness of social processes, we conceive the artificial with hostility - because they are a product of social relations that are alien to us. So we find refuge in the natural (Hell, I MYSELF DO THIS personally, I regularly visit state parks, and the irk). One can imagine that rather than refuge, the natural will be conceived in a future society as unpredictable, dangerous, filthy and precisely not pleasant at all, representing the domains not yet conquered by human labor.

And this is what most ecology-fetishists would in fact find "real nature" if they were actually thrown into it, not the zoos, not the state parks - but actual, real nature that isn't made for humans. Sorry, nature isn't beautiful, and no, this isn't about aesthetic PREFERENCE, it is the logical conclusion of Communism. It is not that Xhar-Xhar may not prefer nature, but "most people will", It is that preferences are grounded in real material foundations of life and production.


Marx spoke about the union of the city and the countryside. Except he did this in the context of talking about a proletarian dictatorship and the immediate capacity of society's capabilities at that time. He wasn't living in the era of ecology, certainly not the era of discovering vertical farming techniques, GMO's, etc. Frankly, how to go about this "unity" when over half of the livable landmass is taken up by agriculture, etc? It is the countryside itself which is unsustainable today, which is why different methods of food production must be sought after.

It never had anything to od with "nature" or some kind of moral platitude, but sheer practicality - not some kind of romantic vision of how things "should" be.

[Rafiq]

I never said that we should do nothing; I was merely critiquing the idea of geoengineering as potentially disastrous and only useful as a last resort.

Okay, and I already addressed this too - I criticized not only the idea of nothing, but "leaving nature be". Geoengineering can be potentially dangerous (and we can thoroughly identify those dangers, and I am sure they will be if it's actually implemented), but not nearly as dangerous as not risking it. This is what you don't understand.


What I don't support is relying on geoengineering as a silver bullet when there are significant risks (both to biosphere and to public health) that must be seriously considered. Who said they wouldn't be considered? Why would geoengineering INHERENTLY pose these risks? These things can be prevented. It's called being careful.


That's seems to be quite a generalization. True, the population at large may not care about the environment (to the extent that it involves itself in such discussions) if it doesn't affect human survival, but there are significant interest groups and social movements that do (Greenpeace, wildlife refuges, biologists). I was talking about "we" in terms of we Communists. In fact, the population does care, as I thoroughly explained, they care too much - it is an ideological pathology. As far as those significant interests groups, they only do so insofar as they are bourgeois ideologues. You, AGAIN commit the error of assuming that society's conditions would be identical in the context of a Communist movement almost immediately seizing power. Things would be entirely different at that point. Did such interest groups constitute so much as a pimple on the ass of concern during the October revolution? I mean, fuck them. What power would they have if the power of money is dethroned? If they can manage to acquire just as much support demographically, in terms of huge swaths of the population, communism already has failed.

I mean, people are JUST AS sensitive toward the abolition of the family, toward confiscation of property. IT's like asking "What are you gonna do about all the lobbyists, all the Cato institute's" and so on. I tell you: Fuck 'em.


Nevertheless, these changes (and many others) will have to be decided by the people after a socialist revolution prevails.Don't project your philistinism onto "the people", the people's prerogatives and decisions are basically malleable. That "the people" would not "vote" for Communism in 2015 doesn't mean shit. For Communism to be real, that already assumes that "the people" would have to be substantially different people in terms of their ideological character than they are now, which means - an entirely different situation. Because we Marxists recognize that ecology fetishism has its basis in real conditions of production and life, we can recognize that it wouldn't persist, just like religion wouldn't, if one destroyed the foundations of their reproduction.

It's like saying "These changes - in pertinence to destroying churches and religion - will have to be decided by the people after a socialist revolution."

Sorry, but we already pretty much know what the people will decide, given certain conditions. That's why we're Marxists.


By the way, mass starvation and genocide are not "natural processes"; they are the results of conscious decisions at the highest levels of policymaking in capitalist society regarding the production and distribution of agricultural (and industrial) goods and therefore a symptom of the capitalist mode of production. No they're not, because we don't live in a planned society (well, relatively speaking we don't). Only a self-conscious society could consciously "choose" to do these things. But genocidal death squads, for example, aren't consciousness of social processes in their being. It's like saying the holocaust happened because of the conscious decisions of the Nazis- OK, but what conditions made those decisions possible, or even probable?


By "natural processes" I mean certain observable phenomena in the natural world such as natural selection and the evolution of our species (and other non-human species). Which we only really give a shit about because of its practical effects in, you know, medicine and agriculture. Otherwise, WHO CARES if we "observe" it or not? It's still there. Observing it only entails practical implications. Which means yes, not "respecting" them - precisely being conscious of something is to destroy it.


I'm just saying that there may be ethical questions that arise from said manipulation, not that it is inherently wrong per se. Save us, what ethical questions are those that are separate from the ones that arise form destroying property rights, the foundation of the family, religion, etc. ?

[Proletarius]

I am surprised so many have reacted badly to what Rafiq has said, considering we are supposed to be materialists.

[BIXX]

People don't understand the basic Marxist wisdom: "Free your ass, and your mind will follow". It is not the other way around. Humans will have to adjust their aesthetic tastes accordingly, and there is no reason to think they won't.

But its not aesthetic tastes its that I want to breathe and there is only one type of organism that comes to mind can survive withiout oxygen: anaerobic yeast. If you wanted us to survive without oxygen you'd need to be a single celled organism as far as I understand it because the net ATP generated per molecule in anaerobic resperation comes out to a total of 2 ATP molecules, vs aerobic respiration (which requires oxygen if you didn't know) which generates 36 ATP molecules.


So in rafiqs idela world we are all single celled organisms.

[BIXX]

I am surprised so many have reacted badly to what Rafiq has said, considering we are supposed to be materialists.

But what's he's saying requires us to be single celled organisms

[Delusional Kid]

This is how ideologically works - you condense something that is INFINITELY MORE than this truism into something easy. "Are you against liberty" sais the Libertarian, "So, do you hate your country?" sais the nationalist. "Don't you want to live in a free society" say the liberals.

But quite plainly, yes, this is idealism, because the "planet" is not a conscious entity, it is a fucking rock (Of course it is complex, but this misses the point). It sounds innocent enough, but if you're actually concerned with "the living conditions of this planet" - sorry, we're not on the same page here, we're not "in on" the secret. The "planet" is not an agent, or even an object that one can genuinely be concerned for, and if it was for the harmless reason of the survival of the human species, you'd say "concern for the survival of the human species". Evidently, these are independent pathologies.


"The planet" is not real. You can't "care" about it without being paradoxically perverse, because you must ask the question, very thoroughly and elaborately - WHY should one "care" about it? You can't even ask this question to begin with, it's an ethical given, much like positing "But don't you want people to have economic freedom", which is testament to its ideological - pathological nature. Are you saying the very earth we inhabit is some subjective idea? The earth is a rock in space, a rock with life on it, that life includes us humans.


Did I fucking say I have some magical cure? No, I said it is within scope of our possibility to strive for one. Again, let me repeat myself:

You all make it as though Rafiq is going to decide all of this - no, this would require extensive global coordination by various scientists, specialists, and so on.
I will admit I was jumping to conclusions based past arguments I've had with people (usually on the right) that involved them talking about some vague future advancements that will save the world, without actually providing much to prove that.

Although I am still skeptical about the optimism around future technology to solve these problems.


Now tell me very succinctly: HOW WOULD THIS NOT BE POSSIBLE? WHY? You can't seriously, honestly answer me this in a scientific, or thorough way, because again, it is an ideological sensitivity. Again, for fuck's sake - the idea that a huge, mass-coordinated attempt would require a "miracle" only works if we attribute mystifying power to nature. Luckily we Communists don't. So it might seem like a miracle to you, just like it might seem like a fucking miracle to forgo ancient rituals in previous societies, but it isn't. At all. Regarding the destruction of 'eco-systems', the point is precisely to do it in a way that would sustain the survival of the human species. You still fail to grasp the basic point: Well what exactly are we talking about here, geo-engineering?
I don't see the point in getting excited over future technologies that would supposedly save the world from ensured destruction, when that destruction is happening now, and requires mass action from below to be stopped, and not just promises of a better tomorrow.


So things that humans didn't create are required for humans to live? That is a truism, but you dishonestly twist it to say that we shouldn't destroy "nature". You want to play that game? O.K., humans didn't "construct" humanity either, so in fact, capitalism is natural, because humans are natural too. You know this logic doesn't work, because this isn't what you're TRYING to say. Certain things that humans didn't create are required for us to live (air, water,etc) which is why we shouldn't fuck those things up.

Capitalism is not a living breathing thing, it is a system made by humans, and is certainly not needed for life.


Welcome to the 18th century, where, as it happens, we have come to recognize that these are quite malleable. It's so fucking stupid - do you even know what a human is? It is a being that is constantly changing the conditions which make life possible. There is no reason to think that this couldn't be done on a geological, or biological level, either. So what is the point in trying to change these? If things keep going the way they are conditions will become much harsher for humans, the point is to preserve the conditions that make life easy for humans.

[Antiochus]

First off, there are many organisms (not just yeast) that undergo anaerobic respiration. Secondly, an interesting fact is that when oxygen first appeared in large quantities on Earth with the rise of cyanobacteria, it killed over 90%+ of existing life on Earth.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with Rafiq that all of the 'services' provided by the Earth can be replaced, or at least replaced in an economic fashion (i.e, we can make oxygen by simply splitting water, but the energy requirements to do such a thing are currently prohibitive).

Strictly speaking however, if humans are able to replace a process efficiently and cheaply, why not? There can still be parks and zoos etc... where people can 'appreciate' natural beauty. THe fact is, most hippies get in touch with 'nature' during a weekend in June and then go back to smoking weed in their parent's 5 bedroom home. So they can just do the same in a fucking park. That said, each action should be explored thoroughly before taking it and as a last resort.

[Proletarius]

But what's he's saying requires us to be single celled organisms

You are being deliberately petulant.

Nowhere has Rafiq stated that we do not need oxygen. We're talkng about a future potential re-engineered planet. Of course, we would require oxygen.

We have not attacked the conditions we need to survive. Nowhere have we disregarded oxygen. We have made no relation to oxygen and the aesthetics of a future planet.

We are talking about an artificial way of constructing the conditions we need for life. Something that would probably require the vast destruction of many things New Ageists hold dear, if we are to create an efficient, productive society and halt mass death and displacement.

[Proletarius]

Ask yourselves this, is it any wonder the natural world creates a sense of wellness in humanity compared to urban areas when it's urban areas are surrounded with reminders and of the sight of other people trapped under the exploitative material conditions of capitalism? I speak mainly from my own experience, the area I have toiled in and passing the place where I've been lorded over by some fat bourgoise is quite miserable. Our urbans areas are littered with reminders of misery and mediocrity. Though perhaps this is a poor example, considering my own level of consciousness.

[Rafiq]

Are you saying the very earth we inhabit is some subjective idea? The earth is a rock in space, a rock with life on it, that life includes us humans.

Again, the philistines never cease to amaze us with their opportunistic phrase-mongering. "Yeah, brah, YOU'RE the one whose thinking the erath is an idea, lul" - no, try again. The reality is that the Earth is precisely just a rock in the sense that there is nothing magical, or mystical about it - it is just as "meaningful" as an actual fucking space rock. I mean, desperate much? "Are you saying the Earth is some subjective idea" - are you fucking kidding me? Explain to us, in thorough detail how anyone can derive this conclusion from my post. It's like worshiping a rat, and then saying "Are you saying the rat is a subjective idea" when one basically very succinctly explains to you that this rat is basically just a dirty organic automata. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for your superstition and mysticism, i.e. your argument should really be posed as "Are you saying the Earth we inhabit is REDUCIBLE to a subjective idea" - but what constitutes the "complexity" I'm reducing? Clearly it isn't the scientifically conceivable processes that sustain it, but some kind of magic.

Really, the epitome of ridiculousness - my argument isn't that we ought to blow up the Earth, for the discourse of "destroying" the planet AS SUCH is not present. Instead, this is about caring about the "well-being" of the Earth, but how do you measure that, exactly? Theoretically let's say, it's possible we can have a 100% synthetic Earth that is liveable. What of the "well being" of the planet? What of "caring" of the planet then? You dodge this point, this inconvenient point, by lauding about how it's "unrealistic" or how it can't happen in 2 days. Nevermind that. We can all recognize that it is possible. So that is where the question begins. Hypothetically, even if it could be implemented with 0 risks in 2 days, you would still find it just as ethically disgusting and abominable, and that's the fundamental point you keep trying to avoid.

So no, in fact, saying that the Earth is just a rock is not in fact reducing it to a "subjective idea" (? tell me, WHAT THE FUCK is an "Objective" idea? An idea is SUBJECTIVE by merit of being an idea, plain and simple), but recognizing that you can't actually care about the Earth, you are in fact projecting something very different onto processes that are not conscious, or embedded in any meaning whatsoever.


I will admit I was jumping to conclusions based past arguments I've had with people (usually on the right) that involved them talking about some vague future advancements that will save the world, without actually providing much to prove that.

Although I am still skeptical about the optimism around future technology to solve these problems.

"Without providing much to prove that" - see, we're not even talking about DIRECT empirically verifiable solutions, or isolated positivie solutions, we are beginning with the axiom that we discard the notion of "nature", and the IDEOLOGY of ecology. Of course we RECOGNIZE ecological processes exist, the point is that we Communists do not approach them superstitiously, and conceive them consciously insofar as we recognize that they are malleable. No one claims such matters are SIMPLE, the point is that there is no such thing as nature, outside of its conception scientifically (which entails PRACTICAL malleability, i.e. "fucking" with it and so on).

You're "skepticism" is on par with the skepticism an Aztec priest would have at the idea that ceasing to sacrifice humans at the altar of the gods wouldn't incur their wrath. How very critical of you. The reality, however, is that your "skepticism" is unfounded, because "technology" is not some kind of magical solution, it is absolutely constitutive of our existing social order. Which brings us to another point - the fetishism of "nature' you're espousing isn't the result of genes passed on from your ancestors who lived 150,000 B.C., but a specific perversion unique to capitalist society. Nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, the last refuge of the superstition that reproduces the social, and we will raze every forest to the ground to annihilate them. What you fail to understand is that "nature" embodies what we perceive to be OUTSIDE the existing order, outside of the sum-total of our relations to production, and people perceive it as a space of FREEDOM from them. It is like a manifestation of repressive desublimation.

I mean, what's so disgusting, what's so fucking perverse is that it is WE Communists whom you claim are "optimistic", as though disavowal of nature requires some kind of grand leap of faith. This is opportunism at it's purest. First and foremost, let's make this clear: "These problems" are only problems insofar as they relate to humans, and it is within the scope of capability for humans to destroy these problems in a society that is socially self-conscious.


I don't see the point in getting excited over future technologies that would supposedly save the world from ensured destruction, when that destruction is happening now, and requires mass action from below to be stopped, and not just promises of a better tomorrow.

Mass action from bellow would precisely not do shit, if we can even be hopeful of stopping the crisis, it would have to require top-to-bottom centralized planning and global coordination that simply leaves no room for stupid grassroots fetishism. What the fuck could you do "from the bottom"? Do you even know how much human activity, how much humans have ACTUALLY permeated "the natural" in 2015? Then again, the very nature of the problem is conceived differently. You speak of it in terms of "destruction", we speak of it in terms of fostering catastrophe. As it happens, this isn't because humans are "destroying" things, it's HOW they are doing it - not for the use-value, not for the common good of human civilization as a whole, but for profit.


Certain things that humans didn't create are required for us to live (air, water,etc) which is why we shouldn't fuck those things up.

OKAY, but we also didn't create outer-space, we also didn't create the sun, we also didn't create Jupiter, whose gravitational pull is very much also necessary for our survival. We sure as hell didn't create the human species, either. What of it? What constitutes "fucking those things up"? Do you suggest that our goal is to directly destroy air, water and all things humans need for survival out of some kind of poetic vendetta? You haven't been paying attention - AT ALL, frankly.

The point is that "manipulating" something and "fucking it up" are entirely different. Of course a superstitious ecology fetishistic can't get this.


Capitalism is not a living breathing thing, it is a system made by humans, and is certainly not needed for life.

Yeah, and neither SPECIFICALLY is "nature". We could, theoretically, fulfill all the needs by life artificially, or even better, change the conditions of life's sustenance somehow. All of this is within the scope of possibility, no matter how far off. I mean that's the whole fucking point - you aren't basing the argument on what is needed for human life, however, you're basing it on what is needed for "nature" or "the Earth". The argument isn't about "protecting what is needed for life", because that would we already agree that geo-engineering, bio-engineering, ETC. constitute destroying the foundations of life biologically for humans. I have not conceded you this argument, nor will any sane person.


the point is to preserve the conditions that make life easy for humans.

And this is exactly what would lead to chaos, there is nothing really left to "preserve", it is patently TOO LATE anyway. Again, what are the conditions that make life easy? I mean, you do realize humans cannot "passively" survive today, right? If humans ceased to keep "fucking with nature" in general, we would have a fucking atomic catastrophe among a billion other problems. You do realize various government agencies actually have to continually play an active role in regulating, sustaining and keeping in check "da "natural" processes", right? The point is not to curtail production, or technology.

Don't play this utilitarian game. You know this has fuck all to do with practicality.

[BIXX]

First off, there are many organisms (not just yeast) that undergo anaerobic respiration. Secondly, an interesting fact is that when oxygen first appeared in large quantities on Earth with the rise of cyanobacteria, it killed over 90%+ of existing life on Earth.

But was any of it multi-cellular?

[Rafiq]

But its not aesthetic tastes its that I want to breathe and there is only one type of organism that comes to mind can survive withiout oxygen: anaerobic yeast. If you wanted us to survive without oxygen you'd need to be a single celled organism as far as I understand it because the net ATP generated per molecule in anaerobic resperation comes out to a total of 2 ATP molecules, vs aerobic respiration (which requires oxygen if you didn't know) which generates 36 ATP molecules.


Did I say humans ought to survive without oxygen? No, I didn't. That doesn't mean we conceive it as "sacred" or a place of refuge from which we retreat, the point is that we are CONSCIOUS of the exact means by which humans need oxygen. No room for mysticism or superstition, or your "nature" in this equation. Better yet, why oxygen? There's plenty of chemicals and organic compounds which human existence is contingent upon. The idea that Rafiq seeks to transform all humans into machines just for the fuck of it is a straw-man - if it becomes on the table as a feasible solution, why not, though?

The point is that nothing should be discarded, curtailed or suppressed "for da nature". Next question.

[BIXX]

You are being deliberately petulant.

Nowhere has Rafiq stated that we do not need oxygen. We're talkng about a future potential re-engineered planet. Of course, we would require oxygen.

We have not attacked the conditions we need to survive. Nowhere have we disregarded oxygen. We have made no relation to oxygen and the aesthetics of a future planet.

We are talking about an artificial way of constructing the conditions we need for life. Something that would probably require the vast destruction of many things New Ageists hold dear, if we are to create an efficient, productive society and halt mass death and displacement.

Tell me, how are we going to produce oxygen in your world with no plants?

[Alet]

It is not that we wish to change the definitions, it's that we will have to change things to have a more efficient, productive planet. This will inevitably result in a lot of this changing and with it, definitions of beauty will inevitably change.

But there is no reason to think, that we will inevitably have to smash nature at some point. What communism primarily advocates is the emancipation of labor, there does not have to be the need to produce to such an extent. Marx did not want productive forces to develop unlimitedly, he wanted labor time to be reduced and not to be maximized. He wanted production to be a means to an end and not an end in itself. Furthermore, he and Engels knew full well that man has to understand himself as a part of nature and not its master.


Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

Engels in 'Dialectics of Nature'


Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.

Marx in his 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844'

I do, however, understand that we shouldn't make a big deal of it, if 'smashing nature' becomes necessary. I do understand that we have to oppose fetishism. But I don't understand why appreciating nature is bad, delegitimizes a communist. Of course, we can hope that geo-engineering will keep us safe, while allowing us to blindly destroy the environment (for whatever reason we should do this). But we could also oppose ecocide, advocate renewable energy, and I ask again: Why not? It's not like we are betraying communist ideals and turn into reactionaries, because we enjoy a view or a sunset. There is really more important stuff we have to deal with.

[BIXX]

The point is that nothing should be discarded, curtailed or suppressed "for da nature". Next question.

I never said we'd do it for the nature, but for our survival.

[Rafiq]

First off, there are many organisms (not just yeast) that undergo anaerobic respiration. Secondly, an interesting fact is that when oxygen first appeared in large quantities on Earth with the rise of cyanobacteria, it killed over 90%+ of existing life on Earth.

I think we're at least on the same page as far as recognizing that there is no room for fetishistic drivel in face of real facts - there is no "meaning" to nature whatsoever, nature is nothing more than a series of catastrophes upon catastrophes.


Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with Rafiq that all of the 'services' provided by the Earth can be replaced, or at least replaced in an economic fashion (i.e, we can make oxygen by simply splitting water, but the energy requirements to do such a thing are currently prohibitive).

Well presently this is of course not possible, but we can, so to speak, begin doing this in a careful and considerable manner in the face of the present ecological crisis. We can imagine, however, that eventually it wouldn't be ridiculous, especially if we want to dream too far into hypothetically talking about space colonization.

Now, my point isn't even to offer a total overhaul of the Earth as an immediate solution, but something we shouldn't be scared of ethically, i.e. something we should recognize that would be an immediate consequence of political and social change.

[BIXX]

Did I say humans ought to survive without oxygen? No, I didn't. That doesn't mean we conceive it as "sacred" or a place of refuge from which we retreat, the point is that we are CONSCIOUS of the exact means by which humans need oxygen. No room for mysticism or superstition, or your "nature" in this equation. Better yet, why oxygen? There's plenty of chemicals and organic compounds which human existence is contingent upon. The idea that Rafiq seeks to transform all humans into machines just for the fuck of it is a straw-man - if it becomes on the table as a feasible solution, why not, though?


Because to my knowledge, there is nothing we can replace oxygen with. Nothing is as efficient a mechanism for producing ATP than our current form of respiration- which requires oxygen, and thus we require plants, algae, etc...

[Ele'ill]

And mine were in response to Placenta's claim that the "Left" couldn't solve such problems if they had their revolution, and that "green energy" (whatever that means) is a myth.

yeah paving the planet is a really great solution if it gets too hot on the sun we can just pave it too. We could keep making mistakes and correcting them over and over again until the entire cosmos looks like someone gave a 5 year old a redbull and a coloring book


But yes, this would entail a continuation of 'destroying plants and animals' - well, let's be more specific: The destruction of plants and animals would only be conceived as an important variable in pertinence to how they directly relate to survival. In present society, with our faux ecology fetishism, it isn't the lampreys and all the disgusting creatures people are fetishizing over, it's the interesting animals, the pretty ones, and so on.


i think your communist praxis in relation to the planet could get outworked by an eddie bauer catalogue

[Rafiq]

But there is no reason to think, that we will inevitably have to smash nature at some point. What communism primarily advocates is the emancipation of labor, there does not have to be the need to produce to such an extent. Marx did not want productive forces to develop unlimitedly, he wanted labor time to be reduced and not to be maximized. He wanted production to be a means to an end and not an end in itself. Furthermore, he and Engels knew full well that man has to understand himself as a part of nature and not its master..

Reduction of labor-time has absolutely nothing to do with the propensity of society to transform nature. In fact, it was Engels himself who claimed that the antagonism in a Communist society would manifest itself in the antagonism between thought and the physical, material world. The productive forces, in terms of relations to production (class) would not develop unlimitedly, as class society comes to an ends but constantly revolutionizing the means of production would be a consequence of any post-capitalist society. Simply because antagonisms arise in new productive methods that will have to be infinitely superseded.


Engels in 'Dialectics of Nature'

Yes, but Engel's point is that the idea that we "conquer" nature (in this context) is perverse, because to "conquer" nature assumes that it is a real autonomous entity (that can be fetishized to begin with) that is outside of us to begin with. Engels ends with the banality that even a fully artificial Earth is "natural", after all:

Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

Engels is not leaving the room here for any kind of superstitious "respect" for nature, but merely the observation that one cannot "conquer" something you are already a part of. That is different from the notion of nature being put forward as something we ought to "respect", however. Engels' point remains a materialist one - it is not as though we're abstract "thought-based" entities, of course. But consciousness of social, as well as natural processes allows us to - infinitely "learn its laws and apply them correctly", for when the Italians used up their pine forests, or when the potato was spread to Europe, this was applied incorrectly. Engels isn't saying we should limit our capacity to change the world, but that mastery of nature is irreducible to the prerogative to do it.


Marx in his 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844'

In this context this is a banal observation, for again, extracting the raw materials necessary to pave the Earth in concrete is also having a "relation" to nature, too. We realize humans didn't create the universe, but the implications are not in favor of the idea that we ought not to "smash nature".


But I don't understand why appreciating nature is bad, delegitimizes a communist.

What does it MEAN to appreciate nature? And why? From what basis? These are questions which relate to the point.


But we could also oppose ecocide, advocate renewable energy, and I ask again: Why not? It's not like we are betraying communist ideals and turn into reactionaries, because we enjoy a view or a sunset. There is really more important stuff we have to deal with

In short, not because you're directly consciously betraying "Communist ideals" at face value, but because the pathology that cares for "ecocide" as such is thoroughly not Communist. It's like saying "We could also oppose destruction of sacred grounds, of churches, advocate religion in schools and I ask again: Why not?"

Well, is this a passive act? Does one "naturally" oppose ecocide by default, to which we have to actively intrude upon with a justification? No, there are real ideological mechanisms which compel one to oppose this, that one is not aware of - and assumes is a given. The reason is simply because ecology is the smokescreen to which we project our superstitions about the social. If you're against 'ecocide' as such, you might very well also be against 'moneycide', if you will. Because a mode of production entails a relationship TO nature, through human labor, the transformation of it, to fetishize ecological processes is to hold this domain as sacred in the same vein that one holds our mode of production as sacred.

Of course, only an idiot would be against renewable energy. But why? Not because we care about nature.

[Rafiq]

I never said we'd do it for the nature, but for our survival.

Please point to where Rafiq directly claims that human survival should be sacrificed. In fact I am of the suspicion that some of our resident ecology fetishists would have the human species die off if only the fluffy little bunnies and sacred nature could live on.

It is the basic consensus of them, today. "Fucking humans, ruining everything", etc. being a common trope.


Because to my knowledge, there is nothing we can replace oxygen with. Nothing is as efficient a mechanism for producing ATP than our current form of respiration- which requires oxygen, and thus we require plants, algae, etc...

Did I say we ought to deliberately destroy all plants and algae? No, I claimed that we shouldn't shun the idea of trying to replace them, if need be. And frankly, geo-engineering in the short term wouldn't even entail this, so no one really knows what the fuck you're talking about. But why stop with oxygen? Why not food in general, which, after all, we require plants for. It still misses the point - we don't do it because we give a shit about the plants, we do it because the plants are practically useful. If they become less useful than some kind of other alternative, then you bet you can say goodbye to the plants. Conferring onto the plants, or "nature" in general something outside of its direct practical use for humans, is what you're in the business of doing here.

It's not hard to understand.


yeah paving the planet is a really great solution if it gets too hot on the sun we can just pave it too.

Yeah, but you know what, Mari3L? That kind of problem is already something we can take into account. You still miss the point entirely - the point isn't that we ought to actually pave the Earth in concrete, this was merely meant to be an analogy for transforming it to suite human needs. Of course careful consideration would be necessary, what's your point?

You still don't manage to defend, or make an argument for "leaving things be" when we don't have to. I mean what am I even arguing with? Did I say we should shape the Earth into a statue of Lenin? No, I said we CAN do things.


We could keep making mistakes and correcting them over and over again until the entire cosmos looks like someone gave a 5 year old a redbull and a coloring book You still deflect the basic point that it is within the scope of possibility for humans to actively conform the Earth to their needs. In other words, your "nature" isn't safe to hide behind the obvious risks of doing so. You don't make a case for it by doing this, instead, you make a case that people should be careful about going about it.

Instead, you will argue, people are just "too narrow" to handle something so "divine" as natural processes. Frankly, this IS superstition. And well, regarding mistakes, that is the point of science - my point is that if there is some kind of magical 5th dimension we're not paying attention to, then it would become quite apparent through practice. My point is that no such dimension exists, or moreover, even if it did it wouldn't be able to be foreseen by Mari3L in any way. But can't I make the same argument for the SOCIAL, for Communism? We can "keep making the same mistakes" in struggling for emancipation, until humans go extinct. What are those same mistakes, however? Fucking with things in general? In which case, our species and the culmination which allowed you the consciousness to say so in the first place was a "mistake". OF course, you cannot ACTUALLY think this, you can only run to this conclusion through confusion and ideological perversion.

But the point of difference, in having a "mistake" is juxtaposed with passively not "messing" with "nature". In which case, you're right, mistakes will compile upon themselves indefinitely and you have yet to make the case for anything less.

But this has NOTHING to do with the fundamental point at hand: even if it could be PROVEN that this would have no adverse effects on HUMANS, you would still be ethically outraged by 'destroying the planet' or killing 'all the plants an animals'. You legitimize this pathology by conferring upon this the CONSEQUENCE that humans would pay for their sins. Put it this way - does the priest giving us his Christian morality do so SOLELY because he thinks its absence will lead humans to damnation or spiritual degradation and ruin? Maybe that is what he is thinking, but that is not its function. Even if it WERE true - that people would be better off with Christian morality, that would not change the pathology of why the priest touts Christian morality.

And that is ultimately the point.

[bcbm]

The reality is that the Earth is precisely just a rock in the sense that there is nothing magical, or mystical about it - it is just as "meaningful" as an actual fucking space rock.

well except that the earth is the only planet in the universe we know of that has life so i think that makes it slightly more 'meaningful,' and indeed means we shouldn't wantonly destroy that life.

beyond that there is nothing specific i want to respond to beyond that i don't think there needs to be divide between 'preserving nature' and 'altering the earth to benefit humanity' in that human life even in the billions doesn't really require that much landmass, especially when we're talking of vertical farming and so on. regardless, we are a long way from not needing plants and animals; we are utterly dependent on their continued existence and the stability of their food chains. by the time we are not, we would possess the technology that destroying them would be senseless. getting to the stage of 'geoengineering,' there would likely be even less reason to be turning forests into concrete and eliminating animal life and i think we would be looking towards the moon, space habitats and mars.

[Rafiq]

well except that the earth is the only planet in the universe we know of that has life so i think that makes it slightly more 'meaningful,' and indeed means we shouldn't wantonly destroy that life.

Which is basically saying that Earth is more meaningful because we live on it, unlike an actual space rock. But that isn't my point, that is a banality. My point is that this does not justify talk of "caring about the planet" or designating onto "the planet" characteristics which are not essentially constitutive of its real being. The point is that there is no mechanism of "objectivity" in the universe that makes life somehow special, more important than the geological chaos of Venus or the staleness of Mercury. The only real reference point is human consciousness, and there is no "non-human consciousness" that is even imaginable without being a paradox. This is the point.


i don't think there needs to be divide between 'preserving nature' and 'altering the earth to benefit humanity' in that human life even in the billions doesn't really require that much landmass, especially when we're talking of vertical farming and so on. regardless, we are a long way from not needing plants and animals; we are utterly dependent on their continued existence and the stability of their food chains. by the time we are not, we would possess the technology that destroying them would be senseless. getting to the stage of 'geoengineering,' there would likely be even less reason to be turning forests into concrete and eliminating animal life and i think we would be looking towards the moon, space habitats and mars.


This is far too easy a way out. The notion that we don't "have" to destroy most plants and animals rests on flimsy foundations at best, but even if it were true, it doesn't justify the superstition that seeks to preserve them. We are utterly dependent on their continued existence, yes, but to be conscious of this is to recognize that this is provisional at best. The sustenance of human life was contingent and utterly dependent on the castes in ancient societies - what of it? The point I'm getting at is that it's not even a matter of "compromise", i.e. that ecology fetishists can be satisfied while at the same time the needs of a Communist society fulfilled. It's that Ecology fetishism isn't existing in a vacuum - it is contingent upon a number of other variables, just like religion is. Sure, we don't "have" to destroy churches, but in destroying the conditions that which religion (ecology fetishism) is sustained, there's no reason to think it would even be a problem.

Postmodern nature-worship does in effect have a conditional existence. Explaining this in materialist terms allows us to see that it is a degeneracy unique to our present epoch.

Of course no one seeks to "destroy" them to prove a point, but that one shouldn't hesitate from it. But what you say isn't even true - it is the existing productive capacities of society that is leading to the mass extinction of many animals in the biosphere, albeit in a way that is not in consideration of the implications for the commons - human life, etc. - but there's no reason to think that Communism will reduce the technological, or productive capacity of society. If it did, it would lead to the death of billions.

And to "get" at stages doesn't just happen, it is a product of continued manipulation and yes - builds upon 'fucking' with things. You won't ever reach the stage, in other words, if one seeks to "preserve" nature. Because theoretically, we can do this, we just lack the structural, organizational and energy-based qualifications to do it at the present time. "By the time we are not" dependent on such things, this wouldn't come to fruition by some inevitable process of "progress" but a process that would have real ecological implications already. It won't be possible, in other words, until we actually start trying.

[bcbm]

communism would have to fundamentally alter the technological and productive capacity of society to prevent billions of death, within our lifetime (edit: actually like 20-40 years ago but), which would effectively mean preserving plant and animal systems. from there there is no reason to 'go back'

[John Nada]

Already over 109 years ago, Marxist August Bebel pointed out the potential of "green energy"(his term):
Among the types of motive power now finding application electricity will probably assume the decisive place. Even bourgeois society is endeavouring everywhere to put it at its service. The more extensively and the better this is done, the more it promotes general progress. The sooner will the revolutionising effect of this most powerful of all natural forces burst the bonds of the bourgeois world and open the door to socialism. Only in a socialist society, however, will electricity find the fullest and broadest possible application. As motive power, as well as a light and heat source, it will make an immeasurable contribution to improving society's living conditions. Electricity has an advantage over every other form of power in that there is an abundance of it in Nature. Our rivers, the tides of the sea, the wind and sunlight provide untold horse-power, once we learn how to use them rationally and to the full. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/society-future/ch01.htm Over a hundred years ago it was thought possible to run everything on solar power, industrialize agriculture if not just straight up synthesis food, and have everyone 20-50 years old work on average 2.5 hours a day, according to Babel. Yet instead people are burning shit and releasing toxic gases, working over 8 hours a day well into their late 60's, and malnourished. All this leading up to sterilizing the whole damn planet, so some rich fuck can add a few extra zeros to their bank account.:mad: Imperialist-capitalism is not only content with oppressing the masses via war, but now on course to kill every single living thing. All so M-C-M' can go on and on.

This isn't about nature fetishes or doomsday prophesies, literally everyone might die because of capitalism. The carbon tax proposed in that Rolling Stones article likely won't be enough. The law of value is on a collision course with the laws of thermodynamics. Capitalism requires more and more expansion. This growth is not for need, but for profit. Yet the growth of capitalism is in a contradiction with not just the masses, but the environment itself. One has to go. Either a society not based on maintaining profits that can at least mitigate the consequences, or a fucking nightmare the likes the world has yet to see. The oft repeated phrase,"Socialism or Barbarism."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It will be a thing of the past by necessity, by the fact that by saving this earth, we may very well have to re-engineer our environment.

When it comes down to it, people will prefer a more efficient, productive, sustainable society over one that fetishises trees and land and is far less efficient.

People have fine, fulfilling lives in our cities. The problem is not the lack of nature but in fact, the conditions many people in the city live under. See: Capitalism.

A walk amongst the trees is not a necessity. You are all treating this as if it's a fundamental part of human life. This is not the case and not the case for large swathes of our population that live in urban jungles.

Again, you simply don't seem to be reading my posts. Of course people have fulfilling lives in the cities. Or at least as fulfilling as is possible under capitalism. Where have I said anything to the contrary? In fact, I mentioned "socialist cities... immense by modern standards". But almost every city includes "green" areas, both for practical reasons and because people like them. The planning of a socialist city will take that into account, because the simple fact is that people like Rafiq are in a minority.

As for a walk among the trees not being a "necessity", sure, being deprived of that will not kill you. Also being deprived of sex, cultural life, and food other than some kind of protein gloop also won't kill you. But the Marxist notion of need is broader than the mere necessities of biological life - ironically because Marxists are not eco-faddists with their triage mentality - and there is no reason that the socialist society will not produce things that are conductive to the free development of the human personality.


At least in terms of aesthetics and art, this is patently not true from what historical experience we have - again, nothing was more unnatural, more "grotesque" than Soviet avant garde, which was in fact an immediate product of the revolution. Socialist realism, conversely, was a product of bourgeois romanticism, and was wrought out because of its popularity in the countryside. There is every reason to believe humans will cease finding these things (in juxtaposition to their artificial replication) pleasant, because we can already conceive why they do in present capitalist society.

Well, no, you can't "conceive why they do in present capitalist society", your "theory" is one of those puerile "collective consciousness" fairy tales that can be used to support anything and everything. You only bark about "idealism" so much because your own approach is blatantly idealist.

And of course buildings by the Soviet avant-garde architects included no green spaces. No, wait, that's not true at all.

There is no "inevitable physiological fact" that humans find shit unpleasant, it is not some kind of "timeless truth". That we do is grounded in the necessities of hygiene that have been surpassed - obviously today we could just let the shit flow down the gutters without everyone dying of communicable diseases. But we won't, because it is a fact that people still find shit unpleasant. Socialism won't change that, either, because there is no reason for it to change. It's not a consequence of class society as such, although you could spin some pseudo-Freudian tale about shit and capitalism. So when Rafiq presents his proposal for a new city where shit flows through the gutters and there are no green spaces, most people are going to look at that and go no, that's not going to do. And it will be rejected.


If it was actually indeed grounded in some inevitable physiological fact, then the specific chemicals that stimulate the biological need could be found and replicated. Sorry, that's materialism, if you don't like it, stop pretending to be a Marxist.

And here the debate with your own imagination begins. I never said that this need is grounded in "some inevitable physiological fact". You really need to address what people are saying instead of going on these weird Quixotic tangents where you hurl insults at windmills.



It is a perverse kind of idealism to think that state parks, and the irk constitute a "remainder" of nature in the midst of capitalist modernization

Again something I never said (in fact I said the opposite: "untouched nature" is a completely wrong phrase).


One can imagine that rather than refuge, the natural will be conceived in a future society as unpredictable, dangerous, filthy and precisely not pleasant at all, representing the domains not yet conquered by human labor.

So the music, sorry, the aesthetics of the future are in fact the aesthetics of the Victorian era. Hey, that's marginally better than the primmos, but it comes from the same confused dichotomy. A socialist society, one would imagine, would reject that dichotomy and conceive humanity both as a part of nature and as the part of nature that can change it from within.


Except he did this in the context of talking about a proletarian dictatorship and the immediate capacity of society's capabilities at that time. He wasn't living in the era of ecology, certainly not the era of discovering vertical farming techniques, GMO's, etc. Frankly, how to go about this "unity" when over half of the livable landmass is taken up by agriculture, etc? It is the countryside itself which is unsustainable today, which is why different methods of food production must be sought after.

Of course the countryside is unsustainable. That was one of the points Marx was making. In socialism agriculture becomes an industry like any other, no sane socialist society would organise agriculture as the EU does. But you're completely ignoring Marx's point that the division between the city and the countryside, between industry and artifice on one side and "nature" on the other, is contrary to the full development of the human personality.

[Lord Testicles]

But its not aesthetic tastes its that I want to breathe and there is only one type of organism that comes to mind can survive withiout oxygen: anaerobic yeast. If you wanted us to survive without oxygen you'd need to be a single celled organism as far as I understand it because the net ATP generated per molecule in anaerobic resperation comes out to a total of 2 ATP molecules, vs aerobic respiration (which requires oxygen if you didn't know) which generates 36 ATP molecules.


So in rafiqs idela world we are all single celled organisms.

Human beings breathe about 6,000,000,000,000 kg of Oxygen each year, but there is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of oxygen in the atmosphere so if all the organisms who produced oxygen went on strike and suddenly stopped producing it tomorrow, it would still take us thousands of years to run out of oxygen, so you don't need to fret about no being able to breath anytime soon.

It's that pesky hydrogen sulphide you need to watch out for.

[Alet]

Reduction of labor-time has absolutely nothing to do with the propensity of society to transform nature. In fact, it was Engels himself who claimed that the antagonism in a Communist society would manifest itself in the antagonism between thought and the physical, material world. The productive forces, in terms of relations to production (class) would not develop unlimitedly, as class society comes to an ends but constantly revolutionizing the means of production would be a consequence of any post-capitalist society. Simply because antagonisms arise in new productive methods that will have to be infinitely superseded.

Yes, but who says that 'revolutionizing the means of production' will necessarily mean that man will constantly produce more and more at the expense of environment? It could very well result in another reduction of labor-time. I mean, we both agree that socialism will have to fulfill needs, but we cannot say which use values humans will desire (except for food, this is trivial), and what makes it hard to believe that humans will enjoy nature just as they enjoy art, music, literature, one-night stands, pizza, anything? I don't understand how the desire for authentic nature differs from the desire for anything else. If 'smashing nature' becomes necessary, fine, but why not care for the environment as long as it is not? Maybe man will have to 'smash art' at some point, too, if it is necessary, but we have no reason to say 'Fuck art' yet, do we?

[oneday]

Exactly that- green energy (or, more accurately, green electricity) is a lie. It cannot exist. It would require a magical ability to create something from nothing- a skill we do not posses.
It's entirely possible that we could produce energy from something much more readily available, like sea water, with the development of nuclear fusion reactors. This type of reactor would be much safer than current fission reactors and produce a much more limited amount of dangerous byproducts than fission. A fusion energy source would not harm our living environment by emitting pollution or greenhouse gases like the current energy technologies do.

This isn't some crazy pipe-dream or fantasy, there are several ongoing large scale experiments with cooperation between several nations, and there have been important advancements recently.

Take this page from ITER (http://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels) for example, which describes how sea water could be used as the fuel source.

[Invader Zim]

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.


I was going to lay into Placenta cream's idiotic nonsense, but the mind blowing stupidity and ignorance in this paragraph makes PC's pale by comparison.

We should 'give a shit' about mass species extinction because it can and will have an impact on the ecosystem which humanity relies upon to survive. Mass species exinction snowballs because of the inter-reliance of species within a given ecosystem. If too many vanish then the ecosystem collapses. As it stands, species are currently going extinct at a rate over 100 times faster than normal. The last time there was an extinction event of this magnitude was 65 million years ago, and it resulted in vast swathes of life on earth vanishing -- including those at the top of the food chain.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full

Did you pass elementary science?

[BIXX]

Human beings breathe about 6,000,000,000,000 kg of Oxygen each year, but there is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of oxygen in the atmosphere so if all the organisms who produced oxygen went on strike and suddenly stopped producing it tomorrow, it would still take us thousands of years to run out of oxygen, so you don't need to fret about no being able to breath anytime soon.

It's that pesky hydrogen sulphide you need to watch out for.

With the oxygen thing, I'd imagine we'd start running into problems long before we ran out of oxygen. And also I imagine that other things we do (regarding production and electricity) use an overwhelming amount of oxygen. I think that overall we'd see a lot more problems a lot sooner than just not being able to breathe. I was mainly trying to point out that rafiq's idea of technology saving us at this point, especially if he got his way, is pretty ridiculous.

[Rudolf]

It's entirely possible that we could produce energy from something much more readily available, like sea water, with the development of nuclear fusion reactors. This type of reactor would be much safer than current fission reactors and produce a much more limited amount of dangerous byproducts than fission. A fusion energy source would not harm our living environment by emitting pollution or greenhouse gases like the current energy technologies do.

This isn't some crazy pipe-dream or fantasy, there are several ongoing large scale experiments with cooperation between several nations, and there have been important advancements recently.

Take this page from ITER (http://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels) for example, which describes how sea water could be used as the fuel source.

The production of deuterium is generally through the girdler sulfide process which requires hydrogen sulfide that you get from natural gas. It's moving fossil fuels to elsewhere in the production chain.

[Sharia Lawn]

What a surprise. Rafiq ruins yet another perfectly good thread with his disturbed reactionary ranting.

[oneday]

The production of deuterium is generally through the girdler sulfide process which requires hydrogen sulfide that you get from natural gas. It's moving fossil fuels to elsewhere in the production chain.

It requires natural gas because the fusion reactor does not exist. There is no reason why fusion couldn't power the process in the future using electroylsis or another process that doesnt require natural gas. This isn't a chemical reaction.

The process as conceived now will require lithium as well, which could also be extracted using power from fusion. The ITER lab states that there is enough lithium in the earth to power the entire world for 1000 years.

There is no reason why all energy generated couldn't be exclusively from fusion.

[Lord Testicles]

With the oxygen thing, I'd imagine we'd start running into problems long before we ran out of oxygen. And also I imagine that other things we do (regarding production and electricity) use an overwhelming amount of oxygen. I think that overall we'd see a lot more problems a lot sooner than just not being able to breathe. I was mainly trying to point out that rafiq's idea of technology saving us at this point, especially if he got his way, is pretty ridiculous.

Obviously other problems are going to arise long before we run out of oxygen since the organisms that produce it aren't going anywhere anytime soon and even if they were we're not exactly short on it. However, whilst Rafiq might be ridiculous, the only thing that will "save us" or rather reduce the damage done by environmental change will be the smart application of technology. Since environmental change has happened in the past it's inevitable that it will happen again in the future so our options (as humanity, not necessarily as "activists" or "revolutionaries") are really to sit here and wait for the inevitable and all the destruction that it will bring or to use the tools at our disposal, namely our intelligence and the technology that it allows to understand these changes and try to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

[Sharia Lawn]

So when Rafiq presents his proposal for a new city where shit flows through the gutters and there are no green spaces, most people are going to look at that and go no, that's not going to do. And it will be rejected.

Your error is obvious, and it is idealist! Under socialism, Rafiq doesn't submit proposals to be voted on democratically. Rafiq tells people what to do, because once they have been molded into a real movement, they will thank him by installing him as Dear Immortal Leader of the Party Movement.

[Lord Testicles]

What a surprise. Rafiq ruins yet another perfectly good thread with his disturbed reactionary ranting.


Your error is obvious, and it is idealist! Under socialism, Rafiq doesn't submit proposals to be voted on democratically. Rafiq tells people what to do, because once they have been molded into a real movement, they will thank him by installing him as Dear Immortal Leader of the Party Movement.

If you don't like Rafiq's posts you can respond to them directly or you can ignore them. Contributing to the thread as opposed to just posting flame bait will go a long way to not making you look like an acrimonious shit.

[Sharia Lawn]

If you don't like Rafiq's posts you can respond to them directly or you can ignore them. Contributing to the thread as opposed to just posting flame bait will go a long way to not making you look like an acrimonious shit.

The fact that this forum still permits him to spread his reactionary shit far and wide makes it a joke. The fact that moderators protect him is a bigger joke. Smaller jokes in response are to be expected.

[Lord Testicles]

The fact that this forum still permits him to spread his reactionary shit far and wide makes it a joke. The fact that moderators protect him is a bigger joke. Smaller jokes in response are to be expected.

Why are you still shit posting? If you think Rafiq is a reactionary then you should be able to demonstrate that from what he writes, that might make an interesting thread, you know, one where you make an argument not just an ad hominem.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By the way, I don't want to give the impression that I'm exclusively concerned about the aesthetic aspects of things like plant-life etc.; it was simply the first thing that crossed my mind as I have an interest in urban planning, particularly the possibilities for urban planning in socialism. Of course plant and animal life, geological formations etc. present an immense resource and are crucial to satisfying human scientific curiosity, which other people have touched on.


If you don't like Rafiq's posts you can respond to them directly or you can ignore them. Contributing to the thread as opposed to just posting flame bait will go a long way to not making you look like an acrimonious shit.

If Rafiq can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out. As far as I can tell, about half of his posts (and that's being generous) contain insults to other posters, all in his trademark style. The mods don't respond to this, I imagine, partially because his particular brand of Kautsky-worship is popular in those circles, partially because reading through his posts and their creative formatting is a thankless slog, and Rafiq knows it very well.

[Sharia Lawn]

Why are you still shit posting? If you think Rafiq is a reactionary then you should be able to demonstrate that from what he writes, that might make an interesting thread, you know, one where you make an argument not just an ad hominem.

It takes no effort to understand how claiming renewable energy is a myth borne of spiritualism, asserting that plants and animals are expendable to human life, and that a socialist world will be one giant parking garage out of a JG Ballard novel, are crazed reactionary rantings. These are not claims to be taken seriously, so I have expended exactly the amount of effort called for by the task.

What does need to be taken seriously is your response. Pointing out that those claims constitute reactionary shitposting is not shitposting. Pointing out that moderators facilitate that shitposting, because their own politics are so fucked up that they don't see how it is shitposting on a leftist forum, is not shitposting. Get your priorities straight.

[John Nada]

The production of deuterium is generally through the girdler sulfide process which requires hydrogen sulfide that you get from natural gas. It's moving fossil fuels to elsewhere in the production chain.It's mostly from natural gas because it's a cheap byproduct that's actually an expensive burden otherwise. Not because it's super rare or finite, actually pretty widespread. Without getting into details on the other ways, it's also made from sulfate-reducing bacteria. They don't even need oxygen either, will still work even when humans breath up all the oxygen during the chlorophyll strike(fucking scabs:mad:)! Partly responsible for why shit smells awful.

[Lord Testicles]

If Rafiq can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out. As far as I can tell, about half of his posts (and that's being generous) contain insults to other posters, all in his trademark style. The mods don't respond to this, I imagine, partially because his particular brand of Kautsky-worship is popular in those circles, partially because reading through his posts and their creative formatting is a thankless slog, and Rafiq knows it very well.

I don't really care if posters want to trade insults but they could at least put some content into their posts, not only does nobody wants to read a series of one line insults but it has nothing to do with the thread.


It takes no effort to understand how claiming renewable energy is a myth borne of spiritualism, asserting that plants and animals are expendable to human life, and that a socialist world will be one giant parking garage out of a JG Ballard novel, are crazed reactionary rantings. These are not claims to be taken seriously, so I have expended exactly the amount of effort called for by the task.

What does need to be taken seriously is your response. Pointing out that those claims constitute reactionary shitposting is not shitposting. Pointing out that moderators facilitate that shitposting, because their own politics are so fucked up that they don't see how it is shitposting on a leftist forum, is not shitposting. Get your priorities straight.

Listen, how about you expend no energy on the task if it requires you to expend so little to begin with. What possible purpose could your one liners have if not to wind another poster up which would no doubt descend into the back and forth you see now just so you could turn another thread into the Rafiq vs Izvestia shit-show. Technically one liners are against the forum rules, so why don't you take the hint and be quiet.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, but you know what, Mari3L? That kind of problem is already something we can take into account. You still miss the point entirely - the point isn't that we ought to actually pave the Earth in concrete, this was merely meant to be an analogy for transforming it to suite human needs. Of course careful consideration would be necessary, what's your point?

You still don't manage to defend, or make an argument for "leaving things be" when we don't have to. I mean what am I even arguing with? Did I say we should shape the Earth into a statue of Lenin? No, I said we CAN do things.



I understood your purpose in using it as an example of continuing our existence however the example is so flawed that it can't be taken seriously. We'd have to take all future fantasy scenarios seriously however ridiculous it sounds and no we do not currently possess the ability to biologically engineer humans to live on a concrete planet devoid of life. This itself is the defense.





You still deflect the basic point that it is within the scope of possibility for humans to actively conform the Earth to their needs. In other words, your "nature" isn't safe to hide behind the obvious risks of doing so. You don't make a case for it by doing this, instead, you make a case that people should be careful about going about it.

Instead, you will argue, people are just "too narrow" to handle something so "divine" as natural processes. Frankly, this IS superstition.

The creation of a planet that is impossible to live on isn't conforming the planet to our needs. We need the planet to be able to sustain and produce life, we need the biosphere. I think humans right now are 'too narrow' to do a lot of things and I think recognizing that reality is important. We know very little about most of the species on the planet and how they and the biosphere interact. Aside from possible medical breakthroughs coming about through research there might be ways to positively interact with the biosphere, or regenerate areas of it, that we can glean through further understanding of it.




And well, regarding mistakes, that is the point of science - my point is that if there is some kind of magical 5th dimension we're not paying attention to, then it would become quite apparent through practice. My point is that no such dimension exists, or moreover, even if it did it wouldn't be able to be foreseen by Mari3L in any way. But can't I make the same argument for the SOCIAL, for Communism? We can "keep making the same mistakes" in struggling for emancipation, until humans go extinct. What are those same mistakes, however? Fucking with things in general? In which case, our species and the culmination which allowed you the consciousness to say so in the first place was a "mistake". OF course, you cannot ACTUALLY think this, you can only run to this conclusion through confusion and ideological perversion.

the point of science is to understand things



But the point of difference, in having a "mistake" is juxtaposed with passively not "messing" with "nature". In which case, you're right, mistakes will compile upon themselves indefinitely and you have yet to make the case for anything less. But this has NOTHING to do with the fundamental point at hand: even if it could be PROVEN that this would have no adverse effects on HUMANS, you would still be ethically outraged by 'destroying the planet' or killing 'all the plants an animals'. You legitimize this pathology by conferring upon this the CONSEQUENCE that humans would pay for their sins. Put it this way - does the priest giving us his Christian morality do so SOLELY because he thinks its absence will lead humans to damnation or spiritual degradation and ruin? Maybe that is what he is thinking, but that is not its function. Even if it WERE true - that people would be better off with Christian morality, that would not change the pathology of why the priest touts Christian morality. And that is ultimately the point.

None of this is a reply to any of my actual positions that I've posted.

[Sharia Lawn]

Listen, how about you expend no energy on the task if it requires you to expend so little to begin with. What possible purpose could your one liners have if not to wind another poster up which would no doubt descend into the back and forth you see now just so you could turn another thread into the Rafiq vs Izvestia shit-show. Technically one liners are against the forum rules, so why don't you take the hint and be quiet.

The thread became a shitshow long before I showed up in it. There's a common denominator to all these shitshows on the forum. There's even a thread devoted to talking about it in another part of the forum. Can you guess who the common denominator is to these shitshows?

Calling reactionaries out on being reactionary usually winds them up. That doesn't mean it was the primary motivation.

[Lord Testicles]

The thread became a shitshow long before I showed up in it. There's a common denominator to all these shitshows on the forum. There's even a thread devoted to talking about it in another part of the forum. Can you guess who the common denominator is to these shitshows?

Calling reactionaries out on being reactionary usually winds them up. That doesn't mean it was the primary motivation.

Are you finished? Can we stop trying to make this thread about you and your tiff with Rafiq now, please?

[Rafiq]

communism would have to fundamentally alter the technological and productive capacity of society to prevent billions of death, within our lifetime (edit: actually like 20-40 years ago but), which would effectively mean preserving plant and animal systems. from there there is no reason to 'go back'

No, it would not "effectively mean preserving plant and animal systems". What many users here fail to understand is that you can't have your cake and eat it too - present advances in the productive capacity of society, which indeed is being accommodated to support not only rapidly growing populations but the industrialization of various countries (Brazil, India, etc. ) are not simply the result of the big evil capitalist killing all the fluffly bunnies and mowing down the pretty flowers - there is simply, at the present time, no going back as far as the conservationism goes, the only solution is to investigate how we could potentially cut off dependency on them. The problem is precisely approaching the issue in terms of conservationism, what many fail to understand is that the ecological impact of humans does not afford us the dichotomy of the "ecologies we can conserve" and human activity, because we have irreversibly altered ecological conditions in many parts of the world to the point where if we actually just "stopped", it could be even worse for all the precious little animals and plants. The "natural" world exists in an irreversible totality with human activity, the question we have to start asking is not one of returning to or even "conserving" nature, but how to become more free from it.


This isn't about nature fetishes or doomsday prophesies, literally everyone might die because of capitalism. The carbon tax proposed in that Rolling Stones article likely won't be enough. The law of value is on a collision course with the laws of thermodynamics. Capitalism requires more and more expansion. This growth is not for need, but for profit. Yet the growth of capitalism is in a contradiction with not just the masses, but the environment itself. One has to go. Either a society not based on maintaining profits that can at least mitigate the consequences, or a fucking nightmare the likes the world has yet to see. The oft repeated phrase,"Socialism or Barbarism."

Well, as you yourself put it, Bebel's insight has not a single trace of ecology-fetishism, instead, it proposes alternative energy sources purely from the standpoint of efficiency. Frankly, as I said before, concerns of the "environment" must only be conceived in approximation to its relation to the conditions of human life. I have stated this, over and over again, but users take it upon themselves to project their own sensitivities toward "da nature" by trying to make claims that Rafiq's argument this whole entire time has been to irrationally pave the whole world over in 2 days just for some kind of poetic justice, or spite toward the ecology-fetishists. Not that you yourself are saying this, Juan, but you must understand that the point of controversy here is not grounded in whether an ecological catastrophe can spell doom for humans, the point of controversy is whether or not we conceive this in terms of protecting "nature", or being "nature-friendly", etc. - if there can be any hope for solving the ecological crisis, the first step is the recognition that "nature" - which is nothing more than the sum-total of innumerable catastrophic accidents, plainly does not exist.


Yes, but who says that 'revolutionizing the means of production' will necessarily mean that man will constantly produce more and more at the expense of environment? It could very well result in another reduction of labor-time. I mean, we both agree that socialism will have to fulfill needs, but we cannot say which use values humans will desire (except for food, this is trivial), and what makes it hard to believe that humans will enjoy nature just as they enjoy art, music, literature, one-night stands, pizza, anything? I don't understand how the desire for authentic nature differs from the desire for anything else. If 'smashing nature' becomes necessary, fine, but why not care for the environment as long as it is not? Maybe man will have to 'smash art' at some point, too, if it is necessary, but we have no reason to say 'Fuck art' yet, do we?]

Alet, this is terribly confused. Firstly, the point is that existing conditions of production simply cannot be curtailed - capitalist production, as understood by Marxists before us, must be superseded, Marx's point is that even within the present confines and standards of production, labor-time does not even properly accommodate to the needs and wants projected by capital itself. The point of a reduction in labor time is not to reduce the productive capacities of society, but is a logical result of the dissolution of value-based production, i.e. and production for use value. It is true that the standards of want, and use value would be entirely different in a post-capitalist society, but considering the STRUCTURAL necessities of a Communist society, the implications it has - i.e. bringing the entire world into association, establishing a centralized structural basis of planning on a world-wide level, even if humans no longer desire worthless shit like iphones and other such gimmicks, even if the standards of want would result in the desire for less consumer goods, production in Communist society would not only not be reduced, it would have to greatly exceed that in capitalism, simply because as Engel's recognized, the antagonism between the human mind and the world around it would remain indefinitely, and while the "chaos" of production would be eliminated, we should expect the constant revolutionizing of the means of production as purely a consequence of scientific discovery.

Ultimately the problem is that you're conceiving the standards of human want and the conditions of life in capitalism to be identical in Communism, i.e. that Communism will "merely" do a better job at giving people their pizza, and so on. But this incredibly naive - Communism entails a massive transformation of human society at every possible level. What remains is only constitutive to the reproduction of human society, or that specific society, which means, no - it is not as we saw in the Eastern bloc wherein Communism and capitalism are compared, with the former argued to be more "efficient", and so on, because the BASIS of production itself gravely differs. Again, again, and again - if you don't understand what I'm saying, let me ask you a simple question: Among all of the things you include as inevitable facets of human life, i.e. "Art, nature (?), food and sex", why not include religion and superstition? In fact, it was Feuerbach who claimed that a new, humanist "religion of humanity" would come to replace religion, which incurred the wrath of Marx, and later Lenin in dealing with the god-builders.

In fact, it is plainly fucking ridiculous to assume that "enjoying nature" is not the product of specific historical circumstances. Even if humans have always enjoyed nature, how they enjoy it and why is entirely different in capitalist society. This must be patently stressed - My point is very simple, humans enjoy nature for a reason, and rather than constituting its own timeless category, "nature" belongs to the category of religion. I mean, let me pose you with anothr question, Alet - humans also "enjoy" family life, humans also "enjoy" going to church, humans also "enjoy" riding in Ferraris and trotting around with expensive jewelry. You can't pick and choose which constitutes some kind of timeless category.

You keep going the question in terms of "why destroy this" or "why destroy that", but what you fail to understand is that SUSTAINING THESE takes quite a lot of effort. You say "I don't understand how the desire for authentic nature differs from the desire for anything else.", well, plainly put, Alet, that is because your "anything else" constitutes a series of vague abstractions, i.e. like "art". The idea that society's demand for ("natural") authenticity, which is in its essential form something UNIQUE TO THE PAST FORTY YEARS is a timeless abstract category that we can safely assume will be inevitable is plainly ridiculous. It reminds me of that good Jacobin article, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/slow-food-artisanal-natural-preservatives/ - there is absolutely nothing "timeless" about this desire for an "authentic" nature. It is PURELY an ideological phenomena. So are people's sexual and dietary preferences, and we know these will change, too. Rather than conceiving this in terms of abstractions, as materialists, we must recognize the coordinates of ecology-fetishism properly. Plainly put, the obsession with authenticity, again, derives from the perceived inauthenticity of social life. When one sees a plastic tree in 2015, for example, they will see embedded in it their alienation from the process of production, an attempt at money grubbing that guises itself on the basis of TRYING to be "authentic". "Nature" is perceived as a refuge from capitalist society itself, but as we good Hegelians know, the "refuge" itself constitutes a part of the whole, like a kind of transgressive desubimation. Take for example sex in postmodern capitalist society. It is not, as many will try and say, the logic of prohibition, one feels guilty if they do not enjoy - which means that even our everyday, ordinary "pleasures" are regulated by our ideological superego. Likewise, our perceived ESCAPE from modern society is heavily regulated by the ideological mechanisms which reproduce it - i.e. a retreat into nature. So this is the point, Alet.



As for a walk among the trees not being a "necessity", sure, being deprived of that will not kill you. Also being deprived of sex, cultural life, and food other than some kind of protein gloop also won't kill you. But the Marxist notion of need is broader than the mere necessities of biological life - ironically because Marxists are not eco-faddists with their triage mentality - and there is no reason that the socialist society will not produce things that are conductive to the free development of the human personality.]

Likewise, being deprived of family life and religion too is not "necessary", "But the Marxist notion of need is broader than the mere necessities of biological life - ironically because Marxists are not eco-faddists with their triage mentality - and there is no reason that the socialist society would not produce things that are conductive to the free (!) development of the human personality (New age spiritualism, religion, family life, economic freedom, "financial responsibility", etc.)"

In short, Xhar-Xhar's notion of socialism is nothing more than capitalism without capitalism. That is to say, the basic coordinates of capitalist society, and the standards of want and need it produces to sustain itself will remain intact, just the relations of production would be different (and it takes an actual Marxist to realize this is impossible). While harking on abstractions, this self proclaimed Marxist claims that socialist society will "produce things" conductive to the free development of the human personality. Adda boy, Xhar-Xhar! The "free development" of the human personality, no doubt a timeless historical fact - what Xhar-Xhar fails to understand here is that the standards of what constitutes "free development" are not only relative socially, but relative HISTORICALLY. He can have no theoretical, no scientific, no real argumentative authority if I play the same fucking game, whilst talking about the right to the nuclear family, or religion. Of course, he will conveniently brush this off "Well, we can see how the family and how religion would disappear" - says this philistine - what you fail to understand is that we can also see how ecology-fetishism, and the necessity for people to "walk among the trees" (Why can't they be fake trees, by the way? Even if it was true that is - because what is otherwise an innocent point is really meant to construe and perpetuate the timelessness of humanity's obsession with an "authentic" nature). Xhar-Xhar plainly lacks a fucking imagination - he makes it as though "nature" is up there as one of those inevitability, but what Xhar-Xhar fails to understand is that sex, culture and food would be so entirely different in a post-capitalist society that to speak of them as necessarily "The same" is not only anti-Marxist, it is wrong even by its OWN merits of argumentation.

What Xhar-Xhar fails to understand ist hat sex, cultural life and food will only be constitutive of the new society because they are inevitably necessary for the REPRODUCTION of any social order, but they would not be the "same" - i.e. they would just be testament to the enduring survival of any kind of society. Likewise, I have already presented why "nature" is necessary in societies which lack social self consciousness (AND THIS IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF IDEAS, IT IS EMBEDDED IN THE VERY FUNCTION OF SOCIETY), not only this - I have presented SPECIFICALLY why nature is necessary in our post-modern capitalist society. and the reason is very simple - existing society, late capitalism if you will, is in its own existential conundrum. While we are seeing rapid technological advances that undermine what it even means to be human, the foundations of production in capitalist society cannot PROPERLY incorporate, or articulate these in such a way that reproduces them. Hence, we are in an epoch of mysticism in capitalism - degeneracy. This is not only observed with the obsession of the "organic" vs. the artificial, but the "spiritual" vs the cold, and material, in the domain of neuroscience, quantum physics, etc. - while a caste of specialists know what they are doing, capitalist society imbibes from advances in science its mystification.

Which leads us to our greater point: Nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, the same awe that we bestow upon nature is the same awe we bestow upon observing our own relations to production and life, the process of production is just as mystified as the sublime, romanticized mountains, forest and valleys. Accelerationism, or technognosis, is just as much a perversion of this fact as conservationism, but Communists rather than "transcending the dichotomy" recognize that nature plainly does not exist as such, it is not that we are a "part" of the sublime force, it is that the sublime force itself is not-so sublime at all, none the less even a "force". Xhar-Xhar, the self-proclaimed Marxist, tells us that the standards of want in a post-capitalist society would be the same, that

"Ya'know, people just kinda enjoy nature, and walking through parks, it's taste, it's self-sufficent unto itself. IT's just humans, man. *Shrugs*. Saying otherwise is Jungian":


Well, no, you can't "conceive why they do in present capitalist society", your "theory" is one of those puerile "collective consciousness" fairy tales that can be used to support anything and everything. You only bark about "idealism" so much because your own approach is blatantly idealist.


And my prediction proved correct - the phrase-mongering has begun. This philistine has the audacity to talk about idealism, when his notion of want is UNIQUELY post-modern, i.e. relativist in pertinence to the INDIVIDUAL. In short, Xhar-Xhar the Marxist presents us with a notion of preference and aesthetics that fits perfectly with the ideology of post-modern consumerist capitalist society. No matter that even Plekhanov (https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1899/arts.htm), no doubt a disciple of Jung, had surpassed Xhar-Xhar over a hundred years ago in this regard, Xhar-Xhar admits that "ideas", "prefernces" and "aesthetics" themselves are just random conglomerations of man's free will, and to say otherwise is "collective consciosuness".

I mean, ARE YOU LITERALLY A FUCKING IDIOT? DO YOU WANT TO JUST ADMIT TO ALL OF US THAT YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS AT THIS POINT? My god, like what the FUCK am I reading? The idea that the ideas of a society - and yes - the consciousness of man, is relative to his historic epoch, somehow constitutes a Jungian idea? Are you literally a fucking idiot? Do you even KNOW what collective unconscious is? I mean, this fucker is so desperate that hes' now literally throwing shit at the wall which compromises HIS OWN basic standard of reason. This is the lengths the people will go to, to defend their sensitivities, ladies and gentlemen's - Xhar-XHar the "dogmatist" is revealed for what he is the minute one talks about nature. As though radical social transformation isn't JUST AS apocalyptic and "crazy" as destroying nature. I promise, the minute a revolution is even close to coming around Xhar-Xhar will either resign from his little facade, or give us drivel a la "Soviets without Bolsheviks" to deflect its trauma.

But onto the wider point at hand, if we recognize that man's consciousness is determined by his social being, we must also recognize that social being is not unique or exclusive to individual men. I mean, did you even THINK THIS FUCKING ARGUMENT THROUGH? That Protestantism was bourgeois now constitutes some kind of idea of "Collective consciousness"? What? What constitutes INDIVIDUAL consciousness, mind you? Are you actually trying to fucking tell us that, somehow, people's preferences are reduced to THEM personally as individuals, end of story? No, don't fucking worm your way out of this - I want you to DEFEND This stupid fucking point - what hte FUCK were you thinking talking about "collective consciousness"? "Heh, Rafiq is an idealist because he is talking about this strange 'collective conscisuness' idea wherein preferences and ideas are historically relative, and not reducible to the free will of individuals bwahaha, look at the materialist I am". What a fucking joke. Desperation much? Xhar-Xhar the materialist has the audacity to accuse me of "idealism" and yet he makes the claim that people's preference for "nature" in capitalist society is simply the result of some kind of timeless truth (and don't worry, I'll fucking get to this bellow where you try and deflect this), or at worst, some kind of "unknowable" peculiarity that simply can't be known.

Fuck it, let's repeat the game of re-quoting once again. Xhar-Xhar claimed previously that:

Unless, of course, you consider your ridiculous "collective unconsciousness of a society..." "explanation" sufficient - good luck explaining how that "explains" the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena in previous modes of production, and their change.

He attempts to deflect the basic mysticism of assuming that humans have a timeless "cultural engagement with various natural phenomena", by accusing my argument of constituting "collective unconsciousness". This is how these philistines work, they'll use loud words to deflect accusations of an ESSENTIAL characteristic INHERENT to their arguments, to opportunistically twist it around on you. The rality is that Xhar-Xhar hasn't even fucking come close to actually addressing the real argument at hand, which was:

The reality is that EVEN IF this was somehow some kind of timeless phenomena, one that can only be conceived t the level of what inevitably the "human species" would desire, that sais absolutely nothing about "letting nature be" - it would merely entail reproducing these synthetically, taking into consideration their chemical implications, and so on. But clearly we can already see this is actual bullshit - whatever "aesthetic appreciation of nature" humans have is not because of some kind of godly, mystical force of nature, but because THEY PROJECT a standard of appreciation INHERENT to humans onto things which exist independently of them. This is inevitably bound up with a lack of social-consciousness, which is why it isn't fucking difficult at all to "explain the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena irrespective of the mode of production", because all previous modes of production were firstly, not socially conscious, and secondly, all had DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS of what they conceived as the domain of nature.

Plenty of things today would be conceived as disgusting, grotesque abominations in previous societies, and plenty of "natural" phenomena has long been discarded and lost form the collective imagination of those constituting capitalist society. So this alone proves that "appreciating nature" is some kind of inevitable human phenomena, because "nature" doesn't exist, it is the smokescreen that which humans project their imagined relationship to their social relations to the foundations of production and life. As it happens, if you want to play these stupid games of "timelessness", the only thing which distinguishes humans from fucking animals is their propensity to change nature.

And no matter whether people will meet mountainous formations with a sense of awe, because again, this is replaced. Moreso, what is fucking stupid is the idea that ecology-fetishism is reducible to some kind of aesthetic preference that people have, which is nonsense, because it is NEW. And where we can say it is not new, it has always been reactionary. This even goes back to the enlightenment (Vivaldi, etc.). Do you know whom Marx stated he detested most in his confession? Martin Tupper!

Do you know what distinguished socialist realism from Soviet Avant garde and the "grotesque" constructivism? Stalinism. So don't give me your fucking shit. My god, what a greater philistine you are.

The point, very simply amounts to the reality is that with our "appreciation of nature" in capitalist society, this represents the final social formation that lacks social self-consciousness, i.e. the last refuge of nature is inherently bound up with lack of consciousness of the social. But again, so degenerate has capitalism become that it is more and more forced to SOCIALLY, ideologically approximate the discoveries of natural sciences, no doubt with great existential implications, which leads even to the degradation of NATURAL science. Xhar-Xhar, who prefers to cover his ears and go "lalalalalala" approaches the issue like any good sect-dwelling philistine would, with pure ignorance - he simply, amply does not want to approach the issue critically, and instead falls back on "*shrugs*, it's just a thing that humans prefer, man, stop being so crazy and irrational."


And of course buildings by the Soviet avant-garde architects included no green spaces. No, wait, that's not true at all.

And that is besides the point. The point was that Soviet avant-garde was absolutely grotesque and "unnatural" in the eyes of Bourgeois ideologues in the west, as well as the Russian peasantry. Who cares if there were "green spaces"? The point is that people's "sensitivities" and "aesthetic preferences" gravely changed because in the moments immediately before a revolution or proletarian dictatorshp, a Communist movement would have already had made a significant impact on society with huge aesthetic, cultural and social ramifications. Though I'm sure Xhar-Xhar, who in a previous thread argued that a proletarian dictatorship can happen tomorrow, that socialism is already unconsciously in the back of the minds of workers (speaking of collective unconscious) who just need "Da right conditions" to express it can't understand this. You claimed that such grotesque, scary and crazy "unnatural" aesthetics would take time to set in, my point was that they already defined proletarian aesthetics even immediately after the October revolution. It doesn't matter if there were "green spaces" (and by the way, were there?), because Soviet constructivist architecture did not regard "nature" at all, they did not place people in proximity to nature, they did not regard doing this to the slightest. Moreover, even if there were whole rooms and parts dedicated to "nature", there was absolutely not an iota of care regarding its "authenticity' - I mean, an "inauthentic" substitution for them simply did not exist, so what the fuck is your point? The fact that the Bolshevik government did not make it its prerogative to abolish trees, gardens and grass is besides the fucking point. The point is that they would have been ready to, aesthetically.

After all, my point was:

There is every reason to believe humans will cease finding these things (in juxtaposition to their artificial replication) pleasant, because we can already conceive why they do in present capitalist society. Yes, absolutely, Soviet Avant-Garde absolutely was "artificial" and unnatural in juxtaposition to what proceeded it, because it was not only thoroughly modernist, it took a step much farther. To this day it's fucking horrifying for bourgeois ideologues.


There is no "inevitable physiological fact" that humans find shit unpleasant, it is not some kind of "timeless truth".

You don't want to be IDENTIFIED with this accusation, of course, because it sounds bad. But this is EXACTLY what you're implying when you say it is present in "Every mode of production".


That we do is grounded in the necessities of hygiene that have been surpassed - obviously today we could just let the shit flow down the gutters without everyone dying of communicable diseases.

Actually, you fucking idiot, there might have been a time in history wherein covering up shit so much and making it not observable on a day-to-day level might have been conceived as grotesque, shocking and frightening. I mean, you literally end up using an argument which is thoroughly not in your favor. That we find shit repugnant aesthetically is absolutely testament to our artificiality. There is nothing "natural" about shitlessness. The obvious difference, of course, is that shit might very well be objectively repugnant in smell, represents filth, etc. for reasons that are easily mandated either biologically (i.e. smell) or on a societal level. But this is intrinsic to any social formation which must retain a level of hygiene, but why even end with shit? Virtually any kind of bacteria-infested thing, being covered in tomato sauce, grease, sweat, is with variance considered disgusting. Probably because they're inversely related to cleanliness.

What's pathetic thogh is that al of this is irrelivent. No, you don't make the case that you're not implying that it's an inevitable physiological fact, instead, you're trying to insinuate that we "don't know why", shrug it off, and compare it with our engagement with shit, which safe to say we can all agree is repugnant, we can all tacitly nod our heads to each other with the perfect understanding that we don't want it. But that's how ideology works - the idea that this also functions for not grotesquely and horrifyingly butchering "nature" is an error of your own, and this argument can JUST AS MUCH be made for the retention of the family, bourgeois sexual morality, religion and property rights. You in effect insinuate that humanity's "appreciation for nature" IS in fact an inevitable physiological fact, inherent and constitutive to ANY mode of production and society. You don't want to ADMIT THIS, of course, because it leads you to a number of other unsettling conclusions. These are issues which frankly invoke the SAME sensitivity as society's appreciation for "nature". So no, you can't fucking pick and choose which ones are timeless and which one's aren't.

The notion of ACTUAL atheism is just as horrifying to many societies - and yes - even our society (Whose atheism is faulty, an abstraction). but that sais nothing about recognizing the reality that atheism will absolutely replace religion in a socialist society. Likewise, aesthetic tastes and standards for them will also change, and the fact that you find it unsettling, and unpleasant now is testament to the fact that you are patently not a Communist.


So when Rafiq presents his proposal for a new city where shit flows through the gutters and there are no green spaces, most people are going to look at that and go no, that's not going to do. And it will be rejected.

And when Xhar-Xhar presents his proposol that churches will be dismantled, "economic freedom" curtailed, and communal rearing as the order of the day, most people are giong to look at that and go no, that's not going to do. And it will be rejected.

You can't fucking PICK AND CHOOSE how you want to go about this. Stop FUCKING using "most people" as a means of defending YOURSELF. "People" change. I'm not talking to them right now. I'm TALKING to Xhar-xhar, who proclaims to be what he knows most people are not - that is, possessing of socialist consciousness. But of course, as we saw in the previous thread, Xhar-Xhar can only approach this issue as a matter of what Rafiq whimsically PREFERS or "wants", i.e. it's all a matter of "Telling" people things after all, in his mind - allowing people to conform to our ideas. Quite on the contrary, my point derives from a critical evaluation of the connontaitons of "nature" in present day society, and precisely what will NOT sustain this in a socialist one. Whether that entails the absence of "Green spaces" or not is besides the point - the point is to be apathetic as to whether it will or not, i.e. it won't HAVE To. Of course, considering a geo-transformation won't take a day, there is probably quite a lot of use for green-spaces in today's society, but that's besides the point - they are not sacred grounds, they are at best provisional.

But moreover, I did not even DISCARD the idea that humans might inevitably have to find these things pleasant. Indeed, humans always might need their "green" bullshit. My point was one of ARTIFICIALITY or not. If it is more efficient to artificially replicate this, in tending to them, sustaining them, etc. - which it would be - then there can be no argument against this. We could isolate WHAT EXACTLY humans might find pleasant about this, and why - and proceed from there. Because that's how science works, Xhar-Xhar, it's not shrugging your fucking shoulders and accepting them as a given, it is - if you want to claim that humans will inevitably need green spaces, you need to thoroughly explain to us WHY. I can, for example, thoroughly explain why humans will find shit, waste and filth repugnant in any society that cares about hygiene, not having to be clouted with garbage all the time. Can you do the same for your "nature", however? You have YET to.


Again something I never said (in fact I said the opposite: "untouched nature" is a completely wrong phrase).

But this is precisely why people are "fascinated" by them in present day society, they see them as refuges, of remainders of that which has been untouched by modernization. The question is, in a society wherein people are in direct association and freedom, why would this fascination remain?


So the music, sorry, the aesthetics of the future are in fact the aesthetics of the Victorian era. Hey, that's marginally better than the primmos, but it comes from the same confused dichotomy. A socialist society, one would imagine, would reject that dichotomy and conceive humanity both as a part of nature and as the part of nature that can change it from within.

This was not the aesthetics of the Victorian era. First, let us mention that during the Victorian era, you had a general FETISHISM of the natural, almost kind of how we experience it now - with pseudo-darwinism and the irk. Of course, progressivism, juxtaposed with the previous romantic agrarianism, fetishized ecology less, but the aesthetics of the Victorian era still aggrandized the natural. Try again:

https://britlitwiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/Victorian%20realism.jpg/509959392/Victorian%20realism.jpg

https://stephensenglish10-2010-11.wikispaces.com/file/view/4991418057_1f03937f59_z.jpg/343337358/497x363/4991418057_1f03937f59_z.jpg

https://johnartandculture.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/a_sunday_on_la_grande_jatte_georges_seurat_1884.jp g

ETC.

Throughout the history of capitalism all aesthetic movements that fetishized the natural, were reactionary. In the 18th century in France, for example, you had the emerging classicism juxtaposed with the reactionary and decadent Rococo. In the field of music, you had revolutions by Mozart, Beethoven that introduced chaos and struggle in music in juxtaposition with the earlier, more reactionary, more harmonic music. The list goes on. As time progressed, you had the "decadent" modernism, both bourgeois modernism and Soviet Avant garde compared to Fascist classicism and later socialist realism. As far as their engagement with the "natural", ALL reactionary aesthetic trends were almost defined by this IN JUXTAPOSITION to their adversaries. An uncomfortable truth that the very discourse of the reactionary has always been talk of the "natural" and the "unnatural". And there is a reason for this - the natural represents the domain of retreat. Regarding the idea that humans are just "part" of hte natural, what the fuck is this supposed to mean? With the same logic, my computer is just as "natural" as your "authentic" Green spaces. That is not an iota closer to being a real argument for them. After all, plastic trees and artificiality is "natural" by these qualifications, too.


Of course the countryside is unsustainable. That was one of the points Marx was making. In socialism agriculture becomes an industry like any other, no sane socialist society would organise agriculture as the EU does. But you're completely ignoring Marx's point that the division between the city and the countryside, between industry and artifice on one side and "nature" on the other, is contrary to the full development of the human personality.

Yes, and what you fail to understand is that Marx wasn't making some kind of pretense to a poetically appeasing principle, i.e. "Well, we need to balance the countryside and the city", nothing in pertinence to principles like the "development of the human personality", his point was a very direct one that related to practicality. If new agricultural technologies that did away with the need for countryside were present in Marx's time, do you think Marx would have sad "No, we need balance." - no, he wouldn't have. As much as you'd love to accuse me of straw-manning you in this regard, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING very directly. The division of city and countryside is not some kind of poetic abstraction, some kind of METAPHYSICAL conundrum.

It's like I can't fucking believe what I'm reading. It's not even a matter of being emotionless and cold, it's that - how can a Communist ACTUALLY have an emotional attachment to "nature"? And I fucking laugh my ass off at the idea that the countryside, somehow, isn't also artificial, ESPECIALLY with mega industrial-agriculture in 2015 monopolized by huge state-backed corporations like MONSANTO. No reason to think that industrializing country's aren't aslo hading toward this trend, either. Your countryside is already dead, buddy, so thanks for admitting you're a reactionary.



Did you pass elementary science?

"Huh, I'm just going to reduce my opponent's argument into something easily dismissable and approachable, and make it seem like he's arguing against a basic truism."

Congrats, Zim, but if you ACTUALLY want to participate and engage in the discussion, you need to actually know what you're talking about. Did I somehow insinuate that PRESENTLY we don't depend on various different ecosytems to survive? Did I say that? No, throughout the course of this thread, I acknowledged this reality, I merely stated that the point is to isolate how exactly we rely on them through scientific means, and steer us in the direction of independence from the biosphere - not because it's a "Good idea" for a science fiction movie, but because there is patently no other way today. You dare approach me with this attitude while basically showing everyone how gravely you underestimate just how much humans have made an impact on global ecology by 2015? There's no going back, and "conservation" is a fucking joke at this point. The only solution is forward. Like I can't actually fucking believe what I'm reading. You sure showed me, Zim! I never knew how ecologies worked before you. Thanks.

"Mass species exinction snowballs because of the inter-reliance of species within a given ecosystem. If too many vanish then the ecosystem collapses"

*Gasp*, wow, it's almost like I completely forgot a basic truism that I learned when I was 9 years old. Keep up with the actual argument, why don't you?

[Rafiq]

So I said I wasn't a sadist, but Izvestia is apparently a fucking masochist. Of course, I know how desperately he wants to redeem himself after being absolutely fucking destroyed in a previous thread, and who knows, Izvestia may be our culprit for the wave of Rafiq sockpuppets. The way this works, basically, is that because Izvestia can't cope with being utterly destroyed, he needs to project his frustrations by attempts at redeeming himself in other threads, or possibly making a bunch of sockpuppets.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1524&pictureid=11977

He wants this little dispute to be "over", but he can't bring himself to actually put on on some big boy pants and actually fucking finish it. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you, Izvestia:


What a surprise. Rafiq ruins yet another perfectly good thread with his disturbed reactionary ranting.

Let's actually turn this thread about six pages back - was this a perfectly good fucking thread in your mind? This little fucker claims "all was good" till Rafiq came and ruined it, but the reality s that for the ten or so posts that proceeded mine, there was absolutely no substance to this thread besides BCBM's article. We can imagine that rather than stimulating an interesting discussion, it would have died out and everyone would have forgotten about it.

Of course, in Izvestia's mind, anything short of worthless one-liners and phrase-mongering constitutes "ruining" a discussion, but as it happens, this is an INTERNET FORUM, and my post if anything has stimulated a discussion I'm sure most users find interesting, regardless of whether they agree with me. Rather than some kind of BA conspiracy (I am friends with... How many mods or admins?), the reality is that most inhte administration probably (and they might not, who kwos) recognize that most of my post actually stimulate discussion and have a wealth of substance to them, beyond their "downfalls". That's the point of a fucking internet forum. Izvestia, conversely, whines and gives us worthless fucking one liners. Like give me ONE insightful post you've written in the past 2 months. We can even take it to a vote too. You don't have any.

So you want to take on Rafiq, but you don't want to actually be intellectually engaging. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So go on, HOW THE FUCK DID I RUIN THIS THREAD? Moreover, you claim that my ranting is "reactionary". I love this. I want you to thoroughly defend this accusation - HOW EXACTLY IS MY RANTING "REACTIONARY", SPECIFICALLY YOU SHIT-TALKING PHRASE MONGER? Fucking WORTHLESS piece of shit talking straight out of his ass, as usual. I'm "reactionary" you fucking shit-eater? I'm "reactionary"? HOW? HOW THE FUCK IS THIS REACTIONARY YOU FUCKING IDIOT? So modernism is reactionary now? As opposed to, of course, ecology fetishism and nature-worship? It's fucking ironic too, because only ONE position here can be qualified as "reactionary", and guess what you worthless fuck, it's not mine. Only the nature-fetishists, the ones harking on about "authenticity" can be conceived as reactionary. I love how this fucking phrase-mongerer works - literally projecting onto me HIS OWN insecurities about HIS OWN positions. It's like, YOU KNOW your position is truly the reactionary one here - but it feels good to be an opportunist, now doesn't it you little fucking rat? Fucker has the audacity to shit-post with one liners and hasn't even responded to ONE POST IN THIS WHOLE THREAD FROM MINE. He talks shit, and has nothing to show for it.


Under socialism, Rafiq doesn't submit proposals to be voted on democratically.

Okay, let's democratically vote on the proposal to smash religion, the family and the state RIGHT NOW. No ifs or buts about it - what most people think RIGHT FUCKING NOW is the end of it. So let's take it to a vote, shall we? How does this rodent ACTUALLY THINK? I want to know - what's going on in this fucker's head before he decides to actually post? "Oh, I'll get Rafiq back this time, I know it!" - sorry, you little FUCKING shit, you're not. You might get your last post in, but every single honest fucking person in this thread knows what a fucking dishonest coward you are.

But I DEMAND you fucking dig up some posts of mine, a MERE PHRASE which confirms my point is that this just is "imposed" on people regardless of their preferences.


The fact that this forum still permits him to spread his reactionary shit far and wide makes it a joke. The fact that moderators protect him is a bigger joke. Smaller jokes in response are to be expected.

You talk shit about me in the third person, but why can't you ACTUALLY FUCKING RESPOND to my points you little shit? You fucking coward? As far as we're concerned, you don't have SHIT to show for any of your accusations, it's not a tacit "given" that my posts are "reactionary shit" or that my post are alone grounds for administrative action. I mean, you DISAGREE with them, you UTTERLY FAIL to defend the BASIS oft hose disagreements, and you want to run to the BA with shit running down your leg to get rid of big bad Rafiq once and for all?

Even if I'm banned, Izvestia, it changes nothing at all. You're still going to feel like a worthless shit-eater, you're still going to be a fucking coward, you're still going to be pathetically and utterly fuing wrong. And that much has already been shown.


Of course plant and animal life, geological formations etc. present an immense resource and are crucial to satisfying human scientific curiosity, which other people have touched on.

"Satisfying humans scientific curiosity", it's like he's on the PR team for a fucking pop-science magazine. As it happens, the COSMOS aside as existing which easily shatters your fucking argument, human scientific curiosity would have ALREADY had to be satisfied to go about transforming nature - can you think FOR ONCE with your head OUT of your ass? If you can already master nature, what the FUCK is there to be "scientifically curious" about? Or is just the "principle" of "human scientific curiosity", rather than its relation to a PRACTICAL process, enough? Thanks, Nat-Geo/Discovery/IFL, none of that spectacle based, mystical garbage will have any place in a society that does away with conditions that require illusions. "human scientific curiosity" only exists in relation to its practical expression, which includes perpetuating society (i.e. the metaphysical pondering of various 'philosophers' and theologians). But a society that has overcome alienation has no need to project itself onto the cosmos, or onto "nature" to sustain itself.

It's like - what the fuck is this idiot saying? "Human scientific curiosity" - so what, we should just leave shit intact because the process, err, I mean cycle of "knowing things" tautologically is beautiful? If you can fully know how these processes work, as an AXIOM for trying to change them, then what the fuck are you supposed to be "curious" about? You could try to argue tha "well knowledge of the complex process would be watered down" if we technologically transformed them, but that's wrong, because in order to, for example, sustain a nuclear reactor, we still need an EXACT understanding of how the processes, "natural laws" work.

The fuck am I reading?


If Rafiq can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.

Speak for yourself you fucking clown, if you can't "take" my insults, then don't NECESSITATE them.


As far as I can tell, about half of his posts (and that's being generous) contain insults to other posters,

Show us this. How are "half" my posts insults? Show it. Prove it. Fucking shit-talker. Righteous bullshitter. I know the insults are exemplified to you and others, Xhar-Xhar, but I don't give a fuck about your feelings.


It takes no effort to understand how claiming renewable energy

Izvestia has clearly been reading the duration of this discussion. He's so qualified to make huge conclusions about the nature of my posts, clearly. Previously, I said to Alet - who I have not been "insulting":

Of course, only an idiot would be against renewable energy. But why? Not because we care about nature.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2846495&postcount=80

Fucking PIECE OF SHIT HAS THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO SAY THINGS LIKE THIS? WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYONE OUGHT TO OPPOSE RENEWABLE ENERGY? No, don't fucking SLITHER YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS YOU LITTLE FUCKING SHIT, I DEMAND AN ACTUAL, FUCKING EXPLANATION FOR THIS LITTLE FUCKING ACCUSATION.

As such, I expect a response IN FULL. You don't come int his thread, try and START SHIT and then run the fuck away. YOU just started something new. So I expect a FUCKING response, I want to SEE you try and fucking defend yourself you little shit. If you don't respond, you prove to everyone what a slimy, worthless little shit-talker you are.


The thread became a shitshow long before I showed up in it. There's a common denominator to all these shitshows on the forum. There's even a thread devoted to talking about it in another part of the forum. Can you guess who the common denominator is to these shitshows?

Awww, you want to cry about it you little fuck? You're in NO POSITION to call any of my posts "shitshows", because you haven't even responded to anything, you haven't even FUCKING demonstrated ANYTHING you've said is close to being true -it relies on the assumption that every conscious being is in tacit agreement with you - and when threads do get ugly they're almost ALL a result of Izvestia's dodging my points, twisting them and opportunistically ignoring them. That's not my fucking fault, and frankly, that I have the intuition to actually BACK UP what I say is of zero relevance.

Little fucker worms his way in here like a fucking coward, like a caniving vulture, fucking shit-talking opportunist. Getting me banned IS NOT GOING TO REDEEM YOU. Like where the fuck did you come from? I love how you're STILL fucking bitter about being absolutely DESTROYED. Like this shit STILL gets to you. It STILL fucking haunts you. Fucking spineless coward.

[Rafiq]

We'd have to take all future fantasy scenarios seriously however ridiculous it sounds and no we do not currently possess the ability to biologically engineer humans to live on a concrete planet devoid of life. This itself is the defense.

The point is simply to engage the problem in this way. I did not say at the present moment we had the capacity to do this or that, I said that we must fully assume the project of modernism, and have none of this retreat into nature. My point is to take all of "This" to its logical conclusion. That means pumping resources and energy into research, and so on. The problem cannot be approached superstitiously and it is plainly a myth that users here are invested in what we call "nature", the plants and the animals, because of their practical relation to human survival. That's my point.


The creation of a planet that is impossible to live on isn't conforming the planet to our needs. We need the planet to be able to sustain and produce life, we need the biosphere. I think humans right now are 'too narrow' to do a lot of things and I think recognizing that reality is important

What is impossible now, isn't impossible in general. It is impossible that we can have Communism, by these qualifications - which is very much "distant" in the future. Humans "right now" might be narrow, but this is not a metaphysical inevitability, i.e. we don't have to be. That's not how many approach the issue, however. Many see this in a way that insinuates nature is somehow "always going to be too complex" for humans, so "narrow" in their "subjective" prerogatives, to conquer. This kind of "wisdom" is reactionary.


the point of science is to understand things

Well no, that's rather vague. I mean, humans have always had a means by which they went about "understanding things", but this only became scientific in the past 500 years or so. It's how you go about understanding things which is relevant.


None of this is a reply to any of my actual positions that I've posted.

But you implied that attempting to conform nature, rather than "Coexist" with it, or whatever, would be a mistake and would produce mistakes upon mistakes. So it does.

[Invader Zim]

You didn't insinuate it, you dolt, you outright said it when you contended that mass extinction is an irrelevance -- and you continue to say it now when you present the efforts to prevent a global ecological disaster with profound impact on the human species as hippies harping on about bunnies and flowers.

And how have I underestimated the impact of humanity on global ecology? Just shut up and leave the adults to talk.

Oh, and your crude and ill-conceived futurism is a joke, and you manifestly understand less about the development of science and technology than you do environmental concerns -- and let's be clear your grasp of that is indeed lower than rock bottom.

[Rafiq]

You didn't insinuate it, you dolt, you outright said it when you contended that mass extinction is an irrelevance

No, what I insinuated is that assuming the conditions of human life can be sustained, yes mass extinction is an irrelevance. EVEN IF this an impossibility for all eternity (which it is not), the very implications this "abstraction" has for people's sensitivities brings out their true colors.

Try reading the discussion past the first page - this was the FIRST THING my opponents brought up when I said who cares abut all the animals and plants, etc. - my point is that people conceive the issue today as humans "defiling", "destroying" or "ruining" nature, which htey did not create, which has always existed - conceiving it as a tragedy. BEYOND the practical implications to human survival.

Specifically, I replied to Placenta's claim that green technology was a myth. My point was that this was NOT a myth - Placenta's point is that green technology will always require and presuppose resource extraction, and generally "interfering" with ecologies and nature (i.e. as a PRINCIPLE).

So my point was basically - who cares? We don't care about this. I said, if these are the qualifications for being "Green", then fuck them - because the whole point is presupposing that this technology can be efficient in suiting human needs exclusively. And that's how this fucking thread started.

My fucking god.


And how have I underestimated the impact of humanity on global ecology?

If you construe the solution in terms of conservationism, as a matter of fucking fact, YES YOU HAVE, because the point is that while retaining existing capacities of production, - let's even say "civilization", then conservation itself would require arduous effort, which of course we shouldn't oppose "in principle", but the point is that we've gone too far to pretend like we can just either halt existing progress or go back on it. There is no "hatling" anything, instead, what we can do is pursue an alternate path of development, one that actually takes into account the holistic needs of human survival. My point is that conceiving this in terms of "not taking things any farther than they already have gone" is pathological. It's wrong.


Oh, and your crude and ill-conceived futurism is a joke, and you manifestly understand less about the development of science and technology than you do environmental concerns

So I should take your word for it? Until you can actually demonstrate this, you can shut the fuck up. My point about a 100% artificial Earth was that this is a reality we need to not be scared of. I never fucking said it was an immediate possibility, I said it would logically be a result of not giving a shit about this domain of the sacred - "nature" eventually. That there is NOTHING WRONG with it and theoretically, it is possible. It has nothing to do with an immediate solution.

And for the record, geo-engineering, which is more modest that paving the whole earth in concrete, is already being taken seriously by the state apparatus. So don't give me your fucking shit.

[Armchair Partisan]

I think there is something deeply sad about constantly calling each other reactionaries, the enemy, stuff like that. Couldn't we just default to the assumption that everyone here is a honest and committed revolutionary, no matter how misguided they are from someone's opinion? If someone really openly starts advocating authoritarian social conservatism, as certain Stalinists do, that assumption could be revised, but even then, it's always better to attack the idea, not the person. Rafiq, I promise you, you could still write pages of text nobody will ever read without constant personal insults (in fact, no personal insults would mean that some people - me included - might actually start reading one or two of them; do you ever wonder why it seems like people don't actually bother understanding the point of your posts?).

[Rafiq]

Okay, but if people deliberately know they are't understanding the point of my posts, why do they take it upon themselves to respond to them like they know? For the record, the past 2 pages have amounted to nothing but insults, persona ones included against me. And frankly, arrogantly dismissing someone's post, without even comprehending it - regardless of the "fuck you's" or name calling, IS an insult. One of the highest order, in fact.

I mean, go ahead and read Izvestia's posts here. Is this an honest person by ANY standard? Why can Zim, for example, say stupid shit like "Durr have you passed elementary science"? Why are users so confident that they know what they're talking about, when they're more than capable of assessing that no, they don't?

[Youarenotyouridentity]

No, what I insinuated is that assuming the conditions of human life can be sustained, yes mass extinction is an irrelevance. EVEN IF this an impossibility for all eternity (which it is not), the very implications this "abstraction" has for people's sensitivities brings out their true colors.

Um, so people having a preference for the natural world existing means that they aren't real communists? Where do you get this stuff from. Are you so invested in this caricatured life you've created for yourself that you can't understand that some people like nature, care that other people like nature, and/or at a minimum, find existence and conciousness even of non-humans to have moral value?



Try reading the discussion past the first page - this was the FIRST THING my opponents brought up when I said who cares abut all the animals and plants, etc. - my point is that people conceive the issue today as humans "defiling", "destroying" or "ruining" nature, which htey did not create, which has always existed - conceiving it as a tragedy. BEYOND the practical implications to human survival.

Even granting your point, most of us in this thread never conceived of the issue like that. They were mainly concerned about the massive devastation that would occur from ecological problems! You took one guys post, ran with it, and as usual, made it all about your ego - sorry.... I meant your overwhelming desire to 'defend the marxist tradition from formalist distortions etc etc.'

[Lord Testicles]

So I said I wasn't a sadist, but Izvestia is apparently a fucking masochist. Of course, I know how desparatly he wants to redeem himself after being absolutely fucking destryed in a prvious thad, and who knows, it might be Izvestia whose been behind all of those new Rafiq's. The way this works, basically, is that because Izvestia can't cope with being utterly destroyed, he needs to project his frustrations by attempts at redeeming himself in other threads, or possibly making a bunch of sockpuppets. He wants this little dispute to be "over", but he can't bring himself to actually put on on some big boy pants and actually fucking finish it. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you, Izvestia:



Let's actually turn this thread about six pages back - was this a perfectly good fucking thread in your mind? This little fucker claims "all was good" till Rafiq came and ruined it, but the reality s that for the ten or so posts that proceeded mine, there was absolutely no substance to this thread besides BCBM's article. We can imagine that rather than stimulating an interesting discussion, it would have died out and everyone would have forgotten about it.

Of course, in Izvestia's mind, anything short of worthless one-liners and phrase-mongering constitutes "ruining" a discussion, but as it happens, this is an INTERNET FORUM, and my post if anything has stimulated a discussion I'm sure most users find interesting, regardless of whether they agree with me. Rather than some kind of BA conspiracy (I am friends with... How many mods or admins?), the reality is that most inhte administration probably (and they might not, who kwos) recognize that most of my post actually stimulate discussion and have a wealth of substance to them, beyond their "downfalls". That's the point of a fucking internet forum. Izvestia, conversely, whines and gives us worthless fucking one liners. Like give me ONE insightful post you've written in the past 2 months. We can even take it to a vote too. You don't have any.

So you want to take on Rafiq, but you don't want to actually be intellectually engaging. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So go on, HOW THE FUCK DID I RUIN THIS THREAD? Moreover, you claim that my ranting is "reactionary". I love this. I want you to thoroughly defend this accusation - HOW EXACTLY IS MY RANTING "REACTIONARY", SPECIFICALLY YOU SHIT-TALKING PHRASE MONGER? Fucking WORTHLESS piece of shit talking straight out of his ass, as usual. I'm "reactionary" you fucking shit-eater? I'm "reactionary"? HOW? HOW THE FUCK IS THIS REACTIONARY YOU FUCKING IDIOT? So modernism is reactionary now? As opposed to, of course, ecology fetishism and nature-worship? It's fucking ironic too, because only ONE position here can be qualified as "reactionary", and guess what you worthless fuck, it's not mine. Only the nature-fetishists, the ones harking on about "authenticity" can be conceived as reactionary. I love how this fucking phrase-mongerer works - literally projecting onto me HIS OWN insecurities about HIS OWN positions. It's like, YOU KNOW your position is truly the reactionary one here - but it feels good to be an opportunist, now doesn't it you little fucking rat? Fucker has the audacity to shit-post with one liners and hasn't even responded to ONE POST IN THIS WHOLE THREAD FROM MINE. He talks shit, and has nothing to show for it.



Okay, let's democratically vote on the proposal to smash religion, the family and the state RIGHT NOW. No ifs or buts about it - what most people think RIGHT FUCKING NOW is the end of it. So let's take it to a vote, shall we? How does this rodent ACTUALLY THINK? I want to know - what's going on in this fucker's head before he decides to actually post? "Oh, I'll get Rafiq back this time, I know it!" - sorry, you little FUCKING shit, you're not. You might get your last post in, but every single honest fucking person in this thread knows what a fucking dishonest coward you are.

But I DEMAND you fucking dig up some posts of mine, a MERE PHRASE which confirms my point is that this just is "imposed" on people regardless of their preferences.



You talk shit about me in the third person, but why can't you ACTUALLY FUCKING RESPOND to my points you little shit? You fucking coward? As far as we're concerned, you don't have SHIT to show for any of your accusations, it's not a tacit "given" that my posts are "reactionary shit" or that my post are alone grounds for administrative action. I mean, you DISAGREE with them, you UTTERLY FAIL to defend the BASIS oft hose disagreements, and you want to run to the BA with shit running down your leg to get rid of big bad Rafiq once and for all?

Even if I'm banned, Izvestia, it changes nothing at all. You're still going to feel like a worthless shit-eater, you're still going to be a fucking coward, you're still going to be pathetically and utterly fuing wrong. And that much has already been shown.



"Satisfying humans scientific curiosity", it's like he's on the PR team for a fucking pop-science magazine. As it happens, the COSMOS aside as existing which easily shatters your fucking argument, human scientific curiosity would have ALREADY had to be satisfied to go about transforming nature - can you think FOR ONCE with your head OUT of your ass? If you can already master nature, what the FUCK is there to be "scientifically curious" about? Or is just the "principle" of "human scientific curiosity", rather than its relation to a PRACTICAL process, enough? Thanks, Nat-Geo/Discovery/IFL, none of that spectacle based, mystical garbage will have any place in a society that does away with conditions that require illusions. "human scientific curiosity" only exists in relation to its practical expression, which includes perpetuating society (i.e. the metaphysical pondering of various 'philosophers' and theologians). But a society that has overcome alienation has no need to project itself onto the cosmos, or onto "nature" to sustain itself.

It's like - what the fuck is this idiot saying? "Human scientific curiosity" - so what, we should just leave shit intact because the process, err, I mean cycle of "knowing things" tautologically is beautiful? If you can fully know how these processes work, as an AXIOM for trying to change them, then what the fuck are you supposed to be "curious" about? You could try to argue tha "well knowledge of the complex process would be watered down" if we technologically transformed them, but that's wrong, because in order to, for example, sustain a nuclear reactor, we still need an EXACT understanding of how the processes, "natural laws" work.

The fuck am I reading?



Speak for yourself you fucking clown, if you can't "take" my insults, then don't NECESSITATE them.



Show us this. How are "half" my posts insults? Show it. Prove it. Fucking shit-talker. Righteous bullshitter. I know the insults are exemplified to you and others, Xhar-Xhar, but I don't give a fuck about your feelings.



Izvestia has clearly been reading the duration of this discussion. He's so qualified to make huge conclusions about the nature of my posts, clearly. Previously, I said to Alet - who I have not been "insulting":

Of course, only an idiot would be against renewable energy. But why? Not because we care about nature.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2846495&postcount=80

Fucking PIECE OF SHIT HAS THE FUCKING AUDACITY TO SAY THINGS LIKE THIS? WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY ANYONE OUGHT TO OPPOSE RENEWABLE ENERGY? No, don't fucking SLITHER YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS YOU LITTLE FUCKING SHIT, I DEMAND AN ACTUAL, FUCKING EXPLANATION FOR THIS LITTLE FUCKING ACCUSATION.

As such, I expect a response IN FULL. You don't come int his thread, try and START SHIT and then run the fuck away. YOU just started something new. So I expect a FUCKING response, I want to SEE you try and fucking defend yourself you little shit. If you don't respond, you prove to everyone what a slimy, worthless little shit-talker you are.



Awww, you want to cry about it you little fuck? You're in NO POSITION to call any of my posts "shitshows", because you haven't even responded to anything, you haven't even FUCKING demonstrated ANYTHING you've said is close to being true -it relies on the assumption that every conscious being is in tacit agreement with you - and when threads do get ugly they're almost ALL a result of Izvestia's dodging my points, twisting them and opportunistically ignoring them. That's not my fucking fault, and frankly, that I have the intuition to actually BACK UP what I say is of zero relevance.

Little fucker worms his way in here like a fucking coward, like a caniving vulture, fucking shit-talking opportunist. Getting me banned IS NOT GOING TO REDEEM YOU. Like where the fuck did you come from? I love how you're STILL fucking bitter about being absolutely DESTROYED. Like this shit STILL gets to you. It STILL fucking haunts you. Fucking spineless coward.

You know, it's not Izvestia that will get you banned, it's posts like this. There was no need to respond to Izvestia's obvious flame bait and you're a fool for doing so. You think if one line insults aren't tolerated then making an entire fucking paragraph consisting of nothing but chest beating and petty insults is somehow better? Grow the fuck up dude, nobody cares that you "destroyed" someone on an internet forum or that you're stomping your little cyber-feet about demanding this and that in all caps and red font. You know what a big boy would have done? He would have left Izestia's post there because there was abso-fucking-lutely nothing to be gained from replying to it other than satiating ego.

This is a verbal warning Rafiq.

Tone it down or I'll close the thread.

See I can use red font too.

[Armchair Partisan]

Okay, but if people deliberately know they are't understanding the point of my posts, why do they take it upon themselves to respond to them like they know? For the record, the past 2 pages have amounted to nothing but insults, persona ones included against me. And frankly, arrogantly dismissing someone's post, without even comprehending it - regardless of the "fuck you's" or name calling, IS an insult. One of the highest order, in fact.

I mean, go ahead and read Izvestia's posts here. Is this an honest person by ANY standard? Why can Zim, for example, say stupid shit like "Durr have you passed elementary science"? Why are users so confident that they know what they're talking about, when they're more than capable of assessing that no, they don't?

You're far from the only person acting like this unfortunately, so sorry if you feel I singled you out unfairly. But as Skinz said above, if you think that someone is not being intellectually honest you can just leave the post well alone or say "hey, what you're doing is not cool, I'm not going to talk to you if you'll act like this" and leave it at that. Honestly, do you derive any sort of enjoyment from engaging with Izvestia? Did you feel like your time was spent more productively than playing some timewaster flash game or whatever?

[Rafiq]

Honestly, do you derive any sort of enjoyment from engaging with Izvestia?

No, but one feels obliged to address him because his posts could serve as a platform for the further mis-representation of the posts. It's frustrating because I really do take this website seriously - or at least the points being discussed here, and to see them twisted like this is frustrating.

There is a certain tacitly recognized etiquette in engaging in any discussion, online or otherwise. While I realize proliferating discussions with nasty insults violates this, it is nowhere near as heinous of a crime as deliberately mis-representing points, being dismissive, dodging arguments, and so on.

[Rafiq]

Um, so people having a preference for the natural world existing means that they aren't real communists? Where do you get this stuff from. Are you so invested in this caricatured life you've created for yourself that you can't understand that some people like nature, care that other people like nature, and/or at a minimum, find existence and conciousness even of non-humans to have moral value?

Well, this is what we have been arguing about for the past few pages. I've gone over it. Either keep up, or leave. But yes, "preferences" of this sort, like the "preference" for spirituality or the nuclear family, a distaste for modern art - owning a business, etc. are not sufficient unto themselves, and have a real historic basis. This has been thoroughly explained. You want to argue about it, then at least keep up with the discussion. And for the record, you don't get to hide behind "some people". We share a collective space of reason, you need to justify why. "Some people"'s moral value in non-human "consciousness" (don't make me laugh) is no sufficient unto-itself. Not only that, it is not reducible to such an abstraction. "Existence of non-humans" having moral value, for one, is framed dishonestly.

The question must be: What ramifications offered by the existence of non-human organisms in their minds sustains its "moral value"? And in 2015, the answer is simple: People's care for animals is not because they elevate animals to the level of humans, but because they reduce humans to the level of animals.

What's stupid also is the idea that ecology as the opium of the masses constitutes the expression of an innocent "preference". Yeah, sorry, no. Using your logic, what about being religious prevents you from being a Communist? If it's just about picking and choosing what abstractions, there is nothing incompatible about agreeing with the statement "I want a society free of classes" at face value with the statement that "I believe in a god". The point is that it's more complex, i.e. the latter has further implications.


Even granting your point, most of us in this thread never conceived of the issue like that. They were mainly concerned about the massive devastation that would occur from ecological problems!

List to me who constitutes "most of us". This has been Zim's argument, maybe, but past the 2nd page it should be clear that no, my point has nothing to do with this.


I meant your overwhelming desire to 'defend the marxist tradition from formalist distortions etc etc.'

A word of advice - if you're a sockpupet, you need to at least pretend like you're unfamiliar with what goes on in the forum. If you were just a guest whose been browsing, as unlikely as I find that, please point to me what essential characteristics about Rafiq and his ego compels him to bother with any of this, if not defending the Marxist tradition.

Perhaps because Rafiq is nothing more than the sum-total of his posts, and that in fact, Rafiq's "ego" constitutes a defense of them, even their repute, this has absolutely nothing to do with his "ego" specifically?

[Alet]

In fact, it is plainly fucking ridiculous to assume that "enjoying nature" is not the product of specific historical circumstances. Even if humans have always enjoyed nature, how they enjoy it and why is entirely different in capitalist society. This must be patently stressed - My point is very simple, humans enjoy nature for a reason, and rather than constituting its own timeless category, "nature" belongs to the category of religion. I mean, let me pose you with anothr question, Alet - humans also "enjoy" family life, humans also "enjoy" going to church, humans also "enjoy" riding in Ferraris and trotting around with expensive jewelry. You can't pick and choose which constitutes some kind of timeless category.

I would never claim that any desire is timeless. I just don't understand what's bad about enjoying nature. Whom do I harm, when I save energy or plant a tree or enjoy a sunset? Of course, to adorn oneself with status symbols does have a negative effect on other humans, as money could have been donated to people actually starving.
This is probably off topic, but I need to ask you, this might clarify some things: How am I supposed to imagine a communist society? Would there be morals? Would everybody necessarily be a materialist?

[Sharia Lawn]

No, but one feels obliged to address him because his posts could serve as a platform for the further mis-representation of the posts. It's frustrating because I really do take this website seriously - or at least the points being discussed here, and to see them twisted like this is frustrating.

There is a certain tacitly recognized etiquette in engaging in any discussion, online or otherwise. While I realize proliferating discussions with nasty insults violates this, it is nowhere near as heinous of a crime as deliberately mis-representing points, being dismissive, dodging arguments, and so on.

Anytime somebody has the temerity to strip out the non-essential bluster from your posts, and highlight the actual claims you are making so that others (who aren't so already brainwashed by your bologna that they will willingly slog through dozens of paragraphs of self-parody) can read them and see just how deranged your ideas are, you accuse them of "misrepresenting" you.

It's not misrepresenting your position to point out what you've written:


Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.Yes, so renewable energy, the mass extinction of animals are totally irrelevant to communists.

No, wait, I'm misrepresenting you. They aren't important to us in a "metaphysical" sense. They would only be important to us, you know, if we were material beings who were enmeshed in an ecosystem that permits human habitation only if a complex system of interdependent plant and animal relations are maintained -- which can only happen if mass extinction doesn't happen.

But OOPS. We we are material beings who have these dependencies on the non-human material world. So what the fuck is your point exactly? That most of us in our day to day lives care about the planet only because it's our home and we need it to live? That communists don't care about the survival of a species if we don't depend on it to maintain an ecosystem habitable to humans?

Seriously, there are about four different ways to parse your statement, and every one of them is either speculative idealism about what communists should and shouldn't care about without any reference to class struggle or a rigorous philosophical anthropology of the kind that marx laid down in his earlier work, or it's outright reactionary blather that, again, if it issued from the account of somebody without your post count and connections on the forum, would get you restricted-at the very least. No matter which interpretation is correct, it's just more of your idealism and category fetishism.

[Rafiq]

I would never claim that any desire is timeless. I just don't understand what's bad about enjoying nature. Whom do I harm, when I save energy or plant a tree or enjoy a sunset?

You aren't harming anyone, of course, and if it was that simple there wouldn't be talk of this in the first place. My point isn't that society as a whole needs to change its standards of enjoyment at gunpoint, but that it is unlikely that a socially self-conscious society would fetishize "nature". And you're not at fault personally - I personally go on walks in local state parks, enjoy sunsets, etc. - but that's besides the point. The point is one that relates to "authenticity".


How am I supposed to imagine a communist society? Would there be morals? Would everybody necessarily be a materialist?

As I always say, as little as possible - we can't really know what one would look like, but we could infer what it wouldn't look like, and we can also assess the coordinates of proletarian aesthetics in our own society from both historical experience and the existing coordinates of art. There would certainly be morals, not only in a Communist society, but a Communist movement. The morality, however, would be different. Capitalist society generates its own perverse temptations that it must morally account for - and you see things like priests abusing children, conservative politicians involved in sex scandals almost as a regular occurrence. In that sense, morality would not only be different in its content, but in its very expression.

Re - materialism, Engels once said something profound. He said that the question of propagating atheism for some workers wasn't even a controversy anymore, because the socialist workers were already atheists in practice, i.e. acting in a way free from the idea of a god. They were atheists in practice because the very thought of it didn't even have to enter in their vocabulary - Likewise, an Atheist Jew (or Muslim, as personally observed) can still be religious in practice.

So the point is that society would be materialist already in practice, the conditions for idealism - which is inevitably bound up with conceiving the social domain ideologically, would not exist.

[Alet]

They would only be important to us, you know, if we were material beings who were enmeshed in an ecosystem that permits human habitation only if a complex system of interdependent plant and animal relations are maintained -- which can only happen if mass extinction doesn't happen.

But OOPS. We we are material beings who have these dependencies on the non-human material world. So what the fuck is your point exactly? That most of us in our day to day lives care about the planet only because it's our home and we need it to live? That communists don't care about the survival of a species if we don't depend on it to maintain an ecosystem habitable to humans?

... This is not his point. He never claimed that we don't need 'nature' to live. In fact, he admitted it multiple times. He is talking about the quasi-religious worship of nature. For example, people would always prefer cats to bees, regardless of their different importance to our lives. He says, that if we do not depend on nature anymore, there is no reason to care about it.

[Youarenotyouridentity]

Well, this is what we have been arguing about for the past few pages. I've gone over it. Either keep up, or leave. But yes, "preferences" of this sort, like the "preference" for spirituality or the nuclear family, a distaste for modern art - owning a business, etc. are not sufficient unto themselves, and have a real historic basis. This has been thoroughly explained. You want to argue about it, then at least keep up with the discussion.

What's stupid also is the idea that ecology as the opium of the masses constitutes the expression of a "preference". Yeah, sorry, no. [QUOTE]

People's preferences for ecology is the same as the preference to own a business. Right....Hunter-Gathers don't find any beauty in the natural world. Neither did Edward the Confessor....

I think everyone (it is obvious) can recognize that there are classes of preferences which seem entirely contingent on the current state of society in such a way that minor changes in it can remove them. There are other preferences whereby the way we think about them, pursue them, the way we express them etc, is entirely or heavily influenced by the current state of affairs, but are nonetheless also part of either non-transient dispositions, innate tenancies etc, or environmental influences which would still exist similar enough across even revolutions in our socio-economics. Given appreciation for nature is an evident trait across, I think, all societies, historical and non historical, given that it appears to us as something quite non-political, non-ideological...I just don't get why you feel it'd disappear. The ecology 'fetish' might - nature worship as a surrogate religion, or a rectification of some conservative ethos, but I don't get why people would stop finding toy animals cute any less than they would stop finding children cute.

Let me ask you this - ignore people's appreciation of all parts of the natural world here, but just their sympathy for other living creatures, which right now also extends to animals. What is it about communism that will make us less about life?

This is no different than a feminist claim that rape will not exist when we leave the patriarchy behind....Yes, anyone can see that in some crucial way rape is linked to a patriarchal state of affair - nevertheless, it seems that another crucial part of rape is that people like sex, and some people are sadistic. Maybe in communism rape will change, maybe they won't do it to 'put women in their place.' but I'd fool to think it would disappear into the earth, entirely dependant on social conditions now removed.

This is so ridiculously banal a point that I fear people might be inclined to believe the opposite because it seems so contrarian and ridiculous a thing said by a smart man that there has to be something there.

And so you know - you don't 'argue,' you posture and pose - if was being generous I'd say sometimes you lecture. We marxists must always be honest with each other.


[QUOTE]List to me who constitutes "most of us". This has been Zim's argument, maybe, but past the 2nd page it should be clear that no, my point has nothing to do with this.

Eugh.



A word of advice - if you're a sockpupet, you need to at least pretend like you're unfamiliar with what goes on in the forum. If you were just a guest whose been browsing, as unlikely as I find that, please point to me what essential characteristics about Rafiq and his ego compels him to bother with any of this, if not defending the Marxist tradition.

Perhaps because Rafiq is nothing more than the sum-total of his posts, and that in fact, Rafiq's "ego" constitutes a defense of them, even their repute, this has absolutely nothing to do with his "ego" specifically?

I posted on here some years ago. I've been following you for a while, watching as you poison everything and everyone around you (I expect you felt a little thrill as you read that -- people like you never realise how utterly predictable they are.)

Your 'essential characteristic' is that you are a narcissist, and this forum is clearly your main source of supply.

You prove my point here in a number of ways I want to go into. First: 'Rafiq is this, Rafiq is that. Rafiq, Rafiq and Raftiq....' If want to convince people this isn't just all a stage where you parade your 'awesome' made up identity around, don't address make a habit of addressing yourself in the third person...

But importantly, yes, I agree with you in a sense, that you are nothing more than 'Rafiq's' forum posts -- that's the identity you've made for yourself, and entirely what you want to be judged on. It's cringe inducing, and (this goes without saying,) completely invented. That doesn't mean that your behaviour isn't egotistical though. If we posit that Rafiq is an identity a narcissist has invented for himself, then its diversion of all threads to around him, its rage when challenged can be seen as entirely at the service of it's creators ego.

I'll take a leaf out of your book and address the crowd -- does anyone here among us, us marxists, serious, seriously believe, that the anger 'Rafiq' feels when he wrote 18,000 sadistic words towards someone who had 'gotten cocky' with him, doesn't say anything about him as a person?

Of course, great defence as well. You rage when people question you because, to you, it can be seen as nothing more than an attack on your entire self -- and if that is broken, what's left? That's why you vacillate - enough rage to wake your poor mother, as you smash out your next 'devastating, murderous, back breaking' response... But then in the denouement...''oh, it was never personal..I only judge the poster, never the man - and I expect the same back.'' Broken, you whisper ''I'm not a sadist'

This is the key to your behaviour - your obsession with 'unmasking' the 'true nature' of people who 'oppose you' - have you ever had an argument where you haven't eventually 'discovered' that your opponent is a racist, a sexist, a Christian, a disgusting bourgeoisie piece of shit?' Your love of 'anticipating' people's responses for them, giving them a pre-made response to their response and then gleefully asking them ''how does it FEEL to be so predictable? How does it FEEL to be so utterly dominated?'' Unmasking, fixing others opinions for them. It's all either projection of your own issues, or a defence to ensure that your own identity is never challenged by the idea that other people exist independent of you.

It doesn't matter, Revleft is pretty much dead anyway. I just was touched that enough people are finally seeing through your terrible shit, so I posted.

[Sharia Lawn]

... This is not his point. He never claimed that we don't need 'nature' to live. In fact, he admitted it multiple times. He is talking about the quasi-religious worship of nature. For example, people would always prefer cats to bees, regardless of their different importance to our lives. He says, that if we do not depend on nature anymore, there is no reason to care about it.

Um, yeah, read my post. Did I say he claimed we don't need nature to live? I said that if we understand that he's not saying that, then his point is just reactionary philosophizing from a rightist social-Darwinian perspective about how the natural world, including plants and animals (why not people, too, we are left to wonder), are only fit to survive if it benefits us in the free-for-all Rafiq obviously thinks is how communists should think about the ecosystem and their role in it.

[StromboliFucker666]

Um, yeah, read my post. Did I say he claimed we don't need nature to live? I said that if we understand that he's not saying that, then his point is just reactionary philosophizing from a rightist social-Darwinian perspective about how the natural world, including plants and animals (why not people, too, we are left to wonder), are only fit to survive if it benefits us in the free-for-all Rafiq obviously thinks is how communists should think about the ecosystem and their role in it.
You're still missing his point. He is not saying "oh yeah fuck nature unless it benefits humans " or whatever, he is saying that while we should care, we should not worship it.

[Rafiq]

Anytime somebody has the temerity to strip out the non-essential bluster from your posts, and highlight the actual claims you are making so that others (who aren't so already brainwashed by your bologna that they will willingly slog through dozens of paragraphs of self-parody) can read them

Do you actually tell yourself this is what you're doing?


It's not misrepresenting your position to point out what you've written:

Yes, so renewable energy, the mass extinction of animals are totally irrelevant to communists.


So let's look at what I said:

Green energy, as you put it is, however - only relevant to those who give a shit about the metaphysical nature. We Communists do not give a shit. In other words, massive technological changes might mean the mass extinction of various animals who inspire the equivalent of "empathy" that a stuffed animal affords a small child, but so what? Let all the stupid animals, the plants die. Who gives a shit? You like the idea of them? Build a fucking zoo.

Why oh why would I mention "as you put it" if I wasn't insinuating that Placenta's qualifications for green energy were not ones I agreed with? Am I ass-covering? Let's look at the rest of the post:

Likewise, yes a revolution in energy is definitely possible, yes this revolution is being perpetually hindered by capital. Of course it might not qualify as "green" in your mind, but who cares? The "myth of green energy" you say, as though we're all invested in the idea of being "at one with nature" or even worse, some kind of bizarre technognosis entailing a return to it through accelerationist means - no, it's plainly not a myth at all, because only reactionaries care about being "green". We Communists are well aware that we would bring about the destruction of the "environment" - we're not in on the secret of ecology worship. The superstition that we ought not to "mess" with natural processes is the same superstition that entails we ought not to "mess" with social processes too. And no, we don't need any kind of fetishistic accelerationism to sustain this either - worship of ecology simply does not, and will never fall into our vocabulary.

The point is that the destruction of humanity is not an inevitability, not some kind of poetic irony, not some kind of universal tragedy that "human-kind" as a whole bears responsibility for, it is a possible systemic consequence of the existing conditions of life. Not only "can" the left confront this problem, ONLY the Communists can. Why? Being that Communism entails consciousness of social processes on a systemic level, the mass-coordination, planning, centralized maneuverings, etc. to combat the ecological crisis (which, after all, constitutes a commons) would by in part solve the crisis.

So it stands to reason that the qualifications for "green" that I was deliberately putting quote marks around, to insinuate what that specifically MEANT In context, had NOTHING TO DO with whether or not humans should use renewable energy or not.

So yes, you were in fact misrepresenting my posts. Are you accusing me of going back on what I said, Izvestia, noble champion of truth? Because later I told Alet - only an idiot would oppose renewable energy, before you entered in the picture. Why would I "change" my position? I thoroughly went into detail of what I meant, or what I conceived Placenta meant by "green", which was clearly the metaphysical notion of nature, and how compatible we can be with it. This isn't bizarre, because it is the basic character of ecology-worship in today's society, how we can not "harm" nature, and so on. This isn't inevitably bound up with, as I said, PURELY a concern for human survival, but nature. This is why the common theme isn't that doing X thing is going to lead to catastrophe. IT's that nature will "come back" to haunt you, to restore balance.


They aren't important to us in a "metaphysical" sense. They would only be important to us, you know, if we were material beings who were enmeshed in an ecosystem that permits human habitation only if a complex system of interdependent plant and animal relations are maintained -- which can only happen if mass extinction doesn't happen.

But OOPS. We we are material beings who have these dependencies on the non-human material world.

The point is that this dependency is a provisional one, it doesn't "have" to be forever, it's that we simply lack the technological, structural and productive means to lose our dependency on the "ecosystems". Why couldn't this be possible, Izvestia? Go on, keep repeating arguments I've already covered. It's O.K., because I will just requote myself. Easy enough.

Now, what is actually the epitome of stupidity is the idea that you take the abstraction:

if we were material beings who were enmeshed in an ecosystem that permits human habitation only if a complex system of interdependent plant and animal relations are maintained -- which can only happen if mass extinction doesn't happen.

And proceed to, in recognition that both materialists and ecology-fetishists understand this, say:

We we are material beings who have these dependencies on the non-human material world.

Well presto!, end of story, right? Except no, the qualifications for "caring" about nature extend far beyond this in our society, you see. The difference is that let's use this abstraction: EVEN IF it had no impact on human survival, and was more efficient, the ecology fetishist today would still in principle morally be opposed to the destruction of such species.

Ecology fetishism is not reducible to the recognition that: if we were material beings who were enmeshed in an ecosystem that permits human habitation only if a complex system of interdependent plant and animal relations are maintained -- which can only happen if mass extinction doesn't happen., it is deeply pathological as a mean of ruling ideology.


So what the fuck is your point exactly? That most of us in our day to day lives care about the planet only because it's our home and we need it to live? That communists don't care about the survival of a species if we don't depend on it to maintain an ecosystem habitable to humans?

No, that's Izvestia's point. My point is precisely that the basis of their "care" about the planet goes far beyond this. Come back to me when you've actually thoroughly engaged the thread.

But nevermind, let's play a game of baseless phrase-mongering, and talking out of your ass:


Seriously, there are about four different ways to parse your statement, and every one of them is either speculative idealism

Strike 1


about what communists should and shouldn't care about without any reference to class struggle (Is your understanding of class derived from the MIA glossary?) or a rigorous philosophical anthropology (Izvestia using "rigorous" and "philosophy" in the same sentence)

(:laugh:) Strike 2


it's outright reactionary blather that, again, if it issued from the account of somebody without your post count and connections on the forum, would get you restricted-at the very least.


Strike 3, you're out.

Try again.


No matter which interpretation is correct, it's just more of your idealism and category fetishism.

Yes, because this is a matter of "interpretations". You're not fooling anyone, you haven't even come close to reading this thread. Show us, Izvestia, how this is "Idealism", how this is "reactionary". I demanded you respond above, and I still hold to that - BACK UP what you say!

Ladies and gentlemen, how Izvestia defines words:

Reactionary - anything that sounds hard, cruel or cold

Speculative idealism - things that deal with ideology and the material foundations of them in a way that can't be summed up in 8 words.

Class struggle - "Da proletariat" and "da bourgeoise" and all the ideas that belong to each respectively as a result of their essential characteristics, i.e. static categories reducible to "teams" that exist only in thought.

Rigorous philosophical anthropology - Isolating the words "nature" Marx used in his works and assuming this is relevant.

[Rafiq]

from a rightist social-Darwinian perspective about how the natural world, including plants and animals (why not people, too, we are left to wonder), are only fit to survive if it benefits us in the free-for-all Rafiq obviously thinks is how communists should think about the ecosystem and their role in it.

The difference, dear-child, is that Communists find social darwinsim not only morally reprehensible, but wrong because it attempts to legitimize existing social conditions with a "naturalistic" justification. In other words, the oppression of nations, and destitution are justified in a pseudo-scientific manner. For that reason we qualify it as reactionary and right-wing. But I'm not even using "nature" to justify anything. I am saying nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, and that even though we would have to sustain natural processes for a long while, including ecosystems, this would no longer be "nature" but something understood as provisional. It would be understood scientifically in direct proportion to how practically we can master it.

Rafiq isn't saying "Well, it's the natural way" when he sais fuck the plants and animals (when it comes to humans). He is saying that one cannot actually "care" about them genuinely as a moral category, that it is a smokescreen for reducing humans to the level of animals, and that this is how identity politics, and indigenous fetishism has proceeded itself in the developed countries. Meanwhile, caring about humans has real inter-subjective social and material ramifications. Love, as it is, is constitutive of the Communist order itself - but one cannot LOVE the animal or the non-human in the pathological sense. It is simply paradoxical to do so!

Meanwhile, plants and animals do not enter the domain of the social, because they are not human. The only relevance they will have is in juxtaposition to our relations to each other. But they aren't a part of "each other".

It's like, lol, you claim my approach is "social darwinian". Cool, are plants and animals a class now? Are they social in the human sense? Does sociology = zoology? :laugh:

[Sharia Lawn]

You're still missing his point. He is not saying "oh yeah fuck nature unless it benefits humans " or whatever, he is saying that while we should care, we should not worship it.

No, that's not his point. I stated what he said. He said, in his trademark verbose style, that we shouldn't care about nature except in as much as it serves our interests. I then ridiculed the fact that this statement is about as far removed from relevance in present reality as you can get (even if it were an insightful philosophical observation, which it isn't), since our survival -- right now and for the foreseeable decades -- hinges a great fucking deal on us giving a lot of shit about the environment. And if we did fence off reality for the moment to play speculative idealist philosophy games with Rafiq, I hinted that his dismissive attitude about wiping out entire species of animals just so we could build some unspecified kind of technology that we might or might not even need was reminiscent of Social Darwinism.

I think that people under workers power or under socialism would care a great deal about non-human species, and in the event that wiping out large numbers of them were ever on the table, that we go down that path as a last resort. There are a number of reasons this makes sense from a materialist perspective, and even a reason it might make sense from a ME ME ME egotistical rafiqian perspective.

[StromboliFucker666]

No, that's not his point. I stated what he said. He said, in his trademark verbose style, that we shouldn't care about nature except in as much as it serves our interests. I then ridiculed the fact that this statement is about as far removed from relevance in present reality as you can get (even if it were an insightful philosophical observation, which it isn't), since our survival -- right now and for the foreseeable decades -- hinges a great fucking deal on us giving a lot of shit about the environment. And if we did fence off reality for the moment to play speculative idealist philosophy games with Rafiq, I hinted that his dismissive attitude about wiping out entire species of animals just so we could build some unspecified kind of technology that we might or might not even need was reminiscent of Social Darwinism.

I think that people under workers power or under socialism would care a great deal about non-human species, and in the event that wiping out large numbers of them were ever on the table, that we go down that path as a last resort. There are a number of reasons this makes sense from a materialist perspective, and even a reason it might make sense from a ME ME ME egotistical rafiqian perspective.

The problem is, I do care about other species. I love animals and i'm going to become a veterinarian. He is only saying that we need to stop worshiping other species and treat them as just that, other species. We would and we should avoid mass killings unless it's the last resort. He's not disagreeing with that.

[Rafiq]

No, that's not his point. I stated what he said. He said, in his trademark verbose style, that we shouldn't care about nature except in as much as it serves our interests. I then ridiculed the fact that this statement is about as far removed from relevance in present reality as you can get (even if it were an insightful philosophical observation, which it isn't), since our survival -- right now and for the foreseeable decades -- hinges a great fucking deal on us giving a lot of shit about the environment

Claim 1: we shouldn't care about nature except in as much as it serves our interests

Counter-claim: this statement is about as far removed from relevance in present reality as you can get

Justification: since our survival -- right now and for the foreseeable decades -- hinges a great fucking deal on us giving a lot of shit about the environment

The difference of course is that as I've stressed, we are already at the point where this is relevant. That is, approaches to the current ecological crisis are nonsensical from the point of ecology fetishism. So it is relavent, because being tha solving the crisis will require a tremendous amount of effort and energy, in a prolonged period of time, conceiving this in terms of being scared of "messing with nature" is going to make things worse. Of course, bourgeois specialists don't approach it like that (I personally know people who are involved in this kind of work), but society does. The problem is that these specialsits can't do much because the level of structural coordination necessary doesn't exist when production is for profit and not use.


There are a number of reasons this makes sense from a materialist perspective

Lol, try it. I dare you. See how long that lasts.

Sigh. At least try and make this hard for me, child.

[Rafiq]

I'm so anxious to see how he will dig himself out of this. Izvestia just compared his "speceism" to actual racism. Izvestia, are non-whites equivalent to animals in your mind? It's not even about having to take other species on the scales of morality in terms of "superiority" or not. It's that other species are other species. They are not human. They do not possess, and cannot possess, human consciousness or anything even close to it. To speak of them in UNIQUELY human ways is disgusting in that it degrades the human category.

[Sharia Lawn]

Claim 1: we shouldn't care about nature except in as much as it serves our interests

Counter-claim: this statement is about as far removed from relevance in present reality as you can get

Justification: since our survival -- right now and for the foreseeable decades -- hinges a great fucking deal on us giving a lot of shit about the environment


Uh, yeah, talking about how humans should treat the environment in a scenario where chunks of it are expendable and can be waved away dismissively has no connection to the material reality humans will be living in for the next several decades at least (and that's a very modest guess), and it is very obviously philosophical wankery in the tradition of the Great Rafiq. It is wankery that entails relying on a series of questionable "moves" -- as the philosophers love to say. One of them is that humans, like so many scavenging primates out only for what's best for themselves, in the strict sense of wanting to maximize accumulation of property and resources, have no built-in empathy toward life forms that are capable of experiencing different forms of pain, even if that pain isn't accompanied by human subjectivity.

Your need for me to explain to you the importance of biodiversity to human interest shows just how out of depth you are on this topic, as you are on so many others.

I mean, really, at least pick up a fucking book or a read a couple of articles before making all these right-wing pronouncements.

Your posts are like really bad "B" action movies. Your screenplay is shit and your actors have no talent, so you try to bury this under cheap explosion after cheap explosion and a ton of badly choreographed fight scenes. It's no wonder that you constantly slip up in making right-wing pronouncements in one of your verbal explosions. The whole process, for all its masquerading, is intellectually cheap and as I have pointed out multiple times before, has all the signs of con-artistry.

[Rafiq]

Is anyone else reading this shit?

One of them is that humans, like so many scavenging primates out only for what's best for themselves, in the strict sense of wanting to maximize accumulation of property and resources

Guess which claim is vis a vis other humans, and guess which one is vis a vis entirely different species who do not even enter into the picture of the social dimension that which humans are "in it for themselves" regarding.

Saying humans shouldn't care about a lamppost, or bacteria apparently is the same as saying humans naturally want property and are "in it for themselves" (well they are, the point is that self-interest and social interests are inevitably bound up. Self-interest = interest of the social, and one cannot justify their self-interests without, via language, approximating it toward the social). Welcome to basic logic). Of course, the qualiifcations are for whether the organism can "feel pain". That's anthropormorphism. The difference is that ou can't anthropomorphize humans, becaue they're already humans.

So why don't you offer a SCIENTIFIC taxonomy for us, for how we ought to "care" about animals. Certainly you don't care about bacteria, and certainly plants don't feel pain. Just admit that the amount humans care about animals is their level of anthropomorphism and their cultural significance (TO HUMANS ONLY). Everyone cares about the Panda bear, no one cares about the ugly, disgusting creatures who might actually be more important ecologically.


Your need for me to explain to you the importance of biodiversity to human interest

Is that what you're doing? :laugh:

[Rafiq]

Izvestia, do you feel empathy for the endangered pthirus pubis?

[BIXX]

To speak of them in UNIQUELY human ways is disgusting in that it degrades the human category.

y do u fetishize humans tho

y are you so obsessed with the aesthetic of not being an animal

[Sharia Lawn]

Rafiq doesn't understand the difference between equating human animals with non-human animals, which is not what I did, and explaining context-dependent similarities between inter-human relations and human-nonhuman relations, which anybody who wasn't trolling would see is what I was doing.

[StromboliFucker666]

It's not that i don't have empathy for animals that are endangered, it's that we should not worship them or treat them as humans.

[Sharia Lawn]

Izvestia, do you feel empathy for the endangered pthirus pubis?

Is the real reason behind your disdain for non-human life the fact that you can't get rid of the head lice and scabies? Be honest.

[Sharia Lawn]

It's not that i don't have empathy for animals that are endangered, it's that we should not worship them or treat them as humans.

But nobody here is suggesting we do that. Nobody, to my knowledge, has proposed placing non-human animals on a pedestal above humans, or even on a pedestal of the same level. Nobody here has been preaching animism. You are misreading Rafiq, and it's understandable why. No serious person on a leftist forum would say the shit he's been saying, so you're interpreting him through a lens that makes his reactionary filth seem comprehensible to you.

[StromboliFucker666]

Here's my opinion: We *should* care. Firstly because mass extinctions can really mess things up for our species, and secondly because these are sentient lives being taken. The priority is that is messes stuff up for us, but in the background we can also be sad because these are living creatures that are dying for no good reason.

Whatever Rafiq says is what he says. If I'm wrong and he's disagreeing with this premise, fine. If you are the wrong one, then fine.

[BIXX]

Rafiq doesn't understand the difference between equating human animals with non-human animals, which is not what I did, and explaining context-dependent similarities between inter-human relations and human-nonhuman relations, which anybody who wasn't trolling would see is what I was doing.

Idk if this was directed at me but I was just ; ng fun of the kind of shit rafiq said

[Rafiq]

People's preferences for ecology is the same as the preference to own a business. Right....Hunter-Gathers don't find any beauty in the natural world. Neither did Edward the Confessor....

Did I say that? No, I said preferences as such. I said people are just as sensitive toward religion, property ownership and the family as they are toward nature and ecology. What part of this can you not understand? These are related. Only a fool cannot see this. The closest examination of public ideology leads one to this conclusion - nature is inevitably bound up with social considerations. Hunter gatherers might have found beauty in the natural world, but none of them happened to find beauty in the medieval castle, in classical music, in modern art, in the Hellenistic statues, etc. - the point is that the way hunter-gatherers found beauty was very different from how humans today "find beauty", because the "space" has switched, this was not finding beauty in refuge, but finding beauty in that which constitutes one's basis of life itself. This is no longer the "nature" of the national park, the reserve, but exactly what we find not beautiful. This is the point of alienation. This is the point of why Soviet avant-garde, which basically glorified what we find hideous, was popular - it brought modernism to ordinary working people.


but are nonetheless also part of either non-transient dispositions, innate tenancies etc, or environmental influences which would still exist similar enough across even revolutions in our socio-economics. Given appreciation for nature is an evident trait across, I think, all societies, historical and non historical, given that it appears to us as something quite non-political, non-ideological...I just don't get why you feel it'd disappear.

Well, I've gone over this, and plainly put, the fact that we find "nature" beautiful is only testament to the fact that in every previous mode of production and historic epoch, societies lacked social self-consciousness. This is not evidence that this is an inborn trait anymore than slavery, rape or war is an innate, inborn, "non-political, non-ideological" trait. We don't have traits which have no social ramifications, instead, certain things constitutive of certain social orders remain in common, but so long as they are in relation to different totalities, they are different. "Appreciation for nature", likewise, is a vague abstraction. Even in the early 19th century, there was already an existential conundrum with how to "appreciate" a nature you know you could scientifically master. This was called romanticism. And it was thoroughly reactionary. Even today, what is contingent upon the beauty of nature? That it is mystifed, that it is a mystery. IF you could know how something works practically (in relation to your existence) 100%, there's nothing quite "beautiful" about it in the same vein that we conceive beauty today.

Of course, beauty will always remain. But beauty is a social category. Plekhanov touches upon this:


But here we foresee an objection: Darwin, in his famous book, The Descent of Man, brought together many observations to prove that the sense of beauty plays an important role in the lives of animals. Our attention will be drawn to these facts, and we will be told that the origin of the sense of beauty must be explained biologically; it will also be remarked that the evolution of the sense of beauty in man cannot be explained merely in terms of the economic basis of society. Since Darwin’s view of the development of species is undoubtedly materialistic, it will be urged that biological materialism offers excellent material for criticism of one-sided historical (economic) materialism. [...]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1899/arts.htm

I recommend giving this a read. But moreover, if beauty is a social category, than the need to project it onto things outside of that which you consciously recognize has social ramifications disappears. It remains constitutive of a society that is socially self-conscious. This might seem paradoxical, after all, if one knows exactly how a society works, how can they find anything beautiful? But that is quite the great thing about love - whether you are aware of it or not, it works. And you are not alien from it.


I don't get why people would stop finding toy animals cute any less than they would stop finding children cute.

They may, they may not. It's entirely possible they won't, of course, it is possible that people will no longer require inanimate objects to express their affections toward. But who knows. This is besides the point. The point is that if they do, it's not because anything "Carries over", it's because this is now newly constitutive of a new order and the demands of its reproduction, including the necessity of finding kids cute.


but just their sympathy for other living creatures, which right now also extends to animals. What is it about communism that will make us less about life?


Certainly it is not all living creatures. The rat, the tick, the lamprey, the cockroach, and as mentioned, pubic louse deserve no real sympathy from any sane person I know. It is not that Communists will be "less about life", it is that the fetishization of other species and the reduction of humans to the level of an animal, which is what this entails, would not longer exist. Mind you, "animal rights" is quite a new thing, and before you go digging of something that might appear similar - it's not the same (It's not real "rights" in the context of the word we're using).

Communism entails social selfconsciousness. It entails bringing all of mankind into association as "free producers". There is no room for "sympathy for other living creatures" as YOU'RE using the word because this is not what "animal rights" entails really. It entails something very different, rather - it is inevitaly bound up with the fetishism of human rights, of how we conceive the other, those who we think are directly outside of our social space. Frankly, we live in a sad time wherein the rights of sweat-shop workers is concieved ON THE SAME LEVEL as that of an endangered species. And why? Because there is no solidarity. You cannot have solidarity with an animal. This is a category of class struggle, of which animals do not belong. Class struggle, not animals (which are incapable of labor, and therefore are no different than tools, objects) is constitutive of the social field.


This is no different than a feminist claim that rape will not exist when we leave the patriarchy behind....Yes, anyone can see that in some crucial way rape is linked to a patriarchal state of affair - nevertheless, it seems that another crucial part of rape is that people like sex, and some people are sadistic. Maybe in communism rape will change, maybe they won't do it to 'put women in their place.' but I'd fool to think it would disappear into the earth, entirely dependant on social conditions now removed.

People "like sex", of course, but the point is that how they express how they like it is relative to historical circumstance. It is foolish to think that rape would disappear all together, of course (not because it's "innate" or because "people like sex" but because anomalies will always exist) but it will not be definitive of sexual relations themselves. You claim "some people are sadistic". O.K., but again, what constitutes sadism and what doesn't is relative. The very temptation of rape would no have to be curtailed in a sexually free society because it would not be a temptation. For ANY human to rape, this requires ritual. It isn't spontaneous, even when it looks like it is.


I posted on here some years ago. I've been following you for a while, watching as you poison everything and everyone around you (I expect you felt a little thrill as you read that -- people like you never realise how utterly predictable they are.)

If you want honesty, I didn't get anything close a thrill. Actually I find this rather unsettling. I just want to show you how much you don't really know what you're talking about.


Your 'essential characteristic' is that you are a narcissist, and this forum is clearly your main source of supply.

Well, O.K., let's bring the P.M. here and respond to such allegations of "narcissism":


Look at this, you express something by beginning with a paragraph that could be considered doubtful...and then in the next one you are telling me about how communism (read, the moniker you've adopted as an identity and an excuse to behave in a certain way) is powerful

The paragraph in question: While I appreciate your concern for my mental health, you should know that yes - I have thoroughly considered the possibility that I might be self-obsessed, and my politics might just be a smokescreen for projecting my own personal pathology. But I'll tell you, stranger, I know this in my bones to be false. Because as a Communist, everything has been at the EXPENSE of my own "personal identity". I wasn't born the way I am, I had to learn, and I had to struggle AGAINST myself. And I am still doing this.

It is very simple to understand why I mentioned that Communism is "powerful", and it is not to deflect, but because I know exactly how I sound. My point was that I actually believe what I say, so when I speak seriously, this is not testament to any kind of self-obsession, but belief. But then we enter the paradox, of course - is the religious fanatic just "using" religion as a cover to "act a certain way"? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the religion being manifested is the key importance - "self-aggrandizement" isn't for-itself. The point you make is that the fact that I consider myself qualified to "represent" such a big, powerful force means I must be delusional, self-obssessed, etc. - but individuals are representing big powerful forces that are beyond them whether they know it or not (liberalism, etc.) - the point of Communist ethics, and Communist ontology is that there is no "big other" that speaks for you - our space of reason constitutes a commons which ANY PERSON is capable of entering.

The point is this, simply: People LIMIT themselves. How they surpass these imposed limitations is ritualistic - an "expert" with a phd, some kind of symbolic title opens up the space for one to be free in thought, to be qualified. So my point is that I am only qualified insofar as ALL PEOPLE are qualified, and that's what gets me in trouble - I hold all people to the same standard, and this is better than mortifying them, then dismissing them, then molding them into characters in your narrative. The point is that I FULLY ASSUME responsibility for conceiving WHY and HOW users have the positions that they do, in a way that they themselves can account for: The poit is simple - if I can think something, so can you, if you can hold a position, so can I. So why don't we? That is the starting point of any debate or discussion.

My point of having to constantly struggle with myself is a simple one: You don't understand that I have had to (and EVERY Marxist does, truly) STRUGGLE with justifying how I can be qualified to have the understanding I do. Here rationality itself is not even enough - one can fully rationally ACCEPT something without actually BELIEVING this. And this is the existential paradox of anyone who truly struggles with Communism - why one should be a Communist. So this is what you don't understand, above all. The fact is that Communism for yu must be some kind of personal idiosynchrasy


You prove my point here in a number of ways I want to go into. First: 'Rafiq is this, Rafiq is that. Rafiq, Rafiq and Raftiq....' If want to convince people this isn't just all a stage where you parade your 'awesome' made up identity around, don't address make a habit of addressing yourself in the third person...

I mean, I speak in the third person FOR THE OPPOSITE REASON: TO OUTLINE THAT NO, RAFIQ IS NOT 100% THE SAME AS THE PERSON BEHIND THE KEYBOARD. IT is NOT my real name! So my point is to very basically demonstrate that YES, ALL I AM on this forum is what I post, which is "Rafiq", it is not "****", it is just the guy you see whose username is "Rafiq". I mean, the point is that I'm fully assuming the perspective of the OTHER. I'm not celebrating myself, I'm demonstrating in context that this has fuck all to do with my "ego" or some kind of self-obsession - "Rafiq" can be ANYONE, there is NOTHING essential about "Rafiq" that makes the actual ideas conveyed in his posts the way they are. All the ideas I say are not mine, everything I have taken from others. Because it belongs to no one - it is our collective space of freedom, our commons.

And THIS is what underlies the tradition of Marxism, and the legacy of Communism.


Narcissists make up a false identity to, as lame as it sounds, to some extent get away from their 'real' identity. If that was the case, then of course you'd feel the 'struggle' to create and maintain it. Why'd you think you get such rage on a bloody internet forum!

What if I told you I don't care? I mean, WHAT IS my "real" identity, how do you correctly ground or approximate this? This has nothing to do with me, but the IDEAS I am conveying - you want to reduce them to my OWN mental disorder. But fine, I'm a narcissist, I'm self-obsessed - how do you go about DEALING with these ideas? This is what I really care about. That's the point - if I need to be a narcissist to REALLY take Communism seriously, to derive the confence to free from ruling ideology, so be it. I fully accept this if it must be so. The "truth" in it, so to speak, REMAINS.

But of course, if one transforms themselves PURELY into an instrument of higher ideas, what remains of the "self" to be obsessed over? Did my ideas come from me? No, they didn't. Am I even a diadect? No, only five years ago I was being taught by other, more advanced and skilled users. I used to lurk in livechat and bombard everyone with stupid questions. Users who have been here long enough can remember his. What "identity" is this? You must understand that there must be a practical expression of it. Even if there is, even if I'm doing this to "act how I want" (But you don't know me!), using this to sustain an identity which is going to lead to my self-aggrandizement, it doesn't make a shit of a difference. The post, the arguments, all of them remain.

So what is this alleged "real identity", what pathological purpose does it serve? Making me feel good, or powerful? But again with the paradox - why SPECIFICALLY THIS - why does THIS make me feel powerful?

So what's the conclusion? All men and women should be "narcissists", should have the confidence to NEVER allow ANY limitations to thought. Take everything to the very bitter end. Marx's saying: Question everything. Marx's principle: Ruthless criticism of all things. Never forget it.


That doesn't mean that your behaviour isn't egotistical though. If we posit that Rafiq is an identity a narcissist has invented for himself, then its diversion of all threads to around him, its rage when challenged can be seen as entirely at the service of it's creators ego.


But so what? What is the purpose of this "ego"? Are all of the threads truly about me, or are they about IDEAS which don't have to be NECESSARILY Rafiq's ideas! That's the point - I mean, am I arguing about what a great guy I am all the time, or whatever? You can diagnose me with whatever you want, Dr. Identity, but tell me why I should care if part of this whole elaborate story is purely rendering oneself in the service of the tradition of Marxism and the ideas of Communism? How does that fit?

I mean, I'm taking what you say seriously, because I think it's an interesting observation. It's not a stupid one, it's just wrong. I can see where you're coming from in thinking I am narcissistic, definitely, but it doesn't make sense if you think about it. The ideas of Communism are a "cover" for what? For feeling important? Feeling powerful? But I don't need Communism for that. In fact, this is much more difficult 'for that'. Why THESE ideas specifically? Because they ARE true, because they, at least in my mind, ARE in fact correct? And that's where the paradox begins. EVEN IF it was about "feeling" a certain way, why I conceive certain ideas as conductive of certain feelings must rest upon whether I hold them to be true or not. And never have I remained static, I am always learning.


does anyone here among us, us marxists, serious, seriously believe, that the anger 'Rafiq' feels when he wrote 18,000 sadistic words towards someone who had 'gotten cocky' with him, doesn't say anything about him as a person?


But what you fail to understand is that all of this is in the context of the posts themselves, in other words - in the IDEAS being conveyed here themselves. If one is "getting cocky", they're getting cocky about their propensity to defend certain ideas. The true testament to Rafiq's sadism is to see if he CONFORMS his positions in order to make others feel like shit. And I haven't done this. Not once.


Of course, great defence as well. You rage when people question you because, to you, it can be seen as nothing more than an attack on your entire self -- and if that is broken, what's left?


You're right, I do see this as an entire attack "on myself", but WHAT IS IT people are attacking? And moreover, what is "myself"? It's Rafiq, who only exists by his posts. And do I rage when people question me? No, plenty of users who have questioned me, who have outright opposed me, can tell you I did not meet their responses with rage. The point is when we bring deliberate distortions, dishonesty and so on to the table - when I pour effort into trying to explain people things and they DISMISS them because of - YES, how they take it personally, this is frustrating. But ultimately the difference is that at least I take everything SERIOUSLY enough to actually rage about it - most people will just dismiss arguments, let a "big other" think for them, and move on. Maybe it's not that I'm "self-obsessed" but it's that I precisely am too willing to consider why others hold the views that they do.


That's why you vacillate - enough rage to wake your poor mother, as you smash out your next 'devastating, murderous, back breaking' response... But then in the denouement...''oh, it was never personal..I only judge the poster, never the man - and I expect the same back.'' Broken, you whisper ''I'm not a sadist'

Well, you're right in a way - I do look back on what I post and might feel "broken" in the sense that yes, it looks pretty fucking nasty and this is not how I would actually engage people in real life. How could I judge "the man" and not the poster? Tell me, HOW? IT's not that I have to deliberately tell myself it's ONLY the poster I'm attacking, it's that this internet forum is absolutely not conductive of expressing anyone's identity beyond what they post. What you say doesn't make sense. I do feel the need to "destroy" ARGUMENTS that are deliberately dishonest, obfuscating, distorting of the points at hand, but yes, upon recognition of the PERSONAL ramifications, of course I don't enjoy this one bit. Of course it makes one feel like a piece of shit.


This is the key to your behavior - your obsession with 'unmasking' the 'true nature' of people who 'oppose you' - have you ever had an argument where you haven't eventually 'discovered' that your opponent is a racist, a sexist, a Christian, a disgusting bourgeoisie piece of shit?'

This is really only unique to this thread. But yes, certain topics really do reveal people's real pathologies, in fact, this works not only for individuals but societies. One can talk about revolution and use loud words all they want, but when it comes to things that really hit home, what then? When it comes to the family, or terror for example.


Unmasking, fixing others opinions for them.

I don't have to do this. Instead I demonstrate that they have implications beyond what people want them to have:


It's all either projection of your own issues, or a defense to ensure that your own identity is never challenged by the idea that other people exist independent of you.

If others don't exist independently of me, then I don't exist independently of them either. No one is "entitled" to an opinion or in other words - no one is "entitled" to truth. I don't care what you want to think, you shouldn't care what I want to think. At least if you're a Communist, and not a postmodernist - and frankly, you are not a Communist.

Today people pick out "opinions" that have essentially fuck all to do with them and assume that attacking those, which are externally derivative, is an attack on them personally.


It doesn't matter, Revleft is pretty much dead anyway. I just was touched that enough people are finally seeing through your terrible shit, so I posted.

Well this was actually an interesting post. Mostly because yes, the idea that I'm just self-obsessed has entered into my thoughts, has bothered me in the past, but the point of having faith in Communism is that the wager is worth it. Its' simple: If the ideas of Communism are permanently dead, then this "is" just a cover for my own self-obsession. If they are not, then it is something more. To have faith in the latter requires a lot - so the circular reasoning begins.

[Rafiq]

Do you think?


Rafiq doesn't understand the difference between equating human animals with non-human animals, which is not what I did, and explaining context-dependent similarities between inter-human relations and human-nonhuman relations, which anybody who wasn't trolling would see is what I was doing.


But nobody here is suggesting we do that. Nobody, to my knowledge, has proposed placing non-human animals on a pedestal above humans, or even on a pedestal of the same level. Nobody here has been preaching animism.

But in not equating humans to animals, in not conceiving them as equals, you are exemplifying such "context-dependent" similarities, i.e. if we introduce the qualification of "race" (or nation, mind you).

The logic is very simple. If a slave owner treats a black person like a dog, then certain conditions allow for the opposition to this.

But if a person then treats dog like a dog, you do not go and say "You're just like a racist!"

So this is the paradoxical nature of your argument. It doesn't make sense. There are no "context dependent" similarities between inter-human relations and human-nonhuman relations, because the very basic point is that inter-human relations constitute a state of inter-subjectivity. It's not even about looking like a human, it is possessing human consciousnesses itself. Animals do not fit this qualification, so accusing me of social Darwinism when I claim humans should survive at the expense of animals, or whatever else you want is literally, actually stupid because the whole point of the controversy surrounding social darwinsim is plainly the reality that the the struggle for survival is transformed into a metaphysical idea with social ramifications.

But again, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm not even saying we can justify the extinction of species because of any metaphysical "laws of nature" or whatever. I'm saying the very language to politically "empathize" with animals does not exist, it is a perversion. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm saying that you can't do it, and what you're really in effect doing is expressing connotations for the human. Marxists recognize "human rights" as constitutive of social ramifications, not an abstract eternal ethical truth, and nothing can be said more for animals.


Is the real reason behind your disdain for non-human life the fact that you can't get rid of the head lice and scabies? Be honest.

Well don't avoid the question. Yous said animals. So why not crabs? Where does it begin, and where does it end? We need scientific qualifications, not arbitrary "c'mon guys, y'know what I mean" - I do know what you mean, the point is that the minute you admit it, your argument falls apart.


we can also be sad because these are living creatures that are dying for no good reason.

But which creatures? Most people haven't even heard of most of the endangered species, and will never care about them, no matter how ecologically important they are. Why is this sad? For the same reason the extinction of the lamprey wouldn't be sad: anthropomorphism and cultural projection.

Of course, only a deranged monster could hurt a dog or a cat and feel nothing, but is it because of the category of empathy, or let's say, political empathy? No, it's because we recognize that hurting a cat, or a dog without remorse reminds us of hurting the humans in our social space - i.e. we do inevitably "empathize" with them but we recognize implicitly we are merely projecting ourselves onto them. When we enter the domain of inter-subjectivity, wherein the thing that is the receiving end of our empathy is a subject fully responsible for his or her actions, fully capable of enering our space of reason, and fully capable of "empathizing" back as an individual, things become more complicated - it's not just about "empathy" but the ramifications this has for our social space, too. Politically, for example, opposing slavery on grounds of "empathy" is rather disgusting - it is not empathy, it is solidarity, an expression of an unconditional love. These are very different things. How does one have solidarity with an octopus?

One cannot love the dog, for a dog cannot love a human. One cannot love a cat, for a cat cannot love a human. This is the point - the animal becomes a pure object of obsession that passively takes and gives none. That is why there can never be a comparison with humans. To reduce humans to this level, strips them of subjectivity, it reduces them purely to the level of the passive object. And this is exactly the logic of human rights in the West, in terms of how we conceive the plight of third worlders - we do not do so with inevitable implication that such true love (political love) has for our own societies, we do so as they become the perverse object of our mortification.

[StromboliFucker666]

But which creatures? Most people haven't even heard of most of the endangered species, and will never care about them, no matter how ecologically important they are. Why is this sad? For the same reason the extinction of the lamprey wouldn't be sad: anthropomorphism and cultural projection.



I don't know the answer to that. I do not see an objective answer.

[Invader Zim]

No, what I insinuated is that assuming the conditions of human life can be sustained, yes mass extinction is an irrelevance.

A stupid an assumption as everything else you have written in this thread. First, the a mass extinction event of any serious magnitude would likely severely damage humanities ability to survive. 2. Even if humanity were to surivive, it would be in a lesser condition than we currently enjoy. 3. Damaging the ecosystem and causing mass extinction, even if humanity were to surive without any major adverse effects, then what of the future? Or do you imagine that a still more fragile ecosystem is no worry, that technology will simply come to the rescue again until we really are living in dystopia of concrete? Why, as The ferel Underclass noted, would we want to do any of this "when we already have an actual environment...? You know, right now, that we could just stop fucking up..."


my point is that people conceive the issue today as humans "defiling", "destroying" or "ruining" nature, which htey did not create, which has always existed - conceiving it as a tragedy. BEYOND the practical implications to human survival.

And your point is that of a reactionary philistine. Humanity did not create the biosphere, humanity was born of it, and if we fuck it up then it jeopardizes humanities ability to survive. I'll get to the wider implication of your crude and nonsensical prometheanism later.



Specifically, I replied to Placenta's claim ...
Which I said was stupid -- the problem is that your reply, and all subsequent replies, was and are even worse.


If you construe the solution in terms of conservationism, as a matter of fucking fact, YES YOU HAVE, because the point is that while retaining existing capacities of production, - let's even say "civilization", then conservation itself would require arduous effort, which of course we shouldn't oppose "in principle", but the point is that we've gone too far to pretend like we can just either halt existing progress or go back on it. There is no "hatling" anything, instead, what we can do is pursue an alternate path of development, one that actually takes into account the holistic needs of human survival. My point is that conceiving this in terms of "not taking things any farther than they already have gone" is pathological. It's wrong.

Rubbish. And a strawman argument at that.

The environmentalism and ecologism have never, except in the fevered imaginations of hacks like Tom Clancy and a few tree huggers, been about halting or reverting progress. Rather conservationism and environmentalism are about managing current and future development, not trying to close the stable doors after the horse has bolted. To quote the 1987 Brundtland Report:

"[the] concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era..."


So I should take your word for it? Until you can actually demonstrate this

Your promethean trillings rest on the assumption that the only solution to ecological disaster which takes humanity with it lies in technology. Moreover, technology which DOES NOT EXIST or, like climate engineering, rests on principles which have no real world basis to them, and instead exist only as computer models. The faith you place in this kind of untried, untested, and currently purely theoretical solution, rather than contemplate sustainable environmental, economic and industrial management which highlights just how naive your position on this is. You also find yourself in the direct company of the worst elements of the capital class who reject all but the most modest scaling back or managment resource exploitation, in order to protect their own political and economic interests, and instead posit that the solution lies in technology. The problem is that technological modeling is a psuedo-science. The three categories of technological development are invention, innovation and diffusion. However, it is impossible to model invention, and the futurists fail to grasp that technology is socially constructed. Like you they often take a approach to the notion of technological development, which basically boils down to the assumption that 'x' number of technological developments have occured in 'a' time period therefore 'y' number of developments will occur in 'b' time period. This naive technological optomism is even built into the IPCC. However, the basic premise is faulty and takes a thoroughly whiggish approach to the history of science and technology, that invention just spontaneously occurs. Your promeathean blather puts you firmly in the same camp as the reactionary bourgeois class based on a fableists understanding of the history of science and technology. It is a gamble, and a stupid one at that. What is not a gamble with humanities future is, in fact, precisely what you deride -- an ecological approach, which need not attempt to turn back time or even halt development, but rather manage it. The solution is not placing naive faith in non-existent future technologies, which may mitigate some of the problem, but social and cultural organisation which we can actually introduce in the present and do not rely on plucking bright shiney technologies from the aether.

[Sharia Lawn]

But in not equating humans to animals, in not conceiving them as equals, you are exemplifying such "context-dependent" similarities, i.e. if we introduce the qualification of "race" (or nation, mind you).

The logic is very simple. If a slave owner treats a black person like a dog, then certain conditions allow for the opposition to this.

But if a person then treats dog like a dog, you do not go and say "You're just like a racist!"

Well now that all depends, doesn't it? Because if a person treated a dog like a dog, that person would actually be showing it a much higher degree of consideration than your reactionary ranting about how communists don't give a fuck about the mass extinction of species. You see, it is against the law to abuse dogs. Shelters have been established to take care of stray dogs for as long as possible in order to keep as many as possible in humane conditions in hopes that they can find a home with somebody who will care for them by feeding them, taking them for walks and so forth.

In other words, people as a general rule do care about dogs and how they treat dogs. Do they treat them as people? Well, some of the more eccentric among us come pretty close, but for the most part we recognize that dogs are not people and that human lives are worth more than dog lives. There is a reason for this that can be explained without either referencing hippie-ecoism or any other idealist philosophical conjectures you engage in tirelessly on the forum -- including your attempt at philosophically defining "love" later in your post, again, in a quintessentially non-Marxist way by just doing analytic philosophy and masturbating with concepts.

Now if, when you say "how we treat dogs," you refer to how you treat dogs, I can't answer the question. Judging by the bs you posted in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the kind of psychopath who slowly dismembered animals as a child and found great joy in watching them suffer.


So this is the paradoxical nature of your argument. It doesn't make sense. There are no "context dependent" similarities between inter-human relations and human-nonhuman relations, because the very basic point is that inter-human relations constitute a state of inter-subjectivity. It's not even about looking like a human, it is possessing human consciousnesses itself. Animals do not fit this qualification, so accusing me of social Darwinism when I claim humans should survive at the expense of animals, or whatever else you want is literally, actually stupid because the whole point of the controversy surrounding social darwinsim is plainly the reality that the the struggle for survival is transformed into a metaphysical idea with social ramifications.It makes perfect sense to locate in somebody's comment that he doesn't give two shits about the mass extermination of species a kind of egotistical derangement of the very kind that would drive people to shrug at the deaths of other human lives they deem supposedly less valuable. There's no paradox about it. The self-centered ignorance, the right-wingedness of it all permeates both perspectives, and it has nothing to do with the constant misrepresentation and lying about my argument you keep engaging in.


But again, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm not even saying we can justify the extinction of species because of any metaphysical "laws of nature" or whatever. I'm saying the very language to politically "empathize" with animals does not exist, it is a perversion. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm saying that you can't do it, and what you're really in effect doing is expressing connotations for the human. Marxists recognize "human rights" as constitutive of social ramifications, not an abstract eternal ethical truth, and nothing can be said more for animals.Who the fuck said anything about laws or "timeless rights"? The only poster in here who keeps talking about timeless truths and laws of history and all the rest is you. Which isn't surprising, since the only person who is obsessed with all these idealist philosophical constructions is, of course, you.

What we're talking about is a statement you made that a large number species can just die in a mass extinct and you didn't give a fuck, because some unspecified technology (that people may or may not need, mind you) would issue from the extinction of those "stupid" species.

Everybody can read what you said, and can see the type of personality it would take to make that statement. One that is into all sorts of penis-waving philosophy games detached from present reality (in REALITY the environment is in grave danger of becoming a place incapable of sustaining human life). And also one that, even if we wanted to play these games with somebody, probably would be hesitant to jump in and play that games with a person whose views on non-human life match those of a serial killer in childhood.


Well don't avoid the question. Yous said animals. So why not crabs? Where does it begin, and where does it end? We need scientific qualifications, not arbitrary "c'mon guys, y'know what I mean" - I do know what you mean, the point is that the minute you admit it, your argument falls apart.Because, unlike you, I don't have a hard-on for drawing up on my own detailed schemes for how people should behave and then write those people off until they accept my detailed blueprints. ("There IS no workers' movement in Greece!" he exclaims).

I am perfectly content making the point that humans have over many hundreds of thousands of years evolved a capacity for empathy for one another and for non-human animals that is cultivated and allowed to develop as social conditions allow for it -- through the development of the scientific study of animals and the awareness that many of them experience pain in ways that can be similar to how humans can, and through a growth of material abundance that allows humans not to rely upon savagery upon animals for their own survival.

How animals will be treated in socialist society will be the decision of those people, but I'm sure their views will not reflect the reactionary sentiments you expressed in this thread. And I'm sure it will do what you don't do, and actually take into account science, not just about animal physiology but also about ecology. Topics that are the latest in a long line of them that you have demonstrated total ignorance about on the forum.


One cannot love the dog, for a dog cannot love a human. One cannot love a cat, for a cat cannot love a human.More bad philosophy. This time about the meaning of love as a concept. Just what the forum needed. Rafiq's philosophy of love and sex.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is going to be my last post in this thread because, to be honest, if I wanted to subject myself to disturbed religious ranting, I would cut out the middleman and just go to the church directly. Of course, if I was given the same leeway Rafiq is, I would spice this statement up by a string of expletives (or entire paragraphs of expletives, as the case might be), but since posters have been banned for a minute fraction of what Rafiq posts regularly, that is probably not a good idea.


Likewise, being deprived of family life and religion too is not "necessary", "But the Marxist notion of need is broader than the mere necessities of biological life - ironically because Marxists are not eco-faddists with their triage mentality - and there is no reason that the socialist society would not produce things that are conductive to the free (!) development of the human personality (New age spiritualism, religion, family life, economic freedom, "financial responsibility", etc.)"

You might reacquaint yourself with the Marxist conception of communism as the society where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all before you put any more exclamation points in such phrases. Or not - all your exclamation points do is reveal how hopelessly out of your depth you are.

For that matter, the sentence is completely butchered, probably due to being written while having several rage-induced aneurysms. I suppose you wanted to say "Family life is not 'necessary'." The analogy, however, is completely spurious. The family unit concerns the material reproduction of the proletariat as a class of dispossessed direct producers. It is related to capitalism as a material mechanism of capitalism, not because you can spin some sort of ad-hoc tale about how it's ideologically influenced by capitalism.


In short, Xhar-Xhar's notion of socialism is nothing more than capitalism without capitalism. That is to say, the basic coordinates of capitalist society, and the standards of want and need it produces to sustain itself will remain intact, just the relations of production would be different (and it takes an actual Marxist to realize this is impossible). While harking on abstractions, this self proclaimed Marxist claims that socialist society will "produce things" conductive to the free development of the human personality. Adda boy, Xhar-Xhar! The "free development" of the human personality, no doubt a timeless historical fact - what Xhar-Xhar fails to understand here is that the standards of what constitutes "free development" are not only relative socially, but relative HISTORICALLY. He can have no theoretical, no scientific, no real argumentative authority if I play the same fucking game, whilst talking about the right to the nuclear family, or religion. Of course, he will conveniently brush this off "Well, we can see how the family and how religion would disappear" - says this philistine - what you fail to understand is that we can also see how ecology-fetishism, and the necessity for people to "walk among the trees" (Why can't they be fake trees, by the way? Even if it was true that is - because what is otherwise an innocent point is really meant to construe and perpetuate the timelessness of humanity's obsession with an "authentic" nature). Xhar-Xhar plainly lacks a fucking imagination - he makes it as though "nature" is up there as one of those inevitability, but what Xhar-Xhar fails to understand is that sex, culture and food would be so entirely different in a post-capitalist society that to speak of them as necessarily "The same" is not only anti-Marxist, it is wrong even by its OWN merits of argumentation.

Here is something for our Communist dukhoborets:


How the multiplication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) breeds the absence of needs and of means is demonstrated by the political economist (and by the capitalist: in general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, (who represent) their scientific creed and form of existence) as follows:

(1) By reducing the worker’s need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus he says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For he declares that this life, too, is human life and existence.


(2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.


What un-Marxist swine has written this? Who would dare to write of dance halls and travel when saint Rafiq the self-denying has proven through the most scientific of critical criticism that dance halls can be replaced by periodically stimulating the legs with electric current, that travel can be replaced by travel-books and that the desire to travel is merely bourgeois decadence? Of course, it was Marx, who "took needs as they are", i.e. took stock of what needs workers actually expressed in his time, as for him Communism was not some far-off Promised Land that can only be reached after centuries of self-purification, ritual scourging on Internet forums and voting for SYRIZA.



What Xhar-Xhar fails to understand ist hat sex, cultural life and food will only be constitutive of the new society because they are inevitably necessary for the REPRODUCTION of any social order

This is puerile. Nutrients are necessary for the biological reproduction of human life, as is reproductive sex, but neither varied food nor varied sexual acts are necessary for the reproduction of social order. Of course it might yet turn out that frumenty was essential to the reproduction of feudalism. One never knows with people like Rafiq.


I have presented SPECIFICALLY why nature is necessary in our post-modern capitalist society. and the reason is very simple - existing society, late capitalism if you will, is in its own existential conundrum. While we are seeing rapid technological advances that undermine what it even means to be human, the foundations of production in capitalist society cannot PROPERLY incorporate, or articulate these in such a way that reproduces them. Hence, we are in an epoch of mysticism in capitalism - degeneracy. This is not only observed with the obsession of the "organic" vs. the artificial, but the "spiritual" vs the cold, and material, in the domain of neuroscience, quantum physics, etc. - while a caste of specialists know what they are doing, capitalist society imbibes from advances in science its mystification.

And this is why you are an idealist: "post-modern... society", "existentual conundrum", "undermine what it even means to be human" (?) - every one of your "explanations" just boils down to ideas, ideas, ideas, like a bad parody of the apologetic Stalinism of Gramsci.


And my prediction proved correct - the phrase-mongering has begun. This philistine has the audacity to talk about idealism, when his notion of want is UNIQUELY post-modern, i.e. relativist in pertinence to the INDIVIDUAL. In short, Xhar-Xhar the Marxist presents us with a notion of preference and aesthetics that fits perfectly with the ideology of post-modern consumerist capitalist society. No matter that even Plekhanov (https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1899/arts.htm), no doubt a disciple of Jung, had surpassed Xhar-Xhar over a hundred years ago in this regard, Xhar-Xhar admits that "ideas", "prefernces" and "aesthetics" themselves are just random conglomerations of man's free will, and to say otherwise is "collective consciosuness".

Needless to say, I never said any of that, but that hasn't stopped Rafiq before and it won't stop him again, because engaging with what people are writing or - horror of horrors - being precise and not drowning people in walls of badly-formatted insulting text would burst his little bubble.

The point is that your "explanation" is like a bad parody of how people imagine Freudian analysis is. You dreamed of a shark, well that's a penis, you dreamed of a hole, that's a vagina, you dreamed of a flat surface, well you're just suppressing your thoughts of vaginas and penises. Any situation can be "explained" by some ad-hoc narrative in this way. People enjoy parks because they see it as some sort of untouched realm free from modernity and capitalism. They don't know that, but Rafiq knows better than them. And if they don't enjoy parks, that is also connected to capitalism in some manner. And this passes for analysis on this site.


Fuck it, let's repeat the game of re-quoting once again. Xhar-Xhar claimed previously that:

Unless, of course, you consider your ridiculous "collective unconsciousness of a society..." "explanation" sufficient - good luck explaining how that "explains" the cultural engagement of the human species with various natural phenomena in previous modes of production, and their change.

He attempts to deflect the basic mysticism of assuming that humans have a timeless "cultural engagement with various natural phenomena", by accusing my argument of constituting "collective unconsciousness".

The only thing that is mystical here is how the word "timeless" found itself there. Oh, no, wait, that's not mystical, that's Rafiq's desperation.


This is how these philistines work, they'll use loud words to deflect accusations of an ESSENTIAL characteristic INHERENT to their arguments, to opportunistically twist it around on you.

Oh the irony.


And that is besides the point. The point was that Soviet avant-garde was absolutely grotesque and "unnatural" in the eyes of Bourgeois ideologues in the west, as well as the Russian peasantry. Who cares if there were "green spaces"? The point is that people's "sensitivities" and "aesthetic preferences" gravely changed because in the moments immediately before a revolution or proletarian dictatorshp, a Communist movement would have already had made a significant impact on society with huge aesthetic, cultural and social ramifications. Though I'm sure Xhar-Xhar, who in a previous thread argued that a proletarian dictatorship can happen tomorrow, that socialism is already unconsciously in the back of the minds of workers (speaking of collective unconscious) who just need "Da right conditions" to express it can't understand this. You claimed that such grotesque, scary and crazy "unnatural" aesthetics would take time to set in, my point was that they already defined proletarian aesthetics even immediately after the October revolution. It doesn't matter if there were "green spaces" (and by the way, were there?), because Soviet constructivist architecture did not regard "nature" at all, they did not place people in proximity to nature, they did not regard doing this to the slightest.

And here is the crux of the issue: Rafiq, for all his religious rhetoric and his affected zealotry, is horrified by the insinuation that the dictatorship of the proletariat could happen tomorrow. Because Rafiq is not actually interested in socialism, socialism is simply a stalking horse for him to seem radical and fiery when his politics boil down to being a left tail of various social-democratic formations. His "socialism" is something that happens after all of us have died and rotted away, that is it might as well not exist for us. So, why limit ourselves to concrete planets and plastic trees? Maybe humans in socialism will have three heads and seven arms and a brain advanced enough to understand how "SYRIZA changed standards". This is not analysis, this is some bizarre parody of "The Last and the First Men".

And of course, Rafiq completely falsifies the history of Russian constructivism, which neither spontaneously appeared after the revolution nor represented some kind of proletarian aesthetic (proletarian aesthetics were a favourite of Stalinists, despite Rafiq's claims, even if just what the proletarian aesthetic was tended to change).


Moreover, even if there were whole rooms and parts dedicated to "nature", there was absolutely not an iota of care regarding its "authenticity' - I mean, an "inauthentic" substitution for them simply did not exist, so what the fuck is your point?

Oh look.

Rafiq once again tries to introduce "authenticity" as if I said anything about that.

Not surprised.

Next.


You don't want to be IDENTIFIED with this accusation, of course, because it sounds bad. But this is EXACTLY what you're implying when you say it is present in "Every mode of production".

It keeps happening. Now the phrase being smuggled in is "every mode of production".


Actually, you fucking idiot, there might have been a time in history wherein covering up shit so much and making it not observable on a day-to-day level might have been conceived as grotesque, shocking and frightening.

I love this argument. "There might have been a time." I'm not going to claim there was, which would put the onus on me to prove it, but there might have been.


I mean, you literally end up using an argument which is thoroughly not in your favor. That we find shit repugnant aesthetically is absolutely testament to our artificiality. There is nothing "natural" about shitlessness. The obvious difference, of course, is that shit might very well be objectively repugnant in smell, represents filth, etc. for reasons that are easily mandated either biologically (i.e. smell) or on a societal level. But this is intrinsic to any social formation which must retain a level of hygiene, but why even end with shit? Virtually any kind of bacteria-infested thing, being covered in tomato sauce, grease, sweat, is with variance considered disgusting. Probably because they're inversely related to cleanliness.

So first you continue your Quixotic crusade against "naturalness" when no one in this thread advocates it, then you end with the whammy that shit is - get this! - objectively repugnant. Oh, my sides. Humans can be accustomed to any smell, which is why cheese and natto are eaten. Also, you seem to inject your own preferences here - obviously people do like things covered in tomato sauce or greasy things. It's like you've never eaten a margarita. People also like sweaty bodies in some circumstances. Your "objective repugnance" is crock.


The notion of ACTUAL atheism is just as horrifying to many societies - and yes - even our society (Whose atheism is faulty, an abstraction).

That is true. On the other hand, your notion of "actual" atheism, your Žižekian Quakerism, consists of religious rants about the spirit of Communism, which would rightly make anyone horrified.

And on that note, I'm out.

[Ele'ill]

@rafiq, users in this thread saying that we need the planet isn't superstition. When you propose scenarios that are actual science fiction at this point, and would require some high-fantasyesque story line in order to succeed, it is superstitious. The point of science is not to gatling gun the planet with mistakes, with the superstition that humanity's destiny is to succeed, it would be to understand what our actions are going to do hopefully before irreversable planetary destruction or at least a lot of wasted energy spent trying to remedy multiple things on multiple fronts, smaller things that will come first though like massive droughts and dead oceans.

[Rafiq]

As usual, not flaming allows room for a constructive and respectful discussion, as you can all see:


A stupid an assumption as everything else you have written in this thread. First, the a mass extinction event of any serious magnitude would likely severely damage humanities ability to survive. 2. Even if humanity were to surivive, it would be in a lesser condition than we currently enjoy. 3. Damaging the ecosystem and causing mass extinction, even if humanity were to surive without any major adverse effects, then what of the future? Or do you imagine that a still more fragile ecosystem is no worry, that technology will simply come to the rescue again until we really are living in dystopia of concrete? Why, as The ferel Underclass noted, would we want to do any of this "when we already have an actual environment...? You know, right now, that we could just stop fucking up..."

It's hilarious that Zim, with his profound insight, regularly talks about straw men, but he has conferred upon me the position that presently it is within our capacity to exist without the biosphere. Now, Zim, where did I say that? When we actually evaluate the argument at hand, without talking out our ass, we see quite a different argument. We see an argument where I have over and over again stated that knowing the entire extent of just how much we rely no the biosphere is a necessary pre-requisite for any kind of artificial engineering, and so on. But you already know what my argument is. Because no an emotional level, you find it absolutely horrifying, you find it morally contemptible, you deflect it by telling me just how much this would fuck things up right now. I, however, am being much more modest - I am telling you it is within the scope of possibility to develop these abilities (and don't worry, Zim, we'll get to your profound historical insights about how technology must continually develop even in a socially, historically self-conscious society as "unpredictably" as it has throughout history) - and even this "irrelevant abstraction" (and you know it is not to the slightest bit irrelevant) is GROTESQUE in the minds of people. How this grotesqueness is deflected is rather simple - you accuse me of crazy futurism, Utopian, and so on - even though I recognized accelerationism as perverse (Not because of what it claims to be, but precisely because it relies on the same metaphysical notions - what I propose is much more horrifying).

Now, because points 1 and 2 are absolutely fucking meaningless as far as the discussion goes (Did I say such a task would be sought after without such considerations, Mr. Adult?), the third might just be as stupid as the first two. The reason we can see this as purely pathological, purely an expression of ideological sensitivities, is because you're approaching the arguments as though I'm giving detailed and intricate blueprints "for what we should do" that are qualified by Zim. But again, I am being much more modest than this - in fact, the only person who is replacing Rafiq with the hypothetical centralized global structures consisting of dedicated specialists, scientists, technicians, engineers, and so on united with a prerogative that must thoroughly take into account the common good of all, are his opponents. But nevermind this, what's most hilarious of all is that Zim tells me I have "no notion of technology" and yet he is only capable of conceiving technology as some kind of separate historical force, which might be good for retrospection, but why end there? Why not replace such an abstraction, "da technology" with war, or the social dimension? Because for Zim, socialism is just an abstraction, a utopia, a set of rules you agree with and everything is permitted from there. But our friend Zim, who on other instances demonstrated that not only is he not a socialist, but thoroughly a reactionary (For defending Gamer-gate - and see how you properly use words in their context, buddy? Gamergate is reactionary not becuase it's "vile" or "cruel", but because it is pathologically actually reactionary vis a vis the glamorous, shiny game industry which encapsulated wider societal concerns in general) of course will have none of that. The reality is that "technology" is going to be absolutely and pivotally necessary whether one takes a conservationist approach to the issue or not, because technology merely refers to the means by which man encapsulates the magnitude of how well (or how complex, that is) he can manipulate nature and the world around them.

For example, the practical use of technology in capitalist society is not in fact its implementation for use-value, but for profit - technologies which, for example cut production costs, or are wrought from the military-industrial complex, then can be used for further use, with course shades of gray in between (Not ALL technologies develop exactly like this, but more or less radiate around this). In a post-capitalist society, and in a society that directly functions for itself, technology is not some kind of externality one places their faith in, for one is not "outside" technology to conceive it as just one of many solutions. I mean, do you even know what you're fucking saying? The use of technology is the only solution either fucking way - like what, is "nature" a solution amidst relying on "technology" which you claim at the present time wouldn't be feasible? But again, as stated, you have no notion of present day ecology - even if you wanted to try and recover several habitats and ecosystems, this would require extensive maneuverings and intricate technologies which don't presently exist or aren't being used.

To get to the greater point, however, the reason, dear Zim, that such large transformations would be necessary is solely due ot the fact that the "environment" that we have now and the ecologies it entails are unsustainable from the standpoint of present conditions of human survival, what you fail to understand is that it's not JUST capitalists unwilling to cut costs - various countries which are industrializing, and which will - by the way, eventually need to industrialize, have productive demands that our "environment" simply cannot handle. But as it happens, with growing and booming populations, to stop this for "da environment" would lead to mass death and mass starvation. Furthermore, a socialist society would not be one of stagnation, and it too would be burdened with constantly revolutionizing the means of production solely because no single method of production is infinitely sufficient - in it will carry contradictions, which will be taken to the greatest heights. Production will coincide with scientific discovery, and this antagonisms will remain forever. Again, the world ecologies cannot sustain this. Of course, you could try and argue that the development of "green technologies" that aren't as demanding could solve this problem, but then you're a fucking hypocrite, because I can smack right back and say "Oh, Zim, but this isn't FEASIBLE right now and has no basis in the real-world". "But people are already investing in, and developing such technologies" you'll say, and I will promptly respond that geo-engineering is already being considered, and that furthermore, the approach to the issue as I claim it, and therefore the energy and resources into research it would entail, doesn't exist today because production is, again, for profit, there is no "commons" that production is aimed at. And to go ahead and address the argument anyway, buddy, developing such technologies that could "coexist" with nature is the real fantasy, because all of them would entail more intervention into natural processes.

To sum it up, no, it's too late to just "Stop fucking up" the present environment while retaining the productive, technological basis of society. Even if one manages to engage in mass genocide and a return to agrarian life, this itself would entail the antagonisms of a class society, the division of labor, because the world proletariat who will never accept doing this would largely be annihilated, providing no basis for a Communist society etc. - you can't have it however you want.


And your point is that of a reactionary philistine. Humanity did not create the biosphere, humanity was born of it, and if we fuck it up then it jeopardizes humanities ability to survive. I'll get to the wider implication of your crude and nonsensical prometheanism later.

And it seems Zim has taken it upon himself to join in on the baseless phrase-mongering. Tell me, fool, how is what I say "reactionary"? But anyway, my point wasn't at all that humanity created the biosphere, my point was that drawing some kind of grand, poetic metaphysical narrative about the tragedy of humans "Destroying" the biosphere they did not create, which, *sniffle*, didn't do no harm or no bad 2 them and that they have no right to destroy it, is pathologically reactionary and is constitutive of a wider bourgeois sensitivity. It takes, tacitly, a belief in a god to think like this - because a good atheist would know that nature is the sum-total of various catastrophes, there is no "meaning" in it which we are sacrificing, there is no grand beautiful mystique that is "beyond da humans" because conceiving it as mystifying is contingent upon mechanisms inherent to human consciousness, but if one can fully know something, fully master it, what is left of this? Humans did not create a great many things, and what of it? Also, Zim, in case you didn't know, humans will never fully conquer everything which exists independently of them, because the cosmos is virtually infinite. Likewise, even if humans transform the entire world, that will not make them "above" or even "conquering" of "natural laws" in a sense, but only conscious of them through practice. If I was arguing otherwise, the you should accuse me of insinuating that humans can just "transform" things to their minds arbitrarily without any labor whatsoever. But was I saying this? I was not.

"IF we fuck it up" it jeopardizes humanities ability to survive, well, philistine, we are already irreversibly fucking it up, so the question now is how to "Fuck it up" in a way that doesn't jeopardize humanities ability to survive. Evidently, your beloved balance is already gone. There's no going back.


Which I said was stupid

In a way it wasn't stupid (which justifies my reply) because Placenta's point is that green technologies will require more resource extraction, more "imbalance", more destroying nature, and so on. And it's true!


The environmentalism and ecologism have never, except in the fevered imaginations of hacks like Tom Clancy and a few tree huggers, been about halting or reverting progress. Rather conservationism and environmentalism are about managing current and future development, not trying to close the stable doors after the horse has bolted. To quote the 1987 Brundtland Report:

"[the] concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era..."


But as I said, how bourgeois specialists approach the issue (who do not have such illusions, as I, again, personally know someone who is on-the-ground for this kind of work) and how society does, expressed through Revleft, is entirely different. Of course, if it ended there, there would be no controversy. But what I want to rip out is not truisims and banalities, but the real points of sensitivity that give us the reactionary. What you fail to understand, however, is that social and political transformations already do extend the threshold of limitations imposed by "technology and social organization", because in case you weren't aware, technological development IS inevitably bound up with social factors, for the capacity of man to transform nature is regulated by the social - historic epoch. Of course, this would not be overnight, but how you are CONSTRUING this little snip is entirely different from its implications at face value. The minute you recognize there are no absolute limitations is the minute you concede the point that a "world paved in concrete" (an example of world transformation, not actually using concrete to pave the fucking wold over, fuck's sake) is the future. You accuse me of prometheism, but that assumes that I am giving an EXACT technological solution to the problem now - I'm not doing this. I'm saying that approaching the issue in THESE TERMS, in that if one conceives the biosphere as necessary, one full acknowledges this - but at the same time recognizes its PROVISIONAL nature is necessary. Now conceiving it in that way would in fact lead to things like geo-engineering, the replacement of the biosphere with the artificial, or cutting our dependence from it, and so on when it becomes pertinent. So that's my whole fucking point, you damned fool.

The fact that you continually argue, when from the quote you've provided we should at face value be in agreement proves that this extends beyond the apparencies of reason, and that a deep kind of mystification by "da nature" is present in you.


Your promethean trillings rest on the assumption that the only solution to ecological disaster which takes humanity with it lies in technology. Moreover, technology which DOES NOT EXIST or, like climate engineering, rests on principles which have no real world basis to them, and instead exist only as computer models. The faith you place in this kind of untried, untested, and currently purely theoretical solution, rather than contemplate sustainable environmental, economic and industrial management which highlights just how naive your position on this is.


Listen, you fool, ANY KIND OF GLOBAL COORDINATION, whether for preserving "da nature" (And let me be PATENTLY clear about something - THIS is not, and NEVER WILL BE on the table. My point has not been what we "should" do, but that users need to realize what actually constitutes a real solution, which means throwing away their reactionary baggage) hypothetically or otherwise, is going to have to rely on untried, untested and currently purely theoretical solutions, because as it happens, the kind of global cooperation necessary to "stop da nature killing" has been UNTRIED, UNTESTED and IS purely theoretical. This is what you fail to understand, and it's fucking pathetic. Even if one method might have worked in one isolated circumstances, we are talking about its implementation for a GLOBAL ecology. So it's not going to cut it. Finally, yes, the only solution to ecological disaster lies in "technology", and I implore you to make the argument for anything but. You don';t fucking think new technological methods are going to be pivotal to realize your apparent goals of "cutting back" on "fucking up" the environment? Keep dreaming. Furthermore, just to show how disgustingly crude this LOGIC is, I can use the SAME ARGUMENT for Communism "untried, untested and currently purely theoretical" in the midst of something like a much more modest reformism. Of course, using your LOGIC, why doesn't this work? Are they so different contextually as categories? I mean, in case you didn't know, buddy, the FUTURE IS all about that which does not presently exist, and only the bourgeois ideologues see it any other way.

But mind you, what constitutes "contemplate sustainable environmental, economic and industrial management", how is this going to cope with rapidly growing populations, not only the growing industrial demands of "Developing" countries but agrarian nations, countries in Sub-saharan Africa, for example, which will need to modernize their productive base? You accuse me of naivety, but nothing is more naive than thinking we can just "curtail" production or just "manage" what we have. That is not even on the fucking table. But allow me to even be modest: EVEN IF the proposed solutions like climate engineering are presently impossible, out of scope of possibility even, all that demonstrates is that MORE RESEARCH and a better understanding of global ecology is necessary - which I have even stressed was true - the point is the APPROACH to the issue, not some kind of immediate implementation of this or that when we don't have enough for it. For fuck's sake, do you even think? Like, do you enjoy talking out of your ass to feel god about defending "da nature" while ass-covering your real intentions here? It's like what the FUCK are you arguing against? The notion that RIGHT NOW we need to implement geo-engineering? Give me a fucking break.


You also find yourself in the direct company of the worst elements of the capital class who reject all but the most modest scaling back or managment resource exploitation, in order to protect their own political and economic interests, and instead posit that the solution lies in technology.

And this is because you don't fucking understand the point of present day resource exploitation - even with a radical social transformation, RESOURCE exploitation would not be curtailed to the point where it could "manage" da environment, and it is superstition, baseless wishful thinking to think otherwise. Not only to keep up with present demands of industrialized, industrializing economies, but economies that will have to in the future be modernized and industrialized. Sorry, I don't care whose company that finds me in - it is 100% true that the only solution lies in technology. Now of course they're doing this to protect their economic or political interests, that is because such extraction is for profit, and has no regard for the commons. That doesn't mean the IMPLICATIONS it has for the commons, which means the actual computers you're using, among a bunch of other innumerable shit, do not extend beyond the fat capitalist getting rich. These are problems a socialist society would have to face, too. But regardless of the SHORT TERM solutions that capitalists will not be taking up, even if they can be sustainable for a modern society, in the long term the only solution will be technology, and only a fool could argue otherwise.


The problem is that technological modeling is a psuedo-science. The three categories of technological development are invention, innovation and diffusion. However, it is impossible to model invention, and the futurists fail to grasp that technology is socially constructed. Like you they often take a approach to the notion of technological development, which basically boils down to the assumption that 'x' number of technological developments have occured in 'a' time period therefore 'y' number of developments will occur in 'b' time period. This naive technological optomism is even built into the IPCC. However, the basic premise is faulty and takes a thoroughly whiggish approach to the history of science and technology, that invention just spontaneously occurs.

This is just fucking golden. There are no historic "laws" of technology that tell us they occur in ways that are totally unpredictable, because we can ground PRECISELY HOW and why technology develops throughout history. Frankly, the category of "technology" that is meaningful here is unique only to capitalism, for the simple reason that capitalism must constantly revolutionize the means of production. But because this is only in approximation to the demands of capital, and for profit, invention might "appear" spontaneous, but the reality is that it coincides with wider productive processes. This is visible in the Kondratiev waves, too. What you're basically arguing is that "Well, you can't model invention, you can't predict when and how things will be invented" - but listen, you fool, if society's' technical apparatus invests all of its resources DELIBERATELY into finding technology, which coincides with NOTHING MORE than the magnitude of being fully conscious of natural processes. The idea that this is a "fantasy" because "well, throughout history invention happens without deliberate intent" is plainly superstitious, and I will explain why:

Because it assumes that retrospective historic processes constitute eternal and unchangeable laws. Very simply, that technology develops "randomly" does not mean the steam engine could have been "randomly" possible in ancient Greece. Technology develops in coincidence with a wider, respective social and material context. In fact, a prototype by some famous ancient inventor - I forget who - actually did give us something akin to a steam engine. But because this could find no real social context, because it was not even within the scope of IMAGINATION to implement this, it didn't result in a technological revolution in production, it resulted in some stupid gimmick whose connotations would be entirely different about two millennia later. I mean it's so cute that you give us these high-school textbook "rules", are you actually fucking mimicking your college courses or something? "Invention, innovation and diffusion." Did you write that down on a flashcard for the big test? That's very cute, but within context of this discussion it is 100% meaningless.

But moreover, this whole argument is to a straw man. My point was not that a 100 year plan needs to be constructed, wherein by 2050 we will assume that the technology necessary for geo-engineering is present. My point wasn't about constructing ACTUAL, DIRECT PLANS for dealing with ecology, but that we ought to invests energy, resources and so on into ACTUALLY doing this. No, this doesn't require betting on the idea that magical "inventions" will prop up, because all "inventions" derive from previous technological and scientific knowledge. So quite on the contrary, the point is that these will be developed to their fullest extent when necessary, which then entails practical inventions, and so on. "Innovation" he sais, as though he's the PR for Apple or Tesla. Let me put it to you plainly - innovation will have to be intrinsic to the foundation of the FUNCTION of a socialist society, if it is not, then socialism is impossible.


The solution is not placing naive faith in non-existent future technologies, which may mitigate some of the problem, but social and cultural organisation which we can actually introduce in the present and do not rely on plucking bright shiney technologies from the aether.


Well, as it happens, it appears you're completely and fully talking out of your ass at this point. As a short term solution, there can be no "faith" in anything, but you bet your ass as far as a long-term solution goes, YES faith in "non-existent" future technologies will be absolutely necessary, whether they are the pretty ones or the ugly ones Rafiq is discussing. Did I fucking say as an immediate solution we need to do this or that? No, that's just as patently ridiculous. But any short-term solution that merely amounts to "management" will not be permanently sustainable, especially for the reasons I have already mentioned among a plethora of more reasons.

So you fail to demonstrate "this". Try again.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the actual epitome of stupdity. This is not even philistinism bellow, for philistinism is an adult we use for adults. Rather, Izvestia is literally, actually confused - but at the risk of dumbing myself down once again, let's begin:


Well now that all depends, doesn't it? Because if a person treated a dog like a dog, that person would actually be showing it a much higher degree of consideration than your reactionary ranting about how communists don't give a fuck about the mass extinction of species. You see, it is against the law to abuse dogs. Shelters have been established to take care of stray dogs for as long as possible in order to keep as many as possible in humane conditions in hopes that they can find a home with somebody who will care for thblah blah blah blah we should be nice 2 dogs missing the point entirely.

Listen to me, dear child, my point had absolutely nohting to do with how humans "should" treat dogs. As far as this goes, I already covered it:

Of course, only a deranged monster could hurt a dog or a cat and feel nothing, but is it because of the category of empathy, or let's say, political empathy? No, it's because we recognize that hurting a cat, or a dog without remorse reminds us of hurting the humans in our social space - i.e. we do inevitably "empathize" with them but we recognize implicitly we are merely projecting ourselves onto them. When we enter the domain of inter-subjectivity, wherein the thing that is the receiving end of our empathy is a subject fully responsible for his or her actions, fully capable of enering our space of reason, and fully capable of "empathizing" back as an individual, things become more complicated - it's not just about "empathy" but the ramifications this has for our social space, too. Politically, for example, opposing slavery on grounds of "empathy" is rather disgusting - it is not empathy, it is solidarity, an expression of an unconditional love. These are very different things. How does one have solidarity with an octopus?

No, quite on the contrary, my point was to demonstrate that your little example of comparing "inter-human relations" with "human-nonhuman relations" and drawing about a basis of SIMILARITY IS PARADOXICAL AND FUCKING NONSENSICAL. Because first and foremost, it picks and chooses this. If I treat a dog like a dog (CRUELTY aside :rolleyes: - like this is what you take away you child? - , assume that I am being 100% kind to it), am I in fact demonstrating racism, because a slave-owner treated a slave like a dog, made him wear a collar, and so on?

Likewise, if we take the statement: "I do not care if all the plants and animals die, so long as humans live" and claim this is 'reminiscent' of Social Darwinism and is "right wing" pathologically, HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT AS FAR AS DRAWING A COMPARISON? HOW CAN YOU CONSISTENTLY DRAW THIS "COMPARISON" WITHOUT ALSO ACCUSING DOG-OWNERS OF SLAVERY AND RACISM?

Here's logic, kiddo:

Act 1: P1 Owning a slave | P2 Owning a dog

Act 2: X1 Conceiving the poor and other "races" as not "fit" to survive | X2 Conceiving other species of the same

Accusation 1: Slavery, racism for P1 but not P2

Accusation 2: Social darwinism for X1 and X2

(Oh, and before you say BUT DUR NOT THE SAME - YES, on an ETHICAL level THEY ARE, by merit of the CONSISTENT qualifications you have tried to give us - if you cannot justify one, you CANNOT justify the other, and no, falling back on public morality is NOT going to fucking cut it)

IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. You cannot CONSISTENTLY set ethical coordinates, because the minute we conceive the category of "species" and "other humans" as the same (AS TO WARRANT ACCUSATIONS OF SOCIAL DARWINISM), we must consistently do this ACROSS THE BOARD. Of course, you won't RECANT your STUPID fucking accusations of "Social darwinism" because Izvestia, prince of truth, as noble as he is, is out to defend himself PERSONALLY. Moreover, I even stated that not only is the accusation ILLOGICAL and INCONSISTENT, it is patently wrong, because I DID NOT IN FACT claim we have to "justify" killing other species with ANY kind of metaphysical grand truth as "social Darwinism" does. Did I say "Well, that's nature man?" - No, I said nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie, and of class society in general. I didn't even say ANY justification was necessary, because the interest humans have in the animals at hand is of PURE cultural significance, it has no basis in any kind of SOLIDARITY wrought out from class considerations, it is not ASSOCIATION, it's that humans find some animals cool, cute and neat. Otherwise, you need to also CONSISTENTLY ethically justify "empathizing" with crab lice (And no, you can't fall back on the ignorance of society, you need to ETHICALLY JUSTIFY IT on behalf of society - it's like saying "Well, man, most people are religious" - but WHY?) So what did I say? Build a fucking zoo. Because I recognize that this POLITICAL "empathy" is a damned fucking sham, it is IN-GENUINE.

Like lol, are you fucking kidding? Saying " fuck all the plants and animals" is SOCIAL darwinism? Lol, HOW? HOW IS THAT SOCIAL DARWINISM? Some SHIT people say... Please, go on, try and worm you way out of this, Izvestia. Lol...


In other words, people as a general rule [I]do care about dogs and how they treat dogs. Do they treat them as people? Well, some of the more eccentric among us come pretty close, but for the most part we recognize that dogs are not people and that human lives are worth more than dog lives. There is a reason for this that can be explained

But Izvestia, this is "all too reminiscent" of the racists who said that while they care about how blacks are treated, they ought not to be treated as whites. In fact this was the logic of the Apartheid government in South Africa, and American segregation - EVEN SLAVERY was at least "officially" for "treating" blacks kindly, just not as actual humans. Your ethics is 100% inconsistent bullshit. You keep falling back on "most people" to ass cover your INTELLECTUAL PHILISTINISM and general IGNORANCE, but "most people" don't proclaim to have Socialist consciousness in general, so no, you can't fucking use them to defend your broken pseudo-ethics.

I have already acknowledged that "most people" do care about dogs and how dogs are treated, but my point was that the BASIS of how they care is DIFFERENT from how they do humans, and no, it wouldn't entail such huge political ramifications or "animal rights". But go ahead, I'd love to fucking see how you "explain" this, I'd love to see Izvestia's "reasons" for this. Go on, consistently explain to me why - but moreover,


including your attempt at philosophically defining "love" later in your post, again, in a quintessentially non-Marxist way by just doing analytic philosophy and masturbating with concepts.

>analytic philosophy<

https://d304k3mn1nwj0a.cloudfront.net/meme/facepalm-captain.png

You know what's actually pretty hilarious? Besides not even coming close to predicting Izvestia doesn't ACTUALLY even know what analytic philosophy is (well, it just sounds right, man *shrugs* so I'll use it) I somehow had a feeling Izvestia was going to take this complex subject and isolate words which "appear" to sound erratic, "Oh, your "love" wishy washy nonsense" and proceed to dismiss the entire argument.

I'm sorry your philosophic literacy is that of a 12 year old. I'm sorry you don't understand love in the political sense of the word. I was at least expecting "Oh get out of here with that theological/Lacanian pseudo-philosophical bullshit drivel", but it would seem Izvestia is actually talking abut romantic (or even erotic) love. Lol. Actually, lol.

Meanwhile, 'Non-Marxist analytic masturbating with concepts, courtesy of Karl Marx:

The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need. (Quick prediction - Izvestia is going to isolate the contextualy meaningless word "natural" and now make the argument that Marx was an ecology fetishist and that the SPECIFIC way in which I'm using the word is anti-Marxist. Lol. This isn't even hard)

... If you love without evoking love in return – if through the vital expression of yourself as a loving person you fail to become a loved person, then your love is impotent, it is a misfortune.

What Marx forget to say, in hindsiht of the animal-fetishists, is that your "love" is a perversion.

But no, I won't pretend that the notion of love being presented here, rigorously grounded in the continental school by Marxists, is directly present in classical Marxism in terms of content, the point is the CONCLUSIONS drawn. Love will have to be constitutive of any Communist order, and I speak of the love of agape - the UNCONDITIONAL, non-romantic kind. OF course this is too much for you. Come back to me on your 15th birthday when you're mature enough to deal with the subject.

"Blaaalh philosophic masturbation"

LOL! "I WANT TO TOUCH UPON PHILOSOPHIC CONCEPTS, MAKE OLYMPIC PHILOSOPHIC LEAPS, SAY THINGS WHICH COCNERN PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES AND IF YOU CRITICALLY RECIEVE THEM PHILOSOPHICALLY YOU"RE JUST THEORETICALLY MASTURBATING! IZVESTIA TYPING ON THE COMPUTER IS PRACTICE, JUST LIKE THINKING THERE IS A WORKERS MOVEMENT MEANS THERE IS ONE!!!!!11f WAAAAA WORTHLESS AND STUPID PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY, CUZ IZVESTIA'S POSTS ARE THE EPITOME OF REAL MATERIAL PRACTICE LOLOLOLOLOLOL"


Now if, when you say "how we treat dogs," you refer to how you treat dogs, I can't answer the question. Judging by the bs you posted in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the kind of psychopath who slowly dismembered animals as a child and found great joy in watching them suffer.

Except this argument wasn't about how society views or treats dogs, I mean... Wait a second, lol, do you even KNOW what ETHICS is? The basic axiom of ethics is that IT MUST BE CONSISTENT TO EVERYONE - it cannot be reducible to a mere neutral assessment of "society". Because Rafiq isn't arguing that society doesn't care about dogs, the reality is that bringing forth these examples exemplifies that your claims are INCONSISTENT, FAULTY and nonsensical. The fact that "society" might commit the right crime is only testament to the fact that society is not an internet intellectual on a keyboard that must theoretically justify itself. You can go ahead and cover your ears, go "lallalalalalalallaa it doesn't matter, society agrees with me!" but you then why even post? Of course, for someone who ACTUALLY THINKS his ideas are secretly "manifested" already in workers, I'm sure you actually do think a proletarian dictatorship is 'round the corner. Literally can't believe how this guy thinks. Like I can't ACTUALLY wrap my head around - are you just trying to SAY THINGS which suffice in your mind in defending yourself? Like do you actually BELIEVE what you're saying? You've literally twisted the whole fucking argument and it's like - who am I even talking to?

It's like saying "Orange juice is yellow" and then responding with "APPLES ARE GOOD YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY THEY DON'T TASTE GOOD". You can't even draw the bridge from A to B here. You can't even LINK your rebuttal with my argument.

I already outlined, and stated: Hurting animals like dogs (and not lice) is contemptible because how one treats dogs REMINDS them of how one treats humans. This, however, has no real POLITICAL significance, if someone is cruel to a dog on an individual level, this demonstrates an underlying sickness - not because the dog is a subject that can fully assume rights, but because it REMINDS us of our actions on an inter-subjective social field. I mean I can't believe how fucking confused you are, I can't believe how you've gone about APPROACHING my argument. It's almost like - you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Lol.

But ultimately, this is all about immediate proximity. The extermination of a species has nothing to do with people "empathizing" in direct proximity the pain the animal will feel, but the tragedy that this "cool" thing that humans did not create, that existed independent of humans, is now gone. And they confer this SICK logic onto ACTUAL humans - indigenous tribes, culturse, etc. - effectively treating htem like an endangered species. So my claim was - BECAUSE they don't, and can't ACTUALLY CARE, then put them in a fucking zoo, since it's only the idea that "they're out there" with all the cultural ramifications that people care about. Conversely, ugly, disgusting animals with zero cultural significance NO ONE CARES about, whether they go extinct or not - public lice included. So my point was that the "empathy" people afford such exotic animals and species is faulty, and perverse to begin with. So let all the stupid animals die was my point - so let them die if they didn't serve human, social needs. That was my point, what's hilarious is that there is a fundamental difference between how people are unsettled by animal abuse, which reminds of them of cruelty and pain inflicted on humans so as to encapsulate relations of domination, and the mechanical, out of proximity process of species extinction and the endangering of all the pretty disney animals.


It makes perfect sense to locate in somebody's comment that he doesn't give two shits about the mass extermination of species a kind of egotistical derangement of the very kind that would drive people to shrug at the deaths of other human lives they deem supposedly less valuable..

It might make perfect sense if you think with your ass, but upon closer examination it is a paradox - sorry, buddy, your "common sense" engagement with complex philosophical and theoretical controversies isn't going to cut it. If the mass extermination of species is in any way comparable to the death of humans, then this insinuates definite ethical qualifications that must be consistent. Why wouldn't the mass enslavement of a whole species, the horse or the cow, not be comparable to the mass enslavement of humans? You can't consistently draw the line, and you claim "Well fuck all that complex blueprinting!" - Don't worry, dear child, we'll get to that soon enough. Meanwhile, yes, the difference between not giving the shit about the mass extermination of a species, and not giving about the mass extermination of humans is that while both MIGHT not be within bounds of proximity, the latter has definite social ramifications.

If you were smart, which you clearly are not, you could say "Why THIS qualification? The native Americans were virtually socially alien to the Europeans, as well as various indigenous primitive societies that still remain. Are you saying their extermination is something we shouldn't give two shits about"? And ultimately, as I have already covered, the difference is that no, even upon CONTACT and association- because both are human, both are humanely social, a space of inter-subjectivity is opened up, with definite social ramifications. It is like how Lenin said - Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot. But he did not say Can a species be free if it oppresses other species? It cannot. Because that's ridiculous. That is why animal rights is inevitably racist, inevitably the most barbarous kind of drivel - it sais very litle about the animal, and a lot about the human - i.e. animal rights effectively enters the same space, the same domain as human rights. But nevermind this. I want a consistent ethical justification for WHY people - and let's cut the bullshit, since this is an internet discussion, and not me on a podium speaking to 7 billion people, why IZVESTIA thinks we ought to in principle give a shit about the extermination of another species, and what the qualifications for this are. You already dodged the FATAL argument that you can't justify why we should give a shit about pubic lice going extinct, or the leech, or why we shouldn't empathize with the cockroach, the rat, the spider or the pigeon. Plenty of species are going extinct, which are actually important, that the public does not give a single shit about. At all. Why?

And as stated, it is the degree of their CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. SO it is incomparable to say that not giving a shit about the mass extermination of species is comparable to not giving a shit about the mass extermination of humans, because in the case of the former, a mere CULTURAL peculiarity, a fetish, a PATHOLOGICAL thing is now disappearing, while in the latter case, this has ramifications for the SOCIAL SPHERE itself, i.e. if humans are exterminated for any kind of essential characteristics (Come the revolution, do you think that the counter-revolution will be dealt with peacefully, by the way) then that would have definite implications for ALL humans, more moreover, a basis of causality would be necessary - people do not spontaneously exterminate humans and the idea that people are killed in the manner exemplified in James Cameron's Avatar wherein "if not" for the 'empathy' of the ecologists the blue people could be mowed over without that entailing ANY kind of definite characteristics about the humans themselves (that makes it possible for them to do this to humans, too) is a perverse fantasy. The reality is that it is not empathy, but real-grounded SOLIDARITY which is why, because by merit of our physical, species-like characteristics, we are NOTHING, we are animals - it is the social field that makes us human as such. So my point was that EVEN IF a dog, or an animal could have human consciousness, but physically not "look" human, they would constitute a part of the social field. What you fail to understand is that my point is no - they don't, and that's the fucking end of it. The species in question not only are not protesting their extermination with any kind of consciousness, they are INDEFINITELY incapable of doing this. The difference with a mentally disabled person is that no matter how incompetent they are, no matter if they are aware or not - they are still possessive of a fundamentally HUMAN consciousnesses, no matter whether it is at the lowest possible magnitude - otherwise, they would simply be a rock, a mere body and nothing more. The difference, as well, amounts to the reality that the mentally, physically handicapped are conceived as just that - handicapped. An animal, conversely, is not "impaired", it is a fucking animal. It is ESSENTIALLY incapable of constituting ANYTHING social.

So no, aside from literally talking out of your ass because they might "sound" correct from the standpoint of philosophic philistinism and illiteracy, not giving two shits about the extinction of species is not in fact a logical stepping stone to "shrug off the deaths of humans" because, as I said, one is creating a moral-value system wherein animals are "less viable", the point is that already implicit in the symbolic order, in LANGUAGE is the recognition that an ANIMAL is NOT a subject to begin with, so you can't deem animals "less valuable", you can only recognize that they exist fundamentally outside of the inter-subjective social domain, which means not that they have less "rights", but that AS ANIMALS they can NEVER have ANY rights. This is what you continually fail to understand - the SENSITIVITY toward animals going extinct IS NOT and NEVER CAN BE empathy - anymore than a big company mowing down some cool trees is "empathy" for fucking plants.


Who the fuck said anything about laws or "timeless rights"?

Well, listen, dear child, while I am sure it wouldn't do well for Izvestia's self-proclaimed identity as a Marxist to admit that he believes in timeless truths and timeless laws, the inconvenient truth is that while you haven't directly mentioned these words, they are the LOGICAL CONCLUSION of your argument. You argue like a 13 year old - lol, "I NEVER SAID THAT DIRECTLY", well, kiddo, of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be able to look yourself in the mirror with a straight face and argue the drivel that you do. The reality is that the whole ethical substrate of Social darwinism is the notion that becuase of hte "laws of nature", in other words, because of things observed in nature that are now being transformed into metaphysical timeless truths with ethical, social ramifications, X or Y is justified. So, Izvestia, I wasn't saying you were directly talking about metaphysical laws (lol? What the fuck am I reading) but that Social darwinists do. So your idea is that me saying who cares about the stupid animals and plants is social darwinist in nature, and I say - no, not even close, because I'm not using any metaphysical laws or any timeless truths to justify not giving a shit. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


idealist philosophical constructions.

:laugh:


What we're talking about is a statement you made that a large number species can just die in a mass extinct and you didn't give a fuck, because some unspecified technology (that people may or may not need, mind you) would issue from the extinction of those "stupid" species.

No, that's not what we're talking about, in fact. What we're actually talking about is the reality hat it is a fantasy to think that solving the present ecological crises will coincide with species conservation across the board. Of course, some species which are ecologically pivotal to our survival will have to be provisionally sustained in a deliberate manner, but if this can be shown to not be the case, this has nothing to do with any kind of "unspecified technology" but where resources ought to be directed at. You know, these inherently ETHICAL-idealist platitudes are construed as being identical with material reality, but nothing is farther from the truth. Your argument is "Who cares about my ecology fetishism, it doesn't matter as far as what practically needs to be done" and I'm saying yes, it does matter in fact, because monstrously large global coordination and ecological transformation will be necessary to sustain present levels of development, as well as the modernization of various economies (i.e. like in Sub-Saharan Africa). You want to be leveled with the convenience of "Well, such abstractions don't matter, cuz if the species die we all die anyway" - Ah, but that's not true. There are some species whose death would mean absolutely nothing for the survival of the human species, which people still would be sad if they went extinct. But even if it was true, then the mere thought-experiment itself REVEALS a lot ideologically. It's like the thought-experiment for an atheist, for a Communist - if you were in a room with a person, and only one of your can survive, would you kill him if no one found out? Of course, this scenario is unlikely to be relevant, but the mere abstraction reveals a lot ethically. That's the point of philosophy, dear child.

But anyway, the reason THIS IS actually relevant has far more to do with the reality that we are entering a pivotal moment wherein yes, while there are many species whose endangerment has implications for human survival in PRESENT conditions (and not some kind of timeless inevitability that "must be"), the issue cannot be approached in terms of the IDEOLOGY of ecology fetishism - all of this must be conceived coldly, mechanically and provisionally. Doing so renders the "idea" of nature obsolete. And frankly, when have I insinuated people wouldn't need this, you fucking [censored]? Quite on the contrary, people WILL need this, even if not for bare subsistence, for the sake of sustaining modern productive capacities.


One that is into all sorts of penis-waving philosophy games detached from present reality

Izvestia's posts = reality. Oh, reality, oh "da workers movement", oh, "da real stuff". Sorry, kiddo, we're on an internet forum, discussing THEORY. You want reality, go run around naked in the woods. Stop trying to COVER your theoretical IMPOTENCE by resorting back to a reality which cannot even be CONCEIVED outside theory. That's right - "reality" doesn't give a fuck because it is not the manifestation of consciousness or a god. Reality is not embedded with theoretical abstractions. "Philosophic games", here and right now, on this forum, or any discussion, IS ALL THERE IS. You say theyr'e "philosophy games" but if you admit you're philosophically illiterate, how can you know this? Have you demonstrated these are "games"? Lol.

It's like a meideval peasant ignoring someone trying to explain to him how a smartphone works. "Witch! Burn the witch! No one cares about such trickery! Burn it!" You're not even at the level of this discussion, little kid. As a matter of fact, Izvestia probably never even had any of these positions, and suddenly adopted them just for the sake of spiting Rafiq, whom he desperately wants to see banned because he's still sour over being utterly demolished in a previous thread.

Lol.


(in REALITY the environment is in grave danger of becoming a place incapable of sustaining human life).

Explain to me how this is relevant, RIGHT NOW. Please try and say rafiq said we shoud pave the Earth in concrete starting 2015, or start deliberatly killing every species for no reason in spite of the real dangers. LOL! Like is this what you're trying to insinuate?


And also one that, even if we wanted to play these games with somebody, probably would be hesitant

Dear child, who is "we"? YOU BET YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU ARE PLAYING THESE "GAMES", WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT. Because you're RESPONDING to me. So what does that say about you? "Im gonna respond 2 rafiq and SHOW HIM dat h is wrong by not engaging him at all". The minute you say you don't want to play these "games", you LOSE, you're OUT - you can't DEFEND what you say, so you want to call it a game? Go ahead, buddy, but you've been playing it, and you've lost. Again. How's that for you? Of course, "Rafiq" is the one whose egotistical, and so on, but Izvestia literally NEEDS to keep responding without even addressing the arguments, and why? Not his ego, of course. When someone responds and doesn't even address any arguments because he calls them sorcery, what do we base the reasoning in his response? Not Rafiq destroying Izvestia's ARGUMENTS translating into Izvestia seeing it as fucking with his PERSONAL ego, of course. No, no, that sort of thing is only reserved for Rafiq. Lol.


Because, unlike you, I don't have a hard-on for drawing up on my own detailed schemes for how people should behave and then write those people off until they accept my detailed blueprints.

Ahahahahahahahhhahahahah! Holy fuck! Ahahahaahahaahahahaahaha! He's literally done! He literally can't even say anything! Oh my god ahahahahahahaha!

Dear Izvestia, there is a difference between stressing the importance of logical and ethical consistency and.. (like what the fuck? Really?) "drawing up on my own detailed schemes for how people should behave and then write those people off until they accept my detailed blueprints", because I am not drawing up "schemes" that demonstrate how people "should" (?) behave, I'm telling IZVESTIA, or ANYONE who argues like him that his argument is inconsistent. Like, are you 12? So you're comparing logical consistency with some kind of impossible qualification that somehow is ESSENTIALLY "Rafiq's" detailed blueprints? What are you even talking about? Oh my god, I think I have a fucking migraine at this point. I promise you, Izvestia, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in 5 months.

You've basically just admitted that you're full of shit. Literally. I said: don't avoid the question. You said animals. So why not crabs? Where does it begin, and where does it end? We need scientific qualifications, not arbitrary "c'mon guys, y'know what I mean" - I do know what you mean, the point is that the minute you admit it, your argument falls apart.

Is this a ridiculos argument? Are these "blueprints"? No, it's a demand for consistency. Where does it begin, and where does it end? WHY NOT Crabs? Are you actually responding to this by saying "Well, unlike you, I don't get a hard-on (?) for being concise, consistent and scientific". Okay, but all that shows is that you're full of shit.

The logic is simple:

Izvestia confronts a problem, a conundrum he can't offer a solution for. Because Izvestia's OWN incompetence, he cowardly hides behind ordinary people who don't pretend to have Socialist consciousness and sais "Rafiq, ur drawing up detailed schemes abut how people shud behave but u have no righ 2 do this, ur being too demanding of the poor masses and da people"

The problem of course is that Izvestia is projecting his own incompetence on the poor masses who have nothing to do with this. He covers his ears and goes "lalalallalalalala dat isn't something u can sum up in 8 words dat u can tell a 11 year old derefore its trickery". The reality of course, is that we already know why society can't answer this question: Because society only 'empathizes' with animals they can anthropomorphize, and animals with huge cultural significance (animals that are 'interesting' in other words). This basis of empathy has nothing to do with their ecologically importance or even their ability to feel pain, because plenty of animals that are capable of feeling pain are too ugly for the public to care about them. In addition, many of those "ordinary people" hunt for sport, too. So don't question them, Izvestia! Da workers! Like are you saying worker's don't hunt? Are you saying game feels no pain? Because, it does. The reality has nothing to do with any kind of real empathy, on this level though, because no one cares about mass extinction DIRECTLY as it pertains to pain. I'd love to see you argue otherwise. Go on, tell us about how species conservation is about empathizing with their "pain". It's not, and you know very fucking well it's not. Don't make me shower you with unavoidable examples of how this isn't true at all.


("There IS no workers' movement in Greece!" he exclaims).

You're mistaken, I demonstrated this very thoroughly in a previous thread, which you utterly, pathetically and unarguably lost. But thanks for admitting that you're only doing this because you're so fucking traumatized by it. You're not redeeming yourself, and you never will. Get over it.


I am perfectly content making the point that humans have over many hundreds of thousands of years evolved a capacity for empathy for one another and for non-human animals that is cultivated and allowed to develop as social conditions allow for it -- through the development of the scientific study of animals and the awareness that many of them experience pain in ways that can be similar to how humans can

So according to Izvestia, ecology fetishism is now an inborn, natural trait. Izvestia, every fucking person is capable of empathy but where they allocate that empathy is hardly something ingrained. So no, there are plenty of organsms which do feel pain that no one empathizes with. Want me to start listing them, like do I need to do this for you to shut you up about his "pain" fetishism? I love how you try and make such juvenile garbage sound sophisticated though "scientific study of animals and the awareness that many of them experience pain in ways that can be similar", yes, scientific study will shower society with the empathy necessary to prevent mass extinction. Don't worry, I PREPARED That you would claim that the qualifications for judging an animals' "worth" is grounded in its capacity to "feel" as humans do. Only the difference is that no intricate scientific studies were ever necessary to see that other humans experience pain similar to how the subject does, because it is an AXIOM of ANY social order. What you fail to understand, also, is that human "rights" themselves are not even grounded in empathy - empathy is not a political category, it is a PERSONAL thing - the most wicked devil can feel "empathy", it means NOTHING politically. Instead, humans can have SOLIDARITY, not "Empathy" but SOLIDARITY, which is IMPLICITLY not simply reciprocal, but of the recognition that we are the same. Can you actually, with straight face, say "Solidarity with the African Lion!" ? Solidarity is egalitarian. Tell me how you can have soldarity with an animal. You can't. If humans are going to "preserve" animals, it is NOT because they empathize with them, it is because the animal is the fetishistic object of their interest. In which case, again, you can build a fucking zoo. We project onto the animal our own alienation from the social - take this away, then there is no talk of "animal rights", which is a perversion. Tell me though, if conservationism is constitutive of "empathy", why was Hitler a conservationst, why was the anti-modern aristocracy in the 19th and 20th centuries deeply conservationist? Answer.

The reality is that this "empathy" is a sham. The animal is a smokescreen to which social considerations are projected. Humans are not magically embedded to feel "empathy" with fucking animals, even from your pseudo-darwinist standpoint, do you know how fucking stupid that would be? You do realize the first humans were hunters, right? Often times the reasons for the mass migrations of humans during the pre-historic era was because humans were driving a considerable number of big game species to EXTINCTION. That's right, the FIRST HUMANS in primitive Communism were already driving a bunch of fucking species into extinction. HOW DO YOU ANSWER THIS? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS IN THE DISCOURSE OF YOUR TWISTED, CONFUSED AND REACTIONARY METAPHYSICS ABOUT selecting for "EMPATHY"? Do you think hunter-gatherers were too STUPID to know that animals actually felt pain? Yes, the wild boar that is screeching to its death - they couldn't have gone from A to B and realized that it's feeling pain, you're right. :rolleyes: The difference is that empathy doesn't mean shit. Some humans don't even have it. Society must not rely on "empathy" but SOLIDARITY. What is biologically inevitable is irrelevant.

Not that hunter-gatherers set timeless ethical truths, but that if you want to say that humans "inherently" feel EMPATHY for other animals and that this explains and underlies POPULAR animal conservationist politics, you're going to have to try just a bit FUCKING harder.


How animals will be treated in socialist society will be the decision of those people,

By your standards, socialist society would never exist, because in inferring the decisinos of people in a future society from people RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT, it happens that most of them want to keep their families, and want to go on thinking they will own property one day, and continue going to their churches, having pride in their nations, etc. - which brings me to another point - what will happen to NATIONS? Don't people want to conserve those, too? So much for your interationalism.


reactionary sentiments you expressed in this thread.

Still waiting on Izvestia's justification for using THIS word specifically.


More bad philosophy. This time about the meaning of love as a concept. Just what the forum needed. Rafiq's philosophy of love and sex.

"Llalalalalaalla bad philosphy I CAN'T HEAR YOU lalalalalalala"

Try again. (and lol that love = erotic love).


This is going to be my last post in this thread because, to be honest, if I wanted to subject myself to disturbed religious ranting, I would cut out the middleman and just go to the church directly.

Yeah, but you still feel the need to respond anyway. "Oh, I'm above this nonsense, yet I can't help but actually make this post". Try again. I'll make this one as simple as possible for yo.


You might reacquaint yourself with the Marxist conception of communism as the society where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all before you put any more exclamation points in such phrases.

Yes, and my point was quite simply that:

The "free development" of the human personality, no doubt a timeless historical fact - what Xhar-Xhar fails to understand here is that the standards of what constitutes "free development" are not only relative socially, but relative HISTORICALLY. He can have no theoretical, no scientific, no real argumentative authority if I play the same fucking game, whilst talking about the right to the nuclear family, or religion.

And very simply, the point is that the standards of "free development" are historically relative. Free development can mean ANYTHING - one can be "free" to pursue superstitious pursuits, but how can you consistently claim that this has nothing to do with the "free development of each"? Because "freedom" is a muddied word which in this context means absolutely nothing. You have yet to demonstrate how appreciating "nature" is somehow necessary for one's "free development" any more than being able to engage religion is. Of course, if this was about HAVING to PHYSICALLY OBSTRUCT what people inevitably want, I already lose the argument, don't I?


The family unit concerns the material reproduction of the proletariat as a class of dispossessed direct producers. It is related to capitalism as a material mechanism of capitalism, not because you can spin some sort of ad-hoc tale about how it's ideologically influenced by capitalism.

Correct, but the implications of the family unit, which is necessary to reproduce capitalism on a material level, are inherently ideological ones - people do not "magically" approximate reproducing material reality by merit of some kind of innate biological drive, which is why it might be worth not dismissing Zizek if you're actually serious about understanding how this works. I mean, how does religion, for example, "materially" reproduce capitalism? This is perhaps why you ignored it. The reality is that capitalist society, and the mechanisms which reproduce it are a 'bit' more complex than that which is directly observable on a material level. It's like saying Marx's notion of commodity fetishism is "ad-hoc". Try again. Ecology fetishism is absolutely necessary for the reproduction of capitalist society - as it constitutes a new opium of the masses. Go take a quick evaluation of the SERIOUS bourgeois criticism of the Russian revolution, for example, then come back to me. The reality is always the same - "Forcing society beyond its natural capabilities" and so on. Nature is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.

But nevermind, don't IGNORE The argument: people are JUST AS sensitive to the family, or even the power of the church as they are toward their nature. These are RELATED. Assuming the family, or religion will always remain from this observation is rather stupid. Then again, you don't do this, because you're a "Marxist" - you adhere to specific CONTENT, but you are incapable of consistently using the METHOD. "Heh, well Trotsky would agree with me, cuz trotsky wasn't alive to see all dis ecology stuff, so that's all that matters" - that is not Marxism.


Here is something for our Communist dukhoborets:

If you happened to pay attention to what Marx was saying, it had nothing to do with conceiving human wants and needs as timeless, but quite on the contrary the contradiction arising from the fact that capitalism generates a STANDARD OF WANT (which is IRREDUCIBLE to what individual capitalists WANT to generate) that it itself cannot abide by properly. That has nothing to do with the argument. "Nature" isn't any more a timeless "need" as any opium is. But nevermind that. You will never be beyond "nature" in the sense of something that exists independently of human labor. My point is one of "artificiality". You claim this is a straw man, but that you don't WANT to insinuate this doesn't mean you aren't doing it anyway. "Human curiosity", etc. etc. - can they derive this from artificially creating, for example geological formations? Of course, I already adressed that bit - but yes, the "natural", that is, that which is not of artifice, WAS the point you were making.


What un-Marxist swine has written this? Who would dare to write of dance halls and travel when saint Rafiq the self-denying has proven through the most scientific of critical criticism that dance halls can be replaced by periodically stimulating the legs with electric current, that travel can be replaced by travel-books and that the desire to travel is merely bourgeois decadence?

A straw man. A socially self-conscious society would need dance, leisure and travel to reproduce itself, the point is that hey wouldn't have to project these needs onto things which do not essentially confer them. As stated, a Communist society, though self-conscious, would need jut as much rituals as any other - the point is that these rituals would not be ALIEN. There is a crucial difference.


Of course, it was Marx, who "took needs as they are"

Well yes, but some "needs" have political and ideological ramifications, which would change in the course of struggle. But yes, Communism derives from capitalism as a presupposition, but it entails change. I have gone over this. Communism derives from the needs estabilished BY CAPITALISM for workers - but ONLY the ones that do not obstruct their struggle for emancipation. I.e. The crucifix is a "need" generated by capitalism, but through the STRUGGLE for emancipation it will no longer be one.



This is puerile. Nutrients are necessary for the biological reproduction of human life, as is reproductive sex, but neither varied food nor varied sexual acts are necessary for the reproduction of social order.


Variations in sexuality do not constitute "sex acts" (?) and variations in food do not simply constitute types of cuisine. Instead the latter relates to how it's produced, and so on, while the former entails how those sex acts are approximated. All societies need sex, but only insofar as they need to reproduce themselves. You aren't "born" knowing how to fuck. This is what I meant by "variance" - a thing in a different totality IS NOT the same thing. A "thing" only exists INSOFAR as it is continually reproduced.


And this is why you are an idealist: "post-modern... society", "existentual conundrum", "undermine what it even means to be human" (?) - every one of your "explanations" just boils down to ideas, ideas,

Xhar-Xhar exclaims, while he is battering Rafiq with pure material phenomena. Ideas reflect reality, but you don't replace them "with" reality. That's crazy talk. And lol, idealism? Dear Xhar-Xhar, you haven't the faintest clue about what you're talking about. IT's almost like you're saying that society can reproduce itself without being facilitated via ideology. Thanks, that's a failing grade for understanding Marx's commodity fetishism. Like the critique of ideology is idealist because it involves dealing with ideas. As it happens, no one PRETENDS that this analysis WILL NEGATE these processes - no one is PRETENDING That by Rafiq knowing this, or by 'educating' society with ideas (WHICH IS HTE BASIC CONSENSUS OF THE SPARTS, BY THE WAY) all will be well.

But very well. "Words, blah blah blah blah, they sound funny so I don't have to engage the argument". Good job.

Needless to say, I never said any of that, but that hasn't stopped Rafiq before and it won't stop him again, because engaging with what people are writing or - horror of horrors - being precise and not drowning people in walls of badly-formatted insulting text would burst his little bubble.


The point is that your "explanation" is like a bad parody of how people imagine Freudian analysis is. You dreamed of a shark, well that's a penis, you dreamed of a hole, that's a vagina, you dreamed of a flat surface, well you're just suppressing your thoughts of vaginas and penises. Any situation can be "explained" by some ad-hoc narrative in this way.

Xhar-Xhar's understanding of psychoanalysis that he got from his sophomore year of High school. The difference of course is that aesthetically, directly and literally conceiving objects by what they literally resemble does not even stand up to bourgeois psychoanalytic scrutiny. In fact, Zizek personally trashed some idiot psychoanalyst for claiming that the Twin towers represented the Penis of American hegemony or whatever - an Lacans' whole point is that psychoanalysis does not concern biological processes or even the "literal" phallus. Grow up and come back. The qualifications are consistent and scientific, hardly "ad-hoc".


People enjoy parks because they see it as some sort of untouched realm free from modernity and capitalism. They don't know that, but Rafiq knows better than them. And if they don't enjoy parks, that is also connected to capitalism in some manner. And this passes for analysis on this site.

People are exploited and go to church to alleviate their real material ills, but they don't know that, but Xhar-Xhar knows better than them. Congratulations, you've discovered we don't live in a socially self-conscious society. Again with this falling back on "da poeple" to ass cover your intellectual bankruptcy. And we thought this was the specialty of Fascists, only. I mean, yes they don't know this, and yes Rafiq knows this - does that mean that they can never know this? Like what's your point? Some cheap moral criticism that "U tink u are above da people and der REAL expereinces and preferences, *sniffle*" - spokesperson for postmodern de-industrialized consumerist society if there ever was one. How about you fuck off, then?


The only thing that is mystical here is how the word "timeless" found itself there. Oh, no, wait, that's not mystical, that's Rafiq's desperation.

For all of "these" little snippets, I will just say - Fuck you too? Of course, what you WANT to say, and what you're implying are not the same. Congrats for seeing it.


Oh the irony.

When have I done this, specifically?


And here is the crux of the issue: Rafiq, for all his religious rhetoric and his affected zealotry, is horrified by the insinuation that the dictatorship of the proletariat could happen tomorrow.

Well, you can't be horrified by something that is impossible, now can you?


His "socialism" is something that happens after all of us have died and rotted away, that is it might as well not exist for us.

Well, in the previous thread, I provided basically the opposite point. But good job trying anyway.


So, why limit ourselves to concrete planets and plastic trees? Maybe humans in socialism will have three heads and seven arms and a brain advanced enough to understand how "SYRIZA changed standards". This is not analysis, this is some bizarre parody of "The Last and the First Men".

The fuck am I reading, now? This is the epitome of desperation. "Concrete planets and plastic trees" is an analogy for more efficiency via artificiality. Three heads and seven arms? And you don't even lead this argument from A to B to this conclusion. Was I saying that geo-engineering is going to "allow people to understand Syriza's importance"? Confusion upon confusion...


which neither spontaneously appeared after the revolution nor represented some kind of proletarian aesthetic (proletarian aesthetics were a favourite of Stalinists, despite Rafiq's claims, even if just what the proletarian aesthetic was tended to change).

RUSSIAN constructivism existed under the backdrop of modernism in general, but after the revolution yes - it was clearly distinguished from its pre-revolution style, and a new proletarian aesthetic did spontaneously appear, because despite the fact that Russian modernism was present already (via the bourgeoisie) it was radically transformed following the revolution. And of course, the difference re Stalinism was that they TRIED TO MAKE a "proletarian aesthetic" as such. Soviet avant garde was already a proletarian aesthetic, spontaneously, because it was modernist. Socialist realism, conversely, was not willed or derived from the proletariat but from the peasant masses conjoined with the romantic bourgeois character of the Soviet state. It was progressive compared to classicism, but not compared to Soviet modernism.


Oh look.

Rafiq once again tries to introduce "authenticity" as if I said anything about that.

Not surprised.

Oh look.

Xhar-Xhar ignores the whole fucking argument because he saw a word he doesn't identify with.


I love this argument. "There might have been a time." I'm not going to claim there was, which would put the onus on me to prove it, but there might have been.

Previous people's, if transported in a time machine, would probably be pretty intimidated by it and find it grotesque. Of course I can't "prove it", because there are no time machines, but that's besides the point: the standards of what constitutes the domain of the "natural" CHANGES.


So first you continue your Quixotic crusade against "naturalness" when no one in this thread advocates it, then you end with the whammy that shit is - get this! - objectively repugnant. Oh, my sides. Humans can be accustomed to any smell, which is why cheese and natto are eaten. Also, you seem to inject your own preferences here - obviously people do like things covered in tomato sauce or greasy things. It's like you've never eaten a margarita. People also like sweaty bodies in some circumstances. Your "objective repugnance" is crock.

I was playing the devil's advocate you DOLT, I said EVEN IF it was - not "it is" objectively repugnant. But anyway, I meant PEOPLE covered in greasy shit and sweat, not food. For fuck's sake. So you concede the argument, otherwise these trivialities? Good.


That is true. On the other hand, your notion of "actual" atheism, your Žižekian Quakerism, consists of religious rants about the spirit of Communism, which would rightly make anyone horrified.

Anyone as Xhar-Xhar, good. Let the petite-bourgeois ideologues bathe in their horror.

[Rafiq]

@rafiq, users in this thread saying that we need the planet isn't superstition. When you propose scenarios that are actual science fiction at this point, and would require some high-fantasyesque story line in order to succeed, it is superstitious. The point of science is not to gatling gun the planet with mistakes, with the superstition that humanity's destiny is to succeed, it would be to understand what our actions are going to do hopefully before irreversable planetary destruction or at least a lot of wasted energy spent trying to remedy multiple things on multiple fronts, smaller things that will come first though like massive droughts and dead oceans.

First, no one claimed that something as vague as "we need the planet" is superstition.

Second, I have already been over this, thoroughly Mari3L - and you said it was "irrelevant" to your argument. The reality is that none of this would ever be pursued until all considerations are accounted for - I don't know what kind of incompetence you would expect for such a structure to immediately lead to dead oceans and droughts, but it's not the one I am talking about.

again:

The point is simply to engage the problem in this way. I did not say at the present moment we had the capacity to do this or that, I said that we must fully assume the project of modernism, and have none of this retreat into nature. My point is to take all of "This" to its logical conclusion. That means pumping resources and energy into research, and so on. The problem cannot be approached superstitiously and it is plainly a myth that users here are invested in what we call "nature", the plants and the animals, because of their practical relation to human survival. That's my point.

What is impossible now, isn't impossible in general. It is impossible that we can have Communism, by these qualifications - which is very much "distant" in the future. Humans "right now" might be narrow, but this is not a metaphysical inevitability, i.e. we don't have to be. That's not how many approach the issue, however. Many see this in a way that insinuates nature is somehow "always going to be too complex" for humans, so "narrow" in their "subjective" prerogatives, to conquer. This kind of "wisdom" is reactionary.

But the point of difference, in having a "mistake" is juxtaposed with passively not "messing" with "nature". In which case, you're right, mistakes will compile upon themselves indefinitely and you have yet to make the case for anything less. But this has NOTHING to do with the fundamental point at hand: even if it could be PROVEN that this would have no adverse effects on HUMANS, you would still be ethically outraged by 'destroying the planet' or killing 'all the plants an animals'. You legitimize this pathology by conferring upon this the CONSEQUENCE that humans would pay for their sins. Put it this way - does the priest giving us his Christian morality do so SOLELY because he thinks its absence will lead humans to damnation or spiritual degradation and ruin? Maybe that is what he is thinking, but that is not its function. Even if it WERE true - that people would be better off with Christian morality, that would not change the pathology of why the priest touts Christian morality. And that is ultimately the point.

etc.

You're mistaking an APPROACH with the idea that I'm proposing we recklessly just not REGARD ecological processes at this moment. But that is besides the point of criticizing ecology-fetishism. ecology fetishism is fetishism PRECISELY BECAUSE it does not fully grasp ecology scientifically - that is, provisionally. Despite all of the RISKS involved, all that would do is serve as a measuring point for the precautions that would have to be taken, and I'm talking a scientifc assessment of ALL possibly wrong scenarios. OF course such a project wouldn't amount to rolling a dice and pushing a button, but practice. To proceed with a project monstrous enough to lead to "dead oceans" would already require the amount of precautions taken before hand to prevent this. None of what I say is fantasy, because as stated, recognizing "nature"'s existence as some unconquerable mystical force, rather than something that we CAN know in all its complexity (AT LEAST at the level of ecology) is the problem. It is superstitious, reactionary and anti-scientific.

[Sharia Lawn]

Hey, Rafiq, it is stating a social scientific fact that one of the developmental signs of sociopathy, often manifest in serial killers, is a total disregard for the well-being of non-human animals.

Please put your attempts at formally dissecting arguments away (they're embarrassing, really), and accept the fact that science has clearly established a link between a person's concern for the well being of other humans and a person's concern for the well-being of other forms of non-human life.

I know it's much easier for you to lie about people's positions, and claim that they are equating humans with non-human animals, that they are claiming somebody is a serial killer if he doesnt cry over a squashed ant, that they are saying animals constitute their own society and on and on and on. But these are just more signs of how much of a conartist you are, how your ego is so incredibly large that you can never just step back for a moment and admit you said something dumb (in this case, a lot of things dumb) and move on without trying to defend every one of your statements through incessant lying and ass covering for pages and pages and pages.

Just another sign that you are not interested in politics. Your real concern lies with building up the Cult of Rafiq. Xhar Xhar put it nicely. Socialism for you is just a stalking horse for your real motivation here, which is to puff yourself up with inane and politically irrelevant arguments about the True Definition of the concept of Love, the True Communist Approach to Nature (not in the present political context, but as a "metaphysical" construct), and all variety of other petty bourgeois intellectualizing.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think we should just admit humans are unsaveable and cut our losses and all ritualistically kill ourselves. - Gandalf

[Rafiq]

Remember the part where I said "only a deranged monster could hurt a dog or cat and feel nothing" and thoroughly explained a number of other things in pertinence to that, then Izvestia said


Please put your attempts at formally dissecting arguments away (they're embarrassing, really), and accept the fact that science has clearly established a link between a person's concern for the well being of other humans and a person's concern for the well-being of other forms of non-human life [that remind them of things unique to human societies, WITHIN ACTUAL PROXIMITY]

Thanks for trying but you lose, again. Everything stated here was thoroughly addressed above and anyone can see that. lol, are you really, actually falling back on "da science"? I mean, ask yourself: do you know WHY it is that "serial killers" can disregard other forms of life? Hint: it has nothing to do with hypothetical matters about the extinction of whole species.

Izvestia, you're going to respond to my post, or you're going to be ignored. From now, if I don't respond to you, it's because what you said has already been addressed. Thanks for trying.

[Sharia Lawn]

I lose? What do I lose exactly?

Oh, right, I forgot. You perceive every interaction on the forum to be a contest in which to assert your superiority and even in cases where you go off the deep end and say batshit crazy things, things crazy enough to unite in opposition to your statement everybody on the forum who is regularly at each other's throats, you still refuse to concede an inch. Nope! You'll dig a deeper trench and lob up as much shit as you possibly can. The poor passersby on the forum who are just trying to enjoy the scenery and chat pleasantly, and don't understand that Rafiq has decided it is a canvas on which to enact every internal psychological conflict he's ever endured since popping out of the womb? Well, they don't understand it 'til they see your fortress of eccentrically formatted text. Then it begins to make a bit more sense. Revleft isn't Revleft. It's RafiqsEgo.com

I have responded to your point by explaining it doesn't address or add anything to the disagreement. Your initial position was that communists don't give a flying fuck about the mass extinction of animals. I responded by saying that your statement was right-wing and is in totally in line with how to profile a serial killer (not a communist).

Trying to point out different animals or other living things that mentally healthy people might kill without thinking twice (like an insect, or a bacterium on their skin), or demanding a complete philosophically conceived hierarchy of Animals Communists Should Care About (trademark by Rafiq), totally misses the point. I don't have to say that humans are concerned about all animals all the time. I merely have to point out that entirely lacking empathy or concern for non-human animals, in the spirit of not giving a shit about the mass extinction of animals, places you into sociopath and serial killer territory. I've shown that, and it has driven you over the edge. Oh well.

Get used to it Rafiq. If your game on the forum is just to thoughtlessly rattle off edgy sounding sweeping generalizations to pose as some kind of intellectual and wave around your epenis, you're going to end up saying dumb shit once in a while. Own it, and stop running away from it or trying to pretend everybody else has misunderstood you except, of course, you.

[Rafiq]

you're going to end up saying dumb shit lI, Izvestia, have shown this] once in a while. Own it, and stop running away from it or trying to pretend everybody else has misunderstood you except, of course, you.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


I've shown that, and it has driven you over the edge. Oh well.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Sharia Lawn]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:



:laugh::laugh::laugh:

This definitely convinces me that the mass extinction of animals is something we shouldn't care about.

[Rafiq]

You know, a word of advice, you're not going to make that feeling you have go away by constantly trying to redeem yourself. Instead of embarrassing yourself, you need to learn. We all did .

Take it or leave it. And I'm being sincere.

[Sharia Lawn]

You know, a word of advice, you're not going to make that feeling you have go away by constantly trying to redeem yourself. Instead of embarrassing yourself, you need to learn. We all did .

Take it or leave it. And I'm being sincere.

Do Communists care about sincerity in the metaphysical sense?

[Decolonize The Left]

What a surprise. Rafiq ruins yet another perfectly good thread with his disturbed reactionary ranting.

Infraction. I told you if you keep trolling Rafiq I will issue infractions and I keep my word. The post quoted here is nothing but pure trolling, if not spam, contains no content and no argument, and is completely useless to any and all discussions.

[Decolonize The Left]

[the crazy long post]

Infraction for spam. Please read the message I sent you with the infraction; it details everything.

[Decolonize The Left]

General warning to the thread. I have issued two infractions and I will issue more if this shit continues. Conduct yourselves with integrity and respect. This is a discussion forum so discuss and dialogue with one another.

Stop flaming.
Stop trolling.
Stop spamming.

[Sharia Lawn]

Infraction. I told you if you keep trolling Rafiq I will issue infractions and I keep my word. The post quoted here is nothing but pure trolling, if not spam, contains no content and no argument, and is completely useless to any and all discussions.

Fuck off.

[StromboliFucker666]

Fuck off.
Calm the fuck down and participate (respectfully) or leave the thread.

I did not agree 100% with Rafiq (although I did agree with a good amount of it) yet I didn't make troll comments towards him, so that means it's possible for you to do the same.

[Invader Zim]

General warning to the thread. I have issued two infractions and I will issue more if this shit continues. Conduct yourselves with integrity and respect. This is a discussion forum so discuss and dialogue with one another.

Stop flaming.
Stop trolling.
Stop spamming.

There is no injunction against flaming provided it is not excessive. Read the rules.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is no injunction against flaming provided it is not excessive. Read the rules.

Right, but flaming isn't actually permitted and moderators are still mandated to discourage users from flaming, especially when its creating a hostile environment. Infractions can be issued if people are posting nothing but flames.

[Armchair Partisan]

There is no injunction against flaming provided it is not excessive. Read the rules.


Flaming is universally not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionaly charged, all members are required to maintain civil decorum. This means that personal slurs, name-calling, threats, derogatory slurs, and/or any other vareity of personal attack are not permitted.

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/misc.php?do=showrules)

And you're saying that the flaming that's going on here (including the flaming you did) isn't excessive?

[Invader Zim]

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/misc.php?do=showrules)



"Flaming

Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points, and incorrigible offenders may be banned. In some cases threads which degenerate into "flame wars" will be locked with the participants prohibited from reviving them in any form."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules




And you're saying that the flaming that's going on here [...] isn't excessive?
Some of the posts could be toned down sure, but by revleft standards they aren't all that bad.


(including the flaming you did)No.

I called Rafiq a dolt and asked him whether he had passed elementary science. The only other insults were levelled at his perfunctory grasp of the subject matter and the idiotic nonsense he has vomited onto the thread. Hardly excessive. Or are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to call an idea, argument or understanding of any given topic, wrong-headed and stupid?

[Invader Zim]

Right, but flaming isn't actually permitted and moderators are still mandated to discourage users from flaming, especially when its creating a hostile environment. Infractions can be issued if people are posting nothing but flames.

And who has created a post which consists of little but flames? If August West want's to cut down the level of flaming in the thread, then fine. But there is no need to be heavy handed about it.

[Armchair Partisan]

"Flaming

Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points, and incorrigible offenders may be banned. In some cases threads which degenerate into "flame wars" will be locked with the participants prohibited from reviving them in any form."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

Oh, very interesting. So the version I found via Google is older then, I assume? So that means that flaming was banned for a while, before the admins decided to legalize it for... reasons. Hrm. Nonetheless, I guess it doesn't matter as long as the rules aren't consistently and fairly enforced anyway.


Rafiq's is. Mine was not. I called Rafiq a dolt and asked him whether he had passed elementary science. The only other insults were levelled at his perfunctory grasp of the subject matter and the idiotic nonsense he has vomited onto the thread. Hardly excessive. Or are you precious about ideas?

Indeed, given the stupidity of what he has come out with and his general behaviour, I'd suggest the flaming directed at Rafiq has been light.

Well, all discussions are more productive if there is no flaming in them on either side. Rafiq seems to be compelled to keep the flamewar going despite admitting to not enjoying it. Is it the same with you?

[The Feral Underclass]

And who has created a post which consists of little but flames? If August West want's to cut down the level of flaming in the thread, then fine. But there is no need to be heavy handed about it.

Aside from Izvestia, I have no idea, I've not been following the cock-measuring that's been going on (and which you should all feel embarrassed about), but what has that got to do with anything? I was explaining to you when infractions can be issued (no infractions have been issued in this thread for flaming). Whether you think August West was heavy handed or not is neither here nor there.

Now, can I respectfully ask people to either leave the thread or continue discussing the intended topic and not derail it any further.

[Invader Zim]

Rafiq, you should read this and follow its instructions. Your posts might actually be comprehensible if you do.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/


As usual, not flaming allows room for a constructive and respectful discussion,

Your reactionary blustering in this thread disserves no respect. I'll respect what you have to say when it isn't nonsense.


It's hilarious that Zim, with his profound insight, regularly talks about straw men, but he has conferred upon me the position that presently it is within our capacity to exist without the biosphere.

No, I have not. I was responded to your hypothetical scenario on its own terms -- that even if we could survive without one (which posited is not possible, regardless of future technology), it would not be irrelevant if the biosphere were to be destroyed. At no point did I suggest that you believe that humanity could currently survive without a viable biosphere.


Now, Zim, where did I say that?

I never claimed you did -- you are defending your straw man with a new straw man. Gold.


When we actually evaluate the argument at hand, without talking out our ass, we see quite a different argument.

Indeed, we see the argument I actually responded to, rather than the new straw man you have just created.


Because no an emotional level, you find it absolutely horrifying, you find it morally contemptible,
No. I find it contemptibly ignorant.


you deflect it by telling me just how much this would fuck things up right now.

No, I'm suggesting that your notion that the mass extinction of species, regardless of our ability to survive in the short term or even the long term, is irrelevant is wholly wrong headed, short sighted and ignorant for reasons I have already outlined.


I, however, am being much more modest - I am telling you it is within the scope of possibility to develop these abilities (and don't worry, Zim, we'll get to your profound historical insights about how technology must continually develop even in a socially, historically self-conscious society as "unpredictably" as it has throughout history)

This does not make any sense.


and even this "irrelevant abstraction" (and you know it is not to the slightest bit irrelevant) is GROTESQUE in the minds of people. How this grotesqueness is deflected is rather simple - you accuse me of crazy futurism, Utopian, and so on - even though I recognized accelerationism as perverse (Not because of what it claims to be, but precisely because it relies on the same metaphysical notions - what I propose is much more horrifying).

Yet your argument is, in fact, entirely reliant upon promethean accelerationism. Have you lost track of what you've actually said?


Now, because points 1 and 2 are absolutely fucking meaningless as far as the discussion goes (Did I say such a task would be sought after without such considerations, Mr. Adult?), the third might just be as stupid as the first two.
They are relevant because the hypothetical scenario you posited is impossible. It is necessary to point that out. Point 3 is also relevant because it highlights the short-sightedness in assuming that just because it may become possible for humanity to survive a mass extinction event does not make that mass extinction event irrelevant in anything other than the short term.


The reason we can see this as purely pathological, purely an expression of ideological sensitivities, is because you're approaching the arguments as though I'm giving detailed and intricate blueprints "for what we should do" that are qualified by Zim.No, the argument is that mass species extinction would not be irrelevant because it would A. make humanity less likely to survive a similar such event. B. Why would we want such a scenario to occur, forcing us to be entirely reliant on an artificial "ecosystem" when we currently have a perfectly viable one should we choose to maintain it?


But again, I am being much more modest than this - in fact, the only person who is replacing Rafiq with the hypothetical centralized global structures consisting of dedicated specialists, scientists, technicians, engineers, and so on united with a prerogative that must thoroughly take into account the common good of all, are his opponents.Again, this rests on the notion that various technologies can and will be developed to off-set the current mass extinction even caused by human being before it jeopardizes our ability to survive. There is no basis to make that assumption, even if humanities best specialists, scientists, technicians, engineers were recruited to the task. Your sneering contempt for conservation, on the other hand, requires no such technological optimism. Rather, it requires managed growth and managed industrialisation of developing countries.


But nevermind this, what's most hilarious of all is that Zim tells me I have "no notion of technology" and yet he is only capable of conceiving technology as some kind of separate historical force, which might be good for retrospection, but why end there? Why not replace such an abstraction, "da technology" with war, or the social dimension?More nonsense -- as in that it literally makes no sense and has no bearing on what I actually said.


Because for Zim, socialism is just an abstraction, a utopia, a set of rules you agree with and everything is permitted from there. But our friend Zim, who on other instances demonstrated that not only is he not a socialist, but thoroughly a reactionary (For defending Gamer-gate - and see how you properly use words in their context, buddy? Gamergate is reactionary not becuase it's "vile" or "cruel", but because it is pathologically actually reactionary vis a vis the glamorous, shiny game industry which encapsulated wider societal concerns in general) of course will have none of that.There are several issue here.

1. If you want to argue about GG with me, then fine. But what you present here is, again, not what I ever actually argued. Stop being dishonest.

2. This has nothing to do with what I conceive of as socialism, and does not at all support the point you are attempting to make regarding my alleged view of technology. Rather it is just an ad hominem, a red herring designed to distract from the fact that your arguments in this thread are ludicrous.


For example, the practical use of technology in capitalist society is not in fact its implementation for use-value, but for profit - technologies which, for example cut production costs, or are wrought from the military-industrial complex, then can be used for further use, with course shades of gray in between (Not ALL technologies develop exactly like this, but more or less radiate around this). In a post-capitalist society, and in a society that directly functions for itself, technology is not some kind of externality one places their faith in, for one is not "outside" technology to conceive it as just one of many solutions. This has nothing to do with anything. It is just surplus verbiage.


I mean, do you even know what you're fucking saying? Yes, but clearly you don't know what you're saying, let alone what I'm saying. Your meaningless little essay is just verbiage.


The use of technology is the only solution either fucking way - like what, is "nature" a solution amidst relying on "technology" which you claim at the present time wouldn't be feasible?

Do you actually grasp how a sentence works? Clauses should bear some relation to each other, yours do not. The sentence should also be punctuated. I don't normally complain about people's writing because mine is awful, but far too much of your post is simply unintelligable.


But again, as stated, you have no notion of present day ecology - even if you wanted to try and recover several habitats and ecosystems, this would require extensive maneuverings and intricate technologies which don't presently exist or aren't being used. Yet another straw man. Let's go back to my actual argument:

"Rather conservationism and environmentalism are about managing current and future development, not trying to close the stable doors after the horse has bolted."

So no, attempting some mass engineering project to recover vast swathes of lost habitat is likely not an efficient use of resources. It is better to prevent the loss of existing ecosystems and habitats rather than attempt to recover what is gone.


To get to the greater point, however, the reason, dear Zim, You have a point? It's taken you enough unintelligable prose to get to it.


that such large transformations would be necessary is solely due ot the fact that the "environment" that we have now and the ecologies it entails are unsustainable from the standpoint of present conditions of human survival, what you fail to understand is that it's not JUST capitalists unwilling to cut costs - various countries which are industrializing, and which will - by the way, eventually need to industrialize, have productive demands that our "environment" simply cannot handle. But as it happens, with growing and booming populations, to stop this for "da environment" would lead to mass death and mass starvation. Furthermore, a socialist society would not be one of stagnation, and it too would be burdened with constantly revolutionizing the means of production solely because no single method of production is infinitely sufficient - in it will carry contradictions, which will be taken to the greatest heights. Production will coincide with scientific discovery, and this antagonisms will remain forever. Again, the world ecologies cannot sustain this. Of course, you could try and argue that the development of "green technologies" that aren't as demanding could solve this problem, but then you're a fucking hypocrite, because I can smack right back and say "Oh, Zim, but this isn't FEASIBLE right now and has no basis in the real-world". "But people are already investing in, and developing such technologies" you'll say, and I will promptly respond that geo-engineering is already being considered, and that furthermore, the approach to the issue as I claim it, and therefore the energy and resources into research it would entail, doesn't exist today because production is, again, for profit, there is no "commons" that production is aimed at. A pity, I was looking forward to your point. Yet all I find is a load of un-evidenced blather sandwiched between incoherant prose, most of which seemingly has nothing to do with what has been said.


And to go ahead and address the argument anywayWhat argument? You haven't made one. Or if you have, your writing, being as it is just a stream of stream of consciousness, makes it impossible to identify. Indeed, you seem to just be arguing with yourself.



To sum it up, no, it's too late to just "Stop fucking up" the present environment while retaining the productive, technological basis of society.At last, a cogent sentence. Its a shame that large numbers of those scientists, specialists, etc., disagree with it.


And it seems Zim has taken it upon himself to join in on the baseless phrase-mongering. Tell me, fool, how is what I say "reactionary"?Because you are defending the bourgeois status-quo -- that meaningful and progressive management of society should be eschewed in favour of keeping things as they are and gambling that technology will come to the rescue. Your position is text-book dictionary definition of reaction: you are reacting against proposed progressive social, cultural and economic change.


my point was that drawing some kind of grand, poetic metaphysical narrative about the tragedy of humans "Destroying" the biosphere they did not create, which, *sniffle*, didn't do no harm or no bad 2 them and that they have no right to destroy it, is pathologically reactionary and is constitutive of a wider bourgeois sensitivity. And Rafiq is back -- this is not a sentence.


It takes, tacitly, a belief in a god to think like this - because a good atheist would know that nature is the sum-total of various catastrophes, there is no "meaning" in it which we are sacrificing, there is no grand beautiful mystique that is "beyond da humans" because conceiving it as mystifying is contingent upon mechanisms inherent to human consciousness, but if one can fully know something, fully master it, what is left of this? Humans did not create a great many things, and what of it? Also, Zim, in case you didn't know, humans will never fully conquer everything which exists independently of them, because the cosmos is virtually infinite.Again, this has no bearing on anything I have actually argued. I am not making some appeal to protect a fantasy idle. My point is entirely tied up with the reality -- that humanity is causing a mass extinction event and that it must be averted if humanity is to continue to prosper. I reject your assertions that technology can simply be plucked from the aether to solve the problem, as well as your notion that when humanity does indeed develop said technologies then mass extinction becomes an irrelevance. Your attempt to paint myself, and others, as irrationally attached to nature has no bearing on the actual points being made. It is just most dishonest straw-manning.



"IF we fuck it up" it jeopardizes humanities ability to survive, well, philistine, we are already irreversibly fucking it up, so the question now is how to "Fuck it up" in a way that doesn't jeopardize humanities ability to survive. Evidently, your beloved balance is already gone. There's no going back. Your argument that the situation is already so bad that radical management of current and future development would not mitigate the situation is not in evidence.


But as I said, how bourgeois specialists approach the issue (who do not have such illusions, as I, again, personally know someone who is on-the-ground for this kind of work) and how society does, expressed through Revleft, is entirely different. Of course, if it ended there, there would be no controversy. But what I want to rip out is not truisims and banalities, but the real points of sensitivity that give us the reactionary. More non-sentences.


What you fail to understand, however, is that social and political transformations already do extend the threshold of limitations imposed by "technology and social organization", because in case you weren't aware, technological development IS inevitably bound up with social factors, for the capacity of man to transform nature is regulated by the social - historic epoch.You're right, I don't understand, but because it is a mess of a sentence. As is much of the rest of you post, which I'm not going to bother to go through in detail from this point.




There are no historic "laws" of technology that tell us they occur in ways that are totally unpredictable, because we can ground PRECISELY HOW and why technology develops throughout history. Really? Then why don't you outline how technology has developed.


What you're basically arguing is that "Well, you can't model invention, you can't predict when and how things will be invented" - but listen, you fool, if society's' technical apparatus invests all of its resources DELIBERATELY into finding technology, which coincides with NOTHING MORE than the magnitude of being fully conscious of natural processes. Yet again, a sentence which suffers a complete collapse of syntax. Do you actually how an 'if' statement operates?



Because it assumes that retrospective historic processes constitute eternal and unchangeable laws.No, it doesn't. What it assumes is that there is no guarantee that, even if the sum of human ingenuity was directed at resolving a given problem within a limited time frame, success would be achieved. The bourgeoisie solution to the problem, which you defend and share, is a massive gamble. That is the point. Nobody is saying that it is impossible that such an investment would not pay off, but just that there is little guarantee that it would, precisely because invention is not a form of production. Laps and scientific facilities are not like a production line -- just because you add 'x' resources and 'y' specialists into the mix does not guarantee results. What I'm argument is that, by all means we should invest in technology to mitigate the problem, but we should also manage society on progressive lines.


Very simply, that technology develops "randomly" does not mean the steam engine could have been "randomly" possible in ancient Greece. I never said it could. This is just more blather divorced from the actual point.

And at this point, I give up. It isn't worth my time trying to parse meaning from your largely irrelevant and incoherent streams of consciousness.

[Invader Zim]

Oh, very interesting. So the version I found via Google is older then, I assume? So that means that flaming was banned for a while, before the admins decided to legalize it for... reasons. Hrm. Nonetheless, I guess it doesn't matter as long as the rules aren't consistently and fairly enforced anyway.

I have no idea. There may be a link somewhere else to the rules you quoted. That there might be two sets of utterly contradictory rules on this site would come as no suprise. As you say, it isn't like anybody bothers to consistently enforce them.




Well, all discussions are more productive if there is no flaming in them on either side. Rafiq seems to be compelled to keep the flamewar going despite admitting to not enjoying it. Is it the same with you?

If it quacks like a duck... tell it to shut the fuck up.

Nah. I'll moderate myself.

[Ele'ill]

holy shit this turned into a pretty good BA thread

@rafiq, you did say people protecting the planet was superstitious because they weren't buying the imagined technological leaps that would magically come at nothing short of on-time, and because you felt that it was stupid for there to be any concern for plants and animals remaining on the planet basically beause they are just symbols of the natural world. All of that is completely incorrect as has been pointed out to you in this thread. I also don't think you realize exactly what goes into understanding short term *and* long term consequences from various interactions with the biosphere, you make it sound as if someone with a clipboard will make a few check marks a day and all is good. We are already facing dead oceans and massive droughts and many other things. The fact that you mention briefly that you don't even think these things are happening is both alarming and absurd. I'm going to leave it at that since it's obvious you are trying to drown everyone in text because you're done with the conversation, so be it.

[Rafiq]

My poor grammar here, which is exceptionally bad compared to previous threads, is owed to my keyboard fucking up. So I have to rely on autocorrect a lot, and sometimes that produces words that make no sense. In case you didn't know, I type very fast.



No, I have not. I was responded to your hypothetical scenario on its own terms -- that even if we could survive without one (which posited is not possible, regardless of future technology), it would not be irrelevant if the biosphere were to be destroyed. At no point did I suggest that you believe that humanity could currently survive without a viable biosphere.

Let's think this over, shall we? Within present conditions of possibility it might be "impossible", so there can be no talk of "regardless of future technology" because as it happens, we can approximate exactly why we lack the technology today, i.e. why these things are impossible today. This is why I accuse you of superstition - the idea that the biosphere constitutes some kind of mystical force that we humans will always be too narrow to master.

You then claim:


No, I'm suggesting that your notion that the mass extinction of species, regardless of our ability to survive in the short term or even the long term, is irrelevant is wholly wrong headed, short sighted and ignorant for reasons I have already outlined.

You're attempting to defend moral categories from the standpoint of the "neutral" observer, the "scientist" . But you see, even if what you say is wholly correct, it would not make an iota of a difference, and this is what you fail to understand. Even if, somehow, the extinction of species "in the long term" would inevitably lead to catastrophe or regression (whatever you want) in a standard of living, the sensitivity being expressed here is not justified. Instead, the issue would have to be approached scientifically.

But this is far too generous. The "reasons" you've outlined are made with the presupposition of our present conditions as inevitable. You then argue that there is no reason to think the "technologies" will be available, and that it's wishful thinking.

Very well, but no one is arguing that we ought to roll the dice before we have the money. Of course, in the long-term we would be rolling a dice, but any "proposed" solution inherently relies on future technologies which presently do not exist. Now frankly, you claim that we can deduce from history that technological development is "unpredictable" and that there is no reason that a concentrated effort to develop the technologies would be "successful".

Again, more superstition. The reality is that technology is not some kind of "separate" historical force which appears randomly throughout history. All technological developments in the history of capitalism can be placed squarely within the context of wider productive processes. The reason technologies cannot arbitrarily be developed for reasons that pertain to a use value is because production, and technological implementation, coincides with the needs of capital, not society as a whole.

But scientific inquiry is already a practical process. The whole point of knowing something is to conceive the ability to master it. Why you cannot understand this is relegates back to superstition.


This does not make any sense.

It's simple. In a society which is self-conscious socially, and on a functional level self-conscious in practice, there is no reason to think scientific discovery or technological development would be unpredictable. We can ground specifically why technology throughout history develops the way it does, and it is not random.

But it doesn't matter, because you can use the same argument for anything - there is "no reason to think" Socialism is even possible, for example, because historical 'progress' as far as its social expression occurs in an unpredictable manner, too.


Yet your argument is, in fact, entirely reliant upon promethean accelerationism

Talking about paving the Earth in concrete was meant to be provocative, i.e. to outline that we ought not to fear it. Even if it was 100% impossible (Concrete, specifically would be) that isn't the point. The point is one of how we approach artifice. Nature is - aesthetically and spiritually the last vestige of class society. If, for whatever reason, which stands as an affront to logic itself - that the biosphere will be permanently necessary in a post-capitalist society, this would not make an iota of a difference - because the mystique would disappear.

This is what you fail to understand - we must find new forms of beauty in "garbage". Techno-accelerationism, conversely, is properly just as mystical, insofar as it must find new mediums of superstition in other domains. I point that the dichotomy itself must be rejected - there is properly nothing mystical at all about nature at all, as far as we're concerned, "nature", as it exists right now, might very well just be a machine - "nature" is the sum-total of catastrophes, and the idea that there is "balance" in it is a sham, nature is explosive, precarious and chaotic.

Accelerationism, conversely (as far as it's expression goes) haughtily ignores such social concerns, or the root of why people find such beauty in nature. When it does not do this, it commits the worse crime of mystifying itself through concepts like technognosis.

Communists, conversely, recognize that the same beauty, comfort and appreciation people find in "nature" are not themselves worthless sentiments that must be stamped upon by the "greater good" of progress, but that this beauty can be re-allocated in conjuncture with a society which does not need spaces of refuge from itself, no mystifying domains of escape.


No, the argument is that mass species extinction would not be irrelevant because it would A. make humanity less likely to survive a similar such event. B. Why would we want such a scenario to occur, forcing us to be entirely reliant on an artificial "ecosystem" when we currently have a perfectly viable one should we choose to maintain it?

Well, Zim, had you read my post instead of reducing it to grammatical concerns, you would know that the "ecosystem" we have now can only be maintained in the short term, but even then, this maintenance would be very demanding of heavy intervention in nature, which I am sure you're aware.

As I said, to say otherwise already relies on the assumption that "future technologies" (i.e. Green technologies) which remain untested, which do not exist, would be present to solve this problem. My point is that you're underestimating the implications of a socialist Earth, a planet politically and economically unified. It is frankly a fantasy to think that the "environment" as it presently exists can survive this.

You would also know that the point of science is that even if point A is true, there's a reason for that. It is not a timeless inevitability. So it's your job to demonstrate why and how this would be inevitably impossible to avert. And frankly, what are you even talking about? It would make humanity "less likely to survive" such a similar event? What similar even did you have in mind?


Again, this rests on the notion that various technologies can and will be developed to off-set the current mass extinction even caused by human being before it jeopardizes our ability to survive.

Any approach to the crisis is going to "jeopardize our ability to survive". This is what you amply do not understand. Any approach rests upon the assumption that "various technologies can and will be developed" to solve the ecological crises.


1. If you want to argue about GG with me, then fine. But what you present here is, again, not what I ever actually argued. Stop being dishonest.

There's nothing dishonest. You call me a reactionary, and yet you sympathize with GamerGate. I did not just arbitrarily throw shit at you with no context. I patently want you to understand that the word "reactionary" actually means something.


This has nothing to do with anything.

You keep saying this. That you cannot understand why something is pertinent to the discussion, sais nothing about its relevance. Don't be so arrogant as to think "Oh, I don't get it, so it must mean nothing." Read it again.


So no, attempting some mass engineering project to recover vast swathes of lost habitat is likely not an efficient use of resources. It is better to prevent the loss of existing ecosystems and habitats rather than attempt to recover what is gone.

As a short term solution - who can really disagree? Such measures, if implemented, must be conceived as PROVISIONAL, however:

1. With no regard for sensitivities. That means the ugly, disgusting creature which actually might be directly pivotal to our society will take priority over animals with cultural significance (which I'm sure at face value you can't disagree with)

2. Again, with a full and correct understanding of how exactly certain ecosystems and habitats relate to human life. The world ecology is not quite as "interconnected" as you might think it. Plenty of animals have been to extinction in human history, and plenty of ecosystems have been destroyed.

Again, this emanates recognition of their provisionality. The first step of becoming independent from unpredictable, chaotic processes is how exactly you are dependent on them, and why. Then work to replace them would be done. This is just one example. You hold the reservation that this can NEVER be done .


A pity, I was looking forward to your point.

This could be excused, Zim, but you keep bringing up arguments which were already addressed. That you do not 'like' something is meaningless. Connect the dots. You ask questions like "Why not just keep what we have" and I'm telling you that this is impossible.


Its a shame that large numbers of those scientists, specialists, etc., disagree with it.

No, scientists, specialists, etc. have no long term solution on these lines.


Because you are defending the bourgeois status-quo -- that meaningful and progressive management of society should be eschewed in favour of keeping things as they are and gambling that technology will come to the rescue. Your position is text-book dictionary definition of reaction: you are reacting against proposed progressive social, cultural and economic change.

As it happens, "reaction" is not defined as "reacting" against things. For example, one can "react' to the rise of religious fundamentalism, that does not make one a "reactionary".

Instead, a reactionary in capitalist society is on who opposes the status quo, while grounding this opposition not in a presupposition of its historical being, but in something conceived to be long-lost, or even something present already in society which is being trampled upon.

The revolutionary proletariat defends the bourgeois status quo in certain ways. Develops in capitalist society have opened up the space for feminism, and implicit in Liberalism itself is the contradictions necessary for Communism. So Communists do defend the "bourgeois status quo" against reactionaries - Fascists, after all, hardly "support" it at face value. They oppose the "cultural decadence", they oppose sexual promiscuity, etc. - Communists recognize there are sexual problems, but that they can only be solved by presupposing their historic being.

In fact, if you actually cared to evaluate the history of nature-worship, you'd know that protection of the "sacred" nature, animal rights, were special prerogatives of the Fascists.

You talk about the "progressive" management of society, but this is quite the leap. What is so "progressive" about it if anyone from religious fundamentalists to Fascists can concur with it? In reality, the "progressive" role of environmentalism has been how it impedes the immediate demands of capital, taking up the environment as a commons which ought to be defended. But progressive environmentalists do not conceive "nature" as the problem, but our common space of survival as being jeopardized by the immediate prerogatives of capital.

So it quite amply has nothing at all to do with "technology coming to the rescue" because Communists do not conceive technology as some kind of separate externality one has to rely on - technology is something that is practically used in coincidence with the mastery of natural processes. This is what Professor Zim, the great historian cannot understand - it might be useful to conceive technology this way in retrospection, but technology is not some kind of mystical historical force whose inception is divorced from social considerations.

Communists quite amply say this: The damage is already done, the question is where to from here. Conservative, or regressive solutions give us something that is unsustainable in the long term, and another which is plainly impossible.


I reject your assertions that technology can simply be plucked from the aether to solve the problem, as well as your notion that when humanity does indeed develop said technologies then mass extinction becomes an irrelevance.

As much as you love to hark on about straw men, nothing is a greater misrepresentation that technology, an "external force" wil be "plucked" from the aether. You don't understand how technology develops, as it happens.

The reality is that of course mass extinction will never become "irrelevant" anymore than the reality of gravity, atmospheric pressure, wind, etc. will never be "irrelevant" if one wants to construct a flying aircraft. The point is that its effects can be averted with effort that prepossesses such considerations as relevant. It is not impossible. Why can you not understand this?


Your argument that the situation is already so bad that radical management of current and future development would not mitigate the situation is not in evidence.

You keep harking on about "current and future development", how about I shoot back at you and implore you to tell us what this actually means? Give us your solution, as you have demanded of me, and I will show you how it is impossible. That geo-engineering would not solve many problems is also not in evidence.

You vaguely tell us "radical management of current and future development", a truism any idiot can agree on, without telling us exactly what this entails. With the industrialization of sub-saharan Africa, the creation of a politically and economically inter-dependent socially conscious order, the technical, productive and even structural demands of this - how can your "management" of current and futue development be feasible?

If "radical management of current and future development" is posed to be the solution in the face of the ridiculous paving-the-earth-in-concrete, of course that sounds better, but what specifically does it actually entail that is at difference from what I claim would be necessary?


which I'm not going to bother to go through in detail from this point.

Why respond at all?


Really? Then why don't you outline how technology has developed.

Specifically in capitalism, crises makes the constant revolutionizing of capitalist production a necessity, and so, we have the necessity of scientifically conceiving natural processes in order to practically master them. Again, you can see this with the Kondratiev waves. But the implementation of technologies wrought out from scientific inquiry is not done arbitrarily or at whim, it coincides with the demands of production. The steam engine (technology which, arguably, is thousands of years old) would have never became anything without its practical use during industrialization.

If technology is subservient solely to its practical use for society as a whole, then concentrated efforts WOULD inevitably work. You don't get that with enough resources, energy, and practical use, ANY kind of technology can be developed within scope of conceivable imagination. Technologies that aren't even within scope of imagination happen in coincidence with, again, wider social contexts (i.e. the Computer would not have been much had its necessity for finance-capitalism not been present). We already have, theoretically, a proper understanding of geology, biology, etc. "nature" at these levels to start researching and testing technologies. Only, society is not properly incentivized to expend huge sums of its energy for certain technologies. This is what you just don't get. Various corporations expend huge sums of energy and resources into making "miracles" regularly, because they have a reason to in coincidence with wider social processes.


Yet again, a sentence which suffers a complete collapse of syntax. Do you actually how an 'if' statement operates?

Actually I just didn't finish the sentence because, as it happens, I don't respond all at once, so when I return to this page/my computer and I see what looks like a sentence without a period, I place it. Of course, you'd have to forgive my grammar being jumbled when I have to constantly, and thoroughly go into detail about things as complex as this.

Can we actually start the discussion, now?


No, it doesn't. What it assumes is that there is no guarantee that, even if the sum of human ingenuity was directed at resolving a given problem within a limited time frame, success would be achieved.

That's how practice works. You try something, and if it fails, you understand why it fails. You can't pull technologies out of the "aether" not because while they're imaginable, they are so far off, but precisely because such technologies are NOT conceivable as possible. But yes, if
resources were directed at this even in capitalist society "success" could be achieved. Why? Because you bring forth a practical necessity (no longer capital's immediate demands) and you seek out to solve it.

Technology never occurs randomly. It just occurs in dissonance with society's understanding of its own future. That is because, again, society is not conscious of itself in its function, it does not "act" as a whole, it is the sum-total of the various conglomerations of differing interests into a wider totality. That is because capitalist society will set a certain cultural standard, that people will conform to, and then violates it by creating a new one. This is how reaction is generated, this is why - again - Gamer-gate is reactionary, no matter that it opposes the "status quo".


Laps and scientific facilities are not like a production line -- just because you add 'x' resources and 'y' specialists into the mix does not guarantee results.

That is only ture because production is for profit - scientists today can develop plenty of things, if they were given charge, the point is that there is no REASON for them to - if, for example, Apple made it its sole prerogative to produce a smartphone that can project holograms, and have 10 year battery life, it would. The difference is that in pertinence to present market considerations, cost efficiency, etc. they won't do this.


What I'm argument is that, by all means we should invest in technology to mitigate the problem, but we should also manage society on progressive lines.

For give me, I was unaware that it is "progressive" to pander to reactionary sentimentalities.


I never said it could. This is just more blather divorced from the actual point

You imply this. How can't you see this?

[Rafiq]

@rafiq, you did say people protecting the planet was superstitious because they weren't buying the imagined technological leaps that would magically come at nothing short of on-time, and because you felt that it was stupid for there to be any concern for plants and animals remaining on the planet basically beause they are just symbols of the natural world. .

Quite on the contrary, I said that doing things just to "spite" nature-fetishists or for some kind of poetic justice (I used tehse words, specifically) would be stupid.

I merely pointed out the dissonance between "protecting the planet" for very practical reasons, and for reasons that pertain to sentimentality. This is all I have done.

[Ele'ill]

Quite on the contrary, I said that doing things just to "spite" nature-fetishists or for some kind of poetic justice (I used tehse words, specifically) would be stupid.

I merely pointed out the dissonance between "protecting the planet" for very practical reasons, and for reasons that pertain to sentimentality. This is all I have done.

No you didn't.

[Invader Zim]

Another vast post, most of which is barely comprehensible. The issue isn't about your grammar, rafiq -- it is that you produce paragraphs in which the sentences bare little relationship to one another. Moreover, the points and clauses within those sentences bare little congruence with either the issue at hand or, again, each other. Even with perfect grammar, trying to get some sense from anything you have to say would still prove an excruciating chore.

Let's take your opening substantive sentence:

"Within present conditions of possibility it might be "impossible", so there can be no talk of "regardless of future technology" because as it happens, we can approximate exactly why we lack the technology today, i.e. why these things are impossible today."

Can you not see why reading sentences constructed like this are difficult to parse? The issue is not just that it is atrociously written, but that, as it stands, the sentence doesn't actually make any sense.

Meanwhile, the following sentence is completely divorced from anything I've actually written:

"This is why I accuse you of superstition - the idea that the biosphere constitutes some kind of mystical force that we humans will always be too narrow to master."

My point was that it is unfathomable that humanity will be able to exist without a biosphere -- rendering your hypothetical scenario moot. Not that humanity is incapable for mastering how the elements of the biosphere work and the manner in which those elements interact with each other. The point is not that the biosphere constitutes a mystical force, but that there are various imperatives necessary for human survival which can only be provided by a viable biosphere as a system. What you are engaging in is obvious obfuscation and misrepresentation. And everybody in this thread knows.

As you can see, there is no point trying to discuss this with you. Your replies constitute nothing other than long-winded speculative streams of consciousness which are, at best, divorced from the point being made and, at worst, incomprehensible. And this, literally (not figuratively or metaphorically), goes for virtually your entire reply. It is genuinely exhausting, and I really have better things to do than reading each individual sentence over and over again and translate them from gibberish into something that actually makes sense.

[Rafiq]

Another vast post, most of which is barely comprehensible. The issue isn't about your grammar, rafiq -- it is that you produce paragraphs in which the sentences bare little relationship to one another. Moreover, the points and clauses within those sentences bare little congruence with either the issue at hand or, again, each other. Even with perfect grammar, trying to get some sense from anything you have to say would still prove an excruciating chore.

This stems nothing more than your arrogance - if you don't understand the point, it must be meaningless. Maybe it isn't me, but YOU, Zim.


Let's take your opening substantive sentence:

"Within present conditions of possibility it might be "impossible", so there can be no talk of "regardless of future technology" because as it happens, we can approximate exactly why we lack the technology today, i.e. why these things are impossible today."

Can you not see why reading sentences constructed like this are difficult to parse? The issue is not just that it is atrociously written, but that, as it stands, the sentence doesn't actually make any sense.


HOW does it not make sense? My point is - you can't say things like "regardless of future technology" because as it happens, we can approximate exactly why we lack the technology today, i.e. WHY it might appear like it's impossible.

You can't say things like "regardless of future technology" because all of this falls back on present limitations. That's why. The notion that there are things FROM the biosphere that are necessary for human survival is just a truism. That you can't understand that - theoretically - we don't need them FROM the biosphere as it exists today, is why I accuse you of superstition. We can, theoretically, replace these artificially. Now you will say "Burrhurrburr this is not feasible right now" O.K. - then that lends us back to the same arguments that you dismissed as either nonsensical, or having no relevance. See how that works?



My point was that it is unfathomable that humanity will be able to exist without a biosphere -- rendering your hypothetical scenario moot. Not that humanity is incapable for mastering how the elements of the biosphere work and the manner in which those elements interact with each other. The point is not that the biosphere constitutes a mystical force, but that there are various imperatives necessary for human survival which can only be provided by a viable biosphere as a system. What you are engaging in is obvious obfuscation and misrepresentation. And everybody in this thread knows.

So you either lack imagination, or you quite amply are giving us a truism. Actually, both are true in this circumstance.

The reason what you say is silly, Zim, is because I do not propose - for example - that humans can just do away with food, oxygen, etc. and other things that we PRESENTLY derive from the biosphere. My point is one about artificiality replacing these dependencies.

We get it, Zim, WE UNDERSTAND that you don't want to directly say the "biosphere is a mystical force", but you insinuate this. Beucase as it happens, we are all well aware that human survival is dependent on our biosphere. But how is it? How exactly is it? These questions would be, hypothetically, preconditions for manipulating it, for artificially replacing it and so on.

So yes, what you say is in effect that the "biosphere" is somehow mystical, because as far as we're concerned (in relation to our survival), the biosphere might just very well be a giant machine, and we can understand how it works. So when you say: "there are various imperatives necessary for human survival which can only be provided by a viable biosphere as a system." You either are being myopic, or elevating the biosphere (as it presently exists) to a higher level (i.e. mysticism).

Then you can tell us "Ok but all of what ur saying is irrelevant lululul dats just fantasy" and we'll go back to square one and I'll have to keep re-quoting how I've THOROUGHLY addressed this (Literally things you responded to by saying "Well that's irrelevant").

Well sorry? It's not my fault that on an argumentative level, you have the attention span of a 9 year old. It's not my fault that you can't see how all of my arguments relate to each other, it's not my fault that you can't see a general pattern being conveyed beyond the context of a single snippet.

Don't mistake YOUR ARROGANCE with some kind of incompetence on my part to convey the points at hand. NOTHING I have said is irrelevant, or meaningless, it's just that you're intellectually lazy. Not my problem.


As you can see, there is no point trying to discuss this with you. Your replies constitute nothing other than long-winded speculative streams of consciousness which are, at best, divorced from the point being made and, at worst, incomprehensible.

It's so juvenile how you SAY this and you keep responding. You keep up this facade of "Oh, I'm so much better than this" and yet you still want to, for whatever reason, quote my posts and continually engage me without actually bearing hte responsibility of addressing the arguments because "they're speculative streams of consciousness".

You conduct yourself in the same haughty manner that would be expected from any Anglo-Saxon philistine - and in this case, of the most vile and contemptible type: The "reasoned" reactionary.

Don't tell me "Oh, I'm done". You're clearly not, so grow up and actually engage the discussion at hand for what it is - without this attitude of "I don't HAVE to engage such arguments, for they are just words".

[Invader Zim]

No, really, I am done. You win. Enjoy.

[Lord Testicles]

Fuck off.

Here you go big man, have another infarction.

[Decolonize The Left]

For clarity's sake, as far as I understand I (and all global mods and admins) am permitted to be heavy handed in certain cases when the situation demands it. This thread dove-tailed into oblivion and needed strict moderation to avoid it being closed and possibly trashed.

So, yes, flaming is tolerated to a degree at the moment, but in a situation where a thread is becoming derailed by flaming, it is well within the realm of any global mod or admin to place harsher restrictions on posting in said thread.

It shouldn't be that big an issue...

[BIXX]

The BA has a monopoly on flaming

[StromboliFucker666]

The BA has a monopoly on flaming
*legitimate use of flaming

[Luís Henrique]

The BA has a monopoly on flaming

Not exactly, but they sure have a monopoly on the interpretation of whether flaming is "excessive" or not.

Luís Henrique

[Guardia Rossa]

I disagree with Rafiq on the sense it is way cheaper (Be it on money or time) to survive in a world with a restored ecology, rather then evolving ourselves to concrete men (Although planned evolution itself is impossible to avoid) The population is very likely to drop in the next few centuries, allowing for a better living conditions and a retraction of the urban area, allowing for humanity to restore nature (If they wish to do so)

I agree that there is a ecology-fetichism and that we can adapt ourselves into a more concrete reality, but we don't need this to guarantee our survival as species. It is not cheap to terraform our globe and restore ecology but judging from this thread we got a quite large manpower of WWE/ecologists to draw from, and it is way cheaper than to adapt ourselves into an improbable reality.

In a more planned world, I doubt that we would want population to increase so much we become a Trantor-esque planet. Even then, we can just find (and/or terraform) a new Earth and just send our excedent population in self-sustaining ships (Or just make humans live off the Sun and Cosmic radiation)

All concrete puns intended. Sorry if I display any stupid ignorance.

[Decolonize The Left]

The population is very likely to drop in the next few centuries, allowing for a better living conditions and a retraction of the urban area, allowing for humanity to restore nature (If they wish to do so)

What possible reasons do you have for believing this?

All signs seem to be pointing to the exact opposite situation: massive population increase, swelling of urban areas, desolation of rural areas through monocropping to sustain the increased urban influx, and the absolute and utter destruction without possible rehabilitation of "nature."

[willowtooth]

What possible reasons do you have for believing this?

All signs seem to be pointing to the exact opposite situation: massive population increase, swelling of urban areas, desolation of rural areas through monocropping to sustain the increased urban influx, and the absolute and utter destruction without possible rehabilitation of "nature."

birth replacement rates drop significantly among the wealthier and more developed nations, some say human populations will get too be around 9 or 10 billion then will begin too drop back down iirc Portugal has the lowest with 1.4 children for every two people, other countries might have lower rates than that but have high immigration rates that skew their numbers

[Luís Henrique]

What possible reasons do you have for believing this?

It seems to work like this:

http://www.ctrdv.fr/GaleriePhoto/upload/2010/06/29/20100629134240-d34c1000.jpg


All signs seem to be pointing to the exact opposite situation: massive population increase, swelling of urban areas, desolation of rural areas through monocropping to sustain the increased urban influx, and the absolute and utter destruction without possible rehabilitation of "nature."

The population increase is certainly slowing down. Western Europe has now probably a negative rate of populational growth. The US and most of the rest of the Anglosphere are quite close to that, as is Japan. Latin America is approaching a similar situation. China and India, which are the biggest populations of the planet, have also seen steep reduction of natality, especially the former, where the government actively intervenes against populational growht. Only Africa and Southern Asia seem to still be in the "phase 1" of the "transition démographique" of the graphic above.

The increase in the populations of the global North is now mostly dependent on immigration from other regions.

Luís Henrique

[Patchd]

Why would we go to all the effort of inventing and building ways to have an artificial environment when we already have an actual environment...? You know, right now, that we could just stop fucking up...

Because our environment, even without human factors, is not consistently stable, we face threats of environmental disaster which are extra terrestrial as well as those on our own planet. Further, the abolition of mandatory human labour through full automation of production should be a goal humans should collectively strive towards and that which would make communism a lot more acceptable in materialist terms. This requires resources based on that which are prevalent in our context. A century ago that was coal, now it is oil, in the future hopefully something less harmful. If we have greater control over our environment through our technological development, we increase our chances of survival as a species. Nature is a big old shitrocket.

[Hatshepsut]

Further, the abolition of mandatory human labour through full automation of production should be a goal humans should collectively strive towards...

To tell you the truth, that's the only thing that will bring higher communism. Domed cities and terraforming planets is still science fiction, though. It might be a good idea to protect the environment until then. "Smog days" in Harbin aren't too fun. And I'm not sure the planet can support 20 billion people at an American standard of consumption; there's too much stuff that has to be ripped out the the ground that's irreplaceable once used up.

[Patchd]

"Smog days" in Harbin aren't too fun. And I'm not sure the planet can support 20 billion people at an American standard of consumption; there's too much stuff that has to be ripped out the the ground that's irreplaceable once used up.

Unhealthy working and living standards are shit for us all, I agree. We will work our way around these and if we had greater collective autonomy over aspects of production we could alter methods to suit our levels of comfortability.

Still, we never say in isolation, this is how things are as it stands and this is how we must alter our conditions within our present context as we put forward positions for the eventuality of communism. Our consumption in such circumstances [communism] will be different to that under capitalism, for one the problems resulting from hyper-overproduction which is an inherent trait to industrialised capitalist productive forces (and therefore a really recent phenomenon historically speaking - even in the context of capitalism itself) will become irrelevant in communist society. Further, we're making great steps in technological development that are largely being hindered by political-economic pressures.

For example, we already have the technology to produce petroleum-like fuel from CO2 and water (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20003650). Admittedly, it currently requires a large amount of energy for this conversion process, but some researchers in the US have suggested the use of solar energy to fuel this process (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ5mpQqmZaM). This process could make the traditional means of extracting fossil fuels redundant and as CO2 already in the atmosphere will be used, we wouldn't be contributing to further emissions into the atmosphere from this industry.

I think considering other technological developments, or our hypothetical ability to increase production of certain goods were our productive forces geared towards socially useful production, we could support a many billion people living at an American standard of consumption. Not that we will necessarily reach that, we may be able to successfully colonise parts of space by then in which case keeping all humans on Earth would be counter-intuitive to the continued survival of our species, or propagation of our genes.

[Hatshepsut]

Further, we're making great steps in technological development that are largely being hindered by political-economic pressures.

Such as the radiation and asbestos phobias. The fear of asbestos, where folks in moon suits have to come scrape it off the hot water pipes lest you breathe one stray fiber, is amusing. I remember this started when retired workers from Johns-Manville plants sued the company after they got cancer. They had worked there 20 or 30 years, often without basic protection like masks, since it was thought harmless for a long time. I can see that preventing exposure is important, but it was more or less banned instead, although automobile brake pads are still allowed to use it and these pads discharge asbestos directly into city air as cars brake. It’s kind of perverse where tiny cancer risks get $150 billion partial corrective mandates while big things, say the 40000 people killed annually in U.S. traffic accidents, are accepted routinely as a price for convenience.

Yet you can’t reason with antinuclear and antichemical activists. Their belief in the absolute evil of these things is as firm as medieval Christians’ anticipation of Judgment Day. If this stuff were as bad as we’re told, we’d be dead by age 35 like ancient Egyptians instead of living over twice that long.

I do think the activism was a true service back in the 1960s when we were cavalier about tech hazards; safety and proper disposal are crucial. That’s why climate change should be taken seriously. Scientific support for this hypothesis is strong and the shifts in meteorological patterns are likely to impair social and economic development if they go unchecked.